The OP referred to sell listings, not buy orders. He also never mentioned to remove the 5% listing fee.
Then I should have specified ask increments, and not lazily used ‘bid’ in its place. The logic doesn’t change.
The 5% listing fee reinforces the value of bid/ask increments; it is a distortionary inefficiency on the sell side that makes sell listings effectively LIFO at sufficiently high prices. This is undesirable, as LIFO systems can have an enormous variability in the time before sale; in a FIFO system you get a pretty well constrained variance in the time before a sale (without price movements); in a LIFO system the expected variance is essentially infinite.
When you put in a bid increment, you lose some efficiency on price (bad), but stand to gain a lot of efficiency on time (good). This on the whole can make your market more efficient.
In the particular case of the GW2 TP, I’m pretty sure that an ask increment would increase the price efficiency as well. This is because the risk on time from the de facto LIFO sale gets baked into the sale price of an item as a risk premium; an appropriate ask increment that breaks that up and lowers the risk premium could actually increase the price efficiency more than the direct efficiency lost from increments.
General value of bid/ask increments in a non-algorithmic trading world apply regardless.
The circled part of the attached image looks a lot like a LIFO stack.
9 items with 8 listings and with %0.16 difference in price. Looks like the last item in will sell first without a significant difference in price. People are getting around the FIFO queue with a 1 copper hack.
The circled part of the attached image looks a lot like a LIFO stack.
9 items with 8 listings and with %0.16 difference in price. Looks like the last item in will sell first without a significant difference in price. People are getting around the FIFO queue with a 1 copper hack.
This is not a hack. This is allowing for people to set their own prices and for buyers to buy at the lowest price being offered. As said before it is a first in, lowest out queue. This allows for greater price precision and competition. Just because you put your item in first does not mean you are entitled to sell before someone who is willing to sell at a lower price.
I’m starting to believe that now matter how we try we can’t convince you otherwise and that it would take John Smith tomorrow to say otherwise. If this is true please say so cause this is getting tiring circling the same arguments.
The circled part of the attached image looks a lot like a LIFO stack.
9 items with 8 listings and with %0.16 difference in price. Looks like the last item in will sell first without a significant difference in price. People are getting around the FIFO queue with a 1 copper hack.
It doesn’t count as FIFO or LIFO if the prices are different.
Your attached picture looks pretty normal. So what’s the issue? The lowest priced item sells first. The concept is clear as day.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why the lowest priced item shouldn’t sell first.
Undercutting isn’t a hack around FIFO. It’s FIFO for identically priced items.
It’s not that difficult to understand. If the item is fairly priced, it will eventually sell. If you want to sell quickly then price it to move. It’s always going to be a tradeoff between profit and how fast it sells.
All the prices highlight are effectively the same price the only difference is the order in which they were posted. The person selling at 6g92s74c would have sold at 6g92s79c if he posted earlier in the day. It has nothing to do with the 5 copper price difference. It was done to get around the FIFO queue.
Following the letter of the rules but abusing the spirit is still an abuse.
All the prices highlight are effectively the same price the only difference is the order in which they were posted. The person selling at 6g92s74c would have sold at 6g92s79c if he posted earlier in the day. It has nothing to do with the 5 copper price difference. It was done to get around the FIFO queue.
Following the letter of the rules but abusing the spirit is still an abuse.
Assuming bidding and competition isn’t the spirit of the TP you mean.
No it reduces competition as there is less room for me to make make lower bids and still maintain a profit.
You can still make a profit. You just need to abide by the FIFO. So, come up with the idea first and don’t be greedy and you will always be the front of the queue.
No it reduces competition as there is less room for me to make make lower bids and still maintain a profit.
You can still make a profit. You just need to abide by the FIFO. So, come up with the idea first and don’t be greedy and you will always be the front of the queue.
Or we could just stick with system we have now since it isn’t broken, I can get more for my money, and consumers can get their items for a cheaper price.
