1c undercutting is destroying competition
Why are we still having this discussion? It’s been established that 1 copper, 1 silver, or 1 gold less than someone else’s item is still less. And if it’s less, it will sell first.
Do you want Anet to give the option for buyers to select whatever price he wants to pay from the list of sellers? That’ll combat undercutting, as I’m sure the buyer would be absolutely thrilled to pay more for an item that he could get for less.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Why are we still having this discussion? It’s been established that 1 copper, 1 silver, or 1 gold less than someone else’s item is still less. And if it’s less, it will sell first.
Because if the amount they lose is so insignificant they don’t give the slightest kitten about it then they don’t deserve to go first.
In all reality, most of the problems that we see here are solved by department stores. Nobody would drive 5 miles to save a penny, but they would for much lower prices. The kinds of stuff that games trade as though they are commodities is kind of ridiculous.
Why are we still having this discussion? It’s been established that 1 copper, 1 silver, or 1 gold less than someone else’s item is still less. And if it’s less, it will sell first.
Because if the amount they lose is so insignificant they don’t give the slightest kitten about it then they don’t deserve to go first.
But if the price is lower, it should sell first. I still don’t understand what the problem is here.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Why are we still having this discussion? It’s been established that 1 copper, 1 silver, or 1 gold less than someone else’s item is still less. And if it’s less, it will sell first.
Because if the amount they lose is so insignificant they don’t give the slightest kitten about it then they don’t deserve to go first.
But if the price is lower, it should sell first. I still don’t understand what the problem is here.
This entire argument is that 1c lower on a 100g item (or even 10g, 5g) shouldn’t be low enough to justify someone getting their item sold before the person who listed it before them, because 1c out of 100g isn’t substantial enough to call it any kind of loss to the seller. OP is saying that this is semantically the same as listing it for the exact price as the previous lister and getting it sold first. It creates a Last-In First-Out system that, for items that don’t sell fast enough, can result in starving out the first lister (who actually set the current price on the item), and his item is never sold.
Though I imagine by this point, you do understand what’s being said, you just don’t think it is a problem.
“You’ll PAY to know what you really think.” ~ J. R. “Bob” Dobbs
Why are we still having this discussion? It’s been established that 1 copper, 1 silver, or 1 gold less than someone else’s item is still less. And if it’s less, it will sell first.
Because if the amount they lose is so insignificant they don’t give the slightest kitten about it then they don’t deserve to go first.
But if the price is lower, it should sell first. I still don’t understand what the problem is here.
This entire argument is that 1c lower on a 100g item (or even 10g, 5g) shouldn’t be low enough to justify someone getting their item sold before the person who listed it before them, because 1c out of 100g isn’t substantial enough to call it any kind of loss to the seller. OP is saying that this is semantically the same as listing it for the exact price as the previous lister and getting it sold first. It creates a Last-In First-Out system that, for items that don’t sell fast enough, can result in starving out the first lister (who actually set the current price on the item), and his item is never sold.
Though I imagine by this point, you do understand what’s being said, you just don’t think it is a problem.
Yeah I don’t see any problem to offering a product at a lower price. I get undercut all the time, but I don’t rage at the system. I just wait my turn in line and the item gets sold. If I feel pushy, I’ll relist and undercut the other person. I take a huge loss from relisting fees, but there are times when I just won’t let someone beat me.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
Why are we still having this discussion? It’s been established that 1 copper, 1 silver, or 1 gold less than someone else’s item is still less. And if it’s less, it will sell first.
Because if the amount they lose is so insignificant they don’t give the slightest kitten about it then they don’t deserve to go first.
But if the price is lower, it should sell first. I still don’t understand what the problem is here.
This entire argument is that 1c lower on a 100g item (or even 10g, 5g) shouldn’t be low enough to justify someone getting their item sold before the person who listed it before them, because 1c out of 100g isn’t substantial enough to call it any kind of loss to the seller. OP is saying that this is semantically the same as listing it for the exact price as the previous lister and getting it sold first. It creates a Last-In First-Out system that, for items that don’t sell fast enough, can result in starving out the first lister (who actually set the current price on the item), and his item is never sold.
Though I imagine by this point, you do understand what’s being said, you just don’t think it is a problem.
Yeah I don’t see any problem to offering a product at a lower price. I get undercut all the time, but I don’t rage at the system. I just wait my turn in line and the item gets sold. If I feel pushy, I’ll relist and undercut the other person. I take a huge loss from relisting fees, but there are times when I just won’t let someone beat me.
So you’ll wait in line behind someone who just cut in front of you in line when you were first in line by paying a price so low that he never even regarded it as a loss.
Why are we still having this discussion? It’s been established that 1 copper, 1 silver, or 1 gold less than someone else’s item is still less. And if it’s less, it will sell first.
Because if the amount they lose is so insignificant they don’t give the slightest kitten about it then they don’t deserve to go first.
But if the price is lower, it should sell first. I still don’t understand what the problem is here.
This entire argument is that 1c lower on a 100g item (or even 10g, 5g) shouldn’t be low enough to justify someone getting their item sold before the person who listed it before them, because 1c out of 100g isn’t substantial enough to call it any kind of loss to the seller. OP is saying that this is semantically the same as listing it for the exact price as the previous lister and getting it sold first. It creates a Last-In First-Out system that, for items that don’t sell fast enough, can result in starving out the first lister (who actually set the current price on the item), and his item is never sold.
Though I imagine by this point, you do understand what’s being said, you just don’t think it is a problem.
