Guild Wars 2

A bold claim, but hear me out.

Supply vs demand; Isn’t undercutting just competion?

Absolutely not. Competition requires one of two things- product differentiation where quality can influence purchasing decisions or price differentials where consumers simply purchase the cheapest available option of the same product.

1c undercutting is price differentiation, isn’t it?

Only in the most technical sense, and in reality- not unless the item is worth more than 1 silver.

Why? Because price differentiation is based on consumer value. To the consumer a Dawn selling for 400g 20s 1c is practically the same as one selling for 400g 20s 2c. Yes, the 1c undercut one is cheaper, and the buyer will always choose the cheaper one, but the buyer is not sufficiently better off after the transaction to be noticeable.

Then how should it work?

Currently in the market for Dawns you have 4 different types of buyers and sellers. One seller gets to the market first and chooses a sale price, and one seller gets to the market second and chooses either:

• the minimum they would take for the item (assuming that minimum is above the current lowest sale price, or significantly below the current sale price if the seller believes that price unreasonable)
• 1c below the current sale price

the system, as it is, rewards the second comer simply for coming to the market later by allowing them to list the item at the 1c undercut and get their item sold before the first seller.

Why couldn’t the first seller just list their item 2c lower to begin with?

The 1c undercutting isn’t random. Regardless of what the first seller lists the item the second person always has the option of listing 1c lower and 1c is 0.00001% of the sale price.

Why can’t the first person just relist the item 2c lower once they see the undercutting?

The listing fee of 5%. But let’s assume there is no listing fee, is there still a problem? Once relisted the first seller only has until the undercutter sees the relisting and undercuts again. Leading to an endless war that results in no real gain to buyers (who only gain 30c on a 400g purchase) and ends up rewarding those who are lucky, or who play the most instead of a true profit cutter.

So what’s the solution?

Competition is supposed to be about lowering prices and increasing supply.

So the only real solution is to charge a 5% fee to anyone attempting to list an item for sale at less than a 5% discount to the current lowest sale price. (eg. selling an item for 950g when the next lowest is 1000g is uneffected, selling at item for 999g99s99c is charged an additional 50g listing fee). This number is in no way necessary, make it 2%, 1%, 10%. Just make it more than the 0.000001% that is currently in place.

This would lead sellers to make an important decision when listing at item: Do I want to sell my item faster for less profit, or wait a bit more for more profit. As opposed to now where that question is not truly being asked and undercutters are simply jumping the queue.

This idea is not revolutionary, or even unheard of.

Go to any stock exchange and ask to bid $200.01 on a $201 stock and they’ll laugh at you. As stocks rise so to do the allowed bidding units. Penny stocks (0.01-0.10) allow half cent bids, while dollar stocks allow 1c bids. $50 stocks allow 5c bids and so on- and so on.

Because stocks exchanges realised, long ago, that efficient systems require limits that don’t encourage destructive behavior.

I agree especially when you get into expensive items over 4g, or even worse your trying to sell a precursor for 100’s.

there is a simple solution to this once you have paid your 5 percent fee you may lower the cost of this item as many times as you want and it doesn’t leave the market.. maybe add a 1 percent relisting fee so people don’t go ape lowering it 1c at a time. but to charge 5 percent again is crazy.

Or institute that items over 10g have to be undercut by at least 5 percent or something this micro undercutting..

Here what a deal on this brand new 100,000 dollar car… Nah i’m goin across the street its 99,999.99 cents… please..

So what’s the harm? Stuff doesn’t sell? Because my stuff sells almost always and in a reasonable period of time.

There’s an implementation problem here that’s hard to get around. Say you’re selling 10 of item A, which is currently worth 1 gold. Post 1 for 94 silver, with no fee. Now, since that’s the lowest sell price on the TP, you post the rest of your goods for 99.99 silver with no fee, since you’re no longer technically undercutting anyone.

I would change the system such that you have to undercut the next highest sale price by 1%, even if that price isn’t the lowest sale price.

majorkong.9073:

So what’s the harm? Stuff doesn’t sell? Because my stuff sells almost always and in a reasonable period of time.

Undercutting by 1 copper doesn’t bring prices to equilibrium fast enough. Sure, it’s great for the seller who just posted their good because now they’re at the head of the queue, but it doesn’t generate much benefit for the economy as a whole.

Your arguement is so flawed it’s unreal, why would anyone undercut by more than 1c after all cheapest is lower than any other item. I know they do because some players have a notional value of an items worth or they are deliberately trying to lower the price to make their buy orders appealing.

What the BLTC needs to do is return unsold items after a set time refunding any fee’s incurred.

majorkong.9073:

So what’s the harm?

Good question. The buyers still get the item. An item is still sold. Who is actually harmed by the current system?

Buyers: Instead of benefiting from actual competition you have 1c undercutters jumping ahead of other sellers without taking a true hit (more than 0.000001%) to their price. As such prices remain higher than they would under true competition and buyers pay more.

