Bollocks.4078 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @kitten.4078 said: > > I will agree that this discussion has completely gone off the rails. > > > > I have yet to see anything that remotely resembles a legitimate argument against the basic idea. All I see is people latching on to irrelevant minor details and acting like they are major details. People arbitratily siding against the idea but not even remotely justifying why. > > From the beginning, people have argued that > * That there's not actually a _market_ problem; it's a perception or preference on the part of some players. > * Even if there were, there's nothing special about the first bid versus the second, any more than 1s is more important than 1.01s. > * Even if there was something special, setting arbitrary limits isn't going to be helpful: it will have unintended (but predictable) consequences that make things worse for some and won't actually address the stated issue. > * Regardless, people cannot be overbid if they choose to accept the lowest sale listing; they cannot be undercut if they accept the highest buy offer. Anyone listing anywhere in between is looking to make or save some extra coin, at the expense of someone else and that involves risking the possibility of competition. > > Those aren't minor or arbitrary or even "details"; they are fundamental to the entire concept being discussed. > I'm not sure where the idea that this is a market issue came from. I'm not sure if it's a missunderstanding or an attempt at diversion. I have not said it's a market issue. Before now I haven't even used the word "market" other than one post where I was addressing someones comparison to flea markets. The issue is with the bidding tactics of a subset of bidders. Some of us see 1c increments on high value items as way to arbitrarily put your bid ahead of other bids. There absolutely is something "special" about the first bid vs the second. The first bid was first. That's how pretty much everything works. Unless there is some reasonable additional factor or condition second comes after first. That's exactly how it works. Then you continue on to say that 1s is no more important 1.01s. So that means that 1.01s is no more important than 1s, right? This is exaclty the key concept. I'd actually say that 1c is a reasonable proportion to 1s. But if 1s vs 1.01s doesn't mean anything then certainly 100.0000g vs 100.0001g means even less so why should one take priority over the other? Your assertion that the difference between 1s and 1.01S is arbitrary actually supports the primary key idea of this discussion. A reasonable bid increment is not at all arbitrary. 1c vs 100g is arbitrary and meaningless. What predictable unintended consequences would there be? I'm sure that if done right a minimum bid increment would work exactly as intended and make bidding more fair. It would simply prevent people from being able to place bids that arbitrarily take priority over other bids. The only traders who'd have it worse are the ones who'd be forced to actually decide between waiting or ajusting the bid by an amount that isn't meaningless. I can't see anything wrong with that basic idea. Telling people that they have to accept the lowest sell or highest buy offer to avoid being arbitrarily shuffled to a lower priority isn't fair and makes no sense at all. Someone said something about completely changing the way the TP works. That's an absurd agrument. This is a minor tweak, not a major change by any means. Someone said 5% of 5000g is 250g and is too much for a minimum increment. That's an example of a minor detail. The exact % and other parameters can be tuned to be completey fair an balanced. > @Rauderi.8706 said: > Hit 80 on an alt. Needed a new pair of boots, so I put some cash down before I dinged, giving the market a chance to fill the order. > Day or two later, ding 80. Still no boots! Hm. > Check the market, someone had an order 30s over mine. > Grr. > No wonder I don't have boots. > Bid 1c over him. > Get my boots within a few minutes. > Praise Joko! So you're complaining about someone outbidding you by 30s but then implying that 1c bid increment is good? This is actually a good example of why it's not good. Looks like your price wasn't high enough. Someone else set a price that was good enough but you sniped the next sale by taking advantage of the 1c loophole. It's also possible that you're price was actually good enough but others were sniping your sale by 1c bid increments and you just didn't see it. > @ron.6157 said: > well lets see you want a min up bid of 5% over that last bid haha um that's just a bunch of KITTENS !!!!! and I see your bid of 1 copper and bid 2 copper that's just how it works you bid I bid that's it if an min of 5% is put on that ill never ever quick sell ill only post my stuff to sell and at that will make it at the second highest price posted no bids needed you pay what I want for it or go farm it your self > Have a Nice Day Here's another good example of minor details and absurd arguments. This poster says 5% is "KITTENS!!!!" Why is it kittens? Just saying it's kittens is just an opinion. Someone else might think 5% is fine. If you only say that 5% isn't right does that mean you'd support another %? There's no reason it has to be 5%, it could be 2% or 1% or 0.5% or 0.1% or whatever. The exact % is a minor detail. What about the actual idea itself? The absurd part is where they say if a min increment of 5% was implemented they'd never quick sell. Really? They are literally saying that they'd sell to someone offering 1c more but not to someone offering 1s or 25s or 1g more? That doesn't make any sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rauderi.8706 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 > @Bollocks.4078 said: > > @Rauderi.8706 said: > > Hit 80 on an alt. Needed a new pair of boots, so I put some cash down before I dinged, giving the market a chance to fill the order. > > Day or two later, ding 80. Still no boots! Hm. > > Check the market, someone had an order 30s over mine. > > Grr. > > No wonder I don't have boots. > > Bid 1c over him. > > Get my boots within a few minutes. > > Praise Joko! > > So you're complaining about someone outbidding you by 30s but then implying that 1c bid increment is good? This is actually a good example of why it's not good. Looks like your price wasn't high enough. Someone else set a price that was good enough but you sniped the next sale by taking advantage of the 1c loophole. It's also possible that you're price was actually good enough but others were sniping your sale by 1c bid increments and you just didn't see it. I got outbid. (Not even mad, bruh.) Working as intended. I picked a higher bid, at my convenience. Working as intended. And you bet your bippy I 1c'd that bid. This thread *inspired* me. I got my item sooner than the other guy, because I offered more for it. Working as intended. Nevermind that my original bid was "first". ...Though the person who was below me once my bid came up was firster than first, so... The point being, chronology of the bid *order* means nothing (I guess unless the bids are tied?), so it's not an "issue". Also, if there *had* been a 5% minimum bid, it would have cost me an extra 8.5 silver, instead of 1c. But I still would have gotten my item first. How is any of that fair to the guy below me, no matter the price I cut in front of him with? All it does is punish me and ...reward the seller? But to the person who got "annoyed" by being out-bid, there is nothing other than the schadenfreude that I had to pay more. And if I *am* willing to wait, but bid 1c *below* the top bid or 1c *above the second bid*? I still cut in line for all those buy orders that came before me? So where does the hand-wringing about buyer's feelings end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just a flesh wound.3589 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 If the minimum overbid from launch of game was 1 silver or 5% you’d still see