Yeah I don’t see any problem to offering a product at a lower price. I get undercut all the time, but I don’t rage at the system. I just wait my turn in line and the item gets sold. If I feel pushy, I’ll relist and undercut the other person. I take a huge loss from relisting fees, but there are times when I just won’t let someone beat me.
So you’ll wait in line behind someone who just cut in front of you in line when you were first in line by paying a price so low that he never even regarded it as a loss.
Items that are valued at 100G generally are because the demand far, far outstrips the supply.
So no, it really isn’t a problem. An item that rare will get sold, despite the 1c undercutters.
Because if the amount they lose is so insignificant they don’t give the slightest kitten about it then they don’t deserve to go first.
How, “deserve”? Morally? Then everyone who tries to keep high prices “don’t deserve to make profit”, too.
Because if the amount they lose is so insignificant they don’t give the slightest kitten about it then they don’t deserve to go first.
How, “deserve”? Morally? Then everyone who tries to keep high prices “don’t deserve to make profit”, too.
This kind of change really isn’t about anything moral, but creating a more efficient market.
By requiring that if you undercut you do it by at least, say, 1%, it helps push markets closer to their equilibrium point faster. Equilibrium point being where goods put up for sale equals goods purchased, and where the maximum offer price is about 15% lower than the minimum sale price.
Why is equilibrium good? It gives the best prices for people who buy and sell instantly, and generally speed up the pace that transactions happen. (yes, at a loss to traders who make money on the difference between bid and ask prices)
Commander Acraina – 80 Elementalist
Borlis Savers [BS]
For the Pass!
Borlis Savers [BS]
For the Pass!
By requiring that if you undercut you do it by at least, say, 1%, it helps push markets closer to their equilibrium point faster.
No. There is no difference between one arbitrally chosen distinct value and another.
All it would do, would be creating brackets of profitability and broaden the distinct values (for profit calculations) from easy conceptual ‘1c’ to ambigous and prone to computer math issues floating point range – which could encompass anything from 1c to 1g52s34c.03463628 and beyond.
Please read up on data structures so you can understand the way floating point numbers work on computers, and what a distinct value is.
No. There is no difference between one arbitrally chosen distinct value and another.
All it would do, would be creating brackets of profitability and broaden the distinct values (for profit calculations) from easy conceptual ‘1c’ to ambigous and prone to computer math issues floating point range – which could encompass anything from 1c to 1g52s34c.03463628 and beyond.
I’m not sure here, but are you trolling or taking my suggestion to be some sort of change the definition of money in the game?
Please read up on data structures so you can understand the way floating point numbers work on computers, and what a distinct value is.
Your post is undermined by your own suggestion to read up on floating point values, which I’d wager the TP code doesn’t contain at all, nor would implementing this suggestion require adding floating point values.
The only change my suggestion would have is to disallow bids between between X-1 price and X-X/100.
Commander Acraina – 80 Elementalist
Borlis Savers [BS]
For the Pass!
Borlis Savers [BS]
For the Pass!
Thats my point precisly. You do not understand what distinct value is, hence you dont understand that changing distinct value step from 1c, to an ambigous x% distinct value step, creates a profit bracket, making it difficult to estimate potential profits, as well as removing value from 1c at certain (again arbitrary and ambigous) levels, and decreasing the freedom of the sellers (as in, the profit brackets would be arbitrilly imposed by other sellers).
TP already uses floating point numbers when eveluating listing fee and net profit. There already exist profit brackets where goods varying in price, have the same listing fee/net profit due to how rounding works. This is bad. What you are proposing, would spread this problem from the low coppers to the whole range of prices.
Thats my point precisly. You do not understand what distinct value is, hence you dont understand that changing distinct value step from 1c, to an ambigous x% distinct value step, creates a profit bracket, making it difficult to estimate potential profits, as well as removing value from 1c at certain (again arbitrary and ambigous) levels, and decreasing the freedom of the sellers (as in, the profit brackets would be arbitrilly imposed by other sellers).
1) I think you mean discrete values, not distinct values.
2) I’m not sure why a good market needs to prioritize giving the trader the ability to conveniently calculate profit over price efficiency.y
TP already uses floating point numbers when eveluating listing fee and net profit.
Listing fee = selling price / 20. Amount of gold sent to seller upon sale = selling price * 9 / 10. Rounding, sure, but no floats.
There already exist profit brackets where goods varying in price, have the same listing fee/net profit due to how rounding works. This is bad. What you are proposing, would spread this problem from the low coppers to the whole range of prices.
What I’m proposing doesn’t change fee mechanisms at all, it just means that if you’re something where the lowest price is 6 silver, you can’t post unless it’s 6 silver or higher, or 5.94 silver or lower.
Commander Acraina – 80 Elementalist
Borlis Savers [BS]
For the Pass!
Borlis Savers [BS]
For the Pass!
1) Yes, discrete. Sorry not my native language.
2) Not easier for trader. Easier for both sides. But even if its for only one side it would still be good. One of characteristics of money is convinience. Market and its prices are not a labolatory simulation with objective goal of finding equilibrium, but its a means for people to sell and buy. Anything that hinders that goal is wrong. Maximixing profits/promoting certain traders is not part of its purpose.
3) Rounding is a mathematical operation that changes numbers from Real set to Integer set. Doesn’t matter if it happens in ALU by discarding extra bits, or in code by appoximation. Thus it doesnt matter if program stores floating point numbers or integers, the mathematical operation of transformation from floating point value to integer value still happens somewhere.