Edit: And don’t think I didn’t notice you didn’t disprove my claim
The circled part of the attached image looks a lot like a LIFO stack.
9 items with 8 listings and with %0.16 difference in price. Looks like the last item in will sell first without a significant difference in price. People are getting around the FIFO queue with a 1 copper hack.
This is were you are wrong, its not a LIFO stack, its a more like a concentrated bulk of listings, even though a 0.16% difference might seem miniscule to you it isnt.
I know plenty of wvw commanders, who would go ballistic, if they ask to stack on TS and their squad starts to assemble in an area around him that resembles 0.16% of the map.
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
1 silver does not make a difference at a close to 7 gold price point. The consumer does not care about this difference in price. There are NO listing on the trading post where the difference between the buy and sell is 1 silver at a 7 gold price point.
1 silver does not make a difference at a close to 7 gold price point. The consumer does not care about this difference in price. There are NO listing on the trading post where the difference between the buy and sell is 1 silver at a 7 gold price point.
Price spreads between sell and buy listings usually arent close together because of the fees and taxes. So its usually at least 15%. If its over 15%, flippers will eventually correct that profit margin, if its under 15%, its a declining market.
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
You do realize that if you remove the lowest denomination of currency, you will simply have a new lowest denomination of currency (this time a percent instead of finite point)?
Given time, this same argument will crop up about why the minimum bid is 1% when it should be 2% to prevent all those people from undercutting by 1% which is an insignificant amount. You start down this road and you wind up like those many African nations that have to pass laws that simply drop zeros off of their currency because the lowest bill is for 1,000,000,000,000.
Price spreads between sell and buy listings usually arent close together because of the fees and taxes. So its usually at least 15%. If its over 15%, flippers will eventually correct that profit margin, if its under 15%, its a declining market.
False, in a healthy market buy listing will meet sell listing. And the 15% tax/fees just mean no gap will be more than 15%, which actually isn’t true also. A margin greater than 15% happens when the market is really slow.
You do realize that if you remove the lowest denomination of currency, you will simply have a new lowest denomination of currency (this time a percent instead of finite point)?
Given time, this same argument will crop up about why the minimum bid is 1% when it should be 2% to prevent all those people from undercutting by 1% which is an insignificant amount. You start down this road and you wind up like those many African nations that have to pass laws that simply drop zeros off of their currency because the lowest bill is for 1,000,000,000,000.
Please read the forum in its entirety if you would like to participate. This post is off topic. No one said to remove the lowest denomination of currency.
You do realize that if you remove the lowest denomination of currency, you will simply have a new lowest denomination of currency (this time a percent instead of finite point)?
Given time, this same argument will crop up about why the minimum bid is 1% when it should be 2% to prevent all those people from undercutting by 1% which is an insignificant amount. You start down this road and you wind up like those many African nations that have to pass laws that simply drop zeros off of their currency because the lowest bill is for 1,000,000,000,000.
Please read the forum in its entirety if you would like to participate. This post is off topic. No one said to remove the lowest denomination of currency.
This is not off topic. This is a valid result of your proposed change whether you intend it or not.
Please read the forum in its entirety if you would like to participate. This post is off topic. No one said to remove the lowest denomination of currency.
Wait… did you honestly just admit to not knowing what you suggested?
I haven’t had my coffee yet, so I want to be sure that you just said that you didn’t say you said what you said.
This is not off topic. This is a valid result of your proposed change whether you intend it or not.
Really? Copper increments still exists at values of 1s and less, so how have they been removed.
The proposed solutions does not cause inflation, but provides an answer to inflation.
Which is too small of a portion of the market. Items are sold at higher values, or if around the 1 silver mark, in bulk. Thus 99% of the market no longer uses copper but by increments of 1%. Thus inflation.
Whats wrong with inflation? Its hyperinflation, you have to look out for.
Do you think we have hyperinflation in GW2? I dont.
