Guild Wars 2

**Edit to put my suggestion up first…

I suggest that the 5% posting fee remain. But after a set amount of time that ANet decides on (I suggest 2-5days) you can get your posting fee back so your items are not up on the trading post forever with people undercutting by 1copper.

Discuss.

I’ll start. The posting fee has totally halted all of my income from the trading post. A few days ago I could consistently sell items on the trading post within a day. Now that more items (especially higher level items) are being posted as people reach higher levels; the undercutting is heinous. Today I’ve posted items 10s under the lowest seller (in an attempt to get items to move) but within a few hours I have been undercut anywhere from two to ten times. Usually by 1 copper increments.

This is by all means fair. It’s a trading post after all and there is going to be competition. But when I had to pay 20silver to post this item, 10s for that item, 15s for this other item, 5s for that item over there… you get the picture. Stick it out and hope that my item sells after all the undercuts sell (unlikely in the current market if there are more than 10 undercuts) or take the item off the trading post, directly eating the cost of posting in the first place, and attempt to sell again. God forbid I get undercut after a second posting, or a third posting…

It has essentially “locked up” all of my money. For people who are big on markets and making money it has made me not want to play. If there was no posting fee I would still be playing a much as I was. I could take down my items, re-post them if I felt so inclined, or give them to the guild bank or to friends, or use them items myself ect… instead of feeling completely helpless because of the posting fee.

This is one of the positives of other games where it is an auction house style, with a timer on the auction. Because this “fee” is a “deposit” that you get back if the item doesn’t sell.

That means you are not familiar with the price of the item that you’re trying to sell…If you can adjust the price, others can too. It just brings the price to the “reservation price” (check wiki on definition) that a seller is willing to sell faster. If your reservation price is higher than other seller, theirs will still get sold first. No difference there. In fact, it benefits the buyer. You just have to accept the fact that for any item where many people are trying to sell, you pretty much have not much say in the price.

@luckdemon.8619
Having no fee allows for market manipulation. Timer will not change the price people are willing to pay for an item…so it won’t magically make your item sell at a higher price. What it will do is that people will be more conservative in pricing, so you’ll see more severe undercutting down to a seller’s reservation price. You also fail to note the negative aspect of “other” game’s auction house where price can be controlled by a small group of players.

I know exactly the price of the items I’m selling. 551 successful sales say so. Of course the prices can change, that’s expected. I just want the opportunity to get my money OUT of the trading post without feeling like I’m getting screwed six ways ’till Sunday.

How about a compromise? Still have the posting fee but have auctions last for only a specific time instead of indefinitely.

Or if you want, still have them last indefinitely, but after a set time you get a refund if you cancel them. Whatever that set time may be.

I didn’t want anything…just stating that these changes change nothing other than making it less painful for mistakes, while at the same time might be bad for the economy. No fee makes it easier to manipulate the market…but it is debatable that if the market is sufficiently active, it cannot be manipulated even without the fees. As for timed listing, doesn’t change the prime determinant of price…so you won’t get to sell your item at a higher price magically.

I’m saying this in the context that people are asking for change because they think the changes will allow them to sell for more.

If your context is about the cost of mistakes, then I agree that your proposal will make it less costly…but I believe that every mistake must be punished so that people can learn and adapt…and those that can’t…well…Darwin’s theory is all I can say.

There is also a MAJOR problem with how the trading post fulfills trades.

I can confirm both of these MAJOR problems. They are the same concept just changing buying and selling.

When you put in a purchase order for any item. If you post at the same price as the highest current purchase order YOUR order will be fulfilled FIRST, not LAST as one would expect.

Same with selling. If you post something for say 2gold, and it has been on the trading post for 2 days. If someone else comes along and posts the same item at 2gold THEIR item will sell first, even though yours has been on the trading post for TWO DAYS!!!!!

It should be first in first out, not last in first out. Ludicrous!

