FYI - that’s not what diminishing returns even means…
No wonder why you’re confused lol.
Please stop giving numbers out of your @#%.
How is an inefficient decision to get a ‘16%’ increase in profits???
As I said before both services are complementary.
You will first prioritize buying all the accounts you are able to support.
After that you will increase profits by ‘16%’ in each and every one of them.
That’s it. Please please get it(I’m losing faith in human kind).
No. You will increase total profits by 16%.
You really don’t know how economics works? Cant believe I have to teach economics s in wow… but here I go.
- diminishing returns has to deal with diminishing value due to consumption, not hardware limitations lol (that would be capital restrictions, something else entirely).
Selling 100g is easier than selling 100 million gold. That is diminishing returns. Super simplified, but hopefully you get it.
2). It’s inefficient because you are paying a triple premium (300% costs) for only 16% increased sales.
3). The increase on a single account carries over to all accounts (sum of the parts, that’s basic math). If a single account makes 16% more - your total profit will be 16% more regardless on how many accounts you buy. (Assuming all accounts equal)
It’s not rocket science. It’s economics.
You do know that increasing 16% profits in each of your accounts and increasing 16% in the total profits of all your accounts is the same right?
You dont know how basic math works. 16% of 100 + 16% of 100 is the same as 16% of 200…
Yes. That’s exactly what I was saying.
I must confess I’ve never been told my math is wrong… after someone just repeated what I had just said confirming that is indeed correct. 0_o.
16% increased profits for 300% increased costs.
It’s not efficient
Um… why do you think I said 16% of total profits?
You’re the one that broke it down on a per account basis which is irrelevant. shrug.
Saying 16% in each account or 16% in the total amount its the exact same, I don’t see your point.
Also, Diminishing returns have nothing to do with consumption.
‘The law of diminishing returns states that in productive processes, increasing a factor of production by one, will at some point return lower output per incremental input unit. The law of diminishing returns does not decrease the total production, a condition known as negative returns’.
In this case there is a point in which increasing the number of accounts by one will actually lower your profits instead of rising them because your infrastructure cant actually support more accounts. this is called diminishing returns. you either invest in more hardware(which costs money) or you stop investing in accounts and start investing in boosts.
#go back to school
You’re confusing different concepts with regards to diminishing returns.
If you can’t use an account you added… your profit is zero. It’s not diminishing.
#take an economics class
cough, cough retail player cough, cough
1 Like
Your profits are diminishing because that account you added costs money and gives you no income. again please think before you post.
I’m an economist by profession by the way, so yeah… if I want to take more classes it wont be from you.
What straw man? That the journey mattered back in TBC? Because it did. Azeroth was busting with life throughout the expansion.
Or that boosts take players out of the world. Meaning less people to quest with. Less people to do dungeons with. Less people in lower level bgs. Less people accumulating resources, items, gear that gets fed into the auction house.
Facts are facts. If you want to say the player base is different than it was in 2007, fine. That’s what Blizzars said. But don’t call stating facts a straw man just because you personally find no value in the entire journey of your character.
1 Like
Like most things on the forum, the topic of mage boosting is ridiculously overblown. Going by this place everyone is boosting. Sure, it goes on but not nearly to the extent people claim. I’d be surprised if as much as 10% of characters were being boosted through dungeons. Most just play the game. But when you live in a bubble you think everyone plays like you do.
But at least those getting dungeon boosted are playing the game. They’re earning money. Getting recipe drops and gear drops that get put on the AH. It’s absurd to compare that to simply skipping the entire process.
Kind of like the 58 boost? Which doesn’t even exist yet? Literally this exact same thing can be said about the 58 boost.
Here, let me try it.
Like most things on the forum, the topic of 58 boosts is ridiculously overblown. Going by this place everyone is going to buy a boost. Sure, i’m sure some people will buy a boost but not to this extent. I’d be surprised if as much as 10% of characters were being boosted through blizzard.
Hmmmmmm…
1 Like
The fact it doesn’t exist is the point. You’re skewing reality about a topic that exists to support something that doesn’t exist.
Kind of like how you’re skewing the future about a topic that doesn’t exist to downplay something that does exist.
1 Like
No I’m looking at how boosts affected the game the first time. Learning from history is useful.
the people who boosts already leveled their first character the ‘proper’ way all the way to 60. after that yes, they probably use their gold too boost alts in dungeons.
Even if we don’t like it mage boosting is a service they are buying with in game currency from another player not with real life money.
And they actually had to level their first character all the way to 60 and farm the gold to be able to boost another one. New players wont be able to pay for mage boosting because they wont have any gold.
Then clearly you need to go back to school.
I’m sorry you are misusing terminology.
Check out any economics text book.
Capital costs are not normally considered to be part of diminishing return calculations.
You are assuming hardware is fixed, finite, and non adjustable. Which is far from the truth in this day of age.
You are making faulty assumptions.
shrug
Ah ok, so you fall in the camp of “I really think the people boosting in game earned their gold legitimately and not through tainted gold.”
Gotchya. That’s cute.
As opposed to ‘everyone in the game bought gold anyway’. And none of this has to do with the topic. Just typical deflection and changing the subject.