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

[Ecthelion Frostcalm.7205]

> @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> 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 -,-"

 

1) The more rational way to avoid this would be to spend the money on the mats to craft them yourself, even if it's on another character. If you're unable or unwilling to craft them, then that's the risk you took by trying a shortcut.

2) Your example illustrates a few things: first, the problems with attempting shortcuts with market items that have not yet stabilized in price, demand, nor in supply; second, the ways in which one can slowly but surely manipulate market price, if only temporarily (because hopefully the price should go back down once the inflated buy orders are fulfilled).

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @"Ecthelion Frostcalm.7205" said:

> > @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> > 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 -,-"

>

> 1) The more rational way to avoid this would be to spend the money on the mats to craft them yourself, even if it's on another character. If you're unable or unwilling to craft them, then that's the risk you took by trying a shortcut.

> 2) Your example illustrates a few things: first, the problems with attempting shortcuts with market items that have not yet stabilized in price, demand, nor in supply; second, the ways in which one can slowly but surely manipulate market price, if only temporarily (because hopefully the price should go back down once the inflated buy orders are fulfilled).

 

I had considered crafting it myself, but the crafting cost wasnt far from the buy out cost, trying to order one, even raising with a gold, wouldve been cheaper (at the time I calculated it)

[Ecthelion Frostcalm.7205]

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> 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.

 

Players are more likely to reduce their order prices to account for an order fee rather than increase their buy order price, which goes along with my opinion that market fees both for buy orders and sale listing will tend to reduce market size and weaken the market rather than the other way around. While I personally like the TP as a system, I definitely wish Anet would reduce the item listing price a little - I really dislike losing ~9g on a ~60g sale.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Bollocks.4078 said:

> 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.

 

An argument shouldn't depend on assuming people who disagree with you must be misunderstanding or trying to undermine the topic.

 

The current system works and it still hasn't been established why any idea, simple or otherwise, is needed. People can still obtain what they need for a cost that they are willing to pay; people can still sell for a price they are willing to accept. Anyone who chooses can already avoid under- or overbids entirely

[Ecthelion Frostcalm.7205]

In my opinion, the least damaging (but still somewhat damaging) way to limit the behavior decried by the OP (which we have all encountered at one time or another) would be to impose a substantial, non-refundable fee - say, 25%-50% of the posting - if an item listing or sell order is the lowest-priced listing or highest-priced order **_at the time of placement_** (matching the lowest-listed price or highest-priced buy order would not incur this penalty), regardless of the degree of difference from the lowest listing or the highest-priced buy order. That way, listings/orders that lead the market (i.e. are the lowest listed price or are the highest-priced buy order) should be better able to retain their position in the imaginary queue because most would post item listings or buy orders sub-optimally in order to avoid this penalty, and those who match the lowest-listed price or the highest-priced orders would have those fulfilled in the order they were posted (which I think is how the TP currently works if multiple players list items or place buy orders at the same price).

 

The single major drawback to this idea is that it will inevitably widen the gap between the lowest listed price and the highest-priced buy order (and, if nothing else, basically petrify the current gap, if any, between the lowest listed price and the highest buy order price - without a significant period of scarcity/desaturation, i.e. an artificially-imposed reset, this will not change), and this will have a tendency to weaken the market by decreasing the likelihood that a buy order will be fulfilled, by extension decreasing the market's size and stability (increased market size, i.e. number of player participants in the market = smaller likelihood that the market would be drastically affected by the actions of a single or small number of players = more market stability; reducing player participants in the market makes this go in the other direction). Given enough time it is difficult to predict how substantial this widening could become, and some items will definitely be more affected than others by such a measure.

[Ensign.2189]

> @MMAI.5892 said:

> 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.

 

This is raw game theory economics. Given the structure of the market, the optimal strategy on the bid side is coppering. Every other strategy is inferior to coppering. Above, you suggest some other strategies that are inferior to coppering - in fact, there's a whole universe of strategies inferior to coppering!