Wazabi.1439:

I didn’t want anything…just stating that these changes change nothing other than making it less painful for mistakes, while at the same time might be bad for the economy. No fee makes it easier to manipulate the market…but it is debatable that if the market is sufficiently active, it cannot be manipulated even without the fees. As for timed listing, doesn’t change the prime determinant of price…so you won’t get to sell your item at a higher price magically.

I’m saying this in the context that people are asking for change because they think the changes will allow them to sell for more.

If your context is about the cost of mistakes, then I agree that your proposal will make it less costly…but I believe that every mistake must be punished so that people can learn and adapt…and those that can’t…well…Darwin’s theory is all I can say.

How about ANet implementing a 5% posting fee for PURCHASE orders if your so about punishing players from trying to sell items for very reasonable prices but get undercut by 1 copper ten times?

All the 5% posting fee is currently doing in its current form is stifling players reasonable expectations to sell items for what they are worth without a possible gamble of having items stuck for DAYS because people are willing to sell for 10copper cheaper.

I think a 5% upfront cost is acceptable as long as the auctions are refundable within 2-5 days if they don’t sell.

If you remove the 5% posting fee then people with more time can just continually 1c you, making it far worst trying to sell anything.

Also yes it should be first in, first out. I don’t know how aNet could make such a mistake.

zaerk.2305:

If you remove the 5% posting fee then people with more time can just continually 1c you, making it far worst trying to sell anything.

Also yes it should be first in, first out. I don’t know how aNet could make such a mistake.

Is anyone actually reading what I propose for a fix?!

I don’t want the free removed!!! /eyeroll

I was replying to your OP. It clearly implies that you wished it removed. /eyeroll

I see your point. Touche. Later posts do clear that up though. So yeah.

Edited OP with suggestion first

Agreed with OP suggestion. And I had also noticed the “first in last out” methods of buying and selling. Makes me feel bad for the people who ordered first on a “10,000 ordered from 1,000 buyers”

Personally I have sold a few items, that a few minutes later people started selling for the same price as me, and it stayed that way for days, going up into the hundreds of items. Frustrating knowing that my item should have been bought first.

John smith noted that it the LIFO was not intended. They are fixing it. That contributes to undercutting. My arguments on the timed posting stands. If the whole reason is so that you are punished less for your mistake, I would say no. Mistakes should be punished. Other games had fostered a weird way of thinking on how a market works by babysitting them…I think that needs to stop. The adaptation skills of playing a game has diminished to the point that many player ask for changes for anything that doesn’t go their way.

Speculation activities is negatively related to the cost of doing so. A higher cost of selling will discourage such activities by making it harder to make a profit. So no to zero fees. If they want to put in a tax for buy orders, be my guest. I can adapt.

All this will do is continue to frustrate players. It is very reasonable to expect that an item you have will sell on the auction house if you put it up for what is currently the going price.

Once more players do the above and their items don’t sell. Frustration ensues. Now guess what happens when they realize they won’t get a refund if they pull that item off the trading post. They get mad. Especially since whatever profit they might have had is now “spent” because they got undercut. This especially goes for people crafting items to sell on the trading post for very minimal gains.

What would players normally do when taking items off the trading post would make it so they lose money? They will leave them up with “hope” that it will sell eventually. This will cause items to continually drop in prices with a very low bottom end. Why? Because no one wants their items to be on the auction house forever, or lose money if they take it off. So everyone will be posting items at what they consider “low” to get it moved. Thus perpetuating the drop in prices.

This happens to ALL items once more people reach max level and there is an overabundance of ALL items. Which is very bad for ANet. Profits they hope to have from players buying gems to convert to gold drops drastically. Would they rather have someone who really wants to craft a legendary weapon or what have you spend $20 dollars to help them achieve that goal, or someone spend $2 dollars to do it. Or not spend any money at all because everything is so cheap.

Now all the players who thoroughly enjoy using the trading post to make money have left the game as well because what they enjoy the most is destroyed. Resulting in more lost potential revenue.

Your position Wazabi I would consider is a very “hardcore” position. MMO games don’t make boat loads of money catering to the “hardcore”…

My proposal I feel is still very agreeable. As I said before punishing players for attempting to sell items for what the current market value is, whilst everyone will want to undercut or be screwed, is a bad idea.