In a discrete set with step of 1c rounding introduces issues such as items at 2c and 3c both having the same listing fee, despite difference in possible profit. Thus it creates a bracket where selling for 2c is less profitable then selling for 3c in terms of return of investment. Thus giving 3c more value [in comparison to 2c](or actually not 3c, but rather selling price of 3c) then would otherwise stem from the actual value of that amount.
By extension, if you use range to determine max lower sell price, you will reverse the issue from listing fee. IE there will exist sell prices such that the maximum lower sell price a(x), for x and x+1c will be the same a(x)==a(x+1). Which will mean that x is never the correct value to sell for, despite being discrete number that has actual value in monetary system.
So no, you are not proposing to change listing fees, and i never claimed you do, but like i wrote, you would introduce numerical problems where they should not exist at all.
4) Form a society POV there is no intrinsic value to being the first seller. Thus there should also not be any benefit from being the first seller. What you propose, creates such a benefit, in the form of imposing your pricing scheme on others. If someone believes that item is worth 5s.99, when there already exists an item for 6s, the trader of the latter doesn’t hold, and shouldn’t, the right to prohibit the former pricing at -1c.
5) What you propose is extremly silly when taken into account of volume trading. If there are items priced at 6s, all i have to do is put one item at 5.94, then put several stacks at 5.99 (at this point 5.94 is the smallest item) to circumvent it at an insignificant loss (1? of PPU, if i sell 1000 units, this might even be lost due to rounding).
Similar method could be done for single unit trading (by placing at 1c, placing another at price -1, and immediately removing the 1c listing).
You can keep adding more constraints but they will only introduce more problems and alternative solutions (such as extra accounts for trading, using proxies to circumvent ip checks, creating predetermined discrete ranges for prices etc) – ultimately resulting only in making the market less friendly for casual buyers and sellers – which is contradictory to the purpose of this place.
The real problem with the TP is that it shares characteristics of financial instruments, instant trading of abstract goods, while it actually deals in commodities. And unfortunately without logistic troubles dealing with commodities brings.
OP, is there competition in Guild Wars 2’s economy?
Since you appear to be complaining about it then I can guess that the answer is, “Yes” which would mean that 1 copper undercutting hasn’t destroyed competition to date.
Why would that suddenly change?
I started reading all these posts, but some of the conflicts started getting tedious and I skipped about the last 1.3 of it, so if I repeat anything someone else said, I apologize.
First off, Undercutting isn’t something that can be solved. As a seller, you have the life goal of making as much as possible. As a buyer, you have the life goal of buying something for as little as possible. That’s really just how it is.
Do I get mad over the fact that about 5 seconds after I post ANYTHING on the TP it gets undersold? Oh yeah. Normally, I just leave it in there and ignore it, hoping that it will sell quick enough that the undercuts won’t get too outrageous. Ive got some stuff on there that after being on there for only a day has already been undercut by about 50+ items ranging from 1 c to 20 s. Usually, that’s when I get annoyed more than anything else, and is generally the number one reason most of my items go to the normal vendors instead of the TP (unless there is a theoretical “worthwhile” gain).
Setting it so that a specific undercut percent has to happen in order to do so isn’t a fix, its a catastrophe that will cause prices to drop even faster in the attempt to make a quick buck. Making it so that you can change the price of items after posted for free/super cheap would just enhance the battles between the price drops, as once its listed now its CHEAPER to do it. If you wanted to stop undercutting, you would have better luck either
A) appealing to people’s morals and try to make them all just click “match lowest bid” [which would suck for buyers, who would then never get lower prices] or
B) appeal to the buyers’ morals and try to make them place more reasonable purchase orders (at least the cost of materials + 15% TP costs).
It’s not a flaw, its how the market works. I’ve actually had the thoughts to just stand in a town and offer making people whatever armor they want for a small fee and the mats to build it, but who wants to spam town chats with “Anyone want gear?”
And before anyone asks – yeah, I always click the match lowest sale button.
}——————————-{
http://avsla-gw2.blogspot.com/
http://avsla-gw2.blogspot.com/
So no, it really isn’t a problem. An item that rare will get sold, despite the 1c undercutters.
The problem isn’t related to whether an item will get sold or not, it’s the time it will take to get sold.
The only purpose of 1c undercutters is to get their item sold quicker, the amount of time between when the under item sells and when the original item sells is liquidity taken from the original seller.
Normally undercutters have to pay something (less profit) to get this advantage. It’s what we call competition.
As the system currently stands the undercutter can gain an advantage without spending anything remotely noticeable (1c).
That’s the issue.
OP, is there competition in Guild Wars 2’s economy?
Please give me a more appropriate title and I’ll edit my original post. (I of course expect an insulting interpretation since it takes a certain character to critique a sentence literally, without regarding context.)
(edited by Risingashes.8694)
Well here is the biggest problem with Undercutting. Because the people who are undercutting don’t know anything and ARE just looking to make the quick buck, when the price is driven down to below the actual cost of something, that’s it. That item is done permanently. That item will NEVER again be able to make profit or break even. I personally think that items should be allowed to be sold if (and including tax), you are setting yourself up for a loss. This will drive the price up for all items depend upon the sale of base crafting materials, which is how a real market works.
Because lets face it, I was looking over gw2spidy to see which items the Artificer would be able to make a profit off of based off of purchasing crafting materials and then the said crafted item. Barely ANY yielded a profit. And most the profit was very small, that it wasn’t worth it. This is because of undercutting. So I made a few ravaging bandit focus. I made 10. I’ve sold 3 of those 10 in 5 days. Why? Because the cost of relisting the item was more than what I was making. In the beginning, I should have been reeling in 20s per item. Now I believe it is a negative profit.
