From my own cost-benefit analysis of possible scarcity distributions in an ideal Entropia? By "I agree with the ultimate conclusion that there should be more copies of a lot of unlimited items," I just mean that all things considered, I ultimately agree with the TC's conclusion that there should be more copies of a lot of unlimited items, not that the conclusion is some ultimate super saiyan life form, or, you know,
https://soundcloud.com/entropiauniverse/the-ultimate
One important factor is the principle that in a game meant to be played over the span of many years or decades (especially, for some contexts, on a single account), permanent consequences of actions and decisions beyond recoverable financial outcome differentials should be minimized, or at least regarded as bearing a high cost on the long-run player experience and requiring of great offsetting benefit to warrant. A more egregious violation of this principle would be untradeable items, especially consumable, (L), or "limited-time offer" untradeable items. There is no sound reason that a player who wants an item, even to decorate their apartment or whatever, should be locked out of obtaining it because they missed some weekend event ten years ago. On the other hand, if the desired item is tradeable and still readily obtainable, but now costs much more than it used to, the player must pay what the market demands even if they regret not buying it sooner; that's a consequence of markets. Items which are tradeable but virtually unobtainable because there are like five copies in the game and they never circulate are kind of in the conceptual middle of the two prior cases. If the player managed to track down an owner and offer ten-million USD, they could technically obtain the item, but they could probably offer MindArk ten-million USD and obtain an untredeable item as well; this isn't really recoverable in any realistic sense. Although it's not necessarily the primary goal of free markets in Entropia, it may also be worth noting that the nice pareto optimality property of markets breaks down when supply is so low that seller act as price makers.
It seems a lot of folks are focusing their arguments on the total number of unlimited weapons, whereas my focus is at the level of the individual item. I grant that low supply is not
as problematic for unlimited weapons as it is for, i.e., unlimited blueprints, repair kits, etc., since many weapons have close substitutes, but I also view this state of affairs as far from optimal; I don't think it
should be the case that any decent weapon is approximately interchangeable up to bigger number gooder. I'd like to see more variety and complexity in item effects, allowing for more strategic differentiation, and ultimately I'd like to see decent liquidity for buyers with respect to each weapon, not just weapons or Loot 2.0 weapons as a class.