 

But coppering is the best strategy given the market structure. Coppering involves huge transaction costs, and thus tends to be won by people who bid down the value of their time to engage in coppering, or, ideally, is won by a bot.

 

Thus the result is a market failure.

 

> 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.

 

So in your example, the player in question values their time too highly to participate in the bid side of the market - conceding it to someone with the patience / low time costs to engage in coppering that market - and to just pay the ask price. Do you understand that you just made the argument that the bid side of that market is broken? Somehow you think it is ok that the bid side of that market is broken?

 

> High volume items are controlled by the same supply and demand and, in some cases, by player storage capacity.

 

We are talking about price movements, which are dynamic. We have a lot of indications about the price of a commodity - bids, asks, and executed trades. High volume items have a lot of information about their price - lots of bids, asks, executed trades. Prices react quickly, and we thus have a lot of information about the 'true' underlying price of those items - and we catch changes in the price of those items quickly.

 

For low volume items, the opposite is true - we have very few executed trades, not a lot of bids or asks, etc. We have huge price spreads as there are substantial risks of getting a bad deal and your money can be tied up for a while. There's little information about price movements.

 

Supply and demand are fundamental to both, but velocity matters for the dynamics of the market. It's why you'll see penny bid increments on the NYSE, where there's tons of information and trading, but 10% increments at Sotheby's.

 

 

> 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'.

 

This belies a gross misunderstanding of how the high volume markets operate. The mithril market is not being made by people that want a small quantity that they could go out and mine in a few hours - it is made by people crafting precursors that order it tens of thousands at a time. Ecto markets are full of mass salvagers and crafters that produce and burn stacks of the stuff every day.

[Ensign.2189]

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> Players could still make a new order higher by 1 copper, but the fee could induce them to make a higher offer.

 

That does address the coppering distortion, but by discouraging bids ends up being a much bigger distortion of its own. It's a reasonable idea, but it creates a bigger problem than it solves.

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Ensign.2189 said:

> That is, you are not competing on price, you are competing on who values their time the least.

 

That's fundamental to human endeavors. The reason people hire house cleaners is that they value their time at a price that someone else is willing to work. Folks who sell to highest offer obviously value coin now a lot more than more coin later; the market also competes on that type of risk.

 

I'm okay with ANet saying, "we want to protect those who value price more than time" and changing the rules accordingly (and 'coppering' as you elegant phrase it, might not be the only thing worth touching in that case). However, that's a change in preferences or philosophy; it's not a fundamental flaw in the system to reward those with more patience.

 

Later on you mention that actual bots (or scripts) are always going to 'win' any coppering battles. That would be, by itself, a good reason to change the system. My first hope is that they'd observe and catch the botters rather than changing the market. However, as we know, that isn't successful enough (which is why we have limits on how much coin we can trade). So if ANet has data that botting amounts to a large fraction of the market (with 'large' being defined by them, I suppose) and if they can't prevent it through other means, then sure, they should change the offer process to make it easier for regular players to compete.

 

Unfortunately, botters will still do better in a minimum-not-copper increment system; they will still be able to dominate any market where there's profit, which means all of the rest of us will pay more and get less. That's not necessarily a horrible thing, but it has all sorts of consequences to trading, including altering velocity, trading habits, farming habits, and ultimately people's perceptions of how easy it is to sell, acquire, etc. It shouldn't be done lightly.

 

And in the end, power traders are still going to do better. The more complicated the market gets, the greater advantage the savvy have over the unfamiliar, i.e. the majority of people who just want to buy & sell with little effort.

 

****

Changing the system should only happen when there's a really, really fundamental issue that needs addressing, because it's a lot of work and it will have profound consequences. I don't see that we've established that there really is a fundamental issue, just one of preference.

[ekarat.1085]

> @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> 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 -,-"

 

That's because the price hadn't yet stabilized and that the previous price was too low. You just helped it stabilize faster.

 

[Ensign.2189]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I'm okay with ANet saying, "we want to protect those who value price more than time" and changing the rules accordingly (and 'coppering' as you elegant phrase it, might not be the only thing worth touching in that case). However, that's a change in preferences or philosophy; it's not a fundamental flaw in the system to reward those with more patience.