People will buy the items if there is demand for it. If the demand overcomes the supply it doesn’t matter if people undercut because items will get sold.

If there isn’t a 5%, people will perpetually take items out and relist it lower and lowering the price anyways. I don’t see a problem unless you are trying to sell things with very low demand and supply increasing greatly.

Esrever.8613:

People will buy the items if there is demand for it. If the demand overcomes the supply it doesn’t matter if people undercut because items will get sold.

If there isn’t a 5%, people will perpetually take items out and relist it lower and lowering the price anyways. I don’t see a problem unless you are trying to sell things with very low demand and supply increasing greatly.

Once again I’m not proposing to take the 5% out completely. Read OP – First few lines.

Well I think having the 5% commitment is a good thing since it makes people more incline to think before they post an item. It allows people to actually buy something for highest buying price instead of everything being dumped as high as people feel like.

Esrever.8613:

Well I think having the 5% commitment is a good thing since it makes people more incline to think before they post an item. It allows people to actually buy something for highest buying price instead of everything being dumped as high as people feel like.

In a global economy anyone dumping as high as they feel like doesn’t harm anything. Obviously the item won’t sell because there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more of that item with people competitively trying to sell.

Charging people for trying to sell items at a reasonable price (what most players would do) with the high likelihood of getting undercut and their items not selling (potentially forever) and then losing money if they take it off does harm the economy.

Keeping an item in there doesn’t do anything against the economy. If someone under cuts you and your item doesn’t sell, it just means your item doesn’t deserve to be that price. Having to pay something up front is reasonable for people to put items at prices that are reasonable for the buyers. If you want something sold and not lose money, sell at what people will buy it for.

I see no big problem here except people don’t like watching money just go but I like this system since it promotes lower prices for people buying.

Esrever.8613:

Keeping an item in there doesn’t do anything against the economy. If someone under cuts you and your item doesn’t sell, it just means your item doesn’t deserve to be that price. Having to pay something up front is reasonable for people to put items at prices that are reasonable for the buyers. If you want something sold and not lose money, sell at what people will buy it for.

I see no big problem here except people don’t like watching money just go but I like this system since it promotes lower prices for people buying.

It does hurt the economy. The players who end up having items stuck on the trading post even when they post something A REASONABLE PRICE but are undercut 30 times by 1 copper each they are not getting revenue from the item sell to put back into the economy. The item will be there FOREVER as people continue undercutting. Supply will > demand for every item in the game very soon.

5% is perfectly fine IF the item sells. If the item doesn’t sell it’s just a money sink not needed any way you end up dealing with it that will just frustrate players.

Just take yourself for example. Say you find an lvl 80 exotic weapon while playing (or you craft one). You go to the trading post and see that there are 200 of this weapon for sell, with 90% being within 10s of each other. So to make it sell you post anywhere from 1c-10s off the cheapest. 10s is a reasonable cut off the bottom price to get it sold. So you do that. Yet before it sells two people undercut you for the same price margin. One sells and then yours is second to be sold. Great! But then 10 more people do the same thing. All within a 24 hour period. Now you face leaving the item there or taking it off and eating the 5% charge. Either way you lose. Not because you priced the item “too high”, but because it’s a global market with a lot of competition. Should you be punished for this ?? NO!!! You can’t expect your average player to know the general going price for every item in the game at all times. Players will look at the current going and selling price and leave it at that.

Do you get upset? Maybe, maybe not. Do you get upset when it happens to 90% of your items. Probably. So what do you do next time? Post it for 15s, 20s, 50s? under the bottom price to make sure you don’t get screwed again. Probably. Take this x100 and you have items crash in price real quick which then = less potential revenue for ANet which is bad for the players.

My proposed 2-5 day timer before you can get your 5% back if your item doesn’t sell is basically a “time-out” / “punishment” for players who are reckless. They will not benefit from whatever they are trying to sell during that time and have to re-evaluate what they are going to post it at next time. I personally would lean more towards the 5 days to make it “stick” more.