This market is broken. Sure what I suggest would take some complex coding, but it would fix the system.
[EG] Ethereal Guardians
Formerly [QT] Questionable Tactics
Formerly [QT] Questionable Tactics
Please give me a more appropriate title and I’ll edit my original post. (I of course expect an insulting interpretation since it takes a certain character to critique a sentence literally, without regarding context.)
You could go with something like, “Thoughts about 1c undercutting” or “Let’s discuss 1c undercutting and how it effects the market.”
I read your first post. Your very first sentence is:
A bold claim, but hear me out.
I addressed your claim with a question to point out a historical data set – that competition still exists and if undercutting was destroying competition then there would be less competition today per capita than there was at release. Since that does not appear to be the case then your statement is rebutted.
(edited by whiran.1473)
The problem isn’t related to whether an item will get sold or not, it’s the time it will take to get sold.
The only purpose of 1c undercutters is to get their item sold quicker, the amount of time between when the under item sells and when the original item sells is liquidity taken from the original seller.
Normally undercutters have to pay something (less profit) to get this advantage. It’s what we call competition.
As the system currently stands the undercutter can gain an advantage without spending anything remotely noticeable (1c).
That’s the issue.
No, you completely miss the point. If an item was truly desirable, it will sell, undercutting or no undercutting by 1c.
Look at precursor/lodestone prices. Their sell orders going up very steadily. That lodestone you listed, and that lodestone someone else posted for 1c less, are all being sold almost simultaneously, and even higher sell orders are being listed afterwards.
You severely underestimate the size of the GW2 economy. There are many, many buyers out there and items are constantly being sold/bought. If someone undercuts you for 1c, depending on the value of that item, the “advantage” that person gains of selling it faster is so miniscule that it doesn’t matter.
Just look at gw2spidey, and its charts for sell/buy orders. Most goods fluctuate on an hourly basis. If undercutting was such a problem, you’d see sell values flat, or constantly decreasing. And that will be because that good just don’t have have that “value” in the buyer’s eye, and thus nothing is being sold at that price.
1c undercutting is not a problem. Undercutting in general is not a problem. Will people who list items at 1c less sell things faster? Sure, but the advantage people will get is so miniscule, because the item you listed for 1c more will sell immediately after. This “issue” you speak is so insignificant, it’s a non-issue.
(edited by Ursan.7846)
Well here is the biggest problem with Undercutting. Because the people who are undercutting don’t know anything and ARE just looking to make the quick buck, when the price is driven down to below the actual cost of something, that’s it. That item is done permanently. That item will NEVER again be able to make profit or break even. I personally think that items should be allowed to be sold if (and including tax), you are setting yourself up for a loss. This will drive the price up for all items depend upon the sale of base crafting materials, which is how a real market works.
Because lets face it, I was looking over gw2spidy to see which items the Artificer would be able to make a profit off of based off of purchasing crafting materials and then the said crafted item. Barely ANY yielded a profit. And most the profit was very small, that it wasn’t worth it. This is because of undercutting. So I made a few ravaging bandit focus. I made 10. I’ve sold 3 of those 10 in 5 days. Why? Because the cost of relisting the item was more than what I was making. In the beginning, I should have been reeling in 20s per item. Now I believe it is a negative profit.
This market is broken. Sure what I suggest would take some complex coding, but it would fix the system.
As someone who makes money from crafting, I’ll give you some advice.
Finding a profitable item using gw2spidy is a great start, but remember that everyone else can do this too, so don’t expect to have the market for a particular item all to yourself.
Because of this, crafting multiples of the same item isn’t really advisable, as you do better in the long run by crafting different items depending on which items are profitable at the time. You may still end up being undercut on some of them, but I have found that enough of my items are selling within a few hours that I can wait for the rest to sell.
I do relist a few items every now and then, usually when the market price is staying well below what my item is listed at, but even then I usually make a small profit once the extra listing fees are taken into account.
Well. What do people expect when everyone is trading finished production goods like they are stocks/commodities. There is absolutely no cost in transporting finished goods to the TP (I know of the tax, but the amount of costs that go from production to retail are far more than simply taxes). The goods just teleport into the system. Not even the transaction cost of time/distribution has been accounted for. If you want to see less 1c undercutting. Apply a time-cost to setting up trades.
For example, if we want to sell 2000 of some random ore and post it, the system shouldn’t take account of the new sell order for a set amount of time, seemingly 24hrs.
Products that shouldn’t be sold like High-Frequency-Traded stocks shouldn’t be sold like HFT stocks.
Well here is the biggest problem with Undercutting. Because the people who are undercutting don’t know anything and ARE just looking to make the quick buck, when the price is driven down to below the actual cost of something, that’s it. That item is done permanently. That item will NEVER again be able to make profit or break even. I personally think that items should be allowed to be sold if (and including tax), you are setting yourself up for a loss. This will drive the price up for all items depend upon the sale of base crafting materials, which is how a real market works.
Because lets face it, I was looking over gw2spidy to see which items the Artificer would be able to make a profit off of based off of purchasing crafting materials and then the said crafted item. Barely ANY yielded a profit. And most the profit was very small, that it wasn’t worth it. This is because of undercutting. So I made a few ravaging bandit focus. I made 10. I’ve sold 3 of those 10 in 5 days. Why? Because the cost of relisting the item was more than what I was making. In the beginning, I should have been reeling in 20s per item. Now I believe it is a negative profit.
