If you're going to outbid on the trading post, it should be by a minimum of 5%

[Mister Asdasd.6194]

I personally went through something like that and it is annoyimg. Yesterday i noticed an item i had in my inv for a yeat and a half i had forgotten about was put for 300 gold on tp, people ordering would offer 100g, so i put mine for 250 hoping someone would buy it. I wake up the other day and suddenly my item was burried by 4 others for 1 copper lower than my price each. The chances of my item getting sold was low enough i doubt now that im 4th in line it will ever sell. And i gave 20 gold just to list it so it was a waste of gold. There should be at least a small difference otherwise people who want to play broker simulator screw over people who actually play the game instead of lurkimg like vultures ober the tp. It is unhealthy for the tp

[Bollocks.4078]

> @Belphor.3296 said:

> > @kitten.4078 said:

> > 1 copper bid increments on high price items lets people butt in line. That's simply not fair. Why is it fair for the first bidder to have to wait but not for the second bidder to have to wait? I don't see how it's fair to tell people that they have to buy/sell for the current offer or accept that other people can just butt in line in front of them for essentially the same price.

> >

> > This is basically a loophole that people can exploit to butt in line in front of other bidders. Anytime there's a loophole that people can exploit there will be people who benefit and people to lose out when they do. Of course, the people who benefit by exploiting the loophole will be the ones arguing against closing the loophole. This wouldn't prevent people from outbidding others, it would just require that they adjust their bit by an amount that's reasonable relative to the current bid price. If you're not willing to do that then you don't deserve to be first in line on the bid and can take your spot behind other bidders.

> >

>

> You need to understand that there is no line. You are not entitled to anything and because of that it can't be unfair. You are not waiting for an item, you are gambling for profit by "exploiting" the seller. Your entitlement is the problem, not the system. The system is as fair as it can be, because everyone has exactly the same chances.

 

There absolutely and clearly is a line. That's exactly how it works. For buy orders higher bids are in line in front of lower bids. For sell orders, lower bids are in line in front of higher bids. At each bid price, people are in line in the same order that they placed their bids, in front of worse offers and behind better offers. The next person that comes along and buys at the current lowest sell offer or sells at the current highest buy offer is buying or selling from whoever is first in line at that moment. This has nothing to do with entitlement. I have no problem with people out bidding me, I just think out bidding should be by a reasonable amount relative to the price of the item. By adjusting a bid by one copper on a high value item, the new bidder essentially has put them self in front of the previous bidder while offering the same price. I don't see how it wouldn't be more fair for the second bidder to bid the same price or offer a price that can be reasonably considered a different prices. The reality is that it's the person adjusting the bid by 1 copper who's being impatient and acting entitled. Just because the system currently allows it doesn't mean it's right.

[Belphor.3296]

> @"Mister Asdasd.6194" said:

> I personally went through something like that and it is annoyimg. Yesterday i noticed an item i had in my inv for a yeat and a half i had forgotten about was put for 300 gold on tp, people ordering would offer 100g, so i put mine for 250 hoping someone would buy it. I wake up the other day and suddenly my item was burried by 4 others for 1 copper lower than my price each. The chances of my item getting sold was low enough i doubt now that im 4th in line it will ever sell. And i gave 20 gold just to list it so it was a waste of gold. There should be at least a small difference otherwise people who want to play broker simulator screw over people who actually play the game instead of lurkimg like vultures ober the tp. It is unhealthy for the tp

 

So you gambled and lost, I don't see the problem. You could have sold safely for 100g but you wanted more and payed the price. If the other people had listed their item at 240g or 150g it would have made absolutely no difference for you.

 

> @Bollocks.4078 said:

> > @Belphor.3296 said:

> > > @kitten.4078 said:

> > > 1 copper bid increments on high price items lets people butt in line. That's simply not fair. Why is it fair for the first bidder to have to wait but not for the second bidder to have to wait? I don't see how it's fair to tell people that they have to buy/sell for the current offer or accept that other people can just butt in line in front of them for essentially the same price.

> > >

> > > This is basically a loophole that people can exploit to butt in line in front of other bidders. Anytime there's a loophole that people can exploit there will be people who benefit and people to lose out when they do. Of course, the people who benefit by exploiting the loophole will be the ones arguing against closing the loophole. This wouldn't prevent people from outbidding others, it would just require that they adjust their bit by an amount that's reasonable relative to the current bid price. If you're not willing to do that then you don't deserve to be first in line on the bid and can take your spot behind other bidders.

