For item comparison, I used proportions to calculate damage outputs with the amount of AP a person has into consideration to determine the final damage output for a turn. There's subjectivity used for things such as +1 Range, but there isn't really a way to get a measurement that determines +1 Range's usefulness. For the economic portions, it's all based on concepts (I only took a single course on economics, and that was a conceptual course.
No, I wasn't talking about your item comparison, I was talking about your perception of unbalance. Even if you agree those items cause unbalance inside the game, if there's something which you can define as a trade off for this unbalance or something “good” can come out of it, then you believe it will negate this unbalance or make it so minimum that is negligible. That's why I called it a Sense of Proportions [small, medium, large and so on]. It's a sense that if the unbalance is for any reason small then it is fine to you, the “good sides” will outweight the “bad sides”, that's why I also called it a Margin Calculus. I find curious that you use an economic principles to help you justify the Makabras but prefer to ignore the game principle, like if it was a matter of taste or personal opinion.
I will agree to a certain extent that a swing from "acceptable" to "unacceptable" can occur at any moment because of a constant because the currency ratio between (Insert country currency here) and the euro as well as the possible change of the euro value itself. However, there I believe that this approach is adequately (Not absolute, but it'll do) since it does give us a reliable predictor of things to occur in the future. Given the possible contributors of a shift in a supply and demand curve (Both curves are capable of observing prices changes when demand and/or supply shifts), all factors but the one mentioned earlier suggests either a price decrease or no prediction (Because it's not applicable to Wakfu; an example would be "Improvement in technology that contributes to the production process").
The Supply and Demand principle suggests that in a Free Market the price of a good or service will tend to Low on Average. But mind this: Tend. The Supply and Demand principle says that the price of goods or service will tend to be low, not that it will stay low. Booms and Depressions are natural cycles to any economic system, and there will be a businessman exploiting both of them. The price will not stay low one hundred percent of the time, sometimes the fluctuations of Supply and Demand will make them increase, and that's when the exploiting happens. Monopolistic prices can be used in such fluctuations to generate a rapid income of profit. Though it won't be long lived, it is enough to reduce effort from a player in acquisition of Kamas.
And I should also remind you that a trade has no grounds to occur if it violates another principle, in this case, the game principle.
The player would be at a severe disadvantage while attempting to level the weapon unless he/she chooses to do so at a lower (But still higher than the weapon)'s area. However, my personal experience with leveling (I usually level in a two person team against mobs of monsters that are 15+ my level) suggests that it'll still take quite a long time. Regardless of leveling on monsters way above my level, the Makabra weapon is still 3-5 levels lower than my actual level. This weapon level progression might (Or might not) be outshined by selling items produced by professions; ultimately, we'll have to wait until the game hits that point since there's no clear estimate on the cost increase of a Makabra weapon if it were leveled.
I don't understand what are you saying as disadvantage here... The player is not using the the Makabra to compete with anyone and if a dangerous situations appears outside battle instance the player can quickly switch to its real weapons. The player would be using a Makabra specifically with the purpose of leveling it a little to sell it on the market. And he won't be in severe disadvantage in regular level 100 fights either. In Wakfu, skills have way more weight in the outcome of a battle than the use of weapons, where the use of weapons is purely situational, you could even call Wakfu's weapons a Stat Stick. Weapon or Ring slot is just one slot of an entire gear, and he can perfectly win a level 100 battle without equipping a weapon or ring, because the lack of optimum items in these slots alone won't severely handicap the player's damage output through skills. So yes, the player can perfectly level a Makabra easily till a certain point with level 100 experience fights and sell it on the market with increased price. And yes, through supply and demand principle there will be an increase in a leveled Makabra price, not only because there's more effort than no leveled Makabras in it, but because the item now has a specific level the competition will decrease as it is targeting different types of costumers than not leveled Makabras. If Demand is higher than Supply, the price goes up. If many people start doing this of course the price will tend to low, but is still exploitable.
It's highly likely that the area is an appropriate place to level (Unless the person has hit the level cap), and the grinding experience for the weapon would be similar to the grinding experience to level anyway. Even if the Makabra weapon users do not have to worry about drops, they will either sell it in the marketplace (Which will result in high amounts of the item being in the marketplace and the price will decrease) or they will give it to a friend that needs it (Let's be honest here, it happens sometimes).