This market is broken. Sure what I suggest would take some complex coding, but it would fix the system.
As someone who makes money from crafting, I’ll give you some advice.
Finding a profitable item using gw2spidy is a great start, but remember that everyone else can do this too, so don’t expect to have the market for a particular item all to yourself.
Because of this, crafting multiples of the same item isn’t really advisable, as you do better in the long run by crafting different items depending on which items are profitable at the time. You may still end up being undercut on some of them, but I have found that enough of my items are selling within a few hours that I can wait for the rest to sell.
I do relist a few items every now and then, usually when the market price is staying well below what my item is listed at, but even then I usually make a small profit once the extra listing fees are taken into account.
My problem isn’t the undercutting. My problem is the people who sell their items on the trading post, AFTER they craft said item, and it creates a loss. Like today, an item was going for over 2 gold. Then in a day went to 1 gold, I was fine with that. Till someone decided to go and shoot for 40 silver. That is a loss of profit if anyone sells that low.
[EG] Ethereal Guardians
Formerly [QT] Questionable Tactics
Formerly [QT] Questionable Tactics
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 strongly recommend you to go to a stock market and place a 200.01 bid, or even a 200.005 bid. It happens all the time. That one cent is exactly where the big money is made.
There’s no problem here except for markets with low volume. Even a high transaction volume market at high prices doesn’t have any problems with this undercutting.
If I can’t play Guild Wars 2 at work, I won’t work in Guild Wars 2 either.
Delayed content is eventually good. Rushed content is eternally bad. ~ Shigeru Miyamoto
Delayed content is eventually good. Rushed content is eternally bad. ~ Shigeru Miyamoto
My problem isn’t the undercutting. My problem is the people who sell their items on the trading post, AFTER they craft said item, and it creates a loss. Like today, an item was going for over 2 gold. Then in a day went to 1 gold, I was fine with that. Till someone decided to go and shoot for 40 silver. That is a loss of profit if anyone sells that low.
Ouch. I see similar behaviour in the types of items I craft, but not quite to that extent. My general strategy if my items are undercut by a large amount is to wait a short while to see if demand will help remove some of the lower priced items, then maybe look at relisting it if the price rises back into profitability (or a small loss depending on how long I’ve had the item listed for).
But that’s where having a spread of items is useful to me. About 75% of the items I list sell within a few hours, so that helps keep me liquid while I wait for a return from the other 25%.
if your listing is constantly getting undercut, then your listing is overpriced for the demand.
if your listing is constantly getting undercut, then your listing is overpriced for the demand.
And the 1c undercut is completely negligibly less overpriced.
if your listing is constantly getting undercut, then your listing is overpriced for the demand.
And the 1c undercut is completely negligibly less overpriced.
but, if they are not listed faster than they are being bought, you will still sell. If they ARE being listed faster than they are being bought, you will not sell, and your price is too high.
Whether it is 1c or 100g, if the demand curve doesn’t intersect your price point, your price point is too high.
if your listing is constantly getting undercut, then your listing is overpriced for the demand.
And the 1c undercut is completely negligibly less overpriced.
but, if they are not listed faster than they are being bought, you will still sell. If they ARE being listed faster than they are being bought, you will not sell, and your price is too high.
Whether it is 1c or 100g, if the demand curve doesn’t intersect your price point, your price point is too high.
That doesn’t justify someone getting to sell theirs first for what is effectively the same price.
If the demand isn’t enough to keep up with the listings that first person should still be going first when someone DOES buy rather than ending up behind people who are listing at basically the same price.
if your listing is constantly getting undercut, then your listing is overpriced for the demand.
And the 1c undercut is completely negligibly less overpriced.
but, if they are not listed faster than they are being bought, you will still sell. If they ARE being listed faster than they are being bought, you will not sell, and your price is too high.
Whether it is 1c or 100g, if the demand curve doesn’t intersect your price point, your price point is too high.
That doesn’t justify someone getting to sell theirs first for what is effectively the same price.
If the demand isn’t enough to keep up with the listings that first person should still be going first when someone DOES buy rather than ending up behind people who are listing at basically the same price.
Why should this be so? It doesn’t happen in other MMO auction houses, where I’ve often seen people undercut by the minimum amount. Those MMOs also had listing fees for putting items up on the auction house, so like the TP here, there was a cost involved in relisting an item.
When demand can’t keep up with the number of listings then the process of undercutting (even if by only 1c) should eventually bring the price down to a point where the two are balanced (i.e. demand increases and supply decreases). This is normal market behaviour.
Well here is the biggest problem with Undercutting. Because the people who are undercutting don’t know anything and ARE just looking to make the quick buck, when the price is driven down to below the actual cost of something, that’s it. That item is done permanently. That item will NEVER again be able to make profit or break even. I personally think that items should be allowed to be sold if (and including tax), you are setting yourself up for a loss. This will drive the price up for all items depend upon the sale of base crafting materials, which is how a real market works.
Because lets face it, I was looking over gw2spidy to see which items the Artificer would be able to make a profit off of based off of purchasing crafting materials and then the said crafted item. Barely ANY yielded a profit. And most the profit was very small, that it wasn’t worth it. This is because of undercutting. So I made a few ravaging bandit focus. I made 10. I’ve sold 3 of those 10 in 5 days. Why? Because the cost of relisting the item was more than what I was making. In the beginning, I should have been reeling in 20s per item. Now I believe it is a negative profit.
