Guild Wars 2

I find it a bit weird that, especially when selling an expensive item worth multiple Gold, you can be undercut by single Coppers.

I think it would be reasonable if there was a minimum price-difference of 1% for undercutting.

So if someone is selling an item worth 10 Gold, you can’t undercut him with 9 Gold, 99 Silver and 57 Copper. Instead you’d have to go down to at least 9 Gold and 90 Silver. Someone undercutting him would also have to maintain at least a 1% price-difference.

Obviously items worth less than 1 Silver would not be affected by this change. But I think it would make trading a little more transparent and user-friendly, especially if you add an automatic “undercut” option.

Thoughts?

How would a minimum price-difference of 1% affect trading?

If 1% is the margin, then a the market will be missed up. Take that from me, that have played another mmo that has it. 1 copper undercutting on a legendary may be anoying but it also serves a good purpose. If i sell precursor, i won’t undercut by 1copper, unless i know the demand is very good, and the risk is low. If the risk is higher (like usual) i undercut by 20-40g. With that undercut, other ppl still think twice to undercut me (and maybe even wait it out). This means I got more ensurance to sell it, and someone else also happy cause i made his wanted item quite a kitteneaper. It’s a win win, and that’s why this 100% freedom undercutting exists. Do I like ppl undercutting me by 1c? no, by it’s there for a reason. And I like the advantages much more then the downsides/

I get annoyed, yes; but I’m sometimes on the other side of this, so it works out in hte end.

I am less annoyed by 1C undercuts than I am someone undercutting me by the entirety of what was my profit margin with a stack of 750 of a slow-selling item.

It annoys me for sure when I’m selling things but I do the exact same thing to other people, so fairs fair =p

Welcome to Free Market, kid. Moving on.

This has nothing to do with free markets or not, nor is it about “protecting” a price.

I have yet to read a compelling argument against it.

We don’t talk about cents when buying a car either because those amounts are meaningless when we’re talking about big purchases.

I understand market forces and can’t think of a single reason not to do this. In fact I’d consider it BETTER because a convenient “undercut” option when entering the price would ensure a much more dynamic market price. If I could undercut someone by 1% with a single click I’d definitely make use of that feature more often than manually undercutting someone by 1 Copper.

When you go to an auction they have pre-determined steps as well. You can’t outbid someone in 1 cent-steps during a thousand dollar auction. Why not? Because it would be stupid.

Dee Jay.2460:

This has nothing to do with free markets or not, nor is it about “protecting” a price.

I have yet to read a compelling argument against it.

We don’t talk about cents when buying a car either because those amounts are meaningless when we’re talking about big purchases.

I understand market forces and can’t think of a single reason not to do this. In fact I’d consider it BETTER because a convenient “undercut” option when entering the price would ensure a much more dynamic market price. If I could undercut someone by 1% with a single click I’d definitely make use of that feature more often than manually undercutting someone by 1 Copper.

When you go to an auction they have pre-determined steps as well. You can’t outbid someone in 1 cent-steps during a thousand dollar auction. Why not? Because it would be stupid.

A much more dynamic market price would just flush more gold into TP player pockets.
It actually makes it easier to manipulate the value of items down.

You say that but don’t give a reason. Why would this enrich power-traders? How does this benefit them?

I am well-versed in economics but don’t see why this should directly benefit any particular group more than others.

Dee Jay.2460:

I have yet to read a compelling argument against it.

Funny, I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for it as well.

Dee Jay.2460:

You say that but don’t give a reason. Why would this enrich power-traders? How does this benefit them?

I am well-versed in economics but don’t see why this should directly benefit any particular group more than others.

I guess you forgot to read the 2nd line of my prior post.

Also, what Obtena said.