 

I see that at strange. If you were to go the other way, argue that 'hey, it should be way harder to sell things! We should make our markets a lot more time consuming, and that'll be a good thing because it rewards those with more patience', you would rightly be looked at funny. Who needs credit cards and instant payment, let's go back to the day when we mailed pieces of paper to each other and had to physically walk into a bank to redeem them, that was so much better - it rewarded people with patience!

 

 

> My first hope is that they'd observe and catch the botters rather than changing the market.

 

Why? This would be the rare case where everyone benefits from the presence of bots. Even A.Net does, as increased velocity keeps the economy under control.

 

 

> Unfortunately, botters will still do better in a minimum-not-copper increment system; they will still be able to dominate any market where there's profit, which means all of the rest of us will pay more and get less.

 

Other way around. High powered bots in a bid/ask market drive rents to near zero, meaning regular players get more for their money and pay less.

 

 

> Changing the system should only happen when there's a really, really fundamental issue that needs addressing, because it's a lot of work and it will have profound consequences. I don't see that we've established that there really is a fundamental issue, just one of preference.

 

That this would be a non-trivial amount of work and the benefits aren't going to be huge (to wit, this thread - the vast majority of even interested players have no idea what a good or bad market design would look like) are, in my mind, the best argument for maintaining the status quo. They have bigger fish to fry.

[MMAI.5892]

> @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> @Ensign.2189 said:

> > @MMAI.5892 said:

> > 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.

>

> This is raw game theory economics. Given the structure of the market, the optimal strategy on the bid side is coppering. Every other strategy is inferior to coppering. Above, you suggest some other strategies that are inferior to coppering - in fact, there's a whole universe of strategies inferior to coppering!

>

> But coppering is the best strategy given the market structure. Coppering involves huge transaction costs, and thus tends to be won by people who bid down the value of their time to engage in coppering, or, ideally, is won by a bot.

>

> Thus the result is a market failure.

>

 

Optimal as defined by? Time investment? Gold spent? Other? All? If you value time, then buy sell instantly. If you value gold, bid. If you want both? Accept you may not get them because other people may have more time or money than you. (Factors with which *all* players must apply and adding arbitrary bidding requirements do not alleviate.

 

> > 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.

>

> So in your example, the player in question values their time too highly to participate in the bid side of the market - conceding it to someone with the patience / low time costs to engage in coppering that market - and to just pay the ask price. Do you understand that you just made the argument that the bid side of that market is broken? Somehow you think it is ok that the bid side of that market is broken?

>

 

No, I didn't. Bidding takes more time than direct buying, but can save you money. That's why anyone bothers with buy ordering in the first place. They value money over time. There's nothing broken unless the belief is that players should get what they want immediately - be it product or gold. In that case, scrap the TP all together and let everything be vendored and bought directly from NPC's.

 

> > High volume items are controlled by the same supply and demand and, in some cases, by player storage capacity.

>

> We are talking about price movements, which are dynamic. We have a lot of indications about the price of a commodity - bids, asks, and executed trades. High volume items have a lot of information about their price - lots of bids, asks, executed trades. Prices react quickly, and we thus have a lot of information about the 'true' underlying price of those items - and we catch changes in the price of those items quickly.

>

> For low volume items, the opposite is true - we have very few executed trades, not a lot of bids or asks, etc. We have huge price spreads as there are substantial risks of getting a bad deal and your money can be tied up for a while. There's little information about price movements.

>

> Supply and demand are fundamental to both, but velocity matters for the dynamics of the market. It's why you'll see penny bid increments on the NYSE, where there's tons of information and trading, but 10% increments at Sotheby's.

>

 

If you're worried about getting a bad deal on a low volume items - use buy and sell orders. Yes, there is risk and that risk is going to increase based on the rarity. No one has said differently.

 

>

> > 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'.

>

> This belies a gross misunderstanding of how the high volume markets operate. The mithril market is not being made by people that want a small quantity that they could go out and mine in a few hours - it is made by people crafting precursors that order it tens of thousands at a time. Ecto markets are full of mass salvagers and crafters that produce and burn stacks of the stuff every day.