> > >

> >

> > You need to understand that there is no line. You are not entitled to anything and because of that it can't be unfair. You are not waiting for an item, you are gambling for profit by "exploiting" the seller. Your entitlement is the problem, not the system. The system is as fair as it can be, because everyone has exactly the same chances.

>

> There absolutely and clearly is a line. That's exactly how it works. For buy orders higher bids are in line in front of lower bids. For sell orders, lower bids are in line in front of higher bids. At each bid price, people are in line in the same order that they placed their bids, in front of worse offers and behind better offers. The next person that comes along and buys at the current lowest sell offer or sells at the current highest buy offer is buying or selling from whoever is first in line at that moment. This has nothing to do with entitlement. I have no problem with people out bidding me, I just think out bidding should be by a reasonable amount relative to the price of the item. By adjusting a bid by one copper on a high value item, the new bidder essentially has put them self in front of the previous bidder while offering the same price. I don't see how it wouldn't be more fair for the second bidder to bid the same price or offer a price that can be reasonably considered a different prices. The reality is that it's the person adjusting the bid by 1 copper who's being impatient and acting entitled. Just because the system currently allows it doesn't mean it's right.

 

You misunderstood the part about the line. You are not waiting until it is "your turn", you are waiting until someone is willing to sell to you because you made the best offer. That's a fundamental difference. You say it's not about entitlement but at the same time you feel more entitled to an item because you came "first" (which you didn't since there are probably hundreds of other offers). If you get undercut by 1 copper or 5% simply makes no difference.

You just need to set a price that nobody is willing to undercut, it's that simple.

 

 

Edit:

> @Faaris.8013 said:

> @"Belphor.3296" Since you either didn't read my posts or skipped the important parts, you keep going on about a minimum offers like Illconceived. I'm not suggesting to implement a minimum offer. I suggest to add a cancellation fee. I have written all about it that I think needs to be thrown out there, if you guys refuse to read it, that's fine. But please stop claiming I suggest X and then proceed to prove that X is pointless, while I simply don't suggest X and even stated that I'm not supporting X. Skimming long posts is totally fine, writing replies under false assumptions because you skimmed is not.

 

I did read it and I agree that a fee for placing an order would make sense, but that is off topic.

[MMAI.5892]

> @Faaris.8013 said:

> @"Belphor.3296" Since you either didn't read my posts or skipped the important parts, you keep going on about a minimum offers like Illconceived. I'm not suggesting to implement a minimum offer. I suggest to add a cancellation fee. I have written all about it that I think needs to be thrown out there, if you guys refuse to read it, that's fine. But please stop claiming I suggest X and then proceed to prove that X is pointless, while I simply don't suggest X and even stated that I'm not supporting X. Skimming long posts is totally fine, writing replies under false assumptions because you skimmed is not.

 

A cancellation fee is no different. It will be an additional cost to be factored into the buy order, the same way sellers factor TP fees into their profits. And if the person you're bidding against is that impatient, then a nominal fee isn't going to stop them. The point still stands that if a buyer wants something *now* on the TP, they have that option in the form of sell orders. If they do not want to pay the sell order price, the trade-off for placing a buy order is that you may have to wait to get it filled. Especially for 'in demand' items.

 

The only way for the system you propose to have the effect you want is to make the cancellation fee fairly punitive which is unfair to players who don't have the gold to throw around but want things too.

 

This method punishes people who are not engaging with TP the way you are. Someone who places a buy order because they need the mats but gets outbid (and yes, you're still going to get outbid) now has to lose money even though they aren't engaging in practice you seem to want to curtail.

[Ashen.2907]

If you are worried about someone cutting ahead of you in, "the line," then bypass the line entirely and just buy the item. If not, place your buy order and be prepared for the possibility that you will be outbid in the short term.

[Faaris.8013]

> @MMAI.5892 said:

> This method punishes people who are not engaging with TP the way you are. Someone who places a buy order because they need the mats but gets outbid (and yes, you're still going to get outbid) now has to lose money even though they aren't engaging in practice you seem to want to curtail.

