PWO's Economy?

[Mangos]

Wasn't serious about the Kazam lol. I just wanted to try and help spark something in the community to think more about why things are the way they are.

:-\ i finally say something not stupid... haha

 

[xNovoxx]

I can answer your question Bobby

It's called supply - demand.

Despite the cost of a Porygon being 6 tokens, the same as membership, the demand for membership is much much higher. To tell you the truth. If less and less people supplied membership, the cost would actually rise, as people would become more desperate to get it via pokedollars.

That's how the PWO economy works. It's all based off supply and demand, which is subject to the amount of pokedollars in circulation.

Have you noticed that, despite a lot of pokedollars being removed from the economy, the fact that it's gotten somewhat better over time, the cost for membership hasn't changed. Therefore the cost for membership, in one respect, has had its relative cost increase.

On the topic of the supply being infinite, it's not. You can only analyze the supply by its current existence. You can argue that there can be an infinite amount of S Sala's, since he's a HR and its possible to get one, but there isn't. The value of a S Sala is based on its CURRENT supply. Even on the argument of just normal UC pokes, it costs tokens and tokens have value, and tokens are also not infinite since there are only so many in circulation at a certain moment.

You will never have certain values since there are too many abstract variables and too many unknowns, but the abstract analysis of it is not false.

 

[Mangos]

I can answer your question Bobby

It's called supply - demand.

Despite the cost of a Porygon being 6 tokens, the same as membership, the demand for membership is much much higher. To tell you the truth. If less and less people supplied membership, the cost would actually rise, as people would become more desperate to get it via pokedollars.

That's how the PWO economy works. It's all based off supply and demand, which is subject to the amount of pokedollars in circulation.

Have you noticed that, despite a lot of pokedollars being removed from the economy, the fact that it's gotten somewhat better over time, the cost for membership hasn't changed. Therefore the cost for membership, in one respect, has had its relative cost increase.

On the topic of the supply being infinite, it's not. You can only analyze the supply by its current existence. You can argue that there can be an infinite amount of S Sala's, since he's a HR and its possible to get one, but there isn't. The value of a S Sala is based on its CURRENT supply. Even on the argument of just normal UC pokes, it costs tokens and tokens have value, and tokens are also not infinite since there are only so many in circulation at a certain moment.

You will never have certain values since there are too many abstract variables and too many unknowns, but the abstract analysis of it is not false.

again... a broken record

 

[Guest]

I can answer your question Bobby

It's called supply - demand.

Despite the cost of a Porygon being 6 tokens, the same as membership, the demand for membership is much much higher. To tell you the truth. If less and less people supplied membership, the cost would actually rise, as people would become more desperate to get it via pokedollars.

That's how the PWO economy works. It's all based off supply and demand, which is subject to the amount of pokedollars in circulation.

Have you noticed that, despite a lot of pokedollars being removed from the economy, the fact that it's gotten somewhat better over time, the cost for membership hasn't changed. Therefore the cost for membership, in one respect, has had its relative cost increase.

On the topic of the supply being infinite, it's not. You can only analyze the supply by its current existence. You can argue that there can be an infinite amount of S Sala's, since he's a HR and its possible to get one, but there isn't. The value of a S Sala is based on its CURRENT supply. Even on the argument of just normal UC pokes, it costs tokens and tokens have value, and tokens are also not infinite since there are only so many in circulation at a certain moment.

You will never have certain values since there are too many abstract variables and too many unknowns, but the abstract analysis of it is not false.

This is wrong. While no supply isn't actually infinite it might as well be. Supply will never rise to be much greater than demand here because the supply is constantly rising to meet demand. Since there are no factors that are hard capping supply, but at the same time, there are no factors that are constantly pumping supply above demand, because there's no foreseeable limitation on how many memberships can exist, or a maximum production speed. This means that supply will always be closely tied with demand, which means that it doesn't play a significant factor into the value of the item, and instead the item's cost is closer to its true value.

What we're talking about here is a vending machine that has infinite candy bars in it. The price is always the same for a candy bar, and there are always more candy bars. If you want one, go get one. That doesn't mean that there are too many candy bars because that actually cant be true. The only time that supply versus demand lowers the price is something is when supply greatly exceeds demand, and because of this, people are looking to get rid of the product fast, because it takes up space, or isn't able to serve its purpose.

The reason why HR pokemon ARE affected by supply and demand is that they have a production speed cap. Only so many are caught per hour, and there is no way to just get more. The reason supply and demand works on HR pokemon that can be purchased with tokens is that their primary method of being acquired is through catching them, and because people would often rather catch one, than spend money, so the supply is often lower than demand. Because of this, HR pokemon are closer to something like a microwave. You can go to the store and buy one assuming the store has them in stock, hell if the store has too many, they might even be on clearance. Worst case scenario though, you go to the factory and pick one up hot off the line if the store is out.