 

 

I never said it was. I have no idea where you got this assertion from.

 

 

[DGraves.3720]

> @Mercury.9784 said:

> I keep getting into wars over individual pennies with other trading post users. It's not fun, but it's necessary if you expect to execute a trade on anything that has low trade volume. I understand letting people outbid each other, but you should have to do it by a minimum of a certain percentage, say between 1% and 5%, because then it indicates that you're genuinely interested in paying more or accepting less, and you're not just trying to screw up other users and trade for effectively the same price.

>

> I've been playing since launch and love your game. Please keep up the good work.

 

The market has a price floor already. Any willingness to purchase an item above it's price floor is inherently foolish therefore any attempt to force players to offer more than a previous offer (which is not the same as bidding on a "singular item" as there is no guarantee to sell) through incremental demand is ironically toxic to the market. It would actually make getting items significantly _easier _ for a few very wealthy players and likely make it impossible for you to buy anything. All they would need to do is simply set a price most people won't pay and the increment demand ensures _no one will pay it_ effectively cornering the market.

 

TL;DR: It's a bad idea because it supports oligopoly.

[Bollocks.4078]

> @ekarat.1085 said:

> > @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> > 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 -,-"

>

> That's because the price hadn't yet stabilized and that the previous price was too low. You just helped it stabilize faster.

>

 

That would be an example of how 1c increments hinder prices from stabilizing. How can that ever be good for the market?

 

 

> @DGraves.3720 said:

> > @Mercury.9784 said:

> > I keep getting into wars over individual pennies with other trading post users. It's not fun, but it's necessary if you expect to execute a trade on anything that has low trade volume. I understand letting people outbid each other, but you should have to do it by a minimum of a certain percentage, say between 1% and 5%, because then it indicates that you're genuinely interested in paying more or accepting less, and you're not just trying to screw up other users and trade for effectively the same price.

> >

> > I've been playing since launch and love your game. Please keep up the good work.

>

> The market has a price floor already. Any willingness to purchase an item above it's price floor is inherently foolish therefore any attempt to force players to offer more than a previous offer (which is not the same as bidding on a "singular item" as there is no guarantee to sell) through incremental demand is ironically toxic to the market. It would actually make getting items significantly _easier _ for a few very wealthy players and likely make it impossible for you to buy anything. All they would need to do is simply set a price most people won't pay and the increment demand ensures _no one will pay it_ effectively cornering the market.

>

> TL;DR: It's a bad idea because it supports oligopoly.

 

That's a bit of an illogical stretch. A reasonable minimum bid increment won't make the buy offers go above the sell price or the sell price go below the buy offers. A reasonable bid increment wouldn't be any more toxic than 1c increment currently is. What exactly is this so called "price floor?" If you mean the current highest buy offer then you have to beat it or you have to wait. If you mean the current best sell price then it's not even possible to pay more than that. A minimum bid increment will help the price equilize faster. The idea that it will cause the price to go higher or lower than normal market price just doesn't make any sense.

 

 

> @Seera.5916 said:

> > @kitten.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.

 

The whole new player argument doesn't hold water for me. If someone can't afford the item then they can't afford it. If x% of a high price item is that big a deal for a player then they probably don't have 100% of that price to begin with. What do you mean about "think twice?" The increment doesn't have to be so high that veterans think twice about listing it, just to think more about matching or beating the current best price. For high priced items, 1c is a no-brainer. I think there should be some trade-off between time and cost. A 1c bid increment hinders a high price item from reaching market price or equilibrium.

 

There's no proof that a minimum increment would have any negative impact. How does anyone know that people won't just continue buying, selling and bidding and that the only difference would be that people who choose to beat the current price will just beat it by more than 1c?

 

 

 

> @Rauderi.8706 said:

> @"kitten.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.