And speaking of which, I just listed an Exotic for 1 copper less than the lowest seller. XD

No

I think what would be good is if we as the buyer could choose which item we want to buy. I know when I’m looking for something that has a high value and I see someone undercut someone else by 1 copper, I’d rather buy the higher price one (heck, it’s just a copper anyway right?) I’d rather do this because the guy that under cut had the choice to under cut but that doesn’t mean I like that selling tactic and I’d rather not support it but ANet doesn’t give me the chance. If I use the check box to choose the second item, the system thinks I want both. When I was selling a legendary, I didn’t under cut anyone, I matched the lowest seller. I wish others would do the same, but I get it’s the economy and I just choose not to do that myself. I’d still like the option to choose from the available items which price I want to pay. No chance at an exploit, because we don’t know who is selling the items and if we want to spend more money, why not?

TLDR: Let the buyer choose which item of all available they will purchase.

Dee Jay.2460:

You say that but don’t give a reason.

Reason is: That’s how it works now, and it’s working fine. We don’t have to give a reason to defend a system already in place. The burden of proof is on you; not us.

As a tip: “I don’t like how it works” is not a compelling reason. Neither are unsubstantiated claims of “So many people don’t like it!” either.

@kohldl: What you’re after is more an “auction house” style trading system. JS spoke about this at one point, and he basically said that the “trading post” system was eventually decided on for reasons he would not specify. As it seems to be working very well, there’s little reason to switch to the auction house method too.

The compelling argument for it is that it mitigates some of the inefficiencies and risks that are a consequence of the 5% non-refundable listing fee.

In the absence of such a fee, bid increments are still very important in markets where people place individual bids, not algorithms; it can increase transaction speed immensely at a negligible cost to price discovery.

I don’t think there’s any question that a minimum bid increment would be good for the trading post; it’s really just a question of whether that benefit outweighs the transition and implementation costs.

Ensign.2189:

The compelling argument for it is that it mitigates some of the inefficiencies and risks that are a consequence of the 5% non-refundable listing fee.

In the absence of such a fee, bid increments are still very important in markets where people place individual bids, not algorithms; it can increase transaction speed immensely at a negligible cost to price discovery.

I don’t think there’s any question that a minimum bid increment would be good for the trading post; it’s really just a question of whether that benefit outweighs the transition and implementation costs.

The OP referred to sell listings, not buy orders. He also never mentioned to remove the 5% listing fee.

Ohai! This thread again!

Dee Jay.2460:

I find it a bit weird that, especially when selling an expensive item worth multiple Gold, you can be undercut by single Coppers.

I think it would be reasonable if there was a minimum price-difference of 1% for undercutting.

So if someone is selling an item worth 10 Gold, you can’t undercut him with 9 Gold, 99 Silver and 57 Copper. Instead you’d have to go down to at least 9 Gold and 90 Silver. Someone undercutting him would also have to maintain at least a 1% price-difference.

Obviously items worth less than 1 Silver would not be affected by this change. But I think it would make trading a little more transparent and user-friendly, especially if you add an automatic “undercut” option.

Thoughts?

How would a minimum price-difference of 1% affect trading?

Sorry, but minimums of 1% would require maths. I don’t like maths. It’s a lot easier to just take the current price, and offer 1 Copper less. If you don’t like it, feel free to undercut me 1 Copper as well. Tis the circle of life!

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Ohai! This thread again!

Dee Jay.2460:

I find it a bit weird that, especially when selling an expensive item worth multiple Gold, you can be undercut by single Coppers.

I think it would be reasonable if there was a minimum price-difference of 1% for undercutting.

So if someone is selling an item worth 10 Gold, you can’t undercut him with 9 Gold, 99 Silver and 57 Copper. Instead you’d have to go down to at least 9 Gold and 90 Silver. Someone undercutting him would also have to maintain at least a 1% price-difference.

Obviously items worth less than 1 Silver would not be affected by this change. But I think it would make trading a little more transparent and user-friendly, especially if you add an automatic “undercut” option.

Thoughts?

How would a minimum price-difference of 1% affect trading?

Sorry, but minimums of 1% would require maths. I don’t like maths. It’s a lot easier to just take the current price, and offer 1 Copper less. If you don’t like it, feel free to undercut me 1 Copper as well. Tis the circle of life!

That’s why I proposed the game offers us a convenient way to post and item at 99% of the previous price. Currently there’s only a convenience option to match a price but not undercut it.

That’s all I am asking for.

