Quality of Life: Prevent Buyers from Ordering at a Price that is Less than the Minimum

[Gudy.3607]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I've never ever seen this. Can you provide a few examples? (via PM is fine, if you don't wish to share them in public)

> It shouldn't be that hard for one of the techier people here to put together something that looks for this.

 

See the post above yours for a recent example. I've been looking out for this myself, but have - naturally - not seen any examples since this thread started. :-P But keep in mind that catching these may not be easy: On any even remotely actively traded commodity, sell orders below the minimum price are bound to be gone quickly. And for those drops I commonly get where I know that trade is slow and the item is at minimum value, I often don't bother with the TP anymore and vendor the item instead.

 

> The point I've been making is that this isn't free and worse, it's likely to be costly, since it requires focus on a core system that ain't otherwise broke. We just prefer it to behave differently.

> The issue isn't whether this is useful, it's whether it's important enough to do instead of address any of the other issues we want fixed or improved or otherwise changed.

 

Agreed. Is it annoying? Sure. Would I love to see it fixed? Absolutely. Is it majorly game-breaking? Uh, nope. So I'm mostly OK with this being a low-priority issue that may never get fixed.

[CharterforGw.3149]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> You can't actually put in buy orders for below the vendor price divided by 0.85 (the price at which you'd break even between selling to vendor or selling on TP). Every single buy order you see today that is below Vendor/0.85 is from the first year or two of the game, when it was still possible to (a) sell an item at any price, including lower than vendor and later (b) sell an item at vendor + 1 copper.

>

> In other words, the OP's request has long since been implemented.

>

> ANet has gone through the database to remove the existing orders (and refund the relevant buy offers to the players), but this is incredibly expensive. Writing a script to seek out the relevant orders: easy enough. Writing a script to cancel those orders and return the funds to the players BLTC pickup queue: not too bad. QAing said script to make sure it doesn't break any of the things that people can think of nor any of the things that never occurred to the current programmers (but were somehow made part of the original code years ago): priceless.

>

> tl;dr no one can put in buy orders for less than what someone would make from selling to a vendor (including fees), but ANet hasn't wanted to make a second pass at removing existing orders that violate the new policies.

 

You mean like this? (the image is from a while ago)

 


[Manasa Devi.7958]

The TP will sometimes allow normally illegal transactions to happen when you confirm a buy or sell listing before all the information has been loaded. It used to anyway, I don't know if that can still happen. Years ago, the (old) forums regularly had complaints from people who accidentally sold expensive items for petty cash because of it. Maybe these new illegal orders and listings happen because of that bug, or a newer similar one.

[Ithilwen.1529]

@OP

 

I've been wishing that for years now. Yes, please prevent orders below the price minimum.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"CharterforGw.3149" said:

> 

 

Minis don't have a vendor value.

 

****

 

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> The TP will sometimes allow normally illegal transactions to happen when you confirm a buy or sell listing before all the information has been loaded. It used to anyway, I don't know if that can still happen.

I vaguely recall something like this.

 

> Years ago, the (old) forums regularly had complaints from people who accidentally sold expensive items for petty cash because of it.

This is different and intended: people used to exploit a bug that allowed one to bypass the TP listing fees by instant selling an item at the minimum price (1c or vendor price divided by .85); the TP would charge fees based on that price, but actually fulfill the listing of the highest buy offer. So in an extreme example, you could sell a mini at 100 gold, paying 15% of 1 copper.

 

That was changed ages ago so now, if you try to do that (intentionally or accidentally), you end up getting the value you tried to sell at (e.g. 1c in the example above). The buyer still pays their offer and the excess is lost in the ether.

 

> Maybe these new illegal orders and listings happen because of that bug, or a newer similar one.

I'd still like to see confirmation that new below-minimum offers are being added to the TP queue, rather than (a) just existing offers and/or (b) existing offers that didn't display (for various reasons) when the observer looked earlier.

 

****

If there's a bug that is allowing below-minimum offers to take place, I'd rather see that fixed than worry about any existing below-minimum offers.

 

[Gudy.3607]

Happened this morning with Carnelian Lumps. Lowest possible sell price is 40c. There was one listed at 39c. I guarantee that this is not an old listing since low-level gems have a relatively lively trade and I sell those myself with some regularity.