Sellers: When listing an item, sellers take a risk. That risk is that their item will take a long time to sell and that they’ll need to relist their item at the cost of 5% of the selling price. Sellers always risk being undercut, that’s the nature of markets, but under a fair market the competition has to at least take a hit to their profit- currently the risk of being undercut is almost 100% and the time taken to sell the item will always be double that of what it would be if everyone was forced to either offer buyers a better deal or wait in line.

Buyers: With the constant fear of being undercut sellers are more likely not to enter the market at all, leading to a lower supply and less competition.

Sellers: Since the same thing happens with buy orders, sellers are not allowed to sell in to a fair representation of what people would pay. Instead they face the same 1c overcut war between orderers, where sellers gain 15c from fierce overcut wars- instead of the 5-30% that true competition would bring.

Summary: Sellers factor undercut risk in to the prices they choose, meaning buyers have to pay higher prices to buy out a sell order.

Buyers have to waste time micromanaging their buy orders to avoid being 1c overcut (sellers don’t get this luxary, as the 5% listing fee discourages relisting).

Buyers have to pay higher prices as undercutters are able to gain the full advantage of first sale without giving up any true price decrease (0.000001% off is not a true discount).

Sellers have to wait (potentially forever) for their items to be converted in to cash, despite the same items being sold for 1-4c less, a sum they’d gladly give up if the system allowed them to: but no matter what they listed it at originally the people who sell after them will just undercut by 1c.

Bluesavanah.8562:

I’ve seen a lot of markets crash recently, adding this would simply make that problem worse, as now people are undercutting by 5% constantly instead of by 1c gradually.

Edit: Spoke with Bluesavanah ingame, got a bit more information on what was being said.

I simply disagree that this will be the case. Yes- each undercut would be far more significant, but as undercuts actually cost something to sellers- they’ll also be far less frequent.

Sacrificing 0.000001% of the price is automatic, it’s instinctual. You check the buy spread for false orders and then you undercut. And why wouldn’t you? You get the money faster and there’s far less undercut risk.

But 5%? That’s a real decision. You’re sacrificing profit for time (risk for reward) or visa versa.

Markets will still move, that’s a given. But now people will be making profit decisions rather than jumping infront of the poor sap who got there first. For a market to crash there’d need to be a removal of demand, and a willingness of supply to take far lower prices. The undercut fee wouldn’t in itself cause a crash.

Aoreias.6384:

There’s an implementation problem here

This is why I love human systems. So easy to overlook methods of exploitation. You’re right that’s a tough one.

I suppose what you said is the best solution. The price must be 95% or less than the next highest listed price to avoid the fee. It does make the system a tad complicated for the average joe, which turns it from a feature I have a hope of seeing put in to a theoretical argument.

I see no harm whatsoever, since I get to sell all my goods at a high value (albeit 1 cp lower), and people are able to purchase my goods. It’s a Win/Win for everyone. Perhaps the OP is mad that his items didn’t sell?

The harm is that the person you undercut will have a hard time selling his item despite putting it up first because people are constantly undercutting him/her. Definitely not a win for that person, as there are now many sellers selling under that person’s price (even if its only 1c or even 10c lower).

There is no harm to the other person. It’s not like he lost his item. After my goods are sold, the other high priced stuff will show up as the next “lowest” priced good. He then has an opportunity to sell, and then everyone is happy. I’m only getting to sell my stuff quicker.

Yes what you say is true, however, there is a little problem. If everyone is undercutting (because you are not the only one to undercut afterall), it then becomes very difficult for someone to sell their item. Their item will not show as the next lowest price since someone will undercut again. Of course this doesn’t happen with every item, but it happens quite often.

Anyhow, I’m actually finding this thread quite interesting. I really shouldn’t be here, got exams and all so I’ll not reply to any response. Sorry for that, I must continue my studies.

Here’s some good advice how to deal with 1c undercutting from the guy who hit WoW gold cap and had three titans of worth just 9 months into EVE http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/search?q=0.01+ISK

Smooth Penguin.5294:

There is no harm to the other person. It’s not like he lost his item. After my goods are sold, the other high priced stuff will show up as the next “lowest” priced good. He then has an opportunity to sell, and then everyone is happy. I’m only getting to sell my stuff quicker.

And the 10 people undercutting you will make it so you can’t sell your stuff quicker. Not by any real amount anyway.

Tarang.7562:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

There is no harm to the other person. It’s not like he lost his item. After my goods are sold, the other high priced stuff will show up as the next “lowest” priced good. He then has an opportunity to sell, and then everyone is happy. I’m only getting to sell my stuff quicker.

And the 10 people undercutting you will make it so you can’t sell your stuff quicker. Not by any real amount anyway.

No, then I just undercut the under-cutters with more stuff at a lower rate. It’s a vicious cycle, but one I refuse to lose at.

The only time I don’t bother with undercutting by 1cp is at the end of the nite, when I log out. At that time, I’ll most likely up the amount I undercut by a 50 cp to 1 silver.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

No, then I just undercut the under-cutters with more stuff at a lower rate. It’s a vicious cycle, but one I refuse to lose at.