The point is that as an individual you can't make store only item's value sky rocket because the moment people start wanting more, someone will take advantage of it. So demand cant raise above supply unless something drastic happens. You can make the value plummet, but no one would because it would be at great cost to them, and the way this would be done is to buy thousands, and just sell them for slightly lower than normal price at first, and slowly the value will drop because you'll have to drop it to move the product. As long as people are very certain that they can go to someone else and get it for a more reasonable price, the price will stay around the same.

As far as your tokens thing goes, this is only half true, because more tokens can always easily be put into circulation. The system isn't well controlled, there is no hard cap, or even a soft cap on how many can exist at once.

the cost of anything is x=(A+B/2)D
A is it's perceived value of the buying party, B is its perceived value of the selling party, which are averaged together. D is the effect of supply and demand. The process of finding D is a little more complicated because if you approach certain outliers the whole equation gets messed up and I don't feel like figuring out what kind of calculus equation I would have to write to include that detail so I'll do the simple version, ignoring the outliers and extreme circumstances.
D=E/F
E is demand, F is supply.
For Uncatchables F=E-1 (meaning that demand will always be just slightly higher than supply. This is mostly due to delay.)
For anything obtained through normal means the equation is unreasonably hard to write, but it comes down to: How fast more are being introduced into the game via the wild, and how many people are buying them. The important part to realize is that because the results of what D is when talking about uncatchables is so predictable, and consistent, we can pretty much ignore D in the first equation, because it's basically not a variable.

Now I'm sure that I missed something in all of that, and I know that the equation is pretty flawed, but it covers the basics.

X=(10mil+20mil/2)1.1
X=(15mil)1.1
x=16.5mil

Above we started with something which the advantage of having was only worth 10mil, but the person acquiring it for the 2nd buyer payed roughly 6 tokens (or 20mil) for so the two are averaged to meet in the middle at 15mil. Then because the seller knows that he can get away with it, because the demand is just slightly higher than supply, and he knows if he really got desperate he could flip around and sell it for 15mil quick, he raises the price accordingly.

x=(25mil+30mil/2)1.8
x=(27.5mil)1.8
x=49.5mil

Above we start with something which the advantage of having is only worth 10mil, however because the object isn't easily obtainable through the token store, it takes a significant amount of time to find. Because more time is spent, the seller values it more. The average between what the seller and buyer think its worth is found. Then because there is such a large discrepancy between how much its worth to a buyer's advantage, and how much its worth to the seller in work, there is a much greater demand than there is supply. The seller knows this, takes advantage of it, and sells it for an appropriate amount more.

Sure supply and demand play a role in both, however since in example one, the supply and demand ratio will never change, and has such a small effect on the value, especially compared with the base numbers being worked with, this isn't an issue of supply and demand. The more important factor is the seller's perception. In example two, a huge contributor is the supply and demand, and since the factors that affect supply are always changing, the ratio here will change as well.

 

[mad30]

If you don't think supply and demand makes that much difference, let's remove the shiny catch chance for membership and see what happens to the prices.

Let's make porygon $1 in the token store and see what happens to the prices

Also note I didn't read all of your post, will do when I have 5 minutes of nothing better to do.

 

[Maideza]

Supply and Demand has a lot more to say, than some clearly expect.

 

[Guest]

Math says supply is infinite.

 

[Guest]

Lets not forget to mention how the value of the actual tokens are compared to that of an already purchased Pokemon. If the normal price for a token is 5m, then 15 tokens would cost 75m. Yet just yesterday I purchased a Vaporeon, A 15 token Pokemon, for just 13m. Doesn't make much sense does it?

 

[CheckeredZebra]

Not everyone knows the value of things, some people just want fast cash hehe. There is room for humans simply not wanting to haggle with people. I tend to sell things cheaper because screw it I don't want to deal with that, I just want some fast cash for this Zubat I just caught/this slakoth I managed to get.


Also supply, in this case, is only infinite so long as people are donating for the tokens. What if 99% of the people here were 10 years old and were not allowed to donate for UCs? The other 1% would technically control the "supply." In this instance, the UCs would be pretty dang expensive because there would be very few middle men introducing the UCs to the market. There would be little supply, even if the potential for the supply was infinite.

 

[Guest]

Not everyone knows the value of things, some people just want fast cash hehe. There is room for humans simply not wanting to haggle with people. I tend to sell things cheaper because screw it I don't want to deal with that, I just want some fast cash for this Zubat I just caught/this slakoth I managed to get.


