D3 ecenomy fails - again ? - Page 4

[:1]Quote:








People like you make this forum miserable. If you don't care, have you considered shutting up?




He would much rather continue to make sock puppet accounts at a rate greater than 1/day. Yup Clockwork, you slipped. Consider yourself busted.

|||LOL! I am flattered.

I invite any mods to check the IP addresses and see if I am alt posting. I have nothing to hide. But, I think it's hilarious that you accuse me. :P|||Quote:








LOL! I am flattered.

I invite any mods to check the IP addresses and see if I am alt posting. I have nothing to hide. But, I think it's hilarious that you accuse me. :P




If IP addresses meant anything, he'd have stayed gone the first time. |||I've no idea what you're talking about, but I think this proves that some people see conspiracies everywhere.|||I don't know who statch is, but I do know that I'm definitely not the only person on this forum who disagrees with you, Steven. In fact, that description fits almost anybody.|||If we can have an unlimited, or effectively unlimited, amount of gold then gold will have value. If there is a limit that isn't so large it would take a decade for the average player to reach it then gold will eventually be valueless.

Also gold will always decrease in value. This is a given because a game like this MUST have more gold coming in then are leaving via gold sinks. If it does then over any given period X if Y gold enters the system then over all periods X, Y gold will enter the system. For instance, if on average 1,000,000 gold enters the game per player the first year then about that same amount will enter per player the second year, and the third, and so on. Therefore (assuming no population change) inflation will be 50% the second year, 33% the third, 25% the fourth, 20% the fifth, etc. We don't need to know anything about the game other than more gold comes in than leaves to know this.

Of course items may decrease in value even faster because they also don't leave the game and increase by the same method, though not at the same rate. So if items increase faster than gold then gold will hold its value relative to items better.

The catch here is that gold will always devalue relative to RL$, so in the long run when trading money will be better off stored and therefore spent, as RL$. Once enough people catch on to this, if they ever do, then gold may become valueless simply because nobody cares to trade in something that is going to suffer so much more from inflation.|||I think everyone knows that the number doesn't mean anything. But it would be nice to not have to deal in the billions of gold for transactions.|||That's true..hopefully some gold sinks will kick in in later acts.