Nokaru.7831:

Dee Jay.2460:

You say that but don’t give a reason.

Reason is: That’s how it works now, and it’s working fine. We don’t have to give a reason to defend a system already in place. The burden of proof is on you; not us.

I don’t have to prove anything since I’m not submitting a scientific proposal. All I’m asking for is a convenient way to undercut someone by 1%.

You’re the one getting so super defensive for no good reason.

Dee Jay.2460:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Ohai! This thread again!

Dee Jay.2460:

I find it a bit weird that, especially when selling an expensive item worth multiple Gold, you can be undercut by single Coppers.

I think it would be reasonable if there was a minimum price-difference of 1% for undercutting.

So if someone is selling an item worth 10 Gold, you can’t undercut him with 9 Gold, 99 Silver and 57 Copper. Instead you’d have to go down to at least 9 Gold and 90 Silver. Someone undercutting him would also have to maintain at least a 1% price-difference.

Obviously items worth less than 1 Silver would not be affected by this change. But I think it would make trading a little more transparent and user-friendly, especially if you add an automatic “undercut” option.

Thoughts?

How would a minimum price-difference of 1% affect trading?

Sorry, but minimums of 1% would require maths. I don’t like maths. It’s a lot easier to just take the current price, and offer 1 Copper less. If you don’t like it, feel free to undercut me 1 Copper as well. Tis the circle of life!

That’s why I proposed the game offers us a convenient way to post and item at 99% of the previous price. Currently there’s only a convenience option to match a price but not undercut it.

That’s all I am asking for.

Nokaru.7831:

Dee Jay.2460:

You say that but don’t give a reason.

Reason is: That’s how it works now, and it’s working fine. We don’t have to give a reason to defend a system already in place. The burden of proof is on you; not us.

I don’t have to prove anything since I’m not submitting a scientific proposal. All I’m asking for is a convenient way to undercut someone by 1%.

You’re the one getting so super defensive for no good reason.

I agree on the convenience part but in your op you state to make this minimum 1% undercutting mandatory, which is something fundamentally different.

True, and I still don’t see a downside to it. Yet people here are getting their panties in a twist because why?

I still don’t know….

I don’t understand what you think this would accomplish.

The trading post is not an auction. There’s no reason to make sure the price has to be different enough.

What you are asking for makes sense in auctions, to force meaninful steps between prices, so people don’t do continuous small bids of +1 copper.

But in GW2 pries are fixed. You set a price, that’s what the item will sell for. Someone putting a lower price will just mean they’ll sell before you, and then you’ll go next.
And if you don’t go next because more and more people set lower prices, you can always cancel and sell the item lower, or wait until demand surpasses offer and the item reaches your price again.

Is that what you don’t like? You losing a sale because someone put an item 1copper cheaper than yours? Because with a 1% difference, people would still put the item under your price. That won’t change.

Having some limitation on prices based on previous prices would only make prices go down a bit faster with low demand, and stay closer when people is not willing to go any lower. But nothing will really change overall.

Dee Jay.2460:

True, and I still don’t see a downside to it. Yet people here are getting their panties in a twist because why?

I still don’t know….

Because this has been discussed plenty of times and you still fail to give a reason, why this would make the tp more transparent.

I will give you a detailed example of how to take advantage of that feature:

Many normal players, when they sell something, just check the highest bid and the lowest seller but they dont check the amount and value of listings directly above the lowest listing. If we take an item with a highest bid of 4s and lowest listing of 5 silver for example: People are more inclined to sell to my highest bid of 4s, if the lowest listing is at 5s, not 10s.

Now i decide to buy out all the supply between 5s and 10s because i see that the supply and demand was pretty equal in the last weeks but depending on the day of the week, supply and demand would go up or down a little.
There are 10k items posted between 5s and 10s, spread equally with about 1k items in each 50 copper range going from 5s to 10s.

Now i go and list 9.3k of those items at 10s to make ~100% profit, if i sell them.