 

How is that? It's a **cancellation** fee. You only pay it if you cancel your offer. If someone places a buy order and gets outbid, they just have to wait longer like now, but they won't have to pay any fee. Only if they cancel their order they pay a fee. If they need the mats, they won't do that, and therefore not lose money.

[Ensign.2189]

> @Faaris.8013 said:

> My point is that being allowed to increase your offer for 0,007% more than the other guy wastes everybody's time, while resulting in the same price at the end of the day. With 0,007% we are not talking about finding the market value of an item anymore.

 

1c bid/ask increments are perfectly fine if we're allowed (and expected) to use bots to monitor our bids and asks. Give us an API hook to add or remove our offers from the TP and I'm all good on the bid side. If actual human beings are expected to do this it's a waste of everyone's time.

 

On the ask side the 5% listing fee actually makes the problem much, much worse. That 5% storage fee is the biggest friction on the TP.

[Syktek.7912]

Going to penny everything just to spite you.> @"Mister Asdasd.6194" said:

> I personally went through something like that and it is annoyimg. Yesterday i noticed an item i had in my inv for a yeat and a half i had forgotten about was put for 300 gold on tp, people ordering would offer 100g, so i put mine for 250 hoping someone would buy it. I wake up the other day and suddenly my item was burried by 4 others for 1 copper lower than my price each. The chances of my item getting sold was low enough i doubt now that im 4th in line it will ever sell. And i gave 20 gold just to list it so it was a waste of gold. There should be at least a small difference otherwise people who want to play broker simulator screw over people who actually play the game instead of lurkimg like vultures ober the tp. It is unhealthy for the tp

 

That's called low demand. It'll continue to get pennied until buyers think it's worth buying straight up.

 

You weren't going to sell at that price regardless.

[Bollocks.4078]

> @Belphor.3296 said:

 

> > @kitten.4078 said:

> > > @Belphor.3296 said:

> > > > @kitten.4078 said:

> > > > 1 copper bid increments on high price items lets people butt in line. That's simply not fair. Why is it fair for the first bidder to have to wait but not for the second bidder to have to wait? I don't see how it's fair to tell people that they have to buy/sell for the current offer or accept that other people can just butt in line in front of them for essentially the same price.

> > > >

> > > > This is basically a loophole that people can exploit to butt in line in front of other bidders. Anytime there's a loophole that people can exploit there will be people who benefit and people to lose out when they do. Of course, the people who benefit by exploiting the loophole will be the ones arguing against closing the loophole. This wouldn't prevent people from outbidding others, it would just require that they adjust their bit by an amount that's reasonable relative to the current bid price. If you're not willing to do that then you don't deserve to be first in line on the bid and can take your spot behind other bidders.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You need to understand that there is no line. You are not entitled to anything and because of that it can't be unfair. You are not waiting for an item, you are gambling for profit by "exploiting" the seller. Your entitlement is the problem, not the system. The system is as fair as it can be, because everyone has exactly the same chances.

> >

> > There absolutely and clearly is a line. That's exactly how it works. For buy orders higher bids are in line in front of lower bids. For sell orders, lower bids are in line in front of higher bids. At each bid price, people are in line in the same order that they placed their bids, in front of worse offers and behind better offers. The next person that comes along and buys at the current lowest sell offer or sells at the current highest buy offer is buying or selling from whoever is first in line at that moment. This has nothing to do with entitlement. I have no problem with people out bidding me, I just think out bidding should be by a reasonable amount relative to the price of the item. By adjusting a bid by one copper on a high value item, the new bidder essentially has put them self in front of the previous bidder while offering the same price. I don't see how it wouldn't be more fair for the second bidder to bid the same price or offer a price that can be reasonably considered a different prices. The reality is that it's the person adjusting the bid by 1 copper who's being impatient and acting entitled. Just because the system currently allows it doesn't mean it's right.

>

> You misunderstood the part about the line. You are not waiting until it is "your turn", you are waiting until someone is willing to sell to you because you made the best offer. That's a fundamental difference. You say it's not about entitlement but at the same time you feel more entitled to an item because you came "first" (which you didn't since there are probably hundreds of other offers). If you get undercut by 1 copper or 5% simply makes no difference.

> You just need to set a price that nobody is willing to undercut, it's that simple.