The only time I don’t bother with undercutting by 1cp is at the end of the nite, when I log out. At that time, I’ll most likely up the amount I undercut by a 50 cp to 1 silver.

Mate. You’re stealing someone’s spot in the queue.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this ‘everyone wins’ nonsense from. You are selling your item instead of the person who listed their item, in good faith, first.

Yes the system allows you to do it- but come on. You’re not being a crafty entrepreneur, doing something that all the stupid people haven’t worked out- you’re exploiting a poorly designed system to jump in front of other people- and then saying that you deserved to sell the item first because of how competitive you are.

No offense, but you- personally- are the problem.

(To be fair: I, personally, am also the problem. As I 1c undercut (possibly) more than anyone. I just seem to actually recognise that what I’m doing it exploitative and based on a faulty system, whereas you seem to of mistake this advantage as some kind of personal achievement.)

Zid.4196:

Here’s some good advice how to deal with 1c undercutting from the guy who hit WoW gold cap and had three titans of worth just 9 months into EVE http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/search?q=0.01+ISK

From the very article you listed:

Before you’d ask why the hate against the 0.01 punk: I’m a preacher of capitalism and a strong believer that it’s good for the World. The station trader is providing a useful service for both parties. The impatient seller can sell instantly to his buy order, the buyer will find the item on the station, he doesn’t have to go there the previous day to set up a buy order. The competing station traders decrease the margin between the buy and sell prices, providing income to both parties. The 0.01 punk not only doesn’t provide such service but discourage sellers to set up sell orders (as it won’t sell as he undercuts them) and discourage buyers to set up buy orders, so he moves the market away from equilibrium, enforcing the belief that the market is something evil that doesn’t serve the people. I’m also annoyed by his existence as it’s pretty easy to get rid of him so his pure existence proves that most people has the trading knowledge of a toad.

Which is exactly the problem I’m talking about and the exact reasons that it is a problem.

Want to know what else is different between EvE and GW2? The 5% listing fee, which prevents you from simply relisting the item again and again until the 1c undercutters go away. Which negates the entirely of the advice given in the article (although well written for EvE).

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Tarang.7562:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

There is no harm to the other person. It’s not like he lost his item. After my goods are sold, the other high priced stuff will show up as the next “lowest” priced good. He then has an opportunity to sell, and then everyone is happy. I’m only getting to sell my stuff quicker.

And the 10 people undercutting you will make it so you can’t sell your stuff quicker. Not by any real amount anyway.

No, then I just undercut the under-cutters with more stuff at a lower rate. It’s a vicious cycle, but one I refuse to lose at.

The only time I don’t bother with undercutting by 1cp is at the end of the nite, when I log out. At that time, I’ll most likely up the amount I undercut by a 50 cp to 1 silver.

Undercutting by that much, thinking it will sell quicker? If there is still profit to be had when buy orders and sales tax are included, someone will still undercut you. Usually by just 1c. So you just lost more value, at absolutely no profit in selling the item quicker or anything.

I think you underestimate another factor: the time. Referring to the time at which people are “doing their shopping”.

Risingashes.8694:

Zid.4196:

Here’s some good advice how to deal with 1c undercutting from the guy who hit WoW gold cap and had three titans of worth just 9 months into EVE http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/search?q=0.01+ISK

From the very article you listed:

Before you’d ask why the hate against the 0.01 punk: I’m a preacher of capitalism and a strong believer that it’s good for the World. The station trader is providing a useful service for both parties. The impatient seller can sell instantly to his buy order, the buyer will find the item on the station, he doesn’t have to go there the previous day to set up a buy order. The competing station traders decrease the margin between the buy and sell prices, providing income to both parties. The 0.01 punk not only doesn’t provide such service but discourage sellers to set up sell orders (as it won’t sell as he undercuts them) and discourage buyers to set up buy orders, so he moves the market away from equilibrium, enforcing the belief that the market is something evil that doesn’t serve the people. I’m also annoyed by his existence as it’s pretty easy to get rid of him so his pure existence proves that most people has the trading knowledge of a toad.

---

Which is exactly the problem I’m talking about and the exact reasons that it is a problem.

Want to know what else is different between EvE and GW2? The 5% listing fee, which prevents you from simply relisting the item again and again until the 1c undercutters go away. Which negates the entirely of the advice given in the article (although well written for EvE).

I have to agree with what you said.

However, Gevlon correctly identified 1c undercutters as a (unwitting) cartel, and was able to counter them in certain markets by deeply undercutting, then profiting from the increased trading volumes due to a return to equilibrium.

So far that’s the best advice I’ve seen on the problem. In this case, “best” is very far from perfect.

Zid.4196:

Here’s some good advice how to deal with 1c undercutting from the guy who hit WoW gold cap and had three titans of worth just 9 months into EVE http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/search?q=0.01+ISK

This is good advice.

Also, it seems to me that if .01 undercutting weren’t allowed more traders would deal in higher-priced, slower selling goods. Which might not be a good thing for those already in that market.