Now i could use those 700 leftover items to post them at 5s again to lure normal players, who dont check that there are no listings between 5 and 10 silver, to list at my price, undercut me or sell directly to me at 4s. Now there is still a chance that some other smart tp player sees that there are only 700 listed at 5s and then nothing until 10s. He will see the opportunity, by my 700, relist at 9.99s and i have a competitor.

But with the mandatory 1% undercutting rule, i could post 10 items on average (i would diversify and post 5, then 9, then 13 , then another 13 etc) to make it look like these listings came from different players. To get the lowest listing back to 5s, you might have guessed it, i need 700 items, while listing 10 on average undercutting by 10%.

If I do this fast enough, sites like spidy wont even detect any fluctuation of sell listings or supply because i dumped all supply right back on the tp and lowered the sell listing back to its original in no time. My main competitors, other tp players wont even suspect anything because there is no way for them to check, how much listings there were before between 5 and 10s (only 700 now, instead of 10k).

The listing structure of 1% gaps seems legit to them because of your new rule.

I would do that at a day of the week (start of the week), were supply is usually higher than demand, to maximize my filled buy orders and minimise the risk of someone buying up my listings instead of undercutting me or post at 5s.

On the weekend, when demand is usually higher than supply, i just pull all my listings between 5 and 10s, post a buy order of 1000 at 8.5s to minimize flipping potential for others and wait for my stuff to sell at 10s.

So how does this rule of yours add transparency to the market?

Enlighten me.

It comes down to this:

If you care about the speed at which your item will sell, don’t list it but rather sell it to a buy order.

If you care about the price at which your item will sell, list it and don’t worry about undercutting. If you have listed it at an appropriate price, it will eventually sell.

Dee Jay.2460:

True, and I still don’t see a downside to it. Yet people here are getting their panties in a twist because why?

I still don’t know….

Then go find and read the 47 page thread. Google it, since the in-house search tool is poo.

If people are defensive its because we’ve DONE THIS DANCE BEFORE.

Dee Jay.2460:

True, and I still don’t see a downside to it. Yet people here are getting their panties in a twist because why?

I still don’t know….

What if someone is selling something for 10 Gold, and I’m willing to buy it for 9 Gold 99 Silver and 99 Copper? If I put in a Buy Order for that amount, with your idea, someone wouldn’t be able to fill my order.

First, could someone please post the link to the previous thread?

Smooth Penguin.5294:

What if someone is selling something for 10 Gold, and I’m willing to buy it for 9 Gold 99 Silver and 99 Copper? If I put in a Buy Order for that amount, with your idea, someone wouldn’t be able to fill my order.

If you are buying items worth 10 gold, then 1 copper has no real value to you any more. You would have purchased the item for 10 gold instead of wasting your time with a buy order.

Also, if 10 gold is effectively equal to 9 gold 99 silver and 99 copper, why should someone be allowed to come after my listing and sell the same item for the “same price” and get priority over me?

How often do you see real auctions going “Do I hear 10 thousand” … “here” … “Do I hear 10 thousand and 1 penny”?

This change would just force people that undercut to undercut at an effectively different price and hopefully remove the profitable difference between the buy and sell price. This would closer resemble a real market.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

First, could someone please post the link to the previous thread?

Smooth Penguin.5294:

What if someone is selling something for 10 Gold, and I’m willing to buy it for 9 Gold 99 Silver and 99 Copper? If I put in a Buy Order for that amount, with your idea, someone wouldn’t be able to fill my order.

If you are buying items worth 10 gold, then 1 copper has no real value to you any more. You would have purchased the item for 10 gold instead of wasting your time with a buy order.

Also, if 10 gold is effectively equal to 9 gold 99 silver and 99 copper, why should someone be allowed to come after my listing and sell the same item for the “same price” and get priority over me?

How often do you see real auctions going “Do I hear 10 thousand” … “here” … “Do I hear 10 thousand and 1 penny”?

This change would just force people that undercut to undercut at an effectively different price and hopefully remove the profitable difference between the buy and sell price. This would closer resemble a real market.

But your analogy doesn’t hold true to market preferences/convention… in the RL auction (I presume you mean MOST auctions, because fun or charity auctions I’ve seen HAVE used really small increments), people EXPECT to pay in certain increments. Growing up around livestock auctions, they used to bid in 5-10 dollar per head increments at the most (small town).