>

>

 

You really actually are waiting for your turn. Each time someone buys or sells from the current best offer they are filling the order of the individual that is next in line. Obviously they don't know who they are buying from or selling to but the concept of people being in line waiting their turn to have their order filled is exactly how it works. It's also true that who's next is line is something that can change at any moment as new orders come in. When I buy items on the TP I might match the current offer, beat the current offer of place a bid that's lower than the current offer. When I sell on the TP I might match the current offer, beat the current offer or list my item for more than the current lowest offer. The price I set determines my place in line at that exact moment. New orders that come in may also affect my place in line. How quickly my order is filled depends on both the volume and timing of other people placing orders and filling orders. Buying for the current lowest sell price and selling for the current highest buy price are part of how the TP works but not the only way. Placing a new offer is also an important part of it. In that case the bidder is trying to balance time and price.

 

The fact is that it's the people to increment by 1c on high value items that are the impatient ones. They are preempting the current best price with the same price. I see no reason why they shouldn't have to choose between selecting a price that can reasonably be considered a better price or add their order at the current best price and wait for other orders to be filled before theirs. This in now way takes away from anyone's freedom to outbid. It only forces people to play more fairly. Nobody's going to decide not to place an order because of this, they'll choose between waiting longer or actually placing a better bid.

 

 

[Bollocks.4078]

> @Syktek.7912 said:

> Going to penny everything just to spite you.> @"Mister Asdasd.6194" said:

> > I personally went through something like that and it is annoyimg. Yesterday i noticed an item i had in my inv for a yeat and a half i had forgotten about was put for 300 gold on tp, people ordering would offer 100g, so i put mine for 250 hoping someone would buy it. I wake up the other day and suddenly my item was burried by 4 others for 1 copper lower than my price each. The chances of my item getting sold was low enough i doubt now that im 4th in line it will ever sell. And i gave 20 gold just to list it so it was a waste of gold. There should be at least a small difference otherwise people who want to play broker simulator screw over people who actually play the game instead of lurkimg like vultures ober the tp. It is unhealthy for the tp

>

> That's called low demand. It'll continue to get pennied until buyers think it's worth buying straight up.

>

> You weren't going to sell at that price regardless.

 

That is so not how it works. I guarantee nobody was looking at that item he listed for 250g thinking "Gee, 250g? No frickin way. If only I could get it for 249.9999g then I'd be all over it." That's completely absurd. What's really happening is people are trying to sell their item for the same price but at the same time get their orders filled first. For a high value, low volume item it all comes down to timing and who has the last 1c increment at the random moment when someone buys the item.

[Seera.5916]

> @Bollocks.4078 said:

> > @Syktek.7912 said:

> > Going to penny everything just to spite you.> @"Mister Asdasd.6194" said:

> > > I personally went through something like that and it is annoyimg. Yesterday i noticed an item i had in my inv for a yeat and a half i had forgotten about was put for 300 gold on tp, people ordering would offer 100g, so i put mine for 250 hoping someone would buy it. I wake up the other day and suddenly my item was burried by 4 others for 1 copper lower than my price each. The chances of my item getting sold was low enough i doubt now that im 4th in line it will ever sell. And i gave 20 gold just to list it so it was a waste of gold. There should be at least a small difference otherwise people who want to play broker simulator screw over people who actually play the game instead of lurkimg like vultures ober the tp. It is unhealthy for the tp

> >

> > That's called low demand. It'll continue to get pennied until buyers think it's worth buying straight up.

> >

> > You weren't going to sell at that price regardless.

>

> That is so not how it works. I guarantee nobody was looking at that item he listed for 250g thinking "Gee, 250g? No frickin way. If only I could get it for 249.9999g then I'd be all over it." That's completely absurd. What's really happening is people are trying to sell their item for the same price but at the same time get their orders filled first. For a high value, low volume item it all comes down to timing and who has the last 1c increment at the random moment when someone buys the item.

 

You'd actually be surprised.

 

Why do you think everything is sold at like 9.99 or 5.99? They did studies and saw that people are more likely to buy something that's priced $9.99 vs $10.00 even though there's only a penny difference.