The way undercutting works is the person wants to have their item sold quickly with minimum effect on price. I know full well that by selling an item for 1c less it makes zero fianancial effect on me but effectively blocks everyone selling before me from selling thiers and putting my item to the front of the queue. The only thing I have to balance up is my item getting sold before the next undercutter comes along. Otherwise I join the list of people getting screwed over who cant relist it as this will incur a cost.

As an undercutter I am catering to the people looking to buy, I sell my item first with the knowledge that no one listing before me can do anything about it without loosing cash to do so and I do this by 1copper which is really good value for money lol.

As an under cutter I find it unacceptable so…..

…. add an option to change the listing price of your item (DOWN only) without loosing the listing fee. Problem solved simples….

zaerk.2305:

If you remove the 5% posting fee then people with more time can just continually 1c you, making it far worst trying to sell anything.

Also yes it should be first in, first out. I don’t know how aNet could make such a mistake.

That’s not true.
And for lowering price for free(or small fixed fee).
Let’s say, that you’ve been undercuuted by 1c by 10 people. That means that you sell item 10th in order.
If you’re could lower price without losing 5%, you undercut them all by 1c. Then some of them undercuts you. But you sell item not 10th in order, but 5th.
Not everyone sits on tp all the time, actually that’s an exception.
So, probability of selling item in set amount of time goes up.

As an undercutter I am catering to the people looking to buy, I sell my item first with the knowledge that no one listing before me can do anything about it without loosing cash to do so and I do this by 1copper which is really good value for money lol.

1c undercutting have no effect on buyer for costly items. For someting like iron when you playing market – you do not undercut at all

**Edit to put my suggestion up first…
I suggest that the 5% posting fee remain. But after a set amount of time that ANet decides on (I suggest 2-5days) you can get your posting fee back so your items are not up on the trading post forever with people undercutting by 1copper.
Discuss.

You will still get undercut. This will reduce some frustration for the more patient folk but the impatient folk are still going to complain about undercutting because they do not want to wait 2-5 days.

I do not think the system needs to change; I think people need to adjust to the system.

KwwB.3895:

There is also a MAJOR problem with how the trading post fulfills trades.

I can confirm both of these MAJOR problems. They are the same concept just changing buying and selling.

When you put in a purchase order for any item. If you post at the same price as the highest current purchase order YOUR order will be fulfilled FIRST, not LAST as one would expect.

Same with selling. If you post something for say 2gold, and it has been on the trading post for 2 days. If someone else comes along and posts the same item at 2gold THEIR item will sell first, even though yours has been on the trading post for TWO DAYS!!!!!

It should be first in first out, not last in first out. Ludicrous!

It is FIFO. Where’s the proof of this?

EDIT: Turns out there is a bug.

Wazabi.1439:

John smith noted that it the LIFO was not intended. They are fixing it. That contributes to undercutting. My arguments on the timed posting stands. If the whole reason is so that you are punished less for your mistake, I would say no. Mistakes should be punished. Other games had fostered a weird way of thinking on how a market works by babysitting them…I think that needs to stop. The adaptation skills of playing a game has diminished to the point that many player ask for changes for anything that doesn’t go their way.

Speculation activities is negatively related to the cost of doing so. A higher cost of selling will discourage such activities by making it harder to make a profit. So no to zero fees. If they want to put in a tax for buy orders, be my guest. I can adapt.

I didn’t know there was a LIFO bug.kittenthat sucks.

KwwB.3895:

Esrever.8613:

Well I think having the 5% commitment is a good thing since it makes people more incline to think before they post an item. It allows people to actually buy something for highest buying price instead of everything being dumped as high as people feel like.

In a global economy anyone dumping as high as they feel like doesn’t harm anything. Obviously the item won’t sell because there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more of that item with people competitively trying to sell.

Charging people for trying to sell items at a reasonable price (what most players would do) with the high likelihood of getting undercut and their items not selling (potentially forever) and then losing money if they take it off does harm the economy.