these complaint posts saying it’s not enough and should be more. By this time in the game 1 silver is trivial. I can kill a low level moa and get more than that as a drop. The real “issue” is people wanting to be first in line and stay first on line so they get the next item sold. Unless you are the only person bidding you overbbid others and I’m betting most, if not all of you, didn’t overbid the previous order by 5%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > If the minimum overbid from launch of game was 1 silver or 5% you’d still see these complaint posts saying it’s not enough and should be more. By this time in the game 1 silver is trivial. I can kill a low level moa and get more than that as a drop. The real “issue” is people wanting to be first in line and stay first on line so they get the next item sold. Unless you are the only person bidding you overbbid others and I’m betting most, if not all of you, didn’t overbid the previous order by 5%. I wish I had kept a tally of posts on the GW2 forums where the underlying issue was impatience. I'm thinking it would be a really big number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therapite.3645 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Considering there's no tax on items left on the trading post for months on end, and the market fluctuates, and supply and demand is what it is and sometimes an item is hot and sometimes it isn't, and sometimes poultry meat is in demand and sometimes no one wants to eat the chicken (or 'chicken'), then there's no real reason to be angry about being undercut on posting except that you want to have the lowest priced item and like @IndigoSundown.5419 said, it's going to be an issue of impatience more than anything else. I remember back when people were just throwing pears on the TP to make them the most expensive items on there. Those were the days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollocks.4078 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 > @Rauderi.8706 said: > > @kitten.4078 said: > > > @Rauderi.8706 said: > > > Hit 80 on an alt. Needed a new pair of boots, so I put some cash down before I dinged, giving the market a chance to fill the order. > > > Day or two later, ding 80. Still no boots! Hm. > > > Check the market, someone had an order 30s over mine. > > > Grr. > > > No wonder I don't have boots. > > > Bid 1c over him. > > > Get my boots within a few minutes. > > > Praise Joko! > > > > So you're complaining about someone outbidding you by 30s but then implying that 1c bid increment is good? This is actually a good example of why it's not good. Looks like your price wasn't high enough. Someone else set a price that was good enough but you sniped the next sale by taking advantage of the 1c loophole. It's also possible that you're price was actually good enough but others were sniping your sale by 1c bid increments and you just didn't see it. > > I got outbid. (Not even mad, bruh.) > Working as intended. > > I picked a higher bid, at my convenience. > Working as intended. > And you bet your bippy I 1c'd that bid. This thread *inspired* me. > > I got my item sooner than the other guy, because I offered more for it. > Working as intended. > > Nevermind that my original bid was "first". ...Though the person who was below me once my bid came up was firster than first, so... > The point being, chronology of the bid *order* means nothing (I guess unless the bids are tied?), so it's not an "issue". > > Also, if there *had* been a 5% minimum bid, it would have cost me an extra 8.5 silver, instead of 1c. But I still would have gotten my item first. How is any of that fair to the guy below me, no matter the price I cut in front of him with? All it does is punish me and ...reward the seller? But to the person who got "annoyed" by being out-bid, there is nothing other than the schadenfreude that I had to pay more. > > And if I *am* willing to wait, but bid 1c *below* the top bid or 1c *above the second bid*? I still cut in line for all those buy orders that came before me? So where does the hand-wringing about buyer's feelings end? > Oh, ok, you weren't mad. I must have missinterpreted what you meant by "Grr." I guess "Grr" is the new "whatevs", right bruh? Chronology does matter for the same bid amount. Bidding 1c different on a 1.7g item is a way of getting ahead of other bidders without actually offering more. As Flesh just said, 1s is trivial. If 1s is trivial then 1/100 of 1s is 100 times more trivial. Yes, you're original bid was first, then you were legitimately outbid. You're 1c increment shows that you were not willing to wait or to offer more for the item. It's a perfect example of how people exploit the lack of a minimum bid increment to the detriment of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbrother.1340 Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 > @IndigoSundown.5419 said: > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > If the minimum overbid from launch of game was 1 silver or 5% you’d still see these complaint posts saying it’s not enough and should be more. By this time in the game 1 silver is trivial. I can kill a low level moa and get more than that as a drop. The real “issue” is people wanting to be first in line and stay first on line so they get the next item sold. Unless you are the only person bidding you overbbid others and I’m betting most, if not all of you, didn’t overbid the previous order by 5%. > > I wish I had kept a tally of posts on the GW2 forums where the underlying issue was impatience. I'm thinking it would be a really big number. Stop and consider your own life and the lives of those around you that touch and interact with you life. How much of that interaction is caused by or a reaction to impatience in the world anymore? I work someplace that I get to see thousands of different people all the time. The kind of place all walks of life one day will end up in. What a show. The impatience becomes more noticeable weekly. It at times is almost tasted on the tongue of interaction. This is not an issue with or in GW2. This is an issue that is with the humans in the world and growing fast. If not stopped soon things could get very bad before they can get better again. I like this game and life, not equally by any means but still both. I would like them both to continue and that greed and impatience threatens that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seera.5916 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 > @Bollocks.4078 said: > > @Rauderi.8706 said: > > > @kitten.4078 said: > > > > @Rauderi.8706 said: > > > > Hit 80 on an alt. Needed a new pair of boots, so I put some cash down before I dinged, giving the market a chance to fill the order. > > > > Day or two later, ding 80. Still no boots! Hm. > > > > Check the market, someone had an order 30s over mine. > > > > Grr. > > > > No wonder I don't have boots. > > > > Bid 1c over him. > > > > Get my boots within a few minutes. > > > > Praise Joko! > > > > > > So you're complaining about someone outbidding you by 30s but then implying that 1c bid increment is good? This is actually a good example of why it's not good. Looks like your price wasn't high enough. Someone else set a price that was good enough but you sniped the next sale by taking advantage of the 1c loophole. It's also possible that you're price was actually good enough but others were sniping your sale by 1c bid increments and you just didn't see it. > > > > I got outbid. (Not even mad, bruh.) > > Working as intended. > > > > I picked a higher bid, at my convenience. > > Working as intended. > > And you bet your bippy I 1c'd that bid. This thread *inspired* me. > > > > I got my item sooner than the other guy, because I offered more for it. > > Working as intended. > > > > Nevermind that my original bid was "first". ...Though the person who was below me once my bid came up was firster than first, so... > > The point being, chronology of the bid *order* means nothing (I guess unless the