My only reference to inflation is the relationship between inflation and flat rates , i.e., over time inflation will cause a flat rate to become negligible. This is why the taxes and fees are percentages and why flat rates are causing the current trading post to degrade to an effective LIFO stack.
Whats wrong with inflation? Its hyperinflation, you have to look out for.
Do you think we have hyperinflation in GW2? I dont.
My only reference to inflation is the relationship between inflation and flat rates , i.e., over time inflation will cause a flat rate to become negligible. This is why the taxes and fees are percentages and why flat rates are causing the current trading post to degrade to an effective LIFO stack.
Flat rates of what?
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
Whats wrong with inflation? Its hyperinflation, you have to look out for.
Do you think we have hyperinflation in GW2? I dont.
My only reference to inflation is the relationship between inflation and flat rates , i.e., over time inflation will cause a flat rate to become negligible. This is why the taxes and fees are percentages and why flat rates are causing the current trading post to degrade to an effective LIFO stack.
There is no degrading. The TP has always been a first in LOWEST out QUEUE. Constantly referring to the TP as a stack doesn’t make it so. It only shows your stuberness or unwillingness to accept that fact. Please stop saying this as it is not true.
If I sell 1000 items at 1s for a total 10g
… I am rightfully undercut
they sell 1000 items at 99c for a total of 9g90s
Notice a 1c undercut at low levels will cause a 10s undercut in bulk. This differential should remain the same regardless of whether I sell 1000 items at 1s or 1 item at 10g.
100g outside the trading post is effectively equal to 99g99s99c.
If you do not agree with this statement, please make that disagreement known and move on. If you would like to make any other statement please acknowledge your agreement with the above statement.
If I sell 1000 items at 1s for a total 10g
… I am rightfully undercut
they sell 1000 items at 99c for a total of 9g90s
Notice a 1c undercut at low levels will cause a 10s undercut in bulk. This differential should remain the same regardless of whether I sell 1000 items at 1s or 1 item at 10g.
If i sell an item for 1g
i am rightfully undercut at 99s99c value
If i sell 100 items at 1s for a total of 1g
i am rightfully undercut at 99s value.
If i list an item for 20 copper, i pay 1 copper listing fee (5%)
If i list an item for 5 copper, i still pay 1 copper listing fee (20%)
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
100g outside the trading post is effectively equal to 99g99s99c.
If you do not agree with this statement, please make that disagreement known and move on. If you would like to make any other statement please acknowledge your agreement with the above statement.
But this is a forum about the trading post, where 100g is effectively unequal to 99g99s99c.
So why should i move on and not you?
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
100g outside the trading post is effectively equal to 99g99s99c.
If you do not agree with this statement, please make that disagreement known and move on. If you would like to make any other statement please acknowledge your agreement with the above statement.
This is a public forum. We are entitled to share our opinions just the same as you are. You are entitled to defend your opinion, not ask others who don’t, and can refut your claims, to leave so that you can speak only with those who agree with you. Which you have yet to find some one who will.
100g outside the trading post is effectively equal to 99g99s99c.
If you do not agree with this statement, please make that disagreement known and move on. If you would like to make any other statement please acknowledge your agreement with the above statement.
This is a public forum. We are entitled to share our opinions just the same as you are. You are entitled to defend your opinion, not ask others who don’t, and can refut your claims, to leave so that you can speak only with those who agree with you. Which you have yet to find some one who will.
It is a public forum, but any other posts are really considered off topic. There is really no point expressing opinions if you don’t agree with the foundation of the problem.
Is the argument that undercutting is negative because it’s inconvenient and the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential?
Or is the argument that undercutting is a side effect of some other issue?
Or both or neither?
Notice, he left the question open encouraging discussion and the possibility of a better design. Also notice, his comment on the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential.
This topic is related to the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential and how it creates an effective LIFO stack at high values.
Is the argument that undercutting is negative because it’s inconvenient and the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential?
Or is the argument that undercutting is a side effect of some other issue?
Or both or neither?