What harms you personally is not understanding that having more supply than demand drives down prices and that having an expectation of making profit in said economy is going to result in losses.

You have to find other ways of making money right now.

KwwB.3895:

Just take yourself for example. Say you find an lvl 80 exotic weapon while playing (or you craft one). You go to the trading post and see that there are 200 of this weapon for sell, with 90% being within 10s of each other.

Stop right there. That’s all you need to know. 200 of an exotic weapon? Don’t expect to profit off of it – it’s clearly not clearly quickly. Salvage it using a rare or black lion kit, get the sigil if you managed to get it and move on. You might even get an ecto out of the deal! Woot!

So to make it sell you post anywhere from 1c-10s off the cheapest.

You only need to undercut by 1c. You are losing a potential ~9s profit otherwise and that is just silly to chop your arm off like that to be “reasonable”.

Do you get upset? Maybe, maybe not. Do you get upset when it happens to 90% of your items. Probably. So what do you do next time? Post it for 15s, 20s, 50s? under the bottom price to make sure you don’t get screwed again. Probably. Take this x100 and you have items crash in price real quick which then = less potential revenue for ANet which is bad for the players.

Of course you get upset. You didn’t realize initially it wasn’t going to sell because of the oversupply. Woops. Live and learn, particularly when it’s more cost-effective for you to salvage or vendor something versus expecting to profit by putting it on the TP.

Cub Discus Gig.2176:

As an under cutter I find it unacceptable so…..

…. add an option to change the listing price of your item (DOWN only) without loosing the listing fee. Problem solved simples….

All that you have changed is the final price of the product, not undercutting. People will still undercut you because they can move their prices down just as effectively as you can. The difference is overall not as much money is spent on price discovery so overall you are going to inflate prices and lose whatever profit you would have had anyway.

Not going to work as you had envisioned.

Maxster.4521:

zaerk.2305:

If you remove the 5% posting fee then people with more time can just continually 1c you, making it far worst trying to sell anything.

Also yes it should be first in, first out. I don’t know how aNet could make such a mistake.

That’s not true.
And for lowering price for free(or small fixed fee).
Let’s say, that you’ve been undercuuted by 1c by 10 people. That means that you sell item 10th in order.
If you’re could lower price without losing 5%, you undercut them all by 1c. Then some of them undercuts you. But you sell item not 10th in order, but 5th.
Not everyone sits on tp all the time, actually that’s an exception.
So, probability of selling item in set amount of time goes up.

That’s what [he] said. :P

Dishconnected.8360:

Maxster.4521:

zaerk.2305:

If you remove the 5% posting fee then people with more time can just continually 1c you, making it far worst trying to sell anything.

Also yes it should be first in, first out. I don’t know how aNet could make such a mistake.

That’s not true.
And for lowering price for free(or small fixed fee).
Let’s say, that you’ve been undercuuted by 1c by 10 people. That means that you sell item 10th in order.
If you’re could lower price without losing 5%, you undercut them all by 1c. Then some of them undercuts you. But you sell item not 10th in order, but 5th.
Not everyone sits on tp all the time, actually that’s an exception.
So, probability of selling item in set amount of time goes up.

That’s what [he] said. :P

No, he said opposite.

Been like that since the start Dishconnected, had to counter that when making sell orders by undercutting all the time, although I would do that anyway.

OT: regardless whether undercutting by 1c, 1s, 1g it’s really doesn’t matter. You still took somebody else’s place in the line. People should just learn to be patient if they are not willing to relist. I do it all the time without effecting my bottom line much at all.

In regards to Maxster, you do know that is a best case scenario you are making. It doesn’t take 10 people doing it, it just takes one person to undercut you all day. Any serious trader is obviously rebuying and reselling. If it was me and I had the time to sit on the trader all day, you wouldn’t be able to beat me unless you did the same.

In regards to Maxster, you do know that is a best case scenario you are making. It doesn’t take 10 people doing it, it just takes one person to undercut you all day. Any serious trader is obviously rebuying and reselling. If it was me and I had the time to sit on the trader all day, you wouldn’t be able to beat me unless you did the same.

