Yet... But don't you wonder? You've got 9000 one day, and 9100 some time later, andisthat really an increase?

yes, by 100 .

IT is an increase of 100 but if all 100 came from new users who got refills totalling 100 as a result, then the effective increase is 100/[total points on site] as there was no deduction from elsewhere.

But it doesn't matter because points can't be bought or sold. They have no intrinsic value.

I see what he means... He's not just talking about his increase, but about the increase in total points in that same amount of time. He wants to know if your percentage of points grows or shrinks in such a case I think... Not like it matters though, but anyone who doesn't like points could think euro's, dollars or whatever.

Except that there is value in currency in that it can purchase goods and services, not just be used to make more currency. Int he end, points get you into games so you can try to make more points, but they have no actual value in that they can't buy you anything. I can't donate money to get points. I can't cash points out for money. I can't even use points to get a mod to do my bidding. I can only use them to buy into games which may or may not reward me with more points in the end depending on my performance.

But there's still inflation... He said it was pointless, no one is doubting that :)

Inflation runs a few percent. It doesn't run 25%. According to the rule of 72, divide 72 by the interest rate (25 in this case) to get the number of years it takes for compounding to double. Here you get less than 3, but with 3%, you get 24 years to double. The various entities (salaries in different industries and what not) can keep up with doublin every 2 decades or so, but not ever 3 years.

Doh! wrong thread. Damn you steephie for talking real and point inflation. :-)

Yeah, we were arguing on three threads at the same time, two about inflation, so I get the confusion :)

Best way to calculate inflation is using DPI (Diplomer Price Index) which is based upon the yearly change in cost of various key items including:

1: Classic WTA 24hr game, 2012 price 5 2013 price 5
2: Classic PPSC 5 min live game, 2012 price 5 2013 price 5
3: World Diplomacy high stakes to keep noobs away game, 2012 price 101 , 2013 price 101

The conclusion is that webdip has a shocking inflation rate of 0%

I am sorry, I was sleeping and lost a nice part of the discussion.
I mst say though, I don't agreee that points don't have value and you can make a purchase. First of all they have the value for us, most of us, at least from time to time like to look at his points and think "oh, got 500 more, that's good", but is it though? : D
Secondly, we've got the prices we must pay to participate in the games and I think it is the real way to calculate the inflation.

I cannot agree that the prices are steady. The prices of 5, 5 and 101 are the result of the mechanics of the game, for example I bet that the avarage price of entering a live gunboat is increasing, isn't it?

Yeah, third post in a row. Based on all economic theories it wouldn't make sense if it didn't increase. "The best" (and I mean, like 20%) are only getting richer because they tend to win with the new ones have both the tendency to lose and botomless suply of points. That mean, that if we are getting richer, we will be able to accept higher stakes for the same amount of risk, which will lead to increase in prices and inflation.

@Yassem - only if the assumption decreasing absolute risk aversion holds

I base my assumption on the perception theory, where the importance of the nominal stakes gets blurred out as we compare it with our current possession

sorry, I guess I translated it too literally, I think in English it's perspective theory

What i think is a more interesting question is the inflation in Ghost-Rating...

In D every time a new player joins that add a supply of 100 which is below the average number of Daggers, it increases the demand to use D in games (because the more players the more games, at least on average)

What really causes deflation though is when players play private games for low points, this makes games cheaper for anyone with a reputation good enough to get into such a private game (or friends of the creator) and also makes it harder (higher D) for those without such a rep.

Draug says we don't buy anything with our D, but we do, we buy access to games; but there is no poverty, and thus no problem with inflation.

The other type of value is where a player is in the top 100 players; what percentage of total points is not the measure here, just how many points it takes to increase your position among the top players.

Here a different analysis is needed, but the basic principle is pretty simple, the more points available the more you need to improve your position, and the more points available the easier it is to get points to improve your position. An in-depth analysis might be able to show which of these factors is bigger, but if we're talking specifically about improving your position i imagine that more players playig for longer means more skilled players and thus more difficulty improving your position - though not necessarily because of inflation, merely because of a change in the average skill of opponents...

42

@orathaic as much as I agree with your post, I believe that the issues you names - the fact that you need more points to improve your position, and the fact that it is easier to obtain new points - are two results of one thing - that we have inflation here. What I really think could be interesting would be trying to calculate such inflation, but well - that would require reeeaaally a lot of data

and of course - data from at least two different moments, most likely year on (to?) year data

But Yassem, the cost of entering a game is not going up; the quality of game is not dependent on my D but on my reputation. It is not as simple as inflation.

It's a funny old thing, but the average price of games from the first page of completed games in 2006 is somewhat higher than the most recent page of games.

@Orathaic Can I have any data showing that the cost is not going up? Also, even if it's not going up, points' value is not only the purchasing power, but also the status they provide, i.e. the more you have, the better player you are percieved, and as much as I know that is not the point of the game to have the most points or anything, still, many players value each other based on this number.
@Octavious This is indeed quite interesting. Of course, one page is a little too few to speak of statistical differences, but it's still interesting nevertheless.

I also try to understand some ofthe older games, like what is going with the points they won here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=2512#gamePanel

I even tried just now to compare randomly chosen games from May of 2012 and last month, but it is really taking long to get much information quickly just from searching the games. And I don't suppose that kind of data is accesible anywhere to an ordinety bloke?

As a final argument for inflation, of course I am not 100% sure there even exists one. There are two main, oposite factors:
- how much does the point pool increase. it's not only 100 each player gets at the beginning, but also what he loses (and get refilled) - of course not taking into concideration the amount of players that stop playing, whose point are just sitting there.
- how does the rotation of points increase. we certainly have more games, is the propensity to play many games increasing? in the avarage length of the game increasing? these are the factors that increase the demand for points

if the increase in supply is met by the increase in demand I guess we can say there is no inlfation, but I just don't thing that is the case, mainly because of the flow of the points, flowing from new player all the way to the top

I also feel that my supply of enthusiasm for this topic much exceeds the demand : D

the issue of supply of points versus supply of (quality?) games, and it is possible that there is inflation, though i don't think it is an important feature of the system, because of reputation and the ability to create private games...

any singe player with 100 can create 20 (5 ) games and invite whoever they like to play - which is more than any *normal* player would demand even if they did nothing with their life other than play webdip. Thus the limiting factor in supply of games is not how many D(aggers) they have, but their reputation with other players - which as you mention can be linked to their Daggers, but the top player is also more than capable of betting all his/her D on one game and losing them...

The other question of how it affects the top players begs the question of whether 1 is a good measure of skill. And the Ghost-rating system presents a better measure, if you ask me. I have previously looked at inflation in Ghost-rating, and it is easier to get data about it. (also there are no re-fills so it's a very different system)