In GW2, convention is currently set based upon item type and velocity (I move prices in ~5-10 PERCENT for slow-moving items like meh exotics, but undercut by 1 copper for materials, for example).

This 1% increment problem is easy to fix…

All you have to do is call for a player movement wherein everyone moves items using 1% model. Once the majority of the player base joins this movement, it would simply be a quality of life improvement request for the devs… I mean, at that point the HUGE number of players voluntarily moving their items in 1% chunks will become annoyed.

I do look forward to this movement starting up… I’ll signal my support for it by undercutting 1 copper.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

First, could someone please post the link to the previous thread?

Smooth Penguin.5294:

What if someone is selling something for 10 Gold, and I’m willing to buy it for 9 Gold 99 Silver and 99 Copper? If I put in a Buy Order for that amount, with your idea, someone wouldn’t be able to fill my order.

If you are buying items worth 10 gold, then 1 copper has no real value to you any more. You would have purchased the item for 10 gold instead of wasting your time with a buy order.

Also, if 10 gold is effectively equal to 9 gold 99 silver and 99 copper, why should someone be allowed to come after my listing and sell the same item for the “same price” and get priority over me?

How often do you see real auctions going “Do I hear 10 thousand” … “here” … “Do I hear 10 thousand and 1 penny”?

This change would just force people that undercut to undercut at an effectively different price and hopefully remove the profitable difference between the buy and sell price. This would closer resemble a real market.

But I refuse to pay the extra 1 Copper for the item. So by my maths, the prices between the Sell Order and Buy Order are different.

KarateKid.5648:

Growing up around livestock auctions, they used to bid in 5-10 dollar per head increments at the most (small town)

This would make sense as I am sure heads of cattle sell somewhere between 500 to 1000 dollars, about 1% increments. Notice they don’t go up in 1 penny increments.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

But I refuse to pay the extra 1 Copper for the item. So by my maths, the prices between the Sell Order and Buy Order are different.

For the specifics of implementation:

• A buy listing must be at least 1% more than the previous buy listing
• A sell listing must be at least 1% less than the previous sell listing
• If the buy and sell price are within 1% of each other you force the next prospective buyer/seller to use the buy/sell now feature

So with these rules your example is fine and should be expected.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

But I refuse to pay the extra 1 Copper for the item. So by my maths, the prices between the Sell Order and Buy Order are different.

For the specifics of implementation:

• A buy listing must be at least 1% more than the previous buy listing
• A sell listing must be at least 1% less than the previous sell listing
• If the buy and sell price are within 1% of each other you force the next prospective buyer/seller to use the buy/sell now feature

So with these rules your example is fine and should be expected.

So you want the TP to force me to buy something at a price that I don’t intend?

Comrade, this is a free market. If I want to buy or sell something, it’ll be on my terms.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

So you want the TP to force me to buy something at a price that I don’t intend?

Comrade, this is a free market. If I want to buy or sell something, it’ll be on my terms.

Yes, the trading post should force it users to deal in relatively meaningful values. Do you complain at the gas station when your bill is $3.499 for a gallon and they charge you $3.50 because the tenth of a cent is not meaningful?

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

So you want the TP to force me to buy something at a price that I don’t intend?

Comrade, this is a free market. If I want to buy or sell something, it’ll be on my terms.

Yes, the trading post should for it users to deal in relatively meaningful values. Do you complain at the gas station when your bill is $3.499 for a gallon and they charge you $3.50 because the tenth of a cent is not meaningful?

That analogy doesn’t apply to me, because I always tap the pump until my gas price is a round number. If I miss it by a single penny, I overfill until I get to the next round number. If I keep missing, I’ll go until my tank can no longer physically hold the gas.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

That analogy doesn’t apply to me, because I always tap the pump until my gas price is a round number. If I miss it by a single penny, I overfill until I get to the next round number. If I keep missing, I’ll go until my tank can no longer physically hold the gas.