I’ll stick with my cheap, fast selling goods. Undercutting by .01 doesn’t work nearly as well when stacks move so fast the TP can barely keep up. Seems to me if you’re trading regularly in items worth 100s of gold, you have to take the risks that go with that. And if there is such a large supply of those pricy items that yours simply will never sell due to someone listing at .01 less, seems to me there is too much supply and not enough demand for that market.

And the .01 relisters are also paying a %5 fee every time. So that fee might hurt people who have to relist because of them, but it also puts a damper on the undercutting.

Risingashes.8694:

the system, as it is, rewards the second comer simply for coming to the market later by allowing them to list the item at the 1c undercut and get their item sold before the first seller.

And if it was a 1g undercut, is your item any more unsold? You’re having an emotional reaction to something that makes no material difference to you. The actual problem here is that it’s a disadvantage to post first, which is why I’ve said previously that sellers should have an option to lower their price so that they can remain competitive.

Leablo.2651:

Risingashes.8694:

the system, as it is, rewards the second comer simply for coming to the market later by allowing them to list the item at the 1c undercut and get their item sold before the first seller.

And if it was a 1g undercut, is your item any more unsold? You’re having an emotional reaction to something that makes no material difference to you. The actual problem here is that it’s a disadvantage to post first, which is why I’ve said previously that sellers should have an option to lower their price so that they can remain competitive.

Except if it was undercut by 1g then there’s actually a significant difference in price, so the person selling it for less deserved to go first.

Leablo.2651:

And if it was a 1g undercut…? You’re having an emotional reaction to something that makes no material difference to you.

I’m having a purely practical reaction to queue jumping.

Competition is wonderful, no one is a communist here. No one is trying to fix prices- we’re in fact trying to do the complete opposite.

The question here is: how much should people have to pay in order to sell their item faster?

The current system, on a Dusk, determines that you have to pay 0.00000025% of the sale price in order to jump in front of someone. I simply believe that that is completely unreasonable.

Why percentage do you believe is completely unreasonable? Just off the top of your head. I guarantee you that it is higher than what the system currently allows.

As to ‘no material difference’, that’s silly. Yes under 1c undercutting and 1g undercutting there is still an item placed in front of me- but the person infront of me had to make a sacrifice to do it. They had to give something up, this allowed me to better choose a price point that I believed was low enough already that people wouldn’t choose to further undercut me. As it stands- there is no price point low enough as you can always just take a 1c cut and end up at effectively the same profit margin that I chose.

gimmethegepgun.1284:

Leablo.2651:

Risingashes.8694:

the system, as it is, rewards the second comer simply for coming to the market later by allowing them to list the item at the 1c undercut and get their item sold before the first seller.

And if it was a 1g undercut, is your item any more unsold? You’re having an emotional reaction to something that makes no material difference to you. The actual problem here is that it’s a disadvantage to post first, which is why I’ve said previously that sellers should have an option to lower their price so that they can remain competitive.

Except if it was undercut by 1g then there’s actually a significant difference in price, so the person selling it for less deserved to go first.

Remember that 1 Gold less and 1 Copper less is still less. So the lower price does indeed deserve to go first.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Remember that 1 Gold less and 1 Copper less is still less. So the lower price does indeed deserve to go first.

Justify that. I’ve written several pages of text arguing why that isn’t the case. Your response is that the current system is correct because it is correct.

1c is 0.33% of the cost level 80s pay to move to a new area, 0.9% of the cost people pay to move within an area. 1.25% a single piece of cotton.

You’re arguing semantics: 1c less is obviously technically less. But you’re ignoring the reality of the situation. 1c either way is not actually an amount worthy of being paid attention to by every player.

Starting gear costs 1c, and you get 5 of those items just for creating a character. And I’d imagine most don’t bother vendoring that gear before deleting the character.

If you want to play word games then we don’t really have anything to talk about. I admit that 1c less is less, what I disagree with is that 1c less is functionally less to the point where it deserves to jump infront of other people. What constitutes an appropriate amount that represents a true undercut? I don’t know- I’ve floated 5% as an idea. What percentage do you think is reasonable? So far it seems 0.000001% is perfectly reasonable to you. Is this the case?

Unidentified dyes are one justification. They sell like mad as the price fluctuates up and down with people putting them up singly or in stacks of hundreds in 1c increments.

The fact that you’ve written several pages of text just indicates there is some advantage for you personally in getting 1c and 1g undercutting removed.

Risingashes.8694:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Remember that 1 Gold less and 1 Copper less is still less. So the lower price does indeed deserve to go first.

Justify that. I’ve written several pages of text arguing why that isn’t the case. Your response is that the current system is correct because it is correct.

1c is 0.33% of the cost level 80s pay to move to a new area, 0.9% of the cost people pay to move within an area. 1.25% a single piece of cotton.

You’re arguing semantics: 1c less is obviously technically less. But you’re ignoring the reality of the situation. 1c either way is not actually an amount worthy of being paid attention to by every player.

Starting gear costs 1c, and you get 5 of those items just for creating a character. And I’d imagine most don’t bother vendoring that gear before deleting the character.

