On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 14:48 -0500, Nicholas Evans wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> > > wrote: > > > I think the AP stuff was economically problematic as given as there'd > > > very rarely be a need to spend shinies. How often does a typical player > > > do three proposals/CFJs in a week? The answer is "not often", and all > > > those players would just hoard Shinies as they have no reason to spend > > > them. > > Note that AP-actions don't pay out. You can hoard your shinies and use AP > > instead, but you'd make more shinies if you effectively used them for > > proposals. Honestly I would do an AP of 1 if I thought it wouldn't be > > opposed, but people have already asked for 5. > > I know, but you never make a /profit/ by spending Shinies. So failing > to make a loss is the best you can manage. > > That's not true. Since FV changes weekly, and it takes a week for a proposal to pass, you just need to pend a week before an FV increase. Pending itself will (marginally) increase FV. Buying a stamp would do so even more. The more people pending and buying things W1, the more the proposal will payout W2. > I know I'd never have any reasons to spend Shinies under the AP system > you suggested, meaning I'd likely just hoard them forever. The people > asking for 5 are basically looking for a way to bypass the economy > entirely; I don't think I've seen 5 of this sort of action done in a > week except as a consequence of a scam or as excessively spammy CFJs. > > -- > ais523 >