Pumps don’t show the tenth of cent on the end total, so you can’t tell when the you are being “forced” to pay an extra tenth of a cent because it is not meaningful. Now please stop trolling.

Gold inflation has made the copper meaningless on large ticket items and should no longer be used in transactions.

A Zap that cost 999 gold is effectively the same price as a 998 gold (anyone who says otherwise is a troll as well), the first person to sell at that price point should move their item first.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

That analogy doesn’t apply to me, because I always tap the pump until my gas price is a round number. If I miss it by a single penny, I overfill until I get to the next round number. If I keep missing, I’ll go until my tank can no longer physically hold the gas.

Pumps don’t show the tenth of cent on the end total, so you can’t tell when the you are being “forced” to pay an extra tenth of a cent because it is not meaningful. Now please stop trolling.

Gold inflation has made the copper meaningless on large ticket items and should no longer be used in transactions.

A Zap that cost 999 gold is effectively the same price as a 998 gold (anyone who says otherwise is a troll as well), the first person to sell at that price point should move their item first.

You’re missing the point. I have full control over the prices I select both at the gas station, and at the Trading Post.

And a Zap for 999 Gold is more expensive than a Zap for 998 Gold. Going further, a Zap for 998 Gold is more expensive than a Zap for 997 Gold 99 Silver and 99 Copper. The TP allows us to determine what we’re selling items for, and what we want to buy items for. If someone doesn’t like that their prices were undercut, they should consider selling their items for a price point that will sell faster.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

KarateKid.5648:

Growing up around livestock auctions, they used to bid in 5-10 dollar per head increments at the most (small town)

This would make sense as I am sure heads of cattle sell somewhere between 500 to 1000 dollars, about 1% increments. Notice they don’t go up in 1 penny increments.

Perfect! Then there we go, we agree… once it becomes the established convention, then anet should code it! Problem solved.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

That analogy doesn’t apply to me, because I always tap the pump until my gas price is a round number. If I miss it by a single penny, I overfill until I get to the next round number. If I keep missing, I’ll go until my tank can no longer physically hold the gas.

Pumps don’t show the tenth of cent on the end total, so you can’t tell when the you are being “forced” to pay an extra tenth of a cent ……

You basically save a cent every tenth gallon. Math Masterclass.

This post is not about being undercut. It is about dealing in meaningful amounts.

It should be noted on the trading post there are only two items valued more than a gold where the buy and sell price is within 1%. Meaning the community agrees that 1% is negligible. So anyone trolling in that range is most likely up to no good anyways.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

This post is not about being undercut. It is about dealing in meaningful amounts.

It should be noted on the trading post there are only two items valued more than a gold where the buy and sell price is within 1%. Meaning the community agrees that 1% is negligible. So anyone trolling in that range is most likely up to no good anyways.

All this 1% rule would do, is making markets more volatile (70 undercuts will equal a 50% value loss), by spreading new listings over a wider value, especially in high volume markets. This makes it easier to manipulate those markets, as it results in general value swings of 30-50% depending on the day and time.

I still have to see a compelling reason how this change would benefit the player base as a whole.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

This post is not about being undercut. It is about dealing in meaningful amounts.

It should be noted on the trading post there are only two items valued more than a gold where the buy and sell price is within 1%. Meaning the community agrees that 1% is negligible. So anyone trolling in that range is most likely up to no good anyways.

To me, selling an item for 1 Copper less is meaningful, since I get to sell mine ahead of the higher priced good. So I’m still not understanding what your point is. Do you mean to say that the price difference of 1 Copper is not meaningful to you? And how am I up to no good if my selling habits don’t conform to a non-existent standard?

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

This post is not about being undercut. It is about dealing in meaningful amounts.

It should be noted on the trading post there are only two items valued more than a gold where the buy and sell price is within 1%. Meaning the community agrees that 1% is negligible. So anyone trolling in that range is most likely up to no good anyways.

To me, selling an item for 1 Copper less is meaningful, since I get to sell mine ahead of the higher priced good. So I’m still not understanding what your point is. Do you mean to say that the price difference of 1 Copper is not meaningful to you? And how am I up to no good if my selling habits don’t conform to a non-existent standard?