If you want to play word games then we don’t really have anything to talk about. I admit that 1c less is less, what I disagree with is that 1c less is functionally less to the point where it deserves to jump infront of other people. What constitutes an appropriate amount that represents a true undercut? I don’t know- I’ve floated 5% as an idea. What percentage do you think is reasonable? So far it seems 0.000001% is perfectly reasonable to you. Is this the case?

My justification is that it doesn’t matter what price YOU feel is appropriate. All that matters is what price I ask for. If it’s 1cp less, the person buying it won’t care. All they want is the item, and if the price starts to trickle downwards due to our little Price War, all the better for them.

All the other Sell Orders don’t matter to me either. This is a competition (of sorts) to sell our items. There is no rule or law that dictates what I can or cannot sell for, and there shouldn’t be. So if I place my item for 1 copper less, that means I’m making less money than if the other guy sells his for 1 copper more. If it make him feel better, he can say he made more of a profit than me.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

All the other Sell Orders don’t matter to me either. This is a competition (of sorts) to sell our items. There is no rule or law that dictates what I can or cannot sell for, and there shouldn’t be. So if I place my item for 1 copper less, that means I’m making less money than if the other guy sells his for 1 copper more. If it make him feel better, he can say he made more of a profit than me.

Again, when you say “there is no rule of law”- that’s correct. What I’m asking for is to implement a law.

Look at what you’re saying- you know that 1c undercutting isn’t true competition. “If it makes him feel better”- you know that the original seller isn’t truly getting more profit- they’re getting 1c more. And waiting longer. Because I, and you, have cheated him of his place.

If the person could relist their item for 1c less than us, at least that would be bordering on fair. But they can’t- they lose 5% if they do, and another person will just come along and 1c undercut their new price. If there was no 5% fee, then that would at least be fair- but it would encourage an endless micromanaging of sale orders the same way buy orders are currently micromanaged- giving the advantage to those who devote the most time rather than those willing to offer more for the item.

I know others sell orders don’t matter to you- but take yourself out of your selfish position for one moment. I benefit greatly from 1c undercutting, but we should all be willing to put aside personal gain and correct injustices for the good of the market.

MisterEction.9382:

…
The fact that you’ve written several pages of text just indicates there is some advantage for you personally…

I benefit greatly from 1c undercutting, as do most power traders. I’m here because 1c undercutting is unfair, and rewards those who prey on good faith traders. A healthy market benefits all over the long run, I’m willing to give up the advantage so that others have faith in the system.

Instead of listing fee’s, shouldn’t there be a sales tax placed upon the merchant? Taken at time of sale, not listing.

KyleQuest.4639:

Instead of listing fee’s, shouldn’t there be a sales tax placed upon the merchant? Taken at time of sale, not listing.

There is. There’s a hidden 10% tax on the seller when the item is sold.

Risingashes.8694:

…

I know others sell orders don’t matter to you- but take yourself out of your selfish position for one moment. I benefit greatly from 1c undercutting, but we should all be willing to put aside personal gain and correct injustices for the good of the market.

…

I benefit greatly from 1c undercutting, as do most power traders. I’m here because 1c undercutting is unfair, and rewards those who prey on good faith traders. A healthy market benefits all over the long run, I’m willing to give up the advantage so that others have faith in the system.

You’re being disingenuous. 1c undercutting benefits everyone. Removing it only benefits the power trader. The power trader is going to have the most established listings, have stocks of items to undercut at larger margins if necessary and have the capital to sit on a high original price.

The casual trader, or avid player who just wants to turn his items around and get stuff for his character and keep playing loses out, needing to work harder for more income if he sells at a reduced price compared to the prices established by the power trader or his listing sits in queue tying up capital he needs to put into improving production.

I get that you want a market that mirrors that of real life, where those at the top of the economic chain make more and more doing less and less, while everyone else works harder and harder for less and less.

1c undercutting in no way harms competition. Plenty of listings fly off the shelf when they are 1c apart, even at higher prices. If you don’t want to be 1c undercut, price your items originally at an attractive price rather than extorting as much as you can out of other players.

MisterEction.9382:

Risingashes.8694:

…

I know others sell orders don’t matter to you- but take yourself out of your selfish position for one moment. I benefit greatly from 1c undercutting, but we should all be willing to put aside personal gain and correct injustices for the good of the market.

…

I benefit greatly from 1c undercutting, as do most power traders. I’m here because 1c undercutting is unfair, and rewards those who prey on good faith traders. A healthy market benefits all over the long run, I’m willing to give up the advantage so that others have faith in the system.

You’re being disingenuous. 1c undercutting benefits everyone. Removing it only benefits the power trader. The power trader is going to have the most established listings, have stocks of items to undercut at larger margins if necessary and have the capital to sit on a high original price.

The casual trader, or avid player who just wants to turn his items around and get stuff for his character and keep playing loses out, needing to work harder for more income if he sells at a reduced price compared to the prices established by the power trader or his listing sits in queue tying up capital he needs to put into improving production.

I get that you want a market that mirrors that of real life, where those at the top of the economic chain make more and more doing less and less, while everyone else works harder and harder for less and less.