bids are tied?), so it's not an "issue". > > > > Also, if there *had* been a 5% minimum bid, it would have cost me an extra 8.5 silver, instead of 1c. But I still would have gotten my item first. How is any of that fair to the guy below me, no matter the price I cut in front of him with? All it does is punish me and ...reward the seller? But to the person who got "annoyed" by being out-bid, there is nothing other than the schadenfreude that I had to pay more. > > > > And if I *am* willing to wait, but bid 1c *below* the top bid or 1c *above the second bid*? I still cut in line for all those buy orders that came before me? So where does the hand-wringing about buyer's feelings end? > > > > Oh, ok, you weren't mad. I must have missinterpreted what you meant by "Grr." I guess "Grr" is the new "whatevs", right bruh? > > Chronology does matter for the same bid amount. Bidding 1c different on a 1.7g item is a way of getting ahead of other bidders without actually offering more. As Flesh just said, 1s is trivial. If 1s is trivial then 1/100 of 1s is 100 times more trivial. > > Yes, you're original bid was first, then you were legitimately outbid. You're 1c increment shows that you were not willing to wait or to offer more for the item. It's a perfect example of how people exploit the lack of a minimum bid increment to the detriment of others. > The problem is, what's trivial money wise to veteran players is not trivial to new players. 5% (or whatever the minimum is) of a higher priced item may not be that high for you or I, but the player who just started that amount is likely not trivial. Because it would have to be high enough that the veterans would think twice about it. But that's likely too high for new players. The cons of a non-1 copper minimum difference between orders outweigh the benefits, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempvariable.5189 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Topic is a red herring. The real insiduousness is the eventual name drop of a seemingly random item to drive speculators into a frenzy. Probably won't be from OP, but from another account; like a three card monte scam. Next thing you know, karka shells price increase by 34.67%. *equips soldier's tin-foil hat* Don't fall for (scare quotes) "MARKET MANIPULATORS"!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 > @jbrother.1340 said: > > @IndigoSundown.5419 said: > > > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said: > > > If the minimum overbid from launch of game was 1 silver or 5% you’d still see these complaint posts saying it’s not enough and should be more. By this time in the game 1 silver is trivial. I can kill a low level moa and get more than that as a drop. The real “issue” is people wanting to be first in line and stay first on line so they get the next item sold. Unless you are the only person bidding you overbbid others and I’m betting most, if not all of you, didn’t overbid the previous order by 5%. > > > > I wish I had kept a tally of posts on the GW2 forums where the underlying issue was impatience. I'm thinking it would be a really big number. > > Stop and consider your own life and the lives of those around you that touch and interact with you life. > > How much of that interaction is caused by or a reaction to impatience in the world anymore? > > I work someplace that I get to see thousands of different people all the time. The kind of place all walks of life one day will end up in. What a show. The impatience becomes more noticeable weekly. It at times is almost tasted on the tongue of interaction. This is not an issue with or in GW2. This is an issue that is with the humans in the world and growing fast. If not stopped soon things could get very bad before they can get better again. I like this game and life, not equally by any means but still both. I would like them both to continue and that greed and impatience threatens that. Oh, I know. I see it every day too, most often on the roads. And yet I still see acts of kindness, both in game and in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ototo.3214 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 I'm really confused as to why this is an issue for the OP. Being undercut is just the way it works, you have to be patient. If you aren't and keep canceling the sell order to relist then why the poop don't you just sell it instantly to a buy offer? You're losing money to the listing fee every time you relist, probably to the point that it's not a profit compared to the buy offer. Also, nothing is forcing you to undercut by just 1c. You could undercut by a whole silver or more. If that doesn't float your boat just sell it instantly... If you had to undercut by a specific amount and pay a listing fee and pay the tax, it would make the TP wonky and stupid. Big ticket items have a big gap between the buy and sell price for a reason; it's niche, pricey, and probably has low demand, making it hard to sell at the higher price while most people are only willing to pay what the buy offers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemnaid.4219 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 But then I won’t profit anything when I sell it back to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rauderi.8706 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 > @Bollocks.4078 said: > Yes, you're original bid was first, then you were legitimately outbid. You're 1c increment shows that you were not willing to wait or to offer more for the item. It's a perfect example of how people exploit the lack of a minimum bid increment to the detriment of others. Your assessment of the math is, legitimately, wrong. 1.0001 > 1. Always. 100.0001 > 100 Always. Mathematically, I offered more. You might not agree because your *perception* of "value" is skewed by your own annoyance of getting outbid, because you were too impatient or frugal to use the existing sell offers. It doesn't matter how "trivial" you consider it, it's math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkenpilot.9837 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 > @Rauderi.8706 said: > Also, if there *had* been a 5% minimum bid, it would have cost me an extra 8.5 silver, instead of 1c. But I still would have gotten my item first. How is any of that fair to the guy below me, no matter the price I cut in front of him with? All it does is punish me and ...reward the seller? But to the person who got "annoyed" by being out-bid, there is nothing other than the schadenfreude that I had to pay more. > > And if I *am* willing to wait, but bid 1c *below* the top bid or 1c *above the second bid*? I still cut in line for all those buy orders that came before me? So where does the hand-wringing about buyer's feelings end? > QFT. It really amazes me that people don't understand this. If there was a 5% minimum overbid requirement, people would still be overbidding by that exact amount every time and threads like these would *still* pop up from people complaining that the overbidders aren't actually interested in buying the items or are just trolling or are market manipulators or or or It could be a 10% minimum overbid requirement. You could even make it a 20% minimum. It makes absolutely no difference. People are still going to complain, because the main cause of this frustration isn't from the amount other players are bidding, it's mostly stemming from two things: 1. the impatience players feel at having to wait for their buy orders to fill, and 2. the importance that players feel they have when they try to buy things on the TP. Here's the truth: You aren't important. Your bid looks identical to every other player's bid on the trading post. Yours is not shining in bright colors, begging for sellers to seek it out. Sellers do not care whether you get the item you want or not. Other buyers also do not care. Sellers just want to sell, and other buyers just want to buy. Change the minimum bids around all you want, this imagined 'problem' will continue