Guild Wars 2

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Wanze.8410:

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.

Again you have already been chalked up to disagreeing with the foundation of the problem.

There is no problem.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Wanze.8410:

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.

Again you have already been chalked up to disagreeing with the foundation of the problem.

so whats the score?

mtpelion.4562:

Let’s not also forget that the entire economy benefits when people relist their items.

There is a difference between relisting to set a new value and relisting to get to the front of the stack.

Wanze.8410:

so whats the score?

so far 2-2 with explicit responses.

I have counted you and MeatWagon with disagreeing with the foundation of the problem

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Schizo.1375:

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.

Obviously the TP got some things wrong. Once it was acting like a stack, as you quoted earlier. They recognized this was a bug and fixed it. If the devs saw its current state as a problem then you can bet they would fix it right away. Because a broken economy is a broken game. But its not broken, it has done nothing but show it is quite capable of taking care of itself.

This is not to say that the TP can’t be changed. Any suggestions for improvements are actually accepted in this forum besides popular belief. But it has been shown that your fix isn’t a fix but instead hurts what is already working. And rather then going back to the drawing board to come up with something new that addresses the flaws brought forward you cling tighter to your argument and ignore our responses.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

mtpelion.4562:

Let’s not also forget that the entire economy benefits when people relist their items.

There is no difference between relisting to set a new value and relisting to get to the front of the stack post the lowest listing, because either way, a relist functions as a gold sink.

Fixed it for you.

Schizo.1375:

Obviously the TP got some things wrong. Once it was acting like a stack, as you quoted earlier. They recognized this was a bug and fixed it. If the devs saw its current state as a problem then you can bet they would fix it right away. Because a broken economy is a broken game. But its not broken, it has done nothing but show it is quite capable of taking care of itself.

This is not to say that the TP can’t be changed. Any suggestions for improvements are actually accepted in this forum besides popular belief. But it has been shown that your fix isn’t a fix but instead hurts what is already working. And rather then going back to the drawing board to come up with something new that addresses the flaws brought forward you cling tighter to your argument and ignore our responses.

Perhaps this topic should have been started expressing a problem and not a solution. I am not 100% attached to the “1% min bid” idea, but I 100% believe the current queue system is broken at high value items.

Wanze.8410:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

mtpelion.4562:

Let’s not also forget that the entire economy benefits when people relist their items.

There is no difference between relisting to set a new value and relisting to get to the front of the stack post the lowest listing, because either way, a relist functions as a gold sink.

Fixed it for you.

Please don’t adjust my posts

There is a difference between relisting to set a new value and relisting to get to the front of the stack.

Ok this is good! Why do you think this is a problem? Is it because, as you’ve said earlier that undercutting imitates a stack?

Undercutting by negligible amounts imitates a stack

Drago Ivansen.5398:

mtpelion.4562:

Let’s not also forget that the entire economy benefits when people relist their items.

There is a difference between relisting to set a new value and relisting to get to the front of the stack.

That’s news to me. Care to elaborate?
Last I checked, there was only one cancel button and only one post button. I haven’t found the one that lets me choose why I’m relisting.

mtpelion.4562:

That’s news to me. Care to elaborate?
Last I checked, there was only one cancel button and only one post button. I haven’t found the one that lets me choose why I’m relisting.

Implementation does not always reflect intent

Edit: A 1 copper vs 1% undercut does reflect intent

Drago Ivansen.5398:

mtpelion.4562:

That’s news to me. Care to elaborate?
Last I checked, there was only one cancel button and only one post button. I haven’t found the one that lets me choose why I’m relisting.

Implementation does not always reflect intent

Edit: A 1 copper vs 1% undercut does reflect intent

Not always, for example, if you miss type the value you want to post at.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Undercutting by negligible amounts imitates a stack

Okay so then I would counter this by saying that cutting by 1c (we’ve already covered what is and is not negligible) doesn’t imitate a stack.

Lets look at an an example…

Person A puts an item up for 10g
Person B puts an item up for 10g thinking the first one will sell quickly
Person C would rather not wait and puts in an item for 99s 99c

In a stack the sell order would be
C → B → A

In a priority queue, as the TP works now the sell order would be
C→ A → B

So we can’t call it a stack as this is not accurate. Instead the lowest item is sold first.
The advantages of this are….
*Lower prices for the consumer as orders keep getting undercut
*Prevents sellers from manipulating the market by posting at ridiculously high prices as it is easy for others to come in and sell their more reasonably priced goods
*The undercutter is able to sell his products faster for reduced profit if he is impatient

Disadvantages
*People that post first at higher values have to wait a bit longer to sell their item for what they think it’s worth.

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

Schizo.1375:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Undercutting by negligible amounts imitates a stack

Okay so then I would counter this by saying that cutting by 1c (we’ve already covered what is and is not negligible) doesn’t imitate a stack.

Lets look at an an example…

Person A puts an item up for 10g
Person B puts an item up for 10g thinking the first one will sell quickly
Person C would rather not wait and puts in an item for 99s 99c

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a priority queue, as the TP works now the sell order would be
C-> A -> B

So we can’t call it a stack as this is not accurate. Instead the lowest item is sold first.
The advantages of this are….
*Lower prices for the consumer as orders keep getting undercut
*Prevents sellers from manipulating the market by posting at ridiculously high prices as it is easy for others to come in and sell their more reasonably priced goods
*The undercutter is able to sell his products faster for reduced profit if he is impatient

Disadvantages
*People that post first at higher values have to