Then i’ll beat you when you die from exhaustion.
Actually, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. No one is going to sit all day on the market checking everyone of 200-300 positions for every 5 minutes. Talking about a serious trader

I am pretty sure there are people doing just that.

zaerk.2305:

I am pretty sure there are people doing just that.

So, as I said, you just don’t know what are you talking about.
Reductio ad absurdum won’t work, don’t even try

It’s common sense that the person with more time is going to be first in line. If you are going to go off best case scenario then yes you are right but that is based off luck. I suggest you clarify your position.

The goal of this argument is to see whether or not you will be better off having the 5% there or removed. Now consider that out of 10 people relisting you play the 6th most. Obviously you will be worst off.

Off topic: It quite childish to reply in that manner. IF you are going to argue a point atleast be constructive, otherwise you just make a fool out of yourself. No disrespect.

zaerk.2305:

It’s common sense that the person with more time is going to be first in line. If you are going to go off best case scenario then yes you are right but that is based off luck. I suggest you clarify your position.

Off topic: It quite childish to reply in that manner. IF you are going to argue a point atleast be constructive, otherwise you just make a fool out of yourself. No disrespect.

You’re made assumption that everyone on the market sits there 24/7, and that everyone will still undercut me by 1c, and that sell queue won’t change. Because obviously everyone else have much more time than me.
That is reductio ad absurdum, and plain lie. That is no way for a normal discussion.

And, with ability to change(lower) sell order, sell queue became shorter. Or won’t change, for spherical horse in vacuum theories, that have no connection to reality.
That is obvious.

P.S. As for your definition for a “serious trader”, it’s just laughable.

You do realise the argument we are having is based off whether or not you would be worst off (with the ability to relist for free) if you played less, as you quoted me? That in itself is already indisputable.

The argument I made as a example is as bias as your argument.

Regarding being a serious trader, I doubt many people aren’t rebuying and relisting. Not sure where your problem with that is?

You do realise the argument we are having is based off whether or not you would be worst off (with the ability to relist for free) if you played less, as you quoted me? That in itself is already indisputable.

You know that for trade you need 2 players, not one? Sell rate depends on overall state of the market, not on time spent trading. There is connection of course, but it’s derived from supply/demand, and from all-servers market; not from spent time.
Of course, in any mmo(really not, spent time won’t help you in any way in EvE), those who spend more time, have some benefits, for expense of rl. But that’s not the case.
You’re basically telling, that there is no way to beat, on market, player that have more free time, if there is possible to lower price for free(or small fixed fee). How it’s different from now? In current state, your assumption for there is no way to beat that kind of player leads to same(even worse) result.
So i wonder, where did i got my gold? In your obviously false assumption, I could not get that.
More funny is your assumption that everyone have more time than me. And everytime, any given time, i’ll be 1c undercut by same amount of people as now.

As for sell queue – with ability to change(lower) price it is obviously became shorter.

And i have example of what i’m talking about – EvE online. Have you any, or just trolling?

The argument I made as a example is as bias as your argument.

That’s not argument at all, that’s demagogy. Reductio ad absurdum.

Regarding being a serious trader, I doubt many people aren’t rebuying and relisting. Not sure where your problem with that is?

Yeah, tell me how trader will waste his precious time on checking tens(or hundreds) of orders for every 5 minutes. To change price. In a game.

What op proposes won’t change my game, and it won’t change how the market works. If you learn how to trade, you’ll be able to make a profit in any environment. If you refuse to learn how to trade and wants the system to protect you, you’ll still never learn how to trade in that environment. Even if the environment is as op proposes, you still do not know how to make your goods sell, and the better trader will still always be better than you and accumulate more wealth than you…and they will still have more control of the economy than you do.

All these arguments stems from players getting punished or losing money for their own mistakes. Tell me, how is that bad? Isn’t that how we learn? All these positive reinforcement BS and participation medal had succeeded in making everyone feel good…but in a real sense did you actually accomplished/learn anything significant? All it succeeded is shaping a generation that cannot take responsibility from their own failure and learn from it.