to exist in the minds of players who *gotta have it now* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexZero.7910 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 > @Bollocks.4078 said: > It's a perfect example of how people exploit the lack of a minimum bid increment to the detriment of others. It's not an exploit. It's using the system as intended. If you're that impatient buy/sell instantly. Remember the only ones engaging in the problem are those who opt into trading wars to begin with. After all to your own admission of valuing chronology, time is money so if you truly value time ante up or well forever hold your pieces of gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 There is a minimum bid increase. Always been there. Arguing that you want it to be larger is just an attempt to get the benefit of a buy now without actually paying for the convenience of locking down your purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illconceived Was Na.9781 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 > @Bollocks.4078 said: > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > @kitten.4078 said: > > > I will agree that this discussion has completely gone off the rails. > > > > > > I have yet to see anything that remotely resembles a legitimate argument against the basic idea. All I see is people latching on to irrelevant minor details and acting like they are major details. People arbitratily siding against the idea but not even remotely justifying why. > > > > From the beginning, people have argued that > > * That there's not actually a _market_ problem; it's a perception or preference on the part of some players. > > * Even if there were, there's nothing special about the first bid versus the second, any more than 1s is more important than 1.01s. > > * Even if there was something special, setting arbitrary limits isn't going to be helpful: it will have unintended (but predictable) consequences that make things worse for some and won't actually address the stated issue. > > * Regardless, people cannot be overbid if they choose to accept the lowest sale listing; they cannot be undercut if they accept the highest buy offer. Anyone listing anywhere in between is looking to make or save some extra coin, at the expense of someone else and that involves risking the possibility of competition. > > > > Those aren't minor or arbitrary or even "details"; they are fundamental to the entire concept being discussed. > > > > I'm not sure where the idea that this is a market issue came from. I'm not sure if it's a missunderstanding or an attempt at diversion. I have not said it's a market issue. Before now I haven't even used the word "market" other than one post where I was addressing someones comparison to flea markets. The issue is with the bidding tactics of a subset of bidders. Some of us see 1c increments on high value items as way to arbitrarily put your bid ahead of other bids. The TP is a tool for trading goods, it **is** the market. If there's not a problem with the market, why do we need the change? Why is this an issue other than "some people don't like it"? Especially since there's already a solution to avoid this: accept the current listing. Still, if you have a concern about the word, ignore it. "There's not actually a problem; it's a perception or preference on the part of some players." > There absolutely is something "special" about the first bid vs the second. The first bid was first. That's how pretty much everything works. Unless there is some reasonable additional factor or condition second comes after first. That's exactly how it works. Then you continue on to say that 1s is no more important 1.01s. So that means that 1.01s is no more important than 1s, right? This is exaclty the key concept. I'd actually say that 1c is a reasonable proportion to 1s. But if 1s vs 1.01s doesn't mean anything then certainly 100.0000g vs 100.0001g means even less so why should one take priority over the other? Your assertion that the difference between 1s and 1.01S is arbitrary actually supports the primary key idea of this discussion. The first bid was first is just as arbitrary as saying "1c" or "4.9%" is too little to be "reasonable." In a free market, "reasonable" is whatever people are willing to accept, unless one can show that there's an actual problem for players. In a free market, higher offers are better for sellers. > A reasonable bid increment is not at all arbitrary. There's no such thing as a 'reasonable' bid other than "is it accepted or not" and you nor I can't define that for anyone else. What's "reasonable" for me doesn't have to be reasonable for you. > 1c vs 100g is arbitrary and meaningless. That's an odd statement to make, since no one is seriously thinking that is the suggestion. > What predictable unintended consequences would there be? Read above; there are several paragraphs about what those _might_ be. There are always unintended consequences when adding friction to a free market. Here's a couple more: * Would this apply to all goods? Or only ones that take a long time to sell? Or only ones where there's a large spread between highest WTB and lowest WTS? How many people should ANet task with keeping an eye on this? How often should the amounts and the items covered be reviewed? * If it applies to everything, what happens if the increment is 5% when there's a spread of 10%? Does that mean that only one of the new offers can be below the most recent one and after that, no one would be allowed to underbid at all? * What happens with something like ecto, where the price varies within the same day by as much as 2-3 silver out of 25-40s? At any given moment, there might be hardly any difference between WTB and WTS, but those same offers might end up being 5% lower or higher than the price 5 hrs later. These aren't just "details" to be worked out, these are fundamental to the very concept and aren't easy to work out in theory. In practice, it always ends up being more complicated and something always goes sideways, because it's really hard to predict what happens when restrictions are imposed. As I said above, I'm a big supporter of intervention. I just don't accept that anyone has made a case of why it's important in this case. > I'm sure that if done right a minimum bid increment would work exactly as intended and make bidding more fair. It's yet to be established that the TP is unfair in its current form. People have asserted that it's unfair; no one has demonstrated it. > It would simply prevent people from being able to place bids that arbitrarily take priority over other bids. The only traders who'd have it worse are the ones who'd be forced to actually decide between waiting or ajusting the bid by an amount that isn't meaningless. I can't see anything wrong with that basic idea. Sigh, people keep explaining why there are problems with the idea. I agree that, so far, you haven't seen them. > Telling people that they have to accept the lowest sell or highest buy offer to avoid being arbitrarily shuffled to a lower priority isn't fair and makes no sense at all. It's not arbitrary: the highest offer is first. Setting a fixed number (in coin or percentage) would make it arbitrary. > > Someone said something about completely changing the way the TP works. That's an absurd agrument. This is a minor tweak, not a major change by any means. > Someone said 5% of 5000g is 250g and is too much for a minimum increment. That's an example of a minor detail. The exact % and other parameters can be tuned to be completey fair an balanced. I dunno about "completely changing the way the TP works," but it's not absurd. Right now, the TP is a free market. The suggestion is to impose restrictions on it, which will certainly change how things work. Why 5%? Why not 10%? why not 1%? why not gradated (like income tax: 1% of the first 1000, 2% of the 2nd, etc)? Each one of those would have different impacts, so the choice is ... arbitrary. **** That's a lot of text, the short version of which is the same: * It hasn't been asserted that there's an issue that needs to be addressed, other than some people find it personally annoying. * Even if there were an issue, choosing a minimum increment is arbitrary and leads to other consequences, some predictable, some not. * In a free market, a "reasonable" offer is whatever people are willing to accept. * 1.01s is 1c ore than 1s and is better for sellers. 