 

This is 100% not true. The two are not mutually exclusive. Look up the definition of negligible. Negligible can't be proven mathematically because it's based on perception and opinion but it is a universal concept. I can guarantee that most people would consider the difference between 1000.0000 and 999.9999 to be negligible. You can agree or not, it doesn't change that. You don't have to agree but you also can't change how most people perceive it.

 

>

> 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.

 

Simple, the minimum increment applies + or - to the current best bid. Le's say just for argument sake that the increment is 1% and the current sell price for Ecto is 25s. You can beat it by offering to sell for 24.75 or anything less. You can post your sell at 25.25 or anything higher if you like. If there's currently another sell offer between 25.00 and 25.25 then you are free to match that. If the two top bids are 25.26 and 25.00 you could bid 25.01. That's 1 copper over the second best price. I don't have a problem with that.

 

> 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.

 

That's just your opinion.

 

> 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.

>

Your assertion that people are expecting near immediate fulfillment has no basis. You projecting that assumption to fit your agenda.

 

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @kitten.4078 said:

> > 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.

>

> An argument shouldn't depend on assuming people who disagree with you must be misunderstanding or trying to undermine the topic.

>

> The current system works and it still hasn't been established why any idea, simple or otherwise, is needed. People can still obtain what they need for a cost that they are willing to pay; people can still sell for a price they are willing to accept. Anyone who chooses can already avoid under- or overbids entirely

 

My position on the topic is separate from my perception of your understanding/intent. You saying that doesn't do anything to change that perception. Interesting that that's how you chose to address my perception of you. It hasn't been proven that the current system is better or that a minimum increment would be worse. Just because it works doesn't prove that it couldn't work better. The difference between people paying what they are willing to and paying what they have to is impossible to define or prove. Price fixing in the real world doesn't mean that the artificially high price is fair market value just because people are willing to pay it.

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Unfortunately, botters will still do better in a minimum-not-copper increment system; they will still be able to dominate any market where there's profit, which means all of the rest of us will pay more and get less.

 

We can't all pay more and get less. It's impossible for everyone to pay more and get less. For every sale that someone pays more someone else got more. For every sale that someone gets less someone else payed less. I expect the reason people might bot is to do high volume on items that have a wide price gap in order to make money on flipping. A minimum bid increment would actually help prices on high volume items reach and maintain equilibrium and that would make botting that time pointless.

 

 

[Wanze.8410]

> @Mercury.9784 said:

> > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > You seem to believe it's the same person or persons outbidding you. There are thousands, tens of thousands of players using the Trading Posts. I'm sure many, such as myself, bid by one copper. Thus, bid prices will change. If you are that worried, that you will take down bids over such a small amount, maybe the Trading Post isn't for you?

>

> In some cases that is the situation in my experience. I've bid on an unusual item and gotten outbid for a penny for 20 orders, and then I would do the same for my order, and then get outbid by exactly 20 orders again, etc. For high-volume items you're right, of course, but for low volume items (which is what you expect from higher ticket items where the percentage will matter) it can easily be a bidding war between individuals.

>

> I would have been happy to simply wait in a queue behind the top bidder, but I feel compelled by the design of the system to play dirty just like everyone else.

>

> I feel especially bad for people who don't know that there are shark bidders lying in wait and checking every one of their orders in order to increase by a penny, because they may have no idea why their particular trades never execute.

 

IF you think that raising the minimum bid by 1 or 5% will increase the chance of you getting your order filled, you can simply do so. Just raise it until your offers is more than the others are comfortable bidding and your offer will be the best one until filled.

[Bollocks.4078]

> @Wanze.8410 said:

> > @Mercury.9784 said:

> > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> > > You seem to believe it's the same person or persons outbidding you. There are thousands, tens of thousands of players using the Trading Posts. I'm sure many, such as myself, bid by one copper. Thus, bid prices will change. If you are that worried, that you will take down bids over such a small amount, maybe the Trading Post isn't for you?

> >

> > In some cases that is the situation in my experience. I've bid on an unusual item and gotten outbid for a penny for 20 orders, and then I would do the same for my order, and then get outbid by exactly 20 orders again, etc. For high-volume items you're right, of course, but for low volume items (which is what you expect from higher ticket items where the percentage will matter) it can easily be a bidding war between individuals.