You can say this is just a game…true…I can’t argue with that. But take some time to think about what I say…all these complain about a game…is just an extension on a person’s attitude to challenges that he/she will face now and in the future.

You sir are a hilarious troll. This is a video game, not real life. Freaking comedian! You are killing me! Take responsibilities for failures in a VIDEO GAME where you are here to have fun? Baaaahahahaha.

But I digress.

Your assumptions are paramount. I’m already very successful in this game (200g+ earned so far) , I’m just proposing a change that I see as annoying and from my perspective damaging to the game in the long run. An extension of a person’s attitude to challenges that he/she will face now and in the future? Again. Game =/= real life. You have no idea how old anyone are on these threads. They could be very well much older than you are, having more than likely vast more life experiences than you do. Unless you also are an aged, generally wise, individual. They could also be very much less younger than you are which is what appears you believe everyone are because they are suggesting things they see wrong with the game and proposing solutions. For reasons I can’t understand. Refute them all you want. Refute them until the day you die for all I care. I would suggest you leave your assumptions and quit relating games to real life.

Cantankerous ol’ coot.

Yes. I’m assuming. Does it make you upset or angry? Who cares? Exactly! Because it should be left out of discussions related to video games. Especially ones with a proposed solution instead of just whining and kittening.

This is the internet…personal achievements and traits that I state doesn’t mean anything. I can say I’m 60 years old retired ex-economist that lives of the interest payment of my 10 million dollars portfolio but doesn’t means it’s true. How much a person knows about a subject of discussion is often reflected in the statements he make, and same goes for the “real” attitude (I’m also guilty of some bad ones).

Like I say, you can argue it’s a game…I won’t be able to top that.

What op proposes won’t change my game, and it won’t change how the market works. If you learn how to trade, you’ll be able to make a profit in any environment. If you refuse to learn how to trade and wants the system to protect you, you’ll still never learn how to trade in that environment. Even if the environment is as op proposes, you still do not know how to make your goods sell, and the better trader will still always be better than you and accumulate more wealth than you…and they will still have more control of the economy than you do.

Actually, ability to lower price for a sell order, will shorten sell queue for your item, thus increasing probability to sell, and time to sell. Because you’re playing against humans.
Of course, experienced trader always have an advantage. But no one will spend all his time on a game. Actually profit|spent time ratio, i think, likely definition for a serious trader, not constant price change on a single order. Yeah, that’s different strategy.

All these arguments stems from players getting punished or losing money for their own mistakes. Tell me, how is that bad? Isn’t that how we learn? All these positive reinforcement BS and participation medal had succeeded in making everyone feel good…but in a real sense did you actually accomplished/learn anything significant? All it succeeded is shaping a generation that cannot take responsibility from their own failure and learn from it.

That’s not true.

trading is a zero sum game. If there are only a demand for 100 of the item, and there are a supply of 200 of it, only 100 will sell. If you have the time to log in, find you’re being undercut, then lower your price for free, then others can do it too. It will drive the price to the lowest reservation price faster…buyer actually benefits from that, not seller.

trading is a zero sum game. If there are only a demand for 100 of the item, and there are a supply of 200 of it, only 100 will sell. If you have the time to log in, find you’re being undercut, then lower your price for free, then others can do it too. It will drive the price to the lowest reservation price faster…buyer actually benefits from that, not seller.

Assuming that everyone have more time than everyone else, sure
I’m not saying that sell queue to your item will be removed, just shortened. So, in some places of market, where you can get actual profit by crafting – that will remove disadvantage between crafters and speculants.
It won’t help most of the market, where is no demand, in any way.

I think the simplest solution would be to allow you to modify your existing orders without cancelling them. That way, you pay to post the item, but if you want to change the price you don’t have to pay the fee a second time unless you cancel the sale.

@maxster
true…people with more time on the TP screen will have an advantage…not that I’m complaining.

My friend just mentioned a very good point about the posting fee. If there is no posting fee, the TP will become a giant bank.