[Super Hayes.6890]

I get frustrated too when I offer an amount several silver or even a gold above the highest offer and a few minutes later someone out offers me by a copper. Your idea of a percentage requirement caught my attention but in the end I don't think it will gain traction unless they truly do move to an auction house set up like flesh wound stated. I empathize heavily with you on the subject but I also am okay with the way it is since most of the time I still get what I want relatively fast. Still, if you get what you want I'll be happy about it too :)

[Bollocks.4078]

> @Seera.5916 said:

> > @kitten.4078 said:

> > > @Syktek.7912 said:

> > > Going to penny everything just to spite you.> @"Mister Asdasd.6194" said:

> > > > I personally went through something like that and it is annoyimg. Yesterday i noticed an item i had in my inv for a yeat and a half i had forgotten about was put for 300 gold on tp, people ordering would offer 100g, so i put mine for 250 hoping someone would buy it. I wake up the other day and suddenly my item was burried by 4 others for 1 copper lower than my price each. The chances of my item getting sold was low enough i doubt now that im 4th in line it will ever sell. And i gave 20 gold just to list it so it was a waste of gold. There should be at least a small difference otherwise people who want to play broker simulator screw over people who actually play the game instead of lurkimg like vultures ober the tp. It is unhealthy for the tp

> > >

> > > That's called low demand. It'll continue to get pennied until buyers think it's worth buying straight up.

> > >

> > > You weren't going to sell at that price regardless.

> >

> > That is so not how it works. I guarantee nobody was looking at that item he listed for 250g thinking "Gee, 250g? No frickin way. If only I could get it for 249.9999g then I'd be all over it." That's completely absurd. What's really happening is people are trying to sell their item for the same price but at the same time get their orders filled first. For a high value, low volume item it all comes down to timing and who has the last 1c increment at the random moment when someone buys the item.

>

> You'd actually be surprised.

>

> Why do you think everything is sold at like 9.99 or 5.99? They did studies and saw that people are more likely to buy something that's priced $9.99 vs $10.00 even though there's only a penny difference.

 

I think you are vastly overstating the similarity between fixed price grocery store items that people buy with real money and variable price in-game trading post items that people buy with pretend currency. TP prices are all over the place and I've never seen a trend of ending prices with 99c there.

[Seera.5916]

> @Bollocks.4078 said:

> > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > @kitten.4078 said:

> > > > @Syktek.7912 said:

> > > > Going to penny everything just to spite you.> @"Mister Asdasd.6194" said:

> > > > > I personally went through something like that and it is annoyimg. Yesterday i noticed an item i had in my inv for a yeat and a half i had forgotten about was put for 300 gold on tp, people ordering would offer 100g, so i put mine for 250 hoping someone would buy it. I wake up the other day and suddenly my item was burried by 4 others for 1 copper lower than my price each. The chances of my item getting sold was low enough i doubt now that im 4th in line it will ever sell. And i gave 20 gold just to list it so it was a waste of gold. There should be at least a small difference otherwise people who want to play broker simulator screw over people who actually play the game instead of lurkimg like vultures ober the tp. It is unhealthy for the tp

> > > >

> > > > That's called low demand. It'll continue to get pennied until buyers think it's worth buying straight up.

> > > >

> > > > You weren't going to sell at that price regardless.

> > >

> > > That is so not how it works. I guarantee nobody was looking at that item he listed for 250g thinking "Gee, 250g? No frickin way. If only I could get it for 249.9999g then I'd be all over it." That's completely absurd. What's really happening is people are trying to sell their item for the same price but at the same time get their orders filled first. For a high value, low volume item it all comes down to timing and who has the last 1c increment at the random moment when someone buys the item.

> >

> > You'd actually be surprised.

> >

> > Why do you think everything is sold at like 9.99 or 5.99? They did studies and saw that people are more likely to buy something that's priced $9.99 vs $10.00 even though there's only a penny difference.

>

> I think you are vastly overstating the similarity between fixed price grocery store items that people buy with real money and variable price in-game trading post items that people buy with pretend currency. TP prices are all over the place and I've never seen a trend of ending prices with 99c there.

 

Just saying that 1 copper could be enough to make someone buy something. Which is what you said was absurd. I was stating that it's not that absurd. It obviously doesn't come into play as much with the trading post as in regular stores.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

The entire thread started because someone is claiming that 1-copper increments are bad for the community. That hasn't been established, so discussing the nuances of solutions is premature. There's no reason to protect buy offers. The reason for a listing fee for selling offers is to prevent people from testing the market.