> >

> > I would have been happy to simply wait in a queue behind the top bidder, but I feel compelled by the design of the system to play dirty just like everyone else.

> >

> > I feel especially bad for people who don't know that there are shark bidders lying in wait and checking every one of their orders in order to increase by a penny, because they may have no idea why their particular trades never execute.

>

> IF you think that raising the minimum bid by 1 or 5% will increase the chance of you getting your order filled, you can simply do so. Just raise it until your offers is more than the others are comfortable bidding and your offer will be the best one until filled.

 

That's not even remotely what this is about.

[Zohane.7208]

Seeing as this is not an auction house but a trading post, there are obviously no "bids", only sell prices and buy offers. No one can be "outbid".

 

When I put up listings on the TP, I list the price I'm willing to sell for (or rather which I expect it to sell in a reasonable time). Conversely I put up buy offers at a price I find reasonable to pay for the item. If someone places a better listing, be it by 1c or 100g, I can either choose to accept that my expectation was wrong and relist, or I can choose to change my price and still hope it sells in a reasonable time. Sometimes I have to accept that my listing won't be accepted in what I find to be a reasonable time and then I change it. This is true whether I'm "outbid" by 1c or 100g.

 

I find the system very reasonable.

[Lambros Augustus.6594]

Why isnt this thread locked yet.

[Rauderi.8706]

@"Bollocks.4078"

 

> > 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.

 

> This is 100% not true.

Claiming this shows the point was missed, again, *entirely*.

The fuzzy, emotional "negligible" *does not matter* in *computer code.*

If you can't *operationally define* "above negligible," the system won't have a way to process it. Full stop.

 

But since we're defining it as an "increment" in relation to the highest buy or lowest sale:

> Simple, the minimum increment applies + or - to the current best bid. ...

Missed the point again, *entirely*.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself to explain this, but I already did a proof, a method, that would bypass the proposal entirely. I'll use the cited numbers as an example:

 

Ecto is 25s

I post a bid at 25s25c, for 1 unit.

I post a second bid at 25s01c, for 100 units.

I pull my 25s25c bid.

The highest bid is 25s01c.

I just coppered the 25s bid. (And bypassed wasting 24s.)

The proposal is failed. QED.

 

> Your assertion that people are expecting near immediate fulfillment has no basis.

"That's just your opinion."

 

What is the *problem this proposal is trying to solve?* The proposal has no merit, because not only is it easily defeated, it injects a huge inconvenience and flogs the market without *solving* anything.

Continuing to argue for mandatory minimum persists in defying some rather basic facts about how the market itself works.

1. You bid, you wait. You risk getting outbid.

2. You buy, you get. You pay more.

I don't know how many times the forums have to repeat basic truths like this.

[Ensign.2189]

> @Zohane.7208 said:

> Seeing as this is not an auction house but a trading post, there are obviously no "bids", only sell prices and buy offers. No one can be "outbid".

 

Convention in a financial or equity market is that 'sell offers' are 'asks' and 'buy offers' are 'bids'.

 

 

> @Bollocks.4078 said:

> For high priced items, 1c is a no-brainer. I think there should be some trade-off between time and cost. A 1c bid increment hinders a high price item from reaching market price or equilibrium.

 

Yep, that is more or less what the data shows.

 

 

> @Bollocks.4078 said:

> There's no proof that a minimum increment would have any negative impact. How does anyone know that people won't just continue buying, selling and bidding and that the only difference would be that people who choose to beat the current price will just beat it by more than 1c?

 

This type of problem is studied pretty extensively. The consequence of a larger bid increment are pretty straightforward.

 

Market makers (flippers) that engage in bid-ask spread trading provide liquidity to the market. The more inhibited the market, the higher the profitability of spread trading. In the case of the GW2 bid market, a larger bid increment would increase the liquidity of the market, reducing the value of market makers (and consequently their profits). In non-inhibited markets, spread traders actually benefit from a higher bid increment, since the increment prevents them from competing all of their margin away (it's padded by the increment) - which we saw when the NYSE reduced its bid increment in 2001.

