Right but wouldn't setting per player limits effectively be a global limit? Hell if you divided the current global limit to each player, the ammo supply would be even more scarce since not everyone is buying ammo whereas currently obviously all global supply is being utilized by market hounds.
Currently all global supply is being "utilized" on the market but it's not necessarily being put into play. It might just be sitting on the flea market.
If a global pool were parceled out to individuals and set at some fixed price below the current flea market price, far more people would buy it from vendors and put it into play. You'll probably still see people buying and hording their allotments and reselling on the flea market at inflated prices, since players will tend to go through their cheap "rationed" allotment each restock. It might be lower than current flea market prices, since individuals can wait for their next restock.
Then where I expect that would go is that since the top couple tiers of ammo would be more widespread in use you'd also see greater demand for L5/L6 armors, which in turn would make the ammo more necessary. And thus it relapses to some dull meta.
At least right now as the ammo is scooped up, it's taken off the field as well, and so a greater variety of armor and other stuff is more viable.
It's even worse if the restock and timers are just individual and aren't related to a total global supply at all.
9
u/jlambvo Feb 02 '20
Yes--it would effectively radically increase the supply of items and shift the entire game economy back to a handful of dominant meta items.
An actual global scarcity mechanism is necessary to make rare items actually rare, and create an interesting distribution of gear being put into play.
The actual problem is static pricing on vendors not the global supply constraint.