I disagree with the Devs assessment, for reasons I stated in my previous posts in support of my suggestion.
But Im not going to start arguing with a Dev. They do what they see fit.
Let me seeā¦somebody who actually can and probably has looked at the actual data vs. somebody who is taking contradictory positionsā¦hmmm tough call here. 
7 Likes
There was no contradiction in my posts. I clearly explained what the payoff from introducing ingame PLEX would be.
I dont agree with the Devs assessment, but am not going to start arguing.
For example, it is a fact that more supply will reduce price, no matter in how small a capacity.
I doubt the Dev in question has read the entire thread and all the details of my suggestion.
Christmas is great for PLEX because I, like many others, find their resources stretched at this time of year. So, instead of spending Ā£10 per account, I need that money IRL to buy my friends better presents.
So I liquidate some of the PLEX I bought up when it was sub 3m into Game Time. After Christmas I will purchase an amount of PLEX depending on if I want to cover just my time insurance again, but if the price is sufficently high, Ill buy more for further Isk conversion.
If the price has dropped, Ill simply sit on some for game time use or until the market rises again, and buy it with Isk instead.
In short; what starts with softening RL strain at Xmas will lead to more PLEX purchase if the price is high ingame.
High prices are a good thing, but low prices can be good if Im Isk-wealthy.
Dude your story is so all over the map there is nothing coherent there anymoreā¦but Iāll take a stab at it.
Your first idea was CCP needed to introduce more āfreeā PLEX into the game to keep the price from rising. Of course, it was pointed out that this would reduce CCPās sales.
Your second story was that people are buying less PLEX from CCP because the price is going up, so the price goes up because people are buying less PLEX from CCPā¦apparently because of Buddy and Event PLEXā¦or something.
1 Like
Gee, I do believe I made a similar observation. That even though one can argue that the RL cash cost is ālessā if that RL cash become relatively more valuableā¦people might PLEX their accounts. Of course, this was not deemed rational by a certain participant.
What??? You might actually buy PLEX because of the higher ISK price? Noway! That canāt possibly be the caseā¦because, well I wrote that too previously and it was simply dismissed out of hand. Clearly you donāt know what you are doing.
Ah-ha!!! We have found it! The real reason EVE is dying. @Ramona_McCandless is an unscrupulous speculator doing terrible, terrible things with ISK, RL currency and PLEX. Shame on you! Shame on you!!! 
2 Likes
I know. I am deeply ashamed.
Here; If I want an expensive ship that costs the equivalent of three PLEX500s now, I could buy one PLEX500 now and the rest make up with Isk because I cant justify Ā£45 spend.
Or I could wait and buy two PLEX500 later when the price is higher and save my isk because I can afford Ā£30 next month and justify it.
1 Like
Iām not saying he is right here, but this is actually very logical.
- People buy plex because they need isks.Otherwise they should purchase they sub directly, itās more efficient than with plex.
- People actually buy plex when there is a sale, or when they NEED it. we consider the second part
- people only buy enough plex to fulfill their need in isk.
- if plex is more expensive, then people need to purchase less plex to get the same amount of isks.
- thus, if plex is more expensive, less plex will be put on the market.
- supply and demand translates to less plex on the market => higher plex price on the market
This means, plex increase in price makes it increase in price. And actually cuts the sales of CCP because people wonāt need as many plex to get their isks. So plex price increase is bad for CCP, is bad for players who want to plex their account, and in the long term is bad for players who bought plex : they should wait for plex to increase even more.
You saying this is incoherent ā¦ I donāt know, are you saying you are too stupid to not understand such a simple statement ? Again, I donāt say it is RIGHT, I say it is actually very SIMPLE and logical (but its premise can totally be false - maybe players can buy plex to help ccp ?).
Actually it is circular logic.
The supply is going down because the price is going up, and the price is going up because the supply is going down.
The bit you are missing is that if Plex is more expensive in terms of isk, more people are likely to buy small amounts of plex to sell for isk, like sayā¦ myself. I haven;t yet but Plex is hitting the levels where Iām considering using it to fund my in game activities rather than having to grind the isk.
The reason I havenāt yet is that Iām not undertaking any in game activities atm that are very expensive, so I donāt really need a few billion for now.
Anyway, the relevant point is that as more people enter into thee buying of plex from CCP because itās worth lots of isk, supply increases, therefore price stops rising.
So itās not a simple linear equation.
2 Likes
Ding!
The supply function in game is upwards sloping with respect to price. So if the price goes up due to a shift in the demand function, then there would be an increase in supply. Something like we see in the graph below.
It is actually a system of equations.
demand: d[p] = a - b * p,
supply: s[p] = c + d * p,
equilibrium: d[p] = s[p].
1 Like
If supply and demand were unchanging, then yes weād move towards an equilibrium point. But since that is rarely the case, we rarely get to observe that equilibrium.
Trying to draw conclusions about the supply and demand from time series data is always problematic.
Sorry this is not coherent.
Of course not it is a definition. Definitions are not arguments.
Your example is highly inflammatory and if you used one of those words here in the US in front of certain people it would not end well for you.
The argument is circular.
Here is the claim: The price of PLEX is going up because the supply has gone down.
The argument supporting it is: The suply has gone down because the price has gone up.
The argument hinges on claim itself being true. Since the argument needs the claim to be true for the argument to be true, it is circular logic.
1 Like
All rightā¦Iāll do the pedantic thing here.
There is a word in the english language in the U.S. you really, really, really to not want to use around black people. If you doā¦it will be Badā¢. You used that word. Note I am not using the word. Because it is really, really, really offensive.
You should edit that word out of your post.
As for Salvosā argument. Here is it is in all of its contradictory glory.
Okayā¦soā¦
Salvos argues that PLEX ādiversificationā, the adding of various services for PLEX, has caused the demand to increase as we see in my graph above. We go from Demand to Demandā. That as we go from old demand curve to the new demand curve the price goes up. Next up Salvos claims that because the price has gone up, that the supply has to go downā¦but that cannot happen in that graph. So instead Salvos argues thusly: that as the price goes up, the amount of PLEX people need to buy goes down because everyone is buying for a fixed level of ISK. Not a fixed amount of PLEX, not a fixed about of RL cash, just that one explanation. Thatās fine, but what that say is that supply is downward slopingā¦but that contradicts the law of supply and violates his initial justification for the price going up.
There is no way to salvage Salvosā narrative here.
And you really should remove that racial slur in reference to black people. it is extremely offensive.
The recent sale ended.
What was the end market result, economists?
I havenāt lookedā¦
Like not muchā¦the price seems to have stabilized around 3.38 million, up from about 3.1 to 3.12 million. Most likely that price response is due to the changes in Alpha clones and the Daily Alpha Skill Injectors. That latter which is around 50-60 million ISK.
1 Like
So you donāt know that black people use that word ? Well let me teach you something today. And donāt you dare assume my skin color, that would be racist.
Why ? Maybe youāre right here but you have to provide a bit of explanation.
Why does it contradict the law of supply and when was the supply downward slopping a violation of his premise ?
As I said I donāt support this opinion, but still it makes more logical sense than your arguments.
1 single lonely PLEX in roughly every 100 levels of Project Discovery, to put that into context.
well we canāt say anymore that CCP is not doing anything to lower plex price 
(yeah, this was irony. I rather state it because people here are very bad at perceiving self-derision)
Yes, but unless CCP answers my question of if they are sourced from confiscated PLEX in the affirmative, it means the myth of all PLEX being paid for is false, as it cannot be proven.
3.45 is more accurate.
Im currently only 25mil off my estimate of 1.75bil for a full PLEX by New Year.