 

****

> @Faaris.8013 said:

> In practice, increasing your offer by 1 copper is the same as matching the maximum offer, but getting served first, and we have basically bidding wars of people who match the other offer just to get the next diamond.

 

What's wrong with that? There's no problem if there's enough sellers willing to take as little as those buy offers. If there aren't, it means that price is too low for the market. Which it will, especially if there's little "friction" to buyers changing offers. What's so special about "the next diamond" if people are selling dozens at the lower prices?

 

****

In the end, a lot of this discussion is moot. Power traders are going to make big coin regardless of the rules. The more involved and complicated they are, the easier it will be for the savvy to gain and the harder it will be for non-traders to keep up. Low bids (and 1-copper increments) come from novices trying to save a silver, too, and ultimately they'll be hurt more.

 

Generally speaking, capitalist systems are "fairest" when all players have access to all the data, when the system is as simple as possible, and when the market flows as freely as possible. Intervention (by regulatory agencies or in this case, ANet) should only happen if there's a market failure, e.g. in the real world typically utilities and health care are strongly regulated because it's too easy for the few to impact the many, but apples are typically left alone.

 

I'm a strong believer that "government" should step in to protect the little guy. In this case, there's no evidence that the little guy is _suffering_ from the current system.

[drunkenpilot.9837]

Wow, this thread is still going on? And the OP has long since left the discussion, unless I missed a recent reply from them.

 

And yeah, there's nothing wrong with the current system. It works great. If you don't want to be overbid by 1c, make a more desirable offer on the item you'd like to purchase. If you don't want to be undercut by 1c on items you're trying to sell, then list the items at a more reasonable price, something to tempt those people watching that item (of which there are probably many, considering the size of this game's playerbase and the fact that you can view TP listings in-game and out).

 

And if you still get overbid by 1c, then either wait until your order is filled by other sellers (patience, grasshopper), or withdraw your listing and buy it instantly on the trading post.

 

Requiring a higher overbid amount will just mean that players will overbid you by that amount every time, and guess what? You'll be back here complaining about it on the forums all over again, only difference being you'll demand an even higher bidding minimum.

 

Nah. TP is functioning exactly as it should. Move along, nothing to see here. B)

[MMAI.5892]

> @Faaris.8013 said:

> > @MMAI.5892 said:

> > This method punishes people who are not engaging with TP the way you are. Someone who places a buy order because they need the mats but gets outbid (and yes, you're still going to get outbid) now has to lose money even though they aren't engaging in practice you seem to want to curtail.

>

> How is that? It's a **cancellation** fee. You only pay it if you cancel your offer. If someone places a buy order and gets outbid, they just have to wait longer like now, but they won't have to pay any fee. Only if they cancel their order they pay a fee. If they need the mats, they won't do that, and therefore not lose money.

 

Because they will lose money if they want to relist, and if they're grossly outbid, they *are* going to want to relist at some point - especially if prices are rising on the mat. A fee is a fee no matter where in the transaction you put it and the prices of mats can change dramatically in a short period of time. Whether or not they want a week, a month, or a year, they're still having to pay a fee by the system you propose. What you have yet to establish is why your buying/selling preferences are superior or more desirable to the game as a whole or how it will ultimately prevent the problem you see. People with the gold to throw around will continue to outbid you; the fee won't matter to them, but it will matter to other players who aren't gold flush. *Those* are players who will have a greater market aversion.

[TwoGhosts.6790]

The whole premise of this thread is absurd, especially the rubbish about 'butting in line'.

My god.

It's not bidding.

It's a market.

It's a buy order.

If someone places a buy order at a higher price than yours (yes, by 1c, why more?) their order will be filled first.

But that doesn't mean you _lose_.

Your buy order is still there and chances are at some point it will be filled at the price you set.

If you're not happy with other people having their buy orders filled before you, then change your buy order (yes, by 1c, why more?).

It's very simple, and it works perfectly fine.

It seems like the only people for whom it's not fine are those who think that their desire to buy something is more important than everyone else's.

Like I said earlier... the TP is always a great reminder that you're not the centre of the universe.