I'm not talking about new content above level 100. I'm talking about new content, new tier, IN level 100. If level 100 is the level cap, which is likely, I don't believe Ankama would release the game without ¾ of its intended content, even more considering the fact that Skills themselves have a level cap of 100, when they add a new higher tier content to level 100 [like every other MMO out there does with its level cap content] and makabras lv100 update themselves for this new high tier content, its stats will change automatically to be competitive with this new content without any effort at all from the players part [since he won't need to level it at all], while regular players will have to grind for the new items that came with the new tier content. That's what I'm talking about.
Even if there are one or two instances in which there is no optimal area for leveling and item hunting at the same time, the semi-outdated gear still outshines the Makabra weapon until you hit around 60-75, depending on the class and build. As a result, you will still indeed be in an advantage over Makabra weapons until mid-late game and hunting for new gear just widens the gap if one were to choose to do so.
You think advantage can derive only from power balance? Effort is also essential to overall balance value. I'm not arguing that a player who uses a Makabra will faceroll other players, I'm arguing that a player who levels with a Makabra will have its effort required reduced through an mechanism that can be sourced in external factors. The level delay and possible stat difference is not enough for a trade off, simply because one defalcated gearslot is not a determining factor for overall balance.
Personally, I see it as as a trade-off of the approach of minimizing the "P2W" gap. In exchange of being able to (Possibly) creating a market based off of cash goods, it also provides access to the good to others, thus allowing everyone (That is a subscriber, but let's be honest, you won't get far as a non-subscriber) to be on par in terms of stats. Ultimately, we can argue either way and have a valid reason for the decision, so that is something that's up to the player.
This is not something up to the players, this is not a popularity contest. If you can generate Kamas from real world money you are already violating a principle of games and thus diminishing its quality. I'll repeat, a trade has no grounds to occur if violates an essence. A trade will not be valid only because both sides are benefiting from it, Economy is way more complex than that. And not only that, but as an exploitable feature this can be easily done to generate unbalance, like using the market of cash goods to help the seller buy a very powerful gear.
On the flip side though, disabling the ability to transfer/sell a Makabra weapon would create a legitimate advantage over those that don't buy a Makabra weapon through the boutique.
You know what would solve this issue? Simply don't sell the Makabras through the boutique. Makabras are not needed for the game to be economically viable.
Probably an irrelevant point since prices in the marketplace are far from being stable and the price could easily shoot up exponentially in the future, but I would honestly have to question who would be willing to spend 1.5euro per 80-100 kama considering how little effort it would take to make that amount in-game as well.
It's not about quantitative value but buying power. Even if it was sold for 10 kamas, if the 10 kamas represent a decent buying power inside the economy then it is exploitable. And besides you can raise the profit by selling easily leveled Makabras. And I'm sure rich and lazy players wouldn't mind spend that amount of money at all.
And that's why we are standing on different sides on the issue; we're approaching it in different, but valid approaches. As you can tell, I'm more geared towards proportions, probability. Not that it matters, but that's because of my background for my undergraduate; quantitative psychology (Which is the statistical and mathematical aspects of psychology). In no way am I going to say that your reasons are wrong, but I believe that people should hear both sides objectively and ultimately make a decision on their stance. It just so happens that we're on opposite sides of a spectrum.
Well, since you showed your background it's only fair to show mine as well. I can't say I'm a philosopher since I don't have an intellectual work of my own, I believe such thing should only happen later in the life of a student of Philosophy. But I'm an avid reader [when I said I read at least 80 books per year, I wasn't kidding] and student of Philosophy, and since Philosophy encompasses a very wide range of fields you'll see I have a decent knowledge on many other fields as well. I have no particular specialization since I need to read everything but I tend to gear more toward Classicism and despise most of the Modern Existentialism. About Psychology in particular I have read the some authors mainly from the germanic school like Freud, Carl Jung, Max Pfister, Marie Louise von Franz, Lipot Szondi, Jolande Jacobi and some works about them, and actually, I know some more underground and alternative stuff like the Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy, Paul Diel, Renné le Senne, Arthur Javnov and so on which I'm sure is not popular inside academic circles. I must confess that I don't know that much from quantitative psychology. I read some works about Social Engineering that could enter this field now and then, and I have read the Kinsey Reports and some works about it but I found Kinsey's research ultimately wrongful so I kind of lost interest in the field as a whole. I'm sure you must be more knowledgeable in psychology than I'm. Good luck in your studies =].
This post has been edited by Cronqvyst - March 14, 2012, 20:32:04.