Notice, he left the question open encouraging discussion and the possibility of a better design. Also notice, his comment on the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential.
This topic is related to the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential and how it creates an effective LIFO stack at high values.
Of course he encourages discussion and doesnt rule out a better design. Unfortunately, nobody, including you, suggested a better design yet. As he stated in the first part of his post, he is quite alright with how effectively and good the system works right now:
The trading post is a set of offers. When you state to sell or buy something you state you’re willing to trade or buy at that price. Economically, I see no fault with the current system and how well it functions, I see no market failures and no effect on velocity of trading.
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
The trading post is a set of offers. When you state to sell or buy something you state you’re willing to trade or buy at that price. Economically, I see no fault with the current system and how well it functions, I see no market failures and no effect on velocity of trading.
Yup. TP is working as intended. We can all go home now.
The second part is not an open ended question to promote more discussion for new ideas. It is to point out the fault of OP’s argument. That it IS only based on the fact that it is inconvenient for him to get undercut. And he made no comments in the affirmative, only asked questions. You can’t use this as a point in your favor.
Also, first in lowest out queue. From now on I’m going to start using the term priority queue with the weight of each item being it’s price. It will be a lot easier on me to correct your continually known use of incorrect facts.
Wait… did you honestly just admit to not knowing what you suggested?
I haven’t had my coffee yet, so I want to be sure that you just said that you didn’t say you said what you said.
I honestly said that and your coffee is still off topic. Please show how dealing with percentages removes the copper completely and causes inflation.
It’s pretty apparent then that you haven’t thought your idea through all the way.
If you have a minimum currency but enact a rule that makes it so that the minimum currency can no longer be used as the minimum currency increment, then you have replaced that minimum currency with a new minimum currency (in your example, that new minimum currency is a percentage instead of a fixed value).
All you’ve done is made copper less valuable and raised the prices across the board until the next guy comes along who suggests that 1% is now “meaningless” and it should be 2%.
I’d also like to point out that if 1c is so meaningless, why on earth have you spent so much time talking about it? If it was actually meaningless, you’d never have taken the time to make this suggestion. You’ve got a solution looking for a problem here.
It is possible they did not realize how the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential and how it creates an effective LIFO stack at high values.
Is the argument that undercutting is negative because it’s inconvenient and the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential?
Or is the argument that undercutting is a side effect of some other issue?
Or both or neither?
Notice, he left the question open encouraging discussion and the possibility of a better design. Also notice, his comment on the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential.
This topic is related to the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential and how it creates an effective LIFO stack at high values.
If you read the whole topic, you will also see, that only the OP complained about being undercut. All other posters said its working as intended and working well.
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
If you read the whole topic, you will also see, that only the OP complained about being undercut. All other posters said its working as intended and working well.
I did not post the topic as related, but only John Smiths comment. My complaint, again, is not with undercutting.
It is possible they did not realize how the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential and how it creates an effective LIFO stack at high values.
Again:
2 items posted at 100g is a stack of offers.
1 item each posted at 100g and 99g99s99c, is not a stack as they are not at the same value.
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
It is possible they did not realize how the value people are undercutting as a % is inconsequential and how it creates an effective LIFO stack at high values.
I will grant you that this is a possibility. Designs don’t always work out like we think they will when put into practice.
However there is no way that they haven’t noticed how the TP behaves by now. If they haven’t said anything or made any changes to this within the game’s first year, let alone approaching it’s second year, then the system is working as intended.
I will grant you that this is a possibility. Designs don’t always work out like we think they will when put into practice.
However there is no way that they haven’t noticed how the TP behaves by now. If they haven’t said anything or made any changes to this within the game’s first year, let alone approaching it’s second year, then the system is working as intended.
Also, priority queue.
And some how the entire game is getting an overhaul April 15, but the trading post got everything brilliantly correct the first go at it <sarcasm>. If all devs always noticed all problem then they wouldn’t have a forum. Maybe they realize its a problem, but believe that no one cares.
