I have been playing EU for over 18 years now and in that time literally thousands of weapons have been introduced, yet even entry weapons like a Frontier 100 still costs several thousand ped.
That is something I simply do not understand. With the amount of weapons MA has been given out over the years, lower end weapons should be a few hundred ped (at most). Surely some weapons exited the game (in-active accounts, banned accounts) but I would assume that vast majority are still in somewhat active hands.
This really puzzles me as I am not talking about 80% efficiency high end stuff, no just entry/medium guns as well …
because no one in their right mind is going to sell a UL weapon at a loss
if i pay tt+2000 for an lc-100, i will sell it tt+2000 or more, not a pec less. make that weapon exchange hands a few times and you now have a tt+2300 lc-100 (you get the idea)
Greedy players I’m trying to sell a kinetic attack 5 ten edition for 2.5k… way to much. But it’ll just sit in my storage forever if I don’t get that
Literally hundreds, if not thousands of UL weapons are trapped on dormant avatars of inactive players.
They may have lost interest in the game, but didn’t cash out everything.
Maybe hoping for rising markets and prices of their guns (and may have lost track of market swings due to too deep inactivity).
Or just in case they may return “later”.
More competition for weapons. In 2012 hunters were not botting. Now players who work full time can AFK hunting rather than crafting. Also, while it may seem prices haven’t come down in PED, they have in $, inflation will erode the value.
Simple answer. Mindark controls the flow of weapons and Mindark clearly wants items to be very expensive.
Good luck bringing in new players to the game…
Invest in your avatar, sell your car, sell your house, sell your wife and perhaps after that you can hunt and play some Entropia.
There’s been about 20% inflation for the US dollar since 2018 around the time I stopped playing regularly.
At that time the adjusted excavator was worth about tt+2-3k
Now it’s worth tt+5-6k.
Double in price in 5 years… the only explanation I’ve heard that made sense was a big boom in players during covid-era.
Combine this with the “I will never sell for a loss” mentality and prices become “sticky”, even if those player numbers go back down, prices will not.
Yea especially when a single reseller owns about 10-12 weps from what I’ve seen (half or more loot 2.0) Safe to say those weps will never be held by a hunter for at least a few more years.
Well check how many wepons have anoyez for sale…
But price is going down. And will wepon prices will hit a proper shiter after twen. Atm twen tokens hold price. You see a new trend. Buy my 2.0 wepon for covid price so i can pul cheap twen wepon :)) etc
But cheaper wepons get better its for game.. more ppl have access to them those who say otherwise think about their own valet rather than games health in general
There are inactive accounts that abandoned shops with several shopkeepers so I’m not surprised other items would also be on inactive accounts. For some people several K is not a big amount of money.
Problem is this creates a lot of dead pixels and MA should take over after certain amount of inactivity and put the stuff into lootpool.
Due to this there are also too many empty estates in inactive accounts. Makes the game look bad imho.
90% of the player base haven’t calculated the costs to use a weapon vs the markup it’s selling for + markup it can extract + time to breakeven but are stuck on the fallacy that “it’s the going rate in the market” so they pay the prices like good little sheep.
The answer:? > ?
It’ll be Unreal when the robots zap every UL item to (L).
I would not necessarily label this as the “right mind;” it seems little more than an attempt to rationalize the sunk cost fallacy. Of course, that doesn’t preclude it from accurately describing how players make market decisions. Nonetheless, folks act on sunk costs in the real world all the time, and the expected aggregate result is not constant upward price pressure. Perhaps this is a stronger causal link specifically in markets without short selling readily accessible?
All scarcity in a virtual world is in one sense or another artificial. I’d be willing to go as far as to say it is artificial in a stronger sense where there is insufficient liquidity for markets to clear. It would be nice to see, i.e., all items have high enough circulating supply to trade on the auction at least once every few months or so.
Where I think this goes awry and threatens to devolve into a moral panic is in the implications of the the term “hoarding.” This framing bares the connotation of low circulating supply being the responsibility of certain players rather than developers, and may lead to the thinking “if only we could somehow coerce other players to make the market decisions we want them to, then we could induce circulating supply to rise closer to total supply.” This freedom/efficiency trade off is entirely constructed, and entirely unnecessary. MindArk has control over total supply, and can estimate the relation between total supply and future circulating supply in advance using historical data models. Simplifying greatly, if MindArk wants to see about 30 copies of an item per year trade on the auction, and they see that the ratio of yearly circulating supply to total supply converges to a constant 1/2, they drop 60 copies. Of course, the relation may not be a constant ratio over time or over circulating supply, so more complicated temporal and game theoretic models may be helpful, but assuming that all of an item’s supply is the quantity of it that’s “supposed” to be circulating is a unhelpful proxy for the much more reasonable take that we should have more copies of stuff available. If we want to criticize low circulating supply, then we should focus on the problem of low total supply. Framing it as a problem with the relation between total supply and circulating supply threatens to construct artificial animosity between players, and possibly even constraints on their decisions, all for much more limited collective benefit than what is achievable by addressing problems with total supply.