1c undercutting in no way harms competition. Plenty of listings fly off the shelf when they are 1c apart, even at higher prices. If you don’t want to be 1c undercut, price your items originally at an attractive price rather than extorting as much as you can out of other players.

And yet the power trader will be the one who will be paying enough attention to 1c undercut in order to go first regardless of what the others do.
Oh, and since you have absolutely 0 control whatsoever about the ability of other people to 1c undercut, pricing it lower when you’re first doesn’t actually do anything other than get you less money. Plus, as for “extorting as much as you can out of other players”, the 1c person is doing the exact same thing. They’re trying to get as much out as they possibly can, except now they’re cutting in line to get it. If they actually undercut by a reasonable amount, then they’d have earned the status of “pricing it more reasonably”.

The first thing I want to point out, or try to define, is the nature and reasoning behind an undercut. An undercut is a form of insurance. It is a way to insure and ensure that your item has the best chance of being sold, the first thing a buyer sees, therefor much more likely to sell quickly, further insuring you against being undercut yourself.

The biggest flaw or concern that I have with the a lot of the comments I am seeing (OP included ) is that you are assuming that if you make it more costly to undercut an item, that sellers will be substantially deterred from trying to compete to win a sale. I don’t think they would be. The reason why a seller only lists 1c lower is because they know that that is, currently, the SMALLEST hit they have to take to get an item sold. If a seller thought that they needed to undercut by more to help guarantee their sale, I believe that they would. To circle back to my first argument, I think buyers will stay “pay” for that insurance, if it helps to guarantee them a swift profit, for as we all know, the longer an item stays on the TP, the more resigned we become to not seeing the profit we wanted. A bigger insurance policy (5% required undercut as you suggested) may not be a big enough deterrent for the people who are most interested in staying liquid…at least not with the big ticket items.

What happens, instead, with your idea is that you just see a devaluing of goods. Look at it this way. You see how one undercut after another, by just 1c, can drastically change profit. What is going to happen to an item’s value when the undercut is greater? A greater devaluing. I’m not sure which “market” you are worried about ruining, but you seem speak from a seller’s point of view because you are upset about constantly being undercut (this is not something a buyer worries about :P), so let’s assume you are concerned about the seller’s market being ruined. Now, if we see a greater devaluing of a particular item, due to sellers doing what it takes to make sure their item is bought FIRST, then according to the logic I have laid down here, you are contradicting yourself. Implementing steeper undercutting means items lose value > means sellers must sell lower > means sellers make less profit > means the seller’s market is ruined > and the buyers rejoice (not that that is a bad thing either :P).

Now, you also talk about risk. Being undercut by one Copper is hardly a risk, because when that item comes off of the line, yours is right back in line. When the difference is as small as a copper, those items, as you suggested, might as well be priced the same.

Basically what you are suggesting is for the average seller to just “agree” on a market cost, or lower the market value (which kinda makes me think…heck might as well vendor them :P). You’re asking them to just throw theirs in the pile with that of everyone else, and this takes away a sense of control for the seller, which again is why I don’t think the average person wants to sell their goods at the same price as 50k other sellers. They want control over their sales which is the very reason WHY undercutting occurs.

I could be completely off-base here, but really I am just speculating and simply typing all this out is really making me think about it all, but…

I think undercutting happens for two reasons:
1) A seller wants to help insure that their item sells.
2) Currently, conceding a point of yours, it is not expensive to do so (1c).

I guess the question really is: which instinct will win? The urge to see an item SOLD and have that gold in hand, or the gamble on not undercutting and hoping someone else won’t go ahead and undercut you that X% that you suggest.

The choice to NOT undercut is a gamble. You’d be asking people to trust the market to stay steady, and therein lies the problem. People undercut because they don’t trust the market to stay steady.

With all that said, as a buyer who finds the purchasing process of attaining a legendary quite costly, I’d be happy to see sellers having to compete MORE than 1c to sell an item!

Mandar, the problem isn’t undercutting, it’s cutting in line without paying for it.
If someone is willing to take a somewhat significant profit loss in order to get to the front of the line, fine.
But when their profit loss is a fraction of a percent in order to skip ahead of everyone already in line, there’s a problem.
There was a bugfix a while back that dealt with people being able to post something at the same price as everyone else and get theirs sold first instead of last. LIFO. Completely insignificant price differences like 1c on anything above 1s or so is effectively that. It’s unfair, and quite frankly in any other system either people wouldn’t care (oooh a 1 cent savings on a flatscreen) or an auctioneer would throw out the difference because it’s stupid.

I can’t see why it should harm someone or should be unfair, if it’s undercutting by 1 copper or by 5% or whatever. You make your price, other people make theirs. If they come later, maybe the only customer already bought yours, and they can’t sell. Or if they come later, they adopt to your pricing, and you can’t sell. They don’t complain that you are unfair being sooner, so why do you complain?