0.99s is 1c less than 1.0s and is better for buyers. * The only way one can be undercut or overbid is if one is already undercutting or overbidding someone else, by whatever amount. * Anyone who wants to avoid that can accept the offers already on the market. You can't be undersold if you accept a buy offer; you can't be overbid if you accept the sell offers. The only reason someone wouldn't is ... because one thinks that there's some other arbitrary price that works better (for the that person). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollocks.4078 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > @kitten.4078 said: > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said: > > > > @kitten.4078 said: > > > > I will agree that this discussion has completely gone off the rails. > > > > > > > > I have yet to see anything that remotely resembles a legitimate argument against the basic idea. All I see is people latching on to irrelevant minor details and acting like they are major details. People arbitratily siding against the idea but not even remotely justifying why. > > > > > > From the beginning, people have argued that > > > * That there's not actually a _market_ problem; it's a perception or preference on the part of some players. > > > * Even if there were, there's nothing special about the first bid versus the second, any more than 1s is more important than 1.01s. > > > * Even if there was something special, setting arbitrary limits isn't going to be helpful: it will have unintended (but predictable) consequences that make things worse for some and won't actually address the stated issue. > > > * Regardless, people cannot be overbid if they choose to accept the lowest sale listing; they cannot be undercut if they accept the highest buy offer. Anyone listing anywhere in between is looking to make or save some extra coin, at the expense of someone else and that involves risking the possibility of competition. > > > > > > Those aren't minor or arbitrary or even "details"; they are fundamental to the entire concept being discussed. > > > > > > > I'm not sure where the idea that this is a market issue came from. I'm not sure if it's a missunderstanding or an attempt at diversion. I have not said it's a market issue. Before now I haven't even used the word "market" other than one post where I was addressing someones comparison to flea markets. The issue is with the bidding tactics of a subset of bidders. Some of us see 1c increments on high value items as way to arbitrarily put your bid ahead of other bids. > > The TP is a tool for trading goods, it **is** the market. If there's not a problem with the market, why do we need the change? Why is this an issue other than "some people don't like it"? Especially since there's already a solution to avoid this: accept the current listing. > > Still, if you have a concern about the word, ignore it. "There's not actually a problem; it's a perception or preference on the part of some players." > > > There absolutely is something "special" about the first bid vs the second. The first bid was first. That's how pretty much everything works. Unless there is some reasonable additional factor or condition second comes after first. That's exactly how it works. Then you continue on to say that 1s is no more important 1.01s. So that means that 1.01s is no more important than 1s, right? This is exaclty the key concept. I'd actually say that 1c is a reasonable proportion to 1s. But if 1s vs 1.01s doesn't mean anything then certainly 100.0000g vs 100.0001g means even less so why should one take priority over the other? Your assertion that the difference between 1s and 1.01S is arbitrary actually supports the primary key idea of this discussion. > The first bid was first is just as arbitrary as saying "1c" or "4.9%" is too little to be "reasonable." In a free market, "reasonable" is whatever people are willing to accept, unless one can show that there's an actual problem for players. In a free market, higher offers are better for sellers. > > > A reasonable bid increment is not at all arbitrary. > There's no such thing as a 'reasonable' bid other than "is it accepted or not" and you nor I can't define that for anyone else. What's "reasonable" for me doesn't have to be reasonable for you. > > > 1c vs 100g is arbitrary and meaningless. > That's an odd statement to make, since no one is seriously thinking that is the suggestion. > > > What predictable unintended consequences would there be? > Read above; there are several paragraphs about what those _might_ be. There are always unintended consequences when adding friction to a free market. > > Here's a couple more: > * Would this apply to all goods? Or only ones that take a long time to sell? Or only ones where there's a large spread between highest WTB and lowest WTS? How many people should ANet task with keeping an eye on this? How often should the amounts and the items covered be reviewed? > * If it applies to everything, what happens if the increment is 5% when there's a spread of 10%? Does that mean that only one of the new offers can be below the most recent one and after that, no one would be allowed to underbid at all? > * What happens with something like ecto, where the price varies within the same day by as much as 2-3 silver out of 25-40s? At any given moment, there might be hardly any difference between WTB and WTS, but those same offers might end up being 5% lower or higher than the price 5 hrs later. > > These aren't just "details" to be worked out, these are fundamental to the very concept and aren't easy to work out in theory. In practice, it always ends up being more complicated and something always goes sideways, because it's really hard to predict what happens when restrictions are imposed. > > As I said above, I'm a big supporter of intervention. I just don't accept that anyone has made a case of why it's important in this case. > > > I'm sure that if done right a minimum bid increment would work exactly as intended and make bidding more fair. > It's yet to be established that the TP is unfair in its current form. People have asserted that it's unfair; no one has demonstrated it. > > > It would simply prevent people from being able to place bids that arbitrarily take priority over other bids. The only traders who'd have it worse are the ones who'd be forced to actually decide between waiting or ajusting the bid by an amount that isn't meaningless. I can't see anything wrong with that basic idea. > Sigh, people keep explaining why there are problems with the idea. I agree that, so far, you haven't seen them. > > > Telling people that they have to accept the lowest sell or highest buy offer to avoid being arbitrarily shuffled to a lower priority isn't fair and makes no sense at all. > It's not arbitrary: the highest offer is first. Setting a fixed number (in coin or percentage) would make it arbitrary. > > > > > Someone said something about completely changing the way the TP works. That's an absurd agrument. This is a minor tweak, not a major change by any means. > > Someone said 5% of 5000g is 250g and is too much for a minimum increment. That's an example of a minor detail. The exact % and other parameters can be tuned to be completey fair an balanced. > I dunno about "completely changing the way the TP works," but it's not absurd. Right now, the TP is a free market. The suggestion is to impose restrictions on it, which will certainly change how things work. Why 5%? Why not 10%? why not 1%? why not gradated (like income tax: 1% of the first 1000, 2% of the 2nd, etc)? Each one of those would have different impacts, so the choice is ... arbitrary. > > **** > That's a lot of text, the short version of which is the same: > * It hasn't been asserted that there's an issue that needs to be addressed, other than some people find it personally annoying. > * Even if there were an issue, choosing a minimum increment is arbitrary and leads to other consequences, some predictable, some not. > * In a free market, a "reasonable" offer is whatever people are willing to accept. > * 1.01s is 1c ore than 1s and is better for sellers. 