 

Speculators are going to be more or less unaffected by moderate changes in bid increments, as they are playing a longer game with much larger margins than any increment being discussed.

 

For the average player, a larger increment, especially in inhibited markets, would generally result in lower ask prices and higher bid prices - making it much more convenient and less costly to just buy and sell instantly.

 

First order impact of a change to a higher bid increment is a transfer of wealth from flippers to average players - less total wealth is burned on transaction costs and flipping profits. Second order impact is less people flipping due to lower returns - low efficiency flippers are driven out which makes room for higher efficiency flippers to maintain their margins.

[Zohane.7208]

> @Ensign.2189 said:

> > @Zohane.7208 said:

> > Seeing as this is not an auction house but a trading post, there are obviously no "bids", only sell prices and buy offers. No one can be "outbid".

>

> Convention in a financial or equity market is that 'sell offers' are 'asks' and 'buy offers' are 'bids'.

I would agree to this; I was just trying to make the distinction between the percieved "auction bids" and the "bids" on a trading post.

 

[Arricson Krei.9560]

> @Mercury.9784 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > ...if someone is willing to sell me an item for less than you, who am i a consumer to turn them down ?

>

> That's fine. I'm not putting any blame on someone who accepts the order. By all means, accept an additional 0.0001% on a high ticket item, if that floats your boat. The problem comes when you actually reward players who are willing to outbid by pennies for hours. These people get substantially tangible benefits for doing something that is tedious and annoying. And what's worse, depending on the item, there are people who will put in an order unaware that it's virtually impossible that it will ever be filled unless they come back every ten minutes to fight with somebody over the price.

>

> I imagine ArenaNet prefers not to have that sort of thing in their game.

>

> Imagine someone entering into a real brick and mortor auction house and engaging in the same behavior. No matter what the bid, they put in an additional one cent, and then two people spend literally hours doing that until eventually we finally reach someone's limit.

>

> Obviously the auction house would (and almost certainly they all do) have a minimum increased bid, so that we avoid that nonsense.

>

> I still remain curious why anyone would object to this. If I'm interpreting correctly, nobody disagrees that this is unpleasant, but they just want me to 'man up' and deal with it and have a bad time because... screw me, I guess?

>

 

Nobody is being rewarded anything, really. It's just a transaction and people aren't getting extra gold (hence +0.0001%) for the minimal amount of effort they put in to list an item on the TP.

 

Real brick and mortar auction houses don't operate the way GW2 TP does because it's impractical and time-inefficient to operate that way. Only a handful of people can participate in those events whereas in the TP, there's a virtually unlimited amount of participants. People bid over large increments to speed up the auctioning process. On the TP, time doesn't matter because you do not have to be an active participant.

[Bollocks.4078]

> @Rauderi.8706 said:

> @"kitten.4078"

>

> > > 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.

>

> > This is 100% not true.

> Claiming this shows the point was missed, again, *entirely*.

> The fuzzy, emotional "negligible" *does not matter* in *computer code.*

> If you can't *operationally define* "above negligible," the system won't have a way to process it. Full stop.

 

What point are you talking about? The computer doesn't need to know about "negligible." If it were implemented, a dev will adjust the programming to enforce the new rules. Why does the "system" need to process it? You're really stretching for a counter argument here.

 

> But since we're defining it as an "increment" in relation to the highest buy or lowest sale:

> > Simple, the minimum increment applies + or - to the current best bid. ...

> Missed the point again, *entirely*.

> I shouldn't have to repeat myself to explain this, but I already did a proof, a method, that would bypass the proposal entirely. I'll use the cited numbers as an example:

>

> Ecto is 25s

> I post a bid at 25s25c, for 1 unit.

> I post a second bid at 25s01c, for 100 units.

> I pull my 25s25c bid.

> The highest bid is 25s01c.

> I just coppered the 25s bid. (And bypassed wasting 24s.)

> The proposal is failed. QED.

