Guild Wars 2

Not meant to incite any flame here. Just curious about something I read.

On another post (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Traidingpost-Flipping-should-brought-in-line/page/9), John Smith said:

2. Binding after purchasing items – this has been thoroughly explained in many forums the several ways that this would prove disastrous.

Could anyone provide me with any links where I can read up the explanation on why binding after purchasing would be ‘disastrous’? I hope to see the explanation as to why it would prove disastrous for something I care for (like the game itself) and not explanation why it would be disastrous for flippers because that one is obvious.

Thanks!

I can’t recall seeing such post explaining it, but giving it some thought…

unless the supply is tweaked ingame as well, binding after purchase would just remove supply from the trading post, in which case prices would instead go up due to limited available supply. In this case the market would be dominated by those who have the most time farming, which I don’t find fun at all just to make money efficiently.

And surely, I’m sure there are moments after buying 250 charged lodestones, one would decide that another legendary is cooler and less mainstream, and would love to liquidate that 250 lodestones into gold to buy that cooler and less mainstream ingredient.

iirc, one argument against it, is that speculators smooth out prices. They buy up excess supply that people don’t want right then (and when supply decreases in this way the prices go up) and hold on to it until it’s scarcer. Then they release the stock they have, which increases supply and decreases prices.

If there was bind on purchase, this couldn’t happen. Supply would remain high and prices low until there is increased demand then supply would decrease and prices would increase.

If people can’t flip, they can’t keep paying the TP tax, which reduces the effectiveness of the tax system as a gold sink. Presumably there’s enough flipping going on that ANet sees a fair deal of gold leaving the economy because of it, which would allow them to accurately predict how big an impact stopping flipping would have on the economy.

justkoh.4073:

Not meant to incite any flame here. Just curious about something I read.

On another post (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Traidingpost-Flipping-should-brought-in-line/page/9), John Smith said:

2. Binding after purchasing items – this has been thoroughly explained in many forums the several ways that this would prove disastrous.

Could anyone provide me with any links where I can read up the explanation on why binding after purchasing would be ‘disastrous’? I hope to see the explanation as to why it would prove disastrous for something I care for (like the game itself) and not explanation why it would be disastrous for flippers because that one is obvious.

Thanks!

First of all there are technical limitations. For each item they would need a 2nd item code that indicates that item as accoutnbound (after it was purchased). You will end up with 2 stacks of every item in your bags, collectible tab, etc.

And what about leveling your crafting? If you buy some mats for it, craft something and cant sell it afterwards?

One reason why the trading post is so efficient, is because its global and has so many players trading and a high trade volume. If bind on purchase would be introduced, you take take alot of velocity out of the market, which basically leads to higher pricespreads, harder prike spikes when an item goes into demand and the possibility that out of demand items will hit vendor price price pretty quick because no speculator would create demand.

In general, everybody wants an effective economy with balanced prices ( a close price spread between buy order and sell listing).
People who buy and sell directly are bad for a balanced economy because they increase the pricespread. To counter that, we need people to buy on buy order and sell for the price of the lowest listing to keep it in balance and people who overcut and undercut to rebalance it closer together.

Flippers basically are doing an essential task for the economy, they rebalance prices.
The more people buy and sell directly, the more work there is and the higher the profits.

Thank you for the replies.

As thread-starter, just thought I’d add my own thoughts for ‘closure’ in case anyone refers to this some day.

It seems the gist is that the main money sink is the 15% TP tax and in order to remove currency from the economy, a greater number of transactions is preferred. This is where A-net perceives flippers as important to the economy.

I have asked before for a TP interface where I can see Buy and Sell price breakdowns in one screen (instead of the current clunky interface) so that folks will not fall for bait prices and sell at ‘sub-optimal’ prices; but this is probably also a reason why such a request will unlikely be entertained. If an item is sold too cheaply, it can be flipped more times and therefore more gold can be removed. If that is deliberate, its terrible on A-net’s part to help maintain such practices.

But I digress. Back to topic.

So it has been explained why it would prove disastrous for GW2’s economy (this post included). However, IMO, explained is not the same as accepted. Basically what I mean is it is sad that A-net needed to ‘collude’ with flippers to maintain the economy. I wonder if no other way could have been chosen to do so at the start? But at this point I doubt anything can be done since it will invariably cause too great an upheaval and involve too much work.