Talyjta.9081:

I can’t see why it should harm someone or should be unfair, if it’s undercutting by 1 copper or by 5% or whatever. You make your price, other people make theirs. If they come later, maybe the only customer already bought yours, and they can’t sell. Or if they come later, they adopt to your pricing, and you can’t sell. They don’t complain that you are unfair being sooner, so why do you complain?

That last line would justify older systems where the person who delivered the killing blow got everything and everyone else got nothing even if they did all of the work.

In a game like GW2, it would be easy to deal with that – don’t “do all of the work”, then you probably won’t get “everything”, but you also don’t loose anything.
Or, what would be another possibility – think about timing.

tl;dr but all I got was “wah wah wah my overpriced goods won’t sell”.

1c undercut is competition. The stock market example only shows a market where people are restricted from participating. The tp is what happens when anybody can participate in a market.

You can’t be undercut at all if you picked a price that results in your item being sold before mister 1c competition gets there to list.

Risingashes.8694:

A bold claim, but hear me out.

**This idea is not revolutionary, or even unheard of

Go to any stock exchange and ask to bid $200.01 on a $201 stock and they’ll laugh at you. As stocks rise so to do the allowed bidding units. Penny stocks (0.01-0.10) allow half cent bids, while dollar stocks allow 1c bids. $50 stocks allow 5c bids and so on- and so on.

Because stocks exchanges realised, long ago, that efficient systems require limits that don’t encourage destructive behavior.

you seriously believe this? You can buy shares of something like AAPL ($509.79/shr) or GOOG ($701.96) down to the cent. stock markets got rid of pricing in 1/8ths (analogous to the horrible 5% idea you propose)because it promotes inefficiencies and higher spreads.
And you buy stocks through a broker, you don’t go down to the stock exchange.

As posted above, if the demand is there at the list price, your item will sell. You don;t need to relist immediately.

I support this. Although I’ve never run into this problem, as I never get good drops, I can see why it would be a huge issue.

Then again, I have no idea what repercussions it may cause. I could think it out, but honestly I don’t care enough :P

I run into this problem frequently. Like a good high end seller irl, I purchase my materials from the market. I then take these materials and make them into amazing items. I want to make a profit on these items. So, say the price of making one is 36s. I got that then, now in order for me to make a profit, I have to list a price at least 38-ish silver. (figure in the tax). That to me isn’t worth making, when you can make a better profit on just farming the materials, which may take ages. I now then think, okay, the price to make this item is only 17s. And the lowest price being sold is 40+ silver. One day later (a full 24 hours), the lowest price is now 29s. Yes, there is still a profit to be made, but in one day the profit got cut down just because people wanted a quick sale. Those just selling on the TP are not understanding of how this works. If you list you item at the same price for as the lowest price, it will sell eventually, perhaps not right off the bat, but it will sell in due time. I usually list about 5-8 items on the TP before I head to bed. Then wake up to see which kitten undercut me all night.

it does not matter people can insert what price they like. even in real life there is is the same, there are always competitor. consumer, sellers they are always aiming for the cheapest price of offers but its the quality thats counts even if its cheap or expensive. in games all items are the same people want instant gold less earnings is for them to decide even if its 1c. its a global market not only on your server. there are thousands of players.

Whenever I sell items I undercut by a decent margin. That way I can be more certain that my item(s) will sell. Although I don’t sell often. Mainly crappy loot or a rare once in a while.

Mandar.9813:

An undercut is a form of insurance.

Sure, the problem is that that insurance is currently effectively free for items worth over 1g. And as with everything which has no cost, it is currently overconsumed. And rightfully so- why not take advantage of something free which provides you benefit. I certainty do.

Mandar.9813:

sellers will be substantially deterred from trying to compete to win a sale.

I don’t disagree. I can’t speak for others, but I doubt people will be deterred, and that is certainly not my intention. What I’m asking for is simply that they have to pay something for the right to push the first comer back in the selling queue.

As you’ve said, undercutting has the purpose of increasing your liquidity, at the expense of whoever else had the lowest selling order. When the undercutter pays something for that it’s called competition. Under the current system there is effectively no cost to 1c undercutting- and that’s the problem.

Mandar.9813:

you’ll just see a devaluing of goods.

Good, if sellers are willing to sell at lower levels then the goods arn’t actually worth as much as the currently distroted market is showing.

Mandar.9813:

by just 1c, can drastically change profit.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. I never said 1c is a drastic change in profit. In fact since my proposed change is percentage based, this can never be the case. Only items with a large sale value would be effected, where 1c is not at all a drastic proportion of the sale price.

Mandar.9813:

I’m not sure which “market” you are worried about ruining,

There is not multiple markets for a single good. Once sell amount meet buy amounts a sale occurs. Buy and sell markets are unavoidably connected. Anyway, 1c undercutting doesn’t destroy a market, and I never claimed it did- it simply makes some players benefit at the expense of other players without offering anything of value, or apply any degree of skill or effort.

Mandar.9813:

because you are upset about constantly being undercut

You keep implying I’m whining because of selfish reasons. I’m a massive 1c undercutter. I profit tons from employing the stratagy, and I avoid high value items like the plague. If the change I proposed was put in I’d lose money, not gain it. Buyers would be the most benifitted as they’d now face sell orders that actually represented sellers willingness to sell, instead of the 1c undercut wars which do hardly anything to effect prices.