0.99s is 1c less than 1.0s and is better for buyers. > * The only way one can be undercut or overbid is if one is already undercutting or overbidding someone else, by whatever amount. > * Anyone who wants to avoid that can accept the offers already on the market. You can't be undersold if you accept a buy offer; you can't be overbid if you accept the sell offers. The only reason someone wouldn't is ... because one thinks that there's some other arbitrary price that works better (for the that person). I really think at this point that we're not even remotely on the same page. I'm not sure if that's just an accident or if you are maliciously trying to cloud and derail the main topic. I'm leaning toward the latter. I'm simply trying to discuss a few simple ideas. First, that 1c is trivial compared to a large price. Second, that idea of a minimum bid increment makes sense to at least consider. If the difference between two bids is negligible then that isn't enough to decide priority and we go back to timing to decide instead. You seem to be stuck on this free market thing so let's look closer at that. The idea of a free market is that the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. Prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy. The converse is a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand through various methods such as tariffs used to restrict trade and protect the economy. A reasonable bid increment would not restrict a free market. People would be free to accept the current price or offer a new price. It's actually fair to say that 1c increments on very high priced item hinders the item's price from reaching that free market equilibrium. The whole "just accept the current best offer" argument doesn't fly at all. Somebody has to put buy or sell orders or there is no market and nothing for people to buy or sell instantly. Both sides are required for this to work. Both bidders don't want to wait any longer than they have to but you're trying to unfairly put all the blame on one side. I fully disagree. If the next bidder wants to make a better offer then they should actually make a better offer. I don't consider 1000.0001 to be better than 1000.0000. Yes, it's technically greater but the difference is negligible. I'm sure most people would consider it negligible. That's exactly why people do that, it's a negligible difference that gets then higher priority with no trade off. 1c vs 100g being meaningless and arbitrary is exactly the point of this thread. Clearly you either completely missed that or you're purposely and maliciously trying to derail this discussion. The OP compained about the penny wars you have to take part in if you want to bid on a low volume item. Maybe read the OP again. There's a lot of speculation and conjecture about what will happen. A lot of people making preditions they can't possibly know. Like people saying it will be too complicated and confusing or people just won't by/sell. I have a pretty clear idea how things could work, it wouldn't be complicated or confusing and there's be no earthly reason why someeone wouldn't by/sell for the current price or set a new price. You ask a lot of questions about how it would work. Some seem reasonable, some seem pretty silly to me. I could answer them and describe how I think it will work but ultimately it's not up to me or you or anyone else. ANET would decide how it would work. I'm also sure you and others would more likely pick critisize my ideas ofer purely subjective opinion and not give it the slightest fair chance. I'm not even sure if you're against the premise or the proposed change. If you're against the premise then the details of the change don't even matter. What are the chances we could actually have a meaningful and open-minded discussion on details of a minimum bid increment. And even if you think it's impossible to do it right that doesn't prove that there isn't an issue. You say people would complain if they added a minimum bid. That doesn't prove that it's a bad thing. If that were true then the fact that people complain about not having a minimum bid would prove that not having it is bad. People have indeed stated what they think is unfair about it. You just refuse to accept it or acknowledge it. You're perfectly well within you rights to disagree. If that's the case just say you disagree and preferably include why. Assumptions and conjecture don't count as proof of anything other than your opinion and don't in any way disprove other opinions. > @Rauderi.8706 said: > > @kitten.4078 said: > > Yes, you're original bid was first, then you were legitimately outbid. You're 1c increment shows that you were not willing to wait or to offer more for the item. It's a perfect example of how people exploit the lack of a minimum bid increment to the detriment of others. > > Your assessment of the math is, legitimately, wrong. > 1.0001 > 1. Always. > 100.0001 > 100 Always. > Mathematically, I offered more. > > You might not agree because your *perception* of "value" is skewed by your own annoyance of getting outbid, because you were too impatient or frugal to use the existing sell offers. It doesn't matter how "trivial" you consider it, it's math. > > Yes, that is absolutely true. 100.0001 is > 100.0000. It also is irrelevant because absolutely nobody is saying that 100.0001 is not > 100.0000. If you think that's what this is about you've completely missed the point. The argument is that the difference is negligible and therefore should not be an outbid. We can have a different perception and it doesn't make either perception right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMAI.5892 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Bollocks.4078 "First, that 1c is trivial compared to a large price." The question is: why does it matter? The answer to that question appears to be: Because it makes it too easy for other people to outbid. This is a situation that you may see as a problem needing correction to which other people, myself included, do not see as a problem and therefore not only not necessitating a solution, but that any 'solution' probably adds more (unnecessary) cost and convolution to an area that doesn't need it. "Second, that idea of a minimum bid increment makes sense to at least consider." If the sole purpose of bid increment or other mechanic is set out to solve a problem that some people do not think exists, then no, they do not have consider the solution and are more likely to point out the potential pitfalls of those suggestions. So, I'll restate my objections to these proposed changes in a very general sense: the focus on the perceptions of those who do not like the current system in the narrow scope of the items on which they are engaging fail to take into account the effects on a wide variety of items on the market (blues, greens, bags to name a few that I think these changes would adversely affect), the disparate wealth among the player base (the richest of the rich aren't going to care, and the less gold flush players will find themselves with a higher cost to try to engage with market), and the time and effort it will take on Anet part to implement, monitor, and adjust. "If the difference between two bids is negligible then that isn't enough to decide priority and we go back to timing to decide instead." Yes, and many people think it's fine the way it works. "The whole "just accept the current best offer" argument doesn't fly at all. Somebody has to