~TG

[Brutaly.6257]

at op:

It is me, the guy that actually spends tons of time in the trader and that actually do that for the fun and reward of trading that outbid you with a single copper every time. The same guy that actually put in a ton of time making goods reach equilibrium faster, doing you a favor.

 

If you dont have the patience just dont participate in the game i play and sell your stuff direct with no cutting under. But dont try and destroy the fun in my game and the market in general.

[Bollocks.4078]

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.

 

We can argue all day about whether it's bidding or not but ultimately that doesn't matter. It's just a diversion to distract from the actual idea. We could debate the similarities and differences with an open market but that's just another diversion. We could talk forever about how applicable any given analogy might be, that's just another diversion. People act like their opinions are fact and other peoples opinions are rubbish. People attack another poster's opinions or examples as if that makes the main idea wrong and ignore the fact that a simple tweak eliminates their complaint with the specific opinion or example.

 

Here's a perfect key example. A lot of people are saying the first bidder should just wait. Why should the first bidder be the one who has to wait? Why shouldn't the second bidder have to wait or offer a new price that can be legitimately considered a better offer? I have yet to see anyone event attempt to justify why the second bidder takes priority over the first bidder. I don't see any reason that the second bid can be legitimately justified as a new offer. If they are only willing to adjust by 1c out of 500g that means they agree with the first bidders price.

 

All I see so far is trolly and diversionary tactics. The OP probably left because of the bullying he took early on.

 

The 1c increments can be very annoying on the buy order side. They are much bigger problem on the selling side because of the 5% listing fee. Here are some more ideas:

 

 

- - Idea 1 - -

If we are going to keep 1c increments regardless of price then how about modifying how the listing fee works. It would work like this: There would be no fee for listing. You can modify the price any time and as often as you want without having to remove and relist the item. If you remove the item then you pay the 5% fee on whatever was the highest price you set. If the item sells the TP keeps 15% of the sale price, or maybe 10% of the sale price + 5% of the highest price you set. That would allow people to freely play 1c wars with each other without having to worry about listing/relisting costs. If someone lists the same item for 1c less you just adjust your price to match or to beat them by 1c or 1s or whatever you want.

 

- - Idea 2 - -

How about a partial implementation of the minimum bid increment, basically a time-limited minimum. It would work like this: The minimum bid increment would be a reasonable % of the price with an overall cap so that it doesn't go completely out of control on super high price items. The minimum bid increment would only be enforced for a reasonable amount of time after the last transaction at that price. If someone different lists the item for the same price the time starts over. If someone accepts the price and there are more left at that price the time starts over. Once the time expires or if the last item at that price is bought or sold then people are free to post 1c increments. The timer will not be applied if the next bid price is different but is less than the minimum bid increment.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Bollocks.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.

 

[Rauderi.8706]

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!

[ron.6157]

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

[lunarminx.3624]

> @Mercury.9784 said:

> > @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> > >I keep getting into wars over individual pennies with other trading post user

> >

> > And I don’t. I post it then I leave it. Eventually it will sell for the price I posted it for, usually within a few days. If it never sells (weeks to momths) then obviously I posted too high. Don’t be getting into trade wars. Give it time to sell.

>

> Yeah. That's fine for high-volume items.

>

> Although it seems you're referring to selling, which has a built in protection of a listing fee. Can't fight over pennies then. But buy orders don't have that protection. People are free to fight over pennies. I brought up an analogy earlier that I still think fits well. If this behavior happened in a real action house, where you would occasionally get a small number of people outbidding by one penny for hours, they would swiftly implement a 'minimum increased bid' rule. I think Guild Wars 2 should have something like that, too.

 

I have only done buy orders less than a dozen times and I have been playing since launch. I am not going through the hassle of a bidding war and having to wait for something I want or need now. If you don't want the bidding war pay full price and buy out right. The is never any problems doing it that way. it's super quick too!

[Rauderi.8706]

> @lunarminx.3624 said:

> I have only done buy orders less than a dozen times and I have been playing since launch. I am not going through the hassle of a bidding war and having to wait for something I want or need now. If you don't want the bidding war pay full price and buy out right. The is never any problems doing it that way. it's super quick too!

 

Eeeh, some people want to optimize their expenditures and save as much as possible. But if you're willing to trade cash into convenience, good on ya! You made that sale order happy. :)