Talk:PoE sink

I removed the line listing winning Skellies as PoE sinks, as thier winnings just get thrown into the pot are are given to the players who eventually beat them. As they usually don't hang arround for more then a few hours of combat, they arn't much more then a short term escrow, just the the tournament pots.--Mercano 15:41, 16 August 2005 (PDT)

Nitpickery

Technically, items dusting are a commodity sink, not a poe sink. The poe is sunk in the form of taxes at the time of ordering. Do we care to draw that thin a line? --AtteSmythe 16:39, 17 August 2005 (PDT)

I'd say yes. Just as buying from merchants are a poe sink and a commodity fountain, dusting is a commodity sink. Behindcurtai

Is buying items from Merchant Brigands really a poe sink? It involves trading cash for something of value so it seems like sort of a wash in terms of the economy because the merchants create goods out of nothing to trade, and then the poe you give them vanishes. Of course the whole concept of things depreciating as they decay is itself a poe sink but this is a little hard to easily articulate in a wiki page. -- KE1LR / "Daedalus" - 18 Nov 2005 11:43AM EST

IMO, yes, they are. Merchants are both a poe sink and a commodity fountain. That you receive something in exchange is irrelevant; the PoE are still removed from the economy. The commods can then be changed into goods or resold for poe, but in either case, the poe received is recycled, not new. --AtteSmythe 10:38, 18 November 2005 (PST)

Potions

"More recently, the newest potions that edit one's appearance, take large amounts of PoE for something that has no real effect on gameplay."

The money goes to the shoppe owner, not sunk, so is not actually a PoE sink. I'm rolling it back. --Nickster ^(t/c) 14:22, 15 November 2005 (PST)

Players leaving the game.

Wondering if the poe lost to players leaving the game should be included. Whilst in terms of game mechanics, its not a true PoE sink, however when people think of PoE sinks, people think of places where PoE leaves the economy. Should players leaving the game be added, perhaps with a qualification that that its not part of the game mechanics but instead a side effect of the social puzzle?

It's only a PoE sink if they delete the character holding the PoE. Otherwise, they could always log back in months later and use the PoE. That being said, is there some reason to enumerate every single possible PoE sink? I think the list is getting unwieldy. --Barrister 10:39, 24 November 2005 (PST)

Losing to brigands is a PoE sink?

Don't brigand losses just slip into the ethereal brigand pool? (and therefore they aren't sunk, they're just taken out of direct circulation until won back by another player.) --Teeg 16:13, 1 March 2006 (PST)

That is definitely true with commodities, they are slipped into the communal brigand pool. However, since brigands also generate PoE it's hard to keep track. "Did that piece of eight come from thin air or another player?" is a hard question to answer. Unless the Ringers feel like answering, you could say both (just like Schroedinger's Cat.)--Fiddler 19:27, 1 March 2006 (PST)

PoE lost from NPP win in Hearts

I haven't experienced it but, just for the sake of specifying it on the page, if one of the players is replaced by a whitey in a Hearts game and by great luck (or misfortune of the others) won the game, I assume the pot will be sunk...right? --Estam

I'm not entirely certain what would happen in a "winner takes all" game, because I don't ever play those. But I know that in a proportionate take game that the poe is simply divvied between the other two non-last place people. So in your scenario, second and third place would get all the poes. --Fannon 15:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Losing gems

I think the entry was correct as it was. Now it may make more sense to Budclare, but it is inaccurate. The PoE is sunk when the purchase is made. That's simply how it works. The PoE remains sunk no matter what you do to the gems. You can transfer them to another player, you can destroy them in your hold, you can lose them to gem thieves, you can sell them for a fountain. Just because there is a complementary sink/fountain relationship does not mean that we have to obfuscate it in its documentation. Chupchup 01:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have to get some other people's opinions, because we're never going to agree. And the list itself doesn't agree, either. The only similar item I see on the list is war chests which includes a note. Just because poe is literally temporarily sunk doesn't mean that it is a poe sink in the larger sense. The whole point of poe sinks is to keep inflation down. Without some kind of note that the sink is usually temporary, the previous version is the inaccurate one since it can't see the forest for the trees. --Budclare2 02:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's more consistent to mention the buying action only, since the loss of gems at sea is really not where the PoE is sunk. It gets sunk at the point the gems are purchased at a commodity market, and PoE is then fountained at the destination island in a gem run - if they make it there successfully. --Sagacious ^(talk) 13:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

buying gems is a PoE sink. Selling gems is a PoE fountain. Gems that are bought, but never sold are a net PoE sink. I'm not sure all the ways gems can be lost, but they include at least gem thieves and PvP sinking. I'm not certain if gems left on an unmanned ship are recorded as stolen. Gems that are foraged and then sold are a pure PoE fountain. I think the text on gems as it sits right now is good. Wrs1864b 00:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much I love the way everyone is assuming that the only way there can possibly be a disagreement is due to lack of understanding. People keep repeating the same thing over and over as if I'll magically change my mind. The most accurate way of presenting the information would be "Buying gems which spawn on a commodities market (though this sink is often temporary)." Which would also be consistent with the note about war chests. If you don't want it that way, fine. Just kindly stop assuming that my disagreement is anything other than a disagreement. There is nothing remotely complicated about your position, so it's more than a tad absurd for people to keep assuming I don't understand. --Budclare2 01:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it a gambling element you're associating the change with when likening it to the war chest entry? See I'm not thinking you don't understand, but there's certainly a gap to fill here in how you're trying to position the sink for gems in a way other than the way currently given. When you likened it to war chest entry I completely did not follow that, but thinking on it more the only likening I can think of is that you sink money to get some back later. War chests effectively just have a minimum 50% tax on them. --Sagacious ^(talk) 23:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)