@Bertel I can only really run the numbers given to demonstrate what they'd look like if the generation rates stayed the same, which is how they were presented in the update post anyway. I don't have the data to calculate increased generation post update but the point was to demonstrate the flaws in the reasoning provided for the death cost reduction and GE tax.
The premise that the 69,832,758,793 gp death costs were too high relies on the assumption that PvM is only generating 24,102,780,784 gp through monster drops. The assumption is that death costs were sinking 45,729,978,009 more gold than PvM was generating.
Flaw 1: This excludes gold generated by alching combat drops, making the PvM gold generation seem lower than it actually is.
Flaw 2: Instead of aiming for net 0 PvM gold generation, they overshot to net 10B generation, which due to other factors is actually higher post update and unfairly adds more gp to offset outside of PvM.
Flaw 3: Despite the overly generous buffer on the GE tax, no calculation was made to account for increased generation from increased PvM engagement post update, further unbalancing the resulting calculation.
To address the stated issue without creating a new one, they should've taken steps to calculate PvM gold generation more accurately and then tried to balance it as close to net 0 as they could. 24B death costs would've been around a 65% reduction, not 80%. Factor in the combat item alching and the post update PvM increase buffer and maybe death costs weren't so disproportionately high after all. A 50% reduction would've been 35B, providing a 11B buffer for increased PvM and PvM drop alching. If the 30B GE buffer is to account for increased PvM gold generation and therefore applied to PvM, death costs should only have been reduced by 16B.
@Icer Fox they listed TH cash bags and direct gp but seasonal events were probably excluded.
How to block a forum user