put buy or sell orders or there is no market and nothing for people to buy or sell instantly." Accepting the instant buy/sell option is also fine since many people are actively listing buy and sell orders. We don't have a shortage of these except on very rare items. Besides, the argument isn't 'just accept the current best offer'. The argument is 'if you don't want to assume any risk in being outbid, *then* accept the current best offer' *or* 'place a bid of significant enough value that you probably won't be outbid or at least rarely'. "People have indeed stated what they think is unfair about it." Yes, and I completely understand their opinion and yours. I just don't agree with that opinion and haven't solution proposed that I can get behind. I say all of this as someone who has been outbid both in buy and sell orders *plenty* of times on TP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rauderi.8706 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 @"Bollocks.4078" > Yes, that is absolutely true. 100.0001 is > 100.0000. directly contradicts > difference is negligible and therefore should not be an outbid. Either a +1c bid *is* greater, *xor* it is negligible. Money and automated markets don't exist in the world of fuzzy feelings and "should." They are expressed in mathematics and algorithms. "Negligible" does not exist unless you can define it mathematically. So, what is a "non-negligible" amount? 1%? And what happens if I bid below? That was never addressed. Because I already have an exploit to that algorithm. Current bid (not mine): 100g Current +mandatory 1% (mine): 101g Second bid that undercuts the top bid (also mine): 100.0001g First bid gets pulled. Now the top bid is still 100.0001g. A minimum value changes nothing excepting making bidding more annoying and take more capital. That will only punish normal players while trade barons shrug it off and those with illegal bots don't give a single care beyond changing their algorithms. Meanwhile, if one wants to reference the OP: > It's not fun Okay, it's an understandable but very subjective argument. Most suggestions made to the forums are "for fun" or because something "isn't fun." Certainly within a player's rights to suggest things, however impractical. > indicates that you're genuinely interested in paying more or accepting less This seems to be OP's concern? To which it is easily argued that committing funds on a competitive market (and not just utterly low-balling 10000 items at 10c each because you want to hide gold from yourself) is expressing "genuine interest." It would also be easily argued that pulling a buy order and relisting it to be the top bid is "genuine interest." (Unless it's done with a bot, in which case, bad. Bad person. :skull: ) > You can't expect someone's tolerance for tedium to dictate the price of your stock one penny at a time. You also can't expect someone's impatient conflict of putting in low bids *and* expecting near-immediate fulfillment of that bid to dictate a punitive change to a functional system. You bid, you wait. You can't wait, then you bid again higher or buy a ready listing. Which is what the rest of the thread has been saying this whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensign.2189 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 > @MMAI.5892 said: > The question is: why does it matter? Purely from a financial market perspective: It matters because it creates onerously high transaction costs in low volume, moderate price markets - if you want to participate in the bid side of the market, you need to participate in time consuming coppering battles. The 'winner' of those coppering battles is not the person with the highest willingness to pay, but the person with the lowest transaction costs - that is, either the person who values their time engaging in coppering wars the lowest, or, optimally, the person who wrote a TP bot to engage in coppering wars for them. That is, you are not competing on price, you are competing on who values their time the least. The immediate impact of this is that bid prices on moderate price, high volume items are artificially lower than they would be in an efficient market. The difference between the hypothetical efficient market price and the inhibited market price is a deadweight loss that is shared by all market participants. That is - *everyone* is worse off in a coppering regime than in an efficient market. Your impatient buyers are getting less for their goods than they would under an efficient market design; high transaction cost patient buyers are excluded and don't receive the gains they would in an efficient regime; and low transaction cost buyers, who ultimately get the goods, end up saving on coin but overpaying on time, on the net being no better off and almost certainly worse off than they would be in an efficiently clearing market. So it matters because the current design excessively wastes people's time and consequently makes everyone in those markets worse off than they would be with a stronger market design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecthelion Frostcalm.7205 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 A lot of good arguments and, I suspect, some sensitivity regarding individual perceptions on self-discipline, patience, fiscal management skills, and the like. It's been mentioned more than once that the market's heterogeneity (i.e. many different kinds of items are all listed on the same market with the same fees) combined with the unitary tick rate (value increment) of 1 copper makes market management fairly complex. For certain items like mithril ore and gossamer scraps, given their very high saturation on the market (and in players' inventories/bank tabs), their very low market price (i.e. much less than 1 silver) means that a 1 copper increment on a buy order (or a sell listing) is not only a substantial percentage of the item price, it also translates into a very large sum in bulk transactions. For other items, such as ascended crafting components (e.g. a Zojja's berserker insignia) a 1 copper increment on a buy order or sell listing is so insignificant that _from some perspectives_ putting in a buy order or sell listing that differs from others by a 1 copper increment is basically trolling. The problem is not necessarily with list price undercutting behavior or with buy order price increment behavior, but rather with the market's unitary minimum increment of 1 copper. There is no easy way to resolve this, even if a resolution is desired by the vast majority of the participating population, because any measure taken to restrict behavior will eventually have a dampening effect on the market's internal economy by either reducing its overall long-term size or increasing its instability by making it more dependent on market fluctuations. If an objective minimum required price difference could be found (vendor prices for items are less and less appropriate as a standard with increasing item rarity, and player-placed buy orders/list prices are entirely subjective so as to be unusable as a standard; a fluctuating or percentage-based minimum price difference could completely eliminate large segments of players from the economy because when translated into currency the minimum price difference for some items could be well beyond what they're willing to accept or conversely cause a massive influx of players into the economy temporarily when an item's market price crashes, or the influx itself could cause a crash - ultimately a percentage-based price difference could make the market even more vulnerable to wild price swings, which is precisely the opposite of what most people want), the behavior itself isn't going to change, because instead of seeing players put in orders/list items at 1 copper increments, you'll start seeing increments of the new minimum required difference. For items that are traded in bulk at very low individual prices (like the mithril ore or gossamer scraps) this would have a dampening