Because…. mounts.

Wanze.8410:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

This post is not about being undercut. It is about dealing in meaningful amounts.

It should be noted on the trading post there are only two items valued more than a gold where the buy and sell price is within 1%. Meaning the community agrees that 1% is negligible. So anyone trolling in that range is most likely up to no good anyways.

To me, selling an item for 1 Copper less is meaningful, since I get to sell mine ahead of the higher priced good. So I’m still not understanding what your point is. Do you mean to say that the price difference of 1 Copper is not meaningful to you? And how am I up to no good if my selling habits don’t conform to a non-existent standard?

Because…. mounts.

I’ve never lost a debate over something as obvious as this. You have my apologies for not understanding the true purpose of this thread.

/bow

Drago Ivansen.5398:

This post is not about being undercut. It is about dealing in meaningful amounts.

It should be noted on the trading post there are only two items valued more than a gold where the buy and sell price is within 1%. Meaning the community agrees that 1% is negligible. So anyone trolling in that range is most likely up to no good anyways.

“Meaningful” as a description of an amount is “meaningless”. We are dealing with numbers here … go ahead and tell us why working in differences of 1c are ‘meaningless’, then there can be a rational discussion. You’re post has an air of ‘protectionism’ in it … no one playing markets should be protected from risk.

The truth is that your ‘meaningful’ amount is irrelevant. No imagined problem is going to be fixed by changing the minimum buy/sell increment. The system works now; it works especially well for everyone that isn’t basing their prices on unrealistic values.

Wanze.8410:

All this 1% rule would do, is making markets more volatile (70 undercuts will equal a 50% value loss), by spreading new listings over a wider value, especially in high volume markets. This makes it easier to manipulate those markets, as it results in general value swings of 30-50% depending on the day and time.

I still have to see a compelling reason how this change would benefit the player base as a whole.

An example of a market that you think would be negatively effected would be helpful. I don’t understand how this would facilitate a 30-50% swing in a market any differently than one could today.

It would not spread out new listings, just the undercuts. Instead of have a listing at 10 gold and one at 9 gold 99 silver 99 copper, you would have 2 listing at 10 gold. If the second person really wanted to sell first then they should sell at a different price point. This is exactly how things work today with items that cost a silver. I think everyone would agree it would be awkward to bid at a fraction of a copper. So either the market for cheap items is broken and can easily be manipulated or the market for big ticket items broken with all the micro-bids.

Obtena.7952:

“Meaningful” as a description of an amount is “meaningless”. We are dealing with numbers here … go ahead and tell us why working in differences of 1c are ‘meaningless’, then there can be a rational discussion.

The truth is that your ‘meaningful’ amount is irrelevant. No imagined problem is going to be fixed by changing the minimum buy/sell increment. The system works now; it works especially well for everyone that isn’t basing their prices on unrealistic values.

neg·li·gi·ble
adjective
1. so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.

There is a reason as to why the tax and listing fees are in percents and not a fixed copper amount. The minimal bid should be as well for the exact same reasons.

You are advocating something that removes options for pricing. It’s not necessary. Whatever the issue is, it’s a ‘non-problem’.

1c isn’t negligible if you want to sell your item to move faster than the lowest listed price. You haven’t made a case for why it should be anything but 1c. Listing fees and tax are percents because it’s an inflationary control measure. Differences in buy/sell prices are not.

Obtena.7952:

You are advocating something that removes options for pricing. It’s not necessary. Whatever the issue is, it’s a ‘non-problem’.

1c isn’t negligible if you want to sell your item to move faster than the lowest listed price.

If the listing fee was 1c, I would like to hear your argument as to whether or not it is negligible.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

You are advocating something that removes options for pricing. It’s not necessary. Whatever the issue is, it’s a ‘non-problem’.

1c isn’t negligible if you want to sell your item to move faster than the lowest listed price.

If the listing fee was 1c, I would like to hear your argument as to whether or not it is negligible.

How is this relevant to the discussion? Please tell us why you think the min should be and how it would be better for the game?