Mandar.9813:

Being undercut by one Copper is hardly a risk,

And yet you wrote an entire paragraph about liquidity, and how undercutting was an insurance against it. So tell me- why do people 1c undercut if, apparently, there is no reason to do so. You say being undercut is fine, because eventually your item will sell, and yet the people undercutting you are still undercutting you. Please explain that one.

Mandar.9813:

Basically what you are suggesting is for the average seller to just “agree” on a market cost,…

It’s a good thing I’m not asking for undercutting to be removed from the game, as otherwise what you just said would be relevent. What about costless undercutting? Do you think that the extra control, and the benifit of not being lumped after people who got to the market first, should cost sellers something? More than 0.000001% for Dawn for instance?

Or are second arrivers entitled to free control/liquidity at the expense of first arrivers?

Mandar.9813:

I guess the question really is: which instinct will win?

And that would be fine if both instincts were actual choices. But currently there is only downside to matching the current sell price, and only upside to 1c undercutting the current sell price. In a healthy market, to gain an advantage, you need to either take home less or act is a smarter manner. 1c undercutting does neither.

Mandar.9813:

You’d be asking people to trust the market to stay steady, and therein lies the problem.

Here again you highlight the problem, the thing you’ve previously said “isn’t a risk”. First movers take a risk, that the market will not move downwards and that their item will be sold. 1c undercutters increase this risk by getting the same reward, but getting their item sold faster. They pay nothing for this, they screw the person before them at no cost.

This all boils down to the freedom to sell for whatever price you want. I don’t care about other sellers, as I only see MY items and MY profit. And because I don’t care about other sellers, that trumps everything being posted in this thread.

They “screw the person before them” no more than the person before them tried to screw the buyer. If you want 20s profit from a transaction and someone else with the same goods will settle for 19.99s profit, then ther wasn’t 20s of profit there to be made (unless the demand is high enough both items get bought).

Nike.2631:

They “screw the person before them” no more than the person before them tried to screw the buyer. If you want 20s profit from a transaction and someone else with the same goods will settle for 19.99s profit, then ther wasn’t 20s of profit there to be made (unless the demand is high enough both items get bought).

Except this person is now screwing both the buyer, since the price is basically the same, AND the seller before him, since he’s cutting in line, rather than just the buyer.
Plus, as the TP blatantly shows, people will always be capable of selling something for less until they are literally incapable of doing so due to meeting the vendor price.
Thus, regardless of what price you pick, unless it’s a common crafting material, someone will always be willing to 1c undercut in order to go first without a significant loss in profit.

If you post a good for 20s, then you should already have taken into account that the amount less than the previous listing that you are undercutting is, in effect, the price that you are paying to be first in line. If someone 1c undercuts you, then clearly it wasn’t enough.

We really need to stop behaving as though this market is similar to a real-world market. In reality, we have a financial market that exists because traders want to receive above-average returns on their savings. There is a market, and a demand, for savings in reality that exists with banks offering interest rates for savings. This does not exist in video games, as of yet. The main reason why there are financial traders is because of the return/risk of trading stocks compared against the demand for savings, I.E. the interest rate offered by banks, is worth taking advantage of.

The various goods on this market are being treated as if they were the stock of a company, which they are not. The main reason for all of this volatility is because there is no way, outside the TP, for an individual to make interest on their savings. There is a huge supply of savings, but nowhere to store it.

I honestly think there needs to be a supported way for individuals to form money management groups that offer interest rates compared to what they can earn by using their stock of savings.

just an idea, though.

If you want to “beat” the 1c undercutter, just wait until he lists his item and then undercut him by 1c. But wait – what if during the time you’re waiting, he lists and sells straight away? Then he got the sale you “should” have got.

There’s opportunity costs for both going first (you might get undercut and lose a sale) or going afterwards (you might miss out on a sale that you could have gotten by listing earlier.)

At the moment, we have a free system where there are no limitations or arbitrary rules on what price you can list your item for.

Imposing an artificial limit (ie. you can list at the current lowest price, or a certain minimum percent beneath it) reduces the simplicity and freedom of the system. It’s not a step to be taken lightly.

Given that I’ve already established that there’s costs and benefits to listing first or listing after, I don’t feel adding these arbitrary restrictions will yield enough benefit for the loss in simplicity/freedom.

Ultimately, you have to discard your mistaken notion that the person who lists first “deserves” to sell first. It’s a gamble either way – the only guaranteed way of selling first is to fulfill a buy order.

Rieselle.5079:

Ultimately, you have to discard your mistaken notion that the person who lists first “deserves” to sell first. It’s a gamble either way – the only guaranteed way of selling first is to fulfill a buy order.

ANet has already shown that they feel LIFO is stupid and not what is intended (and FIFO is what it’s supposed to be), seeing as they fixed a bug that made the most recent listing at a certain price get the buy/sale.