Also supply, in this case, is only infinite so long as people are donating for the tokens. What if 99% of the people here were 10 years old and were not allowed to donate for UCs? The other 1% would technically control the "supply." In this instance, the UCs would be pretty dang expensive because there would be very few middle men introducing the UCs to the market. There would be little supply, even if the potential for the supply was infinite.

Very good point, also, shouldn't you PWO staff just be happy that the game is getting this many donations? XD

 

[mad30]

Very good point, also, shouldn't you PWO staff just be happy that the game is getting this many donations? XD

what makes you think we aren't?

Trying not to sound like a jerk, but if we weren't happy with the current donations and wanted more, we could be spending a lot more time and energy into trying to maximize money from donations. However as long as we have enough to keep the server up, I know everyone is more concern in improving the game as ultimately this game is made by the players, for the players (almost every single staff member was a player first which is actually a catch 22)

 

[Merse]

I didn't read the whole topic, but I think PWO economy has 2 serious problems.
1. Far more money is generated into the game (with NPC and MOB battles) than taken out (only surfs and bikes take real money and they are once in a lifetime purchases). This causes the prices to rocket, simply because players can pay 20-30-100 million for a good Poke or membership.
2. Pokemons don't die/diapeear/retire. This means that more and more VRs and HRs get into the system, because more and more is caught and sold by the players. So their price drops drastically. But this is true for shinies or uber pokes as well. Sooner or later only shinies will worth really something, but because the incredible amount of money in the game, you'll have to pay a few hundred million for them. Meanwhile any other Pokemon will worth a few 100k at maximum.
(3. And if breeding will be ever introduced, it will boost this tendency even more!)

 

[Guest]

Merse, #1 applies to most, if not all multiplayer computer games

 

[xNovoxx]

Not everyone knows the value of things, some people just want fast cash hehe. There is room for humans simply not wanting to haggle with people. I tend to sell things cheaper because screw it I don't want to deal with that, I just want some fast cash for this Zubat I just caught/this slakoth I managed to get.


Also supply, in this case, is only infinite so long as people are donating for the tokens. What if 99% of the people here were 10 years old and were not allowed to donate for UCs? The other 1% would technically control the "supply." In this instance, the UCs would be pretty dang expensive because there would be very few middle men introducing the UCs to the market. There would be little supply, even if the potential for the supply was infinite.

btw, the only reason you let it go for cheap is because you can't be bothered holding onto it and waiting for a better deal, which in turn forces the market price of that poke down.

@Noxious

Anyone who thinks supply is infinite and has no implications to prices is completely wrong. Supply will in turn eventually meet demand, but you're being ignorant if you don't think of its implications when it falls short, or exceeds.

Example : Demand for a max speed dragonite is ever increasing. The more people enter competitive battles (though I havn't been on in months so I have no clue how the competitive scene is), the more people will demand it. The more people want it, the more valuable that good is, and in turn will rise in price. That being said, the more valuable it becomes, the more hunted it gets, and yes. Someday down the road, everyone might have a max speed dragonite, but that knowledge is irrelevant to understanding current prices. To tell you the truth, a month before the legendary cup, there were very few players who were battle enthusiasts and you could buy a max speed dragonite for 40m. I can attest to this since I bought one of 3 offered. As the competition neared and people were more excited, demand spiked, prices inflated and everyone wanted the best battle pokes. It was a good time for sellers, horrible for buyers.

Another example would be the price of Pikachu. Back in the day, a Pikachu would sell for anywhere between 1 mil to 5 mil, and if it was max speed, theres people that would pay 10m. This was due to the fact that everyone wanted one, and the amount that were being sold were little. As it became more and more hunted, especially seen as a very efficient source of pokedollars for newbies, the market got flooded. They essentially go for nothing.

The problem with your vending machine analogy is the fact that no 2 same pokes are the same. You can catch 100 rhyhorns and one of them can technically sell for 10+mil. You fail to acknowledge the fact that pokes are not valuable just because of their catch rate. Plenty of HR's are worthless. Their value is derived from their stats, subject to its catch rate.

I didn't read your post due to how flawed your initial understanding is. Sure you can graph the supply and demand and see where they'd be in equilibrium, and technically they are infintely increasing, but it speaks nothing to where we are at a certain moment in time unless you pin point it. Don't forget, everything in the world is subject to time, and in our respect, nothing is instantaneous.

 

[Merse]

Merse, #1 applies to most, if not all multiplayer computer games

Not necessarily true. If you add several small things which sucks out money, it could be rather balanced. More items, consumables, fees on using ships, trains etc... It is manageable, but you must focus on the issue when you develop the game to be able to keep up money balance.