Guild Wars 2

The big problem juno is that automatic expiration is going to inconvenience casual players more than flippers. To a flipper, having to relist is just the price of doing business. To the casual, it is something that is going to wind up getting vendored to save time. Since the VAST majority of inventory comes from casuals, inconveniencing them will result in a significant decline in inventory on the market.

mtpelion.4562:

The big problem juno is that automatic expiration is going to inconvenience casual players more than flippers. To a flipper, having to relist is just the price of doing business. To the casual, it is something that is going to wind up getting vendored to save time. Since the VAST majority of inventory comes from casuals, inconveniencing them will result in a significant decline in inventory on the market.

Or rather than “vendored” they could simple fill the highest “buy order” that exists. If there are no “buy orders” then the demand for those goods are ZERO anyway and they should be vendored/salvaged/etc.

I don’t know if we can say most inventory on TP comes from casuals. If inventory declines, prices would go up correct? Which would result in a reactionary response of more supply entering the TP (instead of being vendored)?

Honestly I think most of the resistance to this idea is from flippers that don’t want to work harder to make money on the TP — it’s easy to tell who the flippers are simply by reading their posts in other topics.

Just so you know, I’m not a flipper in GW2. I did significant flipping in WoW because I had no real life friends still playing the game and thus wasn’t inclined to do anything else.

I’m just pointing out the reasons why an expiration date would negatively impact the game economy.

I’d also like to point out that most buy orders are flippers. Casuals may place them from time to time, but they are usually not the forward-thinking types who decide they want to craft next week and therefore should place a bunch of orders.

Unfortunately you dont have the necessary data to evaluate this proposed idea, neither do anyone on the forums. I do believe that the economical modelling going into the decisions about the fees/sinks etc are a lot more extensive than you would think and this most likely already has been discussed.

Also most of the items sold on the TP are “introduced” items, ie. things that are dropped by mobs, rewards, crafted from these mats etc. So any change on the TP only limits the rate people are earning gold (by reducing the return of new items into the world) as such this will never be a proper way to combat inflation (btw your def. is kinda wacky).

What you want is a way to spending=earning and you cant do that on TP, the biggest inflation combat is the jewel store and the desire for new “good looking pixels”.

edit: Btw controlled inflation is NOT a bad thing

John Smith.4610:

PS You are correct, controlled inflation is not a bad thing.

In an environment like this, it’s inevitable. As the game ages, players continue to accumulate wealth faster than it can be taken out of the game. Eventually the items in highest demand will become more expensive just because older players can pay more for them than newer ones.

John Smith.4610:

Long run investments are lots of fun when you make a profit!

.

FTFY

There’s nothing fun about me losing 60% of the value invested in SAB skins ;(

I’m coming from the perspective that I would like the numbers that represent interest and availability be based on more recent activity that simply ancient bids and listings at prices far removed from the current price range of the item. It doesn’t mean you can’t have out of normal pricing on an item, just that I have an assurance this isn’t from the start of the market when nobody knew what anything was worth.

And this is simply because we don’t have a sense of actual trading volume of an item. We have to base that on snapshots of what’s “on the shelf”. And if I’m going to have to rely on these “snapshots”, I would like to know how many of these items are fresh versus dusty ones with out of step prices on them.

tolunart.2095:

John Smith.4610:

PS You are correct, controlled inflation is not a bad thing.

In an environment like this, it’s inevitable. As the game ages, players continue to accumulate wealth faster than it can be taken out of the game. Eventually the items in highest demand will become more expensive just because older players can pay more for them than newer ones.

I think they have a mechanic or two doing it automatically already…
And I don’t like it b/c it punishes everyone or atleast punishes the gem trade.
This is supposed to be a fantasy game, and I think MOST PEOPLE’S FANTASIES include the leeching flipping scuzzy underbelly of any gameable market… being punished more than the casual buyer/seller is.

Behellagh.1468:

I’m coming from the perspective that I would like the numbers that represent interest and availability be based on more recent activity that simply ancient bids and listings at prices far removed from the current price range of the item. It doesn’t mean you can’t have out of normal pricing on an item, just that I have an assurance this isn’t from the start of the market when nobody knew what anything was worth.

And this is simply because we don’t have a sense of actual trading volume of an item. We have to base that on snapshots of what’s “on the shelf”. And if I’m going to have to rely on these “snapshots”, I would like to know how many of these items are fresh versus dusty ones with out of step prices on them.