effect on the economy as any minimum required price difference larger than 1-2 copper can effectively translate into a price difference of greater than 10% of the value of the list prices/buy orders that are leading the market at the time, whereas it may still have relatively little or no effect on very rare/expensive items. If the minimum required price difference is something like 1 silver or more, for items sold at very low individual prices this could amount to double or triple the current unit price and drastically reduce the volume of such items being traded on the market (and in the case of things like mithril ore, it could result in inventory oversaturation). The quickest fix would be to implement a refundable fee to post a buy order (refunded if an order is rescinded). However, this could further drive the buy order and list prices apart, decreasing market size by decreasing the likelihood that a buy order will be fulfilled. Basically any attempt to universally regulate buy orders by implementing a fee will have this effect. The only really objective solution would be one in which items are assigned a minimum price increment based on their rarity class (e.g. master, rare, exotic, ascended), their type (e.g. crafting component, weapon, armor, etc.), and/or other in-game standard. However, this doesn't take into account desirability due to common aesthetic preferences, resource scarcity (leather-related items at the moment will be far more expensive than their their rarity class would suggest), and the fact that some items will be removed permanently from the market because they go into soulbound/account-bound items or that some items are far rarer than their rarity class due to time restrictions. Not only that, it would be very difficult/time-consuming to implement properly because it would have to be tested first to find a proper balance between dis-incentivizing undercutting/outbidding behavior and the inevitable market-dampening effects of meaningfully increasing a minimum price increment. TL;DR - the behavior described by the OP not only is natural behavior, but is also exacerbated by the market's heterogeneity and uniform minimum increment; there is no good way to address this without causing market instability in some other way, with a much higher likelihood (almost certainty) of damaging the market rather than doing it (and by extension participating players) any good. The best way to get around this behavior is to avoid doing it yourself and adapt (adjust your expectations) if it does turn up in your niche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayakaru.6583 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 I wanted lunatic insignias, fast, so i rose the value with half a gold for quick buy.. But not.. in less than 10 minutes there were 50-60 orders of coppercuts above me. So i rose it with another half a gold, and another 100 copper cuts. From that i conclude no one actually looks at what they're bidding and randomly throw everything up with a copper.. eventually i withdrew my orders.. So now the insignias cost a gold more thanks to me and i still didn't have any.. Damage control critical -,-" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMAI.5892 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 > @Ensign.2189 said: > > @MMAI.5892 said: > > The question is: why does it matter? > > Purely from a financial market perspective: > > It matters because it creates onerously high transaction costs in low volume, moderate price markets - if you want to participate in the bid side of the market, you need to participate in time consuming coppering battles. The 'winner' of those coppering battles is not the person with the highest willingness to pay, but the person with the lowest transaction costs - that is, either the person who values their time engaging in coppering wars the lowest, or, optimally, the person who wrote a TP bot to engage in coppering wars for them. > > That is, you are not competing on price, you are competing on who values their time the least. Which is why buy and sell orders are a better solution, IMO. The only 'profit margin' on goods in a MMO are: willingness to spend the time and luck of the draw. There are alternatives already for people who don't want to engage in 1c bidding wars that are perfectly viable (and no, I'm not talking about bots here because whether or not it's people or bots outbidding someone by 1c or 5% doesn't matter, in fact, these types of changes benefit bots because they can be programmed and then left to do what they do.) They can: buy/sell instantly, or making a super competitive bid and will deter other people from outbidding them - even by 1c. That would mean a bid that comes close to the sell price/substantially over crafting price. Secondly, I disagree on the time consuming premise. The only reason to engage in 'coppering battles' for any item is if you have to have it 'right now'. A low volume item is an indication of rarity and/or player disinterest in obtaining an item that isn't as easy to stumble across (you need specific map, mob, what have you). On an item that has a low volume, there is no reason to engage in coppering battles as the chance of that item moving into the market before you're outbid - no matter the 'cost' imposed on the buy order - is limited mostly by volume. Surely, a player could opt to spend their time constantly checking the TP and adjusting bids on the hope that theirs gets top slot the moment something hits the market, but that's a choice the player is making - not the system - *especially* if there is a sell or buy order up that they could utilize. Yes, they either will pay more, or not make as much, but no one gets to have all they want with no risk. > > The immediate impact of this is that bid prices on moderate price, high volume items are artificially lower than they would be in an efficient market. The difference between the hypothetical efficient market price and the inhibited market price is a deadweight loss that is shared by all market participants. That is - *everyone* is worse off in a coppering regime than in an efficient market. Your impatient buyers are getting less for their goods than they would under an efficient market design; high transaction cost patient buyers are excluded and don't receive the gains they would in an efficient regime; and low transaction cost buyers, who ultimately get the goods, end up saving on coin but overpaying on time, on the net being no better off and almost certainly worse off than they would be in an efficiently clearing market. > > So it matters because the current design excessively wastes people's time and consequently makes everyone in those markets worse off than they would be with a stronger market design. Again, I disagree. High volume items are controlled by the same supply and demand and, in some cases, by player storage capacity. The problem with hypothetical markets is that they rarely take into account actual trends in human behavior. If it's easy to get, no one is going to pay a higher price because they can player for a few hours and get it as a side effect of playing. They will only buy high volume items when the price is 'worth it' with worth it usually being defined 'as I don't want to farm that particular item' and/or 'cheap enough that I can farm something more expensive instead'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirlias.8104 Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 What about to add a fee like listing fee but for the buyer? I mean * Item is 100g buyout * Current order is 60g * Player X wants to put an order and set it to 60g 0s 1c, and upon creation he will pay let's say 0,5% of bid ( for the example will be 30s ). * If an order is removed, the fee is lost. Players could still make a new order higher by 1 copper, but the fee could induce them to make a higher offer. That said i don't have many problems with TP, so it's fine the way it is to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now