So for folks who justifiably feel that reward should equal effort, I think this thread will offer some explanation as to why binding after purchasing is considered disastrous. Perhaps it works but the method chosen cannot help but leave a bitter taste in many mouths.

justkoh.4073:

‘collude’

Def: come to a secret understanding for a harmful purpose; conspire.

Flipping is not harmful and none of this is done in secret. “I do not think that word means what you think it means”

justkoh.4073:

It seems the gist is that the main money sink is the 15% TP tax and in order to remove currency from the economy, a greater number of transactions is preferred. This is where A-net perceives flippers as important to the economy.

So it has been explained why it would prove disastrous for GW2’s economy (this post included). However, IMO, explained is not the same as accepted. Basically what I mean is it is sad that A-net needed to ‘collude’ with flippers to maintain the economy. I wonder if no other way could have been chosen to do so at the start? But at this point I doubt anything can be done since it will invariably cause too great an upheaval and involve too much work.

Your post reads as if there’s something inherently evil about flipping, and so ANet should have tried to avoid it. In reality, flipping is a mechanism by which a free market regulates itself.

If items were bound on acquire from the TP, then farmers would be able to set prices as high as they like. Given the low drop rate of certain items, that would result in a few people controlling the entire market and prices would skyrocket.

Flippers create competitive pricing in those markets, so that the lowest seller prices tend to approach the highest purchase offers and reach equilibrium more quickly.

In other words, flipping does more than sink wealth from the economy; it also helps maintain a healthier market for everyone else.

justkoh.4073:

I have asked before for a TP interface where I can see Buy and Sell price breakdowns in one screen (instead of the current clunky interface) so that folks will not fall for bait prices and sell at ‘sub-optimal’ prices; but this is probably also a reason why such a request will unlikely be entertained. If an item is sold too cheaply, it can be flipped more times and therefore more gold can be removed. If that is deliberate, its terrible on A-net’s part to help maintain such practices.

Again, the text of your post implies that there’s something wrong about flipping. And again, it’s a healthy response from a free market when sellers are asking too much (or buyers are offering too little) for the marketplace.

I think it’s clear from other issues that the UI wasn’t setup that well. I agree with you that it would be better to show buyers and sellers the same data: the top dozen or so WTB offers and the lowest dozen or so WTS listings plus a note about when you are buying (as well as selling) the same item.

You can easily see that there are plenty of other suggestions that also haven’t been implemented: filters by weight of armor, by whether the active character can use an item, to find items within a price range, and so on. So there’s nothing unusual about the buy and sell screens also needing an overhaul.

justkoh.4073:

It seems the gist is that the main money sink is the 15% TP tax and in order to remove currency from the economy, a greater number of transactions is preferred.

Er, no, that’s not how it works. It impacts prices, sure, but shouldn’t make a difference in long term stability. At all.

Flipping tends to keep prices lower than they would be otherwise (lower than they’d be from the market making spread lowering alone) from the added sink, and the market adjusts to new information faster, which stabilizes it in many cases…but in the long run, the 15% TP tax would do its job just fine with or without flippers. They’re largely separate mechanisms.

Ensign.2189:

justkoh.4073:

It seems the gist is that the main money sink is the 15% TP tax and in order to remove currency from the economy, a greater number of transactions is preferred.

Er, no, that’s not how it works. It impacts prices, sure, but shouldn’t make a difference in long term stability. At all.

Flipping tends to keep prices lower than they would be otherwise (lower than they’d be from the market making spread lowering alone) from the added sink, and the market adjusts to new information faster, which stabilizes it in many cases…but in the long run, the 15% TP tax would do its job just fine with or without flippers. They’re largely separate mechanisms.

Are you in anyway implying that flipping does NOT increase the amount of money taken out of the economy via 15% TP fees? I’m pretty sure basic math proves you VERY wrong…..

You are correct that gold sinks and price stabilization are separate, but I’d be willing to venture that without Flippers, the 15% TP fee gold sink would be VASTLY lower (only JS could tell us for sure, but I simply can’t imagine how it would not be considering every FLIP doubles the 15% fee….

Now going as far as suggesting there is some sort of ’collusion" between anyone at Anet and some organized secret “flipper” organization to remove money from the GW2 economy is heading into some serious tin-foil hat territory.

Brother Grimm.5176:

Now going as far as suggesting there is some sort of ’collusion" between anyone at Anet and some organized secret “flipper” organization to remove money from the GW2 economy is heading into some serious tin-foil hat territory.

We go out in the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That’s the way that lady luck dances

Playing the TP is just a roll of the bones to some…

Peart is a true poet….and not a bad drummer either.