This market is broken. Sure what I suggest would take some complex coding, but it would fix the system.
As someone who makes money from crafting, I’ll give you some advice.
Finding a profitable item using gw2spidy is a great start, but remember that everyone else can do this too, so don’t expect to have the market for a particular item all to yourself.
Because of this, crafting multiples of the same item isn’t really advisable, as you do better in the long run by crafting different items depending on which items are profitable at the time. You may still end up being undercut on some of them, but I have found that enough of my items are selling within a few hours that I can wait for the rest to sell.
I do relist a few items every now and then, usually when the market price is staying well below what my item is listed at, but even then I usually make a small profit once the extra listing fees are taken into account.
My problem isn’t the undercutting. My problem is the people who sell their items on the trading post, AFTER they craft said item, and it creates a loss. Like today, an item was going for over 2 gold. Then in a day went to 1 gold, I was fine with that. Till someone decided to go and shoot for 40 silver. That is a loss of profit if anyone sells that low.
If someone undercuts by such a high amount like that and you know the item will easily sell for more, just buy it yourself and relist it.
If you don’t, one of us will anyway.
So you are trying to convince people who are undercutting you not to? That’s like trying convince Hitler to like Jews. Goodluck with that. Also, who are you to tell other people how to sell their stuff?
The game actually follows Last In First Out for like priced TP listings, specifically to discourage people from continually driving prices down, 1C at a time. The only thing wrong with undercutting by 1C is that it isn’t actually necessary.
As a seller, it more important to select a selling price that will appeal to buyers. When I go to list an item, I look at how many people have listed at the current lowest price before deciding whether to just match that price, or undercut it. I may also monitor the listing for a few minutes to get some idea how active sales are at the given price and how volatile the pricing is. Low sell through, an inventory glut at the current price and/or great pricing volatility are all warning signs to me that I may want to undercut.
The game actually follows Last In First Out for like priced TP listings, specifically to discourage people from continually driving prices down, 1C at a time. The only thing wrong with undercutting by 1C is that it isn’t actually necessary.
No it doesn’t, they fixed that a long time ago.
Because it was a bug.
Because LIFO is stupid.
ok,this is for those that dont understand the problem / think 1c is a under/overcut.
GW2 market is comparable to a auction house where you only get 1 bid and u can underbid with anything even a cent. as long as the number is larger. if you want to change that bid it costs you 5% of your bid. sure the roles are reversed but here we are all buyers / sellers.
this would result in some very random and wierd auctions.
firstly; nobody want to be the first bidder. because they have no idea of how much the other consider the item to be worth and even if he hits what its worth he will be undercut with 1 cent.
and the price would jump very much. because the only way to have a chance to get the item is to guess what the others think its worth + 5% or something.
what would this result in? the auction house makes 5% more than they should and the guy who value the thing the most might not even get it.
secondly: a low price is initiated somehow. and ALL the buyers increase the price by 1 cent. because nobody cares to increase the price because they don’t care enough and hope that there isn’t any1 else that want the thing at that price.
resulting in the auction house losing ALOT of money.
so it could go in either direction. sure it isn’t a perfect equal to GW2 economy but close. and of course everything is reversed if you want to apply it to gw2. there is a reason why ppl get unlimited offers and no fee and they have a pusher in a auction house. because the0y want a a fair price. and if they were only to allow one bid they would’t get alot of customers because its very unreliable
now why would the % undercut help?
because it would give a fairer price and it would remove the fear of being the first ( not all but some) it also makes a nice marketplace. because we would get more space between each layer ill show you:
without % undercut limitation:
1 at 1.0000g
1 at 0.9999g
1 at 0.9998g
1 at 0.9997g
1 at 0.7000g
1 at 0.6999g
same bids WITH % limitation
4 at 1g
2 at 0.7g
with this system its clearly easier to watch the market and make your decision if you should undercut or match price. there have to be a reason why we can see the lowest prices / offers. and thats because they want us to use that information. but not when selling items for some reason :S but that’s another thread for sometimes in the future.
ask yourself this: would u let some1 him go before you in the line in the store if he payed you for 1 cent. no of course not your time is more valuable than that. but you cant turn him down. because it IS a profit. actually its worse, the store get the cent. but u still cant turn him down for some kitten reason. he/she is cute or smthn.
TL;DR
1c is. not. a. price increase/decrease when we are dealing with expensive things. end of story finito. if you disagree read^if not, good.
ok,this is for those that dont understand the problem / think 1c is a under/overcut.
GW2 market is comparable to a auction house where you only get 1 bid and u can underbid with anything even a cent. as long as the number is larger. if you want to change that bid it costs you 5% of your bid. sure the roles are reversed but here we are all buyers / sellers.
this would result in some very random and wierd auctions.
firstly; nobody want to be the first bidder. because they have no idea of how much the other consider the item to be worth and even if he hits what its worth he will be undercut with 1 cent.
and the price would jump very much. because the only way to have a chance to get the item is to guess what the others think its worth + 5% or something.what would this result in? the auction house makes 5% more than they should and the guy who value the thing the most might not even get it.
secondly: a low price is initiated somehow. and ALL the buyers increase the price by 1 cent. because nobody cares to increase the price because they don’t care enough and hope that there isn’t any1 else that want the thing at that price.
resulting in the auction house losing ALOT of money.