 

Gee, yes, I made a mistake. Don't go nuts. How about this? You can't bid behind yourself and new bidders have increment enforced against current best and second best. Even if there isn't a solution to this problem it doesn't prove that the current system has flaws.

 

Also, keep in mind that what you describe has risks. On a high volume items your 1 unit is likely to be bought/sold or be matched before you manage to remove it. On low volume items someone else will likely do the same to you before you're order is filled so it ends up being about the same as it is now anyway.

 

> > Your assertion that people are expecting near immediate fulfillment has no basis.

> "That's just your opinion."

>

> What is the *problem this proposal is trying to solve?* The proposal has no merit, because not only is it easily defeated, it injects a huge inconvenience and flogs the market without *solving* anything.

> Continuing to argue for mandatory minimum persists in defying some rather basic facts about how the market itself works.

> 1. You bid, you wait. You risk getting outbid.

> 2. You buy, you get. You pay more.

> I don't know how many times the forums have to repeat basic truths like this.

 

That's not my opinion, unless you somehow know what EVERY BIDDER is thinking. I really find that hard to believe. Your two points apply either way, with or without a minimum bid increment. They are true but they have no bearing on the discussion.

> @Zohane.7208 said:

> > @Ensign.2189 said:

> > > @Zohane.7208 said:

> > > Seeing as this is not an auction house but a trading post, there are obviously no "bids", only sell prices and buy offers. No one can be "outbid".

> >

> > Convention in a financial or equity market is that 'sell offers' are 'asks' and 'buy offers' are 'bids'.

> I would agree to this; I was just trying to make the distinction between the percieved "auction bids" and the "bids" on a trading post.

>

 

The definition of "bid" according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary: "to offer (a price) whether for payment or acceptance." A bid is a bid. If there's some other distinction you meant to make then please explain. Is it that auctions work differently than a trading post?

[setdog.1592]

OP Says "I understand letting people outbid each other, but you should have to do it by a minimum of a certain percentage, say between 1% and 5%, because then it indicates that you're genuinely interested in paying more"

 

Then just list your bids for 5 percent higher.

 

 

[Omar Aschi Popp.7496]

> @"Forgotten Legend.9281" said:

> > @Mercury.9784 said:

> > I keep getting into wars over individual pennies with other trading post users. It's not fun, but it's necessary if you expect to execute a trade on anything that has low trade volume. I understand letting people outbid each other, but you should have to do it by a minimum of a certain percentage, say between 1% and 5%, because then it indicates that you're genuinely interested in paying more or accepting less, and you're not just trying to screw up other users and trade for effectively the same price.

> >

> > I've been playing since launch and love your game. Please keep up the good work.

>

> with respect... this is a Trading Post... NOT an Auction House. you are NOT bidding on an item. you are placing an order, and others may then choose to meet your order, OR others may choose to list their item on the trading post.

>

> you have a choice to pay someone else's list price, or to try and save $$ by placing an order. if you want the item RIGHT NOW!, then buy the pre-listed item for the pre-listed price.

>

> just like the real world. convenience costs extra. shopping around for lower costs means it takes longet to acquire the item. paying lower shipping rates usually means longer shipping times. taking the time to shop around means that you don't have the item in your hand until you decide to pay someone else's price. it's that simple.

>

> with respect, as far as i can interpret, you want the item right now! but you don't want to pay the convenience fee. make up your mind! if you are so impatient, buy it now! if you're going to squabble over pennies to buy it cheaper, it's going to take longer to get the item!

 

Literally nothing to do with what he is talking about.

 

Omg

 

SELLERS

[Mewcifer.5198]

I legitimately can't believe people are still fussing over this and even calling it an auction house and "bidding" when it 100% is just a marketplace with offers on the table.

 

Don't like an offer? Don't take it or place it down.

Someone made a better offer than you and so yours isn't being taken? Get over it. Wait for the better offer to run out so yours is the better offer. Or if the market has significantly moved away from your initial offer and you don't see if returning in a time reasonable to you, relist as a more up to up-to-date price.