Ok, how about they add an “average age of listing” stat to the screen that shows the average listing age for all items listed at that price?

Vol.5241:

John Smith.4610:

Long run investments are lots of fun when you make a profit!

.

FTFY

There’s nothing fun about me losing 60% of the value invested in SAB skins ;(

I know how you feel bro. I thought it was a sure bet. Boy was I wrong.

I know how you feel bro. I thought it was a sure bet. Boy was I wrong.

I think the biggest risk with these skins is the rate at which new ones are introduced… with new content twice a month, it’s easy to forget about “old” stuff in favor of the new shinies. Do I want to spend 200g on a 3-month old skin most people have forgotten about or 50g on the new skin that just came into the game last week?

In time, there may be players who never had the opportunity to get the skin when available – bad luck with RNG, not enough money, bought the game after the content was replaced – but with the rate at which new content enters the game, it’s not likely to be a fast way to make money, especially in 2014 and beyond, when the selection of skins is much larger than it is now.

tolunart.2095:

I know how you feel bro. I thought it was a sure bet. Boy was I wrong.

I think the biggest risk with these skins is the rate at which new ones are introduced… with new content twice a month, it’s easy to forget about “old” stuff in favor of the new shinies. Do I want to spend 200g on a 3-month old skin most people have forgotten about or 50g on the new skin that just came into the game last week?

In time, there may be players who never had the opportunity to get the skin when available – bad luck with RNG, not enough money, bought the game after the content was replaced – but with the rate at which new content enters the game, it’s not likely to be a fast way to make money, especially in 2014 and beyond, when the selection of skins is much larger than it is now.

If there was a way to bank skins (kind of like the mini pets) I think you’d see an increase in demand for them because players would have an easy way to track which ones they are missing.

thread divergence in progress…

mtpelion.4562:

Behellagh.1468:

I’m coming from the perspective that I would like the numbers that represent interest and availability be based on more recent activity that simply ancient bids and listings at prices far removed from the current price range of the item. It doesn’t mean you can’t have out of normal pricing on an item, just that I have an assurance this isn’t from the start of the market when nobody knew what anything was worth.

And this is simply because we don’t have a sense of actual trading volume of an item. We have to base that on snapshots of what’s “on the shelf”. And if I’m going to have to rely on these “snapshots”, I would like to know how many of these items are fresh versus dusty ones with out of step prices on them.

Ok, how about they add an “average age of listing” stat to the screen that shows the average listing age for all items listed at that price?

That would likely be useless except in the most extreme cases. But it could confirm my belief that when an item’s supply gets drained really low that some of the price spike comes from old items. A better idea would be when the last time an item was sold but better TP metrics is not the point of this thread.

In addition to what has already been said, limited time listings would increase inflation imo.

Why? They would create more gold.
As you all know selling via tp destroys gold due to fees. As other players have said, I played MMOs with limited listings too and what used to happen was exactly what they described: after a short while, I ended up selling to npc so at least I stop wasting my moneys in listing fees.
Selling to npcs creates gold. And there is no need to explain how bad this would be for the economy, where the majority of transaction on the TP aren’t the exotics, those you’ll still sell in the TP but lower priced materials (think about those mats which sell in the tp for a very little profit, but still a profit..now i’m listing them, if i had to sell in a day or lose my fee i’ll simply drop them to npcs. Increasing their price due to the loss of supply and introducing in the game more gold)

ilr.9675:

We don’t need more arbitrary limits on supply, we just more limits to the INSTANT manipulation of prices. IE: temporarily account-bound whatever is bought for 3-7 days (make it random since Anet loves R.N.G. so kitten much) and limit the number of bids that can be made per account. It’s really really simple.

Umm, NO we don’t.

This may seem to fix issues in your (and the like minded) thoughts and theories, but it will produce other long term issues within the community than the misguided perception that playing the market is somehow ruining the economy.

I for one like to help others in the game, and this would prevent any random act okittendness among players which in turn ruins the whole concept of being a community.

John Smith.4610:

There are a myriad of reasons why this wouldn’t work properly in our game, but on top of it all it would seriously discourage long term investments which is not something we want to do. Long run investments are lots of fun!

PS You are correct, controlled inflation is not a bad thing.

Thanks for the response John!

Can you elaborate on the long term investment aspect? I would imagine those would sit in the bank and not in the TP (unless you view the long term investment as the posting of the item as some future “higher” prices for some anticipated sale).