so it could go in either direction. sure it isn’t a perfect equal to GW2 economy but close. and of course everything is reversed if you want to apply it to gw2. there is a reason why ppl get unlimited offers and no fee and they have a pusher in a auction house. because the0y want a a fair price. and if they were only to allow one bid they would’t get alot of customers because its very unreliable
now why would the % undercut help?
because it would give a fairer price and it would remove the fear of being the first ( not all but some) it also makes a nice marketplace. because we would get more space between each layer ill show you:without % undercut limitation:
1 at 1.0000g
1 at 0.9999g
1 at 0.9998g
1 at 0.9997g
1 at 0.7000g
1 at 0.6999gsame bids WITH % limitation
4 at 1g
2 at 0.7gwith this system its clearly easier to watch the market and make your decision if you should undercut or match price. there have to be a reason why we can see the lowest prices / offers. and thats because they want us to use that information. but not when selling items for some reason :S but that’s another thread for sometimes in the future.
ask yourself this: would u let some1 him go before you in the line in the store if he payed you for 1 cent. no of course not your time is more valuable than that. but you cant turn him down. because it IS a profit. actually its worse, the store get the cent. but u still cant turn him down for some kitten reason. he/she is cute or smthn.
TL;DR
1c is. not. a. price increase/decrease when we are dealing with expensive things. end of story finito. if you disagree read^if not, good.
But if I offer an item 1 copper less than the other guy, it’s still less right? Therefore I get to sell my goods first, until someone else beats my current price.
tl;dr – 1 copper less than any price is less
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
In other games which had a player based market, I have seen some choose to solve this issue by adding a random 2-5 hrs delay to buy and sell orders.
This meant that you couldn’t just put something with 1 point less than everyone else, because by the time other players would see the order the market would likely look slightly different. All this is achived without adding taxes or put arbitrary restrictions on prices.
In other games which had a player based market, I have seen some choose to solve this issue by adding a random 2-5 hrs delay to buy and sell orders.
This meant that you couldn’t just put something with 1 point less than everyone else, because by the time other players would see the order the market would likely look slightly different. All this is achived without adding taxes or put arbitrary restrictions on prices.
That has to be the worst idea ever. You go out and earn gold by playing, then you have to wait hours to use the item you want to buy, if you get it, which you also won’t know for hours. That is the complete opposite of fun. What games do that?
Who said anything about waiting hours for using bought items?
The delay is only for people who creates sell and buy orders, ie, when you put an item for sale at a higer price than highest buy order, or want to buy for less than lowest sell offer. Once an item was bought/sold, any gold and item was sent immedently.
This meant that people who bought items from lowest seller, or sold item to highest bidder got no delay. However, people playing the market got a small delay to prevent constant -1p or +1p market changes.
If I put down a buy order, it rarely get filled instantly. Its normally a wait for a rather random time until either my order get filled, or someone undercuts me. Say a 10g buy order for kittens (ie, input any item of choice here) takes 1hr to fill without undercutting. With a random delay, it might take 3hrs instead. Would 3hrs vs 1 hrs waiting really effect how fun trading in the TP is? Would it even be noticable for the causual player?
(edited by Belorn.2659)
Would 3hrs vs 1 hrs waiting really effect how fun trading in the TP is? Would it even be noticable for the causual player?
Yes. The difference between 1 hour, though most buy orders I’ve made come within 15 minutes, and 3 hours is the difference between getting the item that day and waiting until the next day. Again, if you even get it, or else you wait another day to see if you get it, then maybe start over.
That system essentially forces people actually playing the game rather than the market to buy or sell at the prices of people playing the market or wait an indeterminate period of time to enjoy content (either the items themselves or the areas for which they want better gear to explore). And it does it just to reduce risk and increase profits for the people playing the market. It is a straight up awful idea.
(edited by Thelgar.7214)
Would 3hrs vs 1 hrs waiting really effect how fun trading in the TP is? Would it even be noticable for the causual player?
Yes. The difference between 1 hour, though most buy orders I’ve made come within 15 minutes, and 3 hours is the difference between getting the item that day and waiting until the next day. Again, if you even get it, or else you wait another day to see if you get it, then maybe start over.
That system essentially forces people actually playing the game rather than the market to buy or sell at the prices of people playing the market or wait an indeterminate period of time to enjoy content (either the items themselves or the areas for which they want better gear to explore). And it does it just to reduce risk and increase profits for the people playing the market. It is a straight up awful idea.
i can agree with you that a 3h or even a 1h wait would make a significant impact on the casual play style. and it would be overall a bad thing and it would’t necessary solve the problem either. and it would only make it harder for the casual player base. sure it would make it harder for the TP-players as well but it wouldn’t be worth it.
The underlying issue is that allowing arbitrary prices allows for huge market spreads. In a healthy, mature market, the bid and ask for an item are very close—everyone agrees on how much the item is worth at the moment. A huge bid-ask spread shows that no one really knows how much it’s worth, and this discourages transactions. If you post it too high, it won’t sell and you’ll lose your listing fee, and if you post it too low, you’re leaving money on the table people would have willingly paid. Thus, many buyers wait to post until the price converges and they’re more confident they’re selling at the correct price.
Allowing tiny adjustments to the bid and ask delays how long it takes them to converge. By posting an item for sale for 1c less than a 10g price, you’re not making any statement that you think it’s overpriced—you’re just gaming the system to sell sooner for a trivial reduction in profit. If the market requires reasonable-sized bid increments, then buyers and sellers either have to commit to the current price or move the bid and ask closer by an amount that matters, so they eventually converge.
To do this in a way that isn’t dependent on the current prices and prevent shenanigans, just limit prices to two significant digits. That’s easy for people to understand—you can only have two numbers that aren’t zero in your price. If the item is up for 10g, you either have to get in line at 10g or go down to 9g90s, no 9g99s99c nonsense. That way, the market spreads converge and people will have confidence in prices.
That’s easy for people to understand—you can only have two numbers that aren’t zero in your price. If the item is up for 10g, you either have to get in line at 10g or go down to 9g90s, no 9g99s99c nonsense. That way, the market spreads converge and people will have confidence in prices.
Seller #1: 10g
Seller #2: 9g 99s 99c <—- there’s only one number that isn’ a “0”, and that’s “9”
If that’s what you mean, I fully support this!
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
But if I offer an item 1 copper less than the other guy, it’s still less right? Therefore I get to sell my goods first, until someone else beats my current price.
tl;dr – 1 copper less than any price is less
Egg Baron ~ A daily Guild Wars 2 blog.
The underlying issue is that allowing arbitrary prices allows for huge market spreads. In a healthy, mature market, the bid and ask for an item are very close—everyone agrees on how much the item is worth at the moment. A huge bid-ask spread shows that no one really knows how much it’s worth, and this discourages transactions. If you post it too high, it won’t sell and you’ll lose your listing fee, and if you post it too low, you’re leaving money on the table people would have willingly paid. Thus, many buyers wait to post until the price converges and they’re more confident they’re selling at the correct price.
Allowing tiny adjustments to the bid and ask delays how long it takes them to converge. By posting an item for sale for 1c less than a 10g price, you’re not making any statement that you think it’s overpriced—you’re just gaming the system to sell sooner for a trivial reduction in profit. If the market requires reasonable-sized bid increments, then buyers and sellers either have to commit to the current price or move the bid and ask closer by an amount that matters, so they eventually converge.
To do this in a way that isn’t dependent on the current prices and prevent shenanigans, just limit prices to two significant digits. That’s easy for people to understand—you can only have two numbers that aren’t zero in your price. If the item is up for 10g, you either have to get in line at 10g or go down to 9g90s, no 9g99s99c nonsense. That way, the market spreads converge and people will have confidence in prices.
I haven’t though of this … the downside to it is that a item priced 12g would need to be undercut with 1g which is wayyy to much. it works good just at or just below the 10^x coppar prices but dosen’t work so well when its slightly above. if you understand what i mean.
the only way they could implement this is to make it based on the value. but that would most likely bring allot of confusion to the market house. and to be honset it does work pretty good but not perfect as it is today. I’d like to have the “must undercut with X% in order to undercut” rule. But its simply to difficult to implement and/or would bring to much confusion to the casual player base when using the trading post.
I’m decent at math, but it takes too much effort to calculate x% from the current price. And Alt-Tabbing to get to my Windows calculator is out of the question.
The only math that counts is knowing 1 copper less than the current price means it’s less than the current price. Simple, efficient, and tons of fun in a competitive market!
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
The underlying issue is that allowing arbitrary prices allows for huge market spreads. In a healthy, mature market, the bid and ask for an item are very close—everyone agrees on how much the item is worth at the moment. A huge bid-ask spread shows that no one really knows how much it’s worth, and this discourages transactions. If you post it too high, it won’t sell and you’ll lose your listing fee, and if you post it too low, you’re leaving money on the table people would have willingly paid. Thus, many buyers wait to post until the price converges and they’re more confident they’re selling at the correct price.
Allowing tiny adjustments to the bid and ask delays how long it takes them to converge. By posting an item for sale for 1c less than a 10g price, you’re not making any statement that you think it’s overpriced—you’re just gaming the system to sell sooner for a trivial reduction in profit. If the market requires reasonable-sized bid increments, then buyers and sellers either have to commit to the current price or move the bid and ask closer by an amount that matters, so they eventually converge.
To do this in a way that isn’t dependent on the current prices and prevent shenanigans, just limit prices to two significant digits. That’s easy for people to understand—you can only have two numbers that aren’t zero in your price. If the item is up for 10g, you either have to get in line at 10g or go down to 9g90s, no 9g99s99c nonsense. That way, the market spreads converge and people will have confidence in prices.
The underlying issue is that some players want to play stock market, with all the protections for their investment and advantages for the wealthy that that implies. But the other players want to play retail, wholesale and discount and get their items or money changed over as quickly as possible so they can play running around the world or dungeon or whatever as their character doing stuff.
Every single player in the game uses the same trading post. There is a spread on buy/sell orders because people do know the value of most things. If your item is sitting long enough that 1c undercutting is a problem, it is overpriced. You’re either taking a risk to catch a sucker or artificially driving up prices by trying to corner the market. In either case, there shouldn’t be changes to the Trading Post to help you.
A nice change would be charging a fee over time for listings, so there is some impetus to move stock. It costs money to store high end items properly and securely. Maybe have food items degrade over time in storage too. At the moment, it is too easy to buy something up, removing it from the game for the people that want to play, and tuck it away in the Trading Post waiting for the inflation you’re helping to create to catch up.
First – It seems the actual issue here is that someone has an “I was here first” mentality. Do you propose a selling queue? Can you imagine that in a free market system? I’m sorry, you can’t buy milk cheaper from me because the other store listed theirs first… HA!
If you want it to sell fast, price it to sell fast.
Secondly, you obviously do not remember standing in LA or Spamadan selling items.
Finally – There should be a return to the seller if an item(s) have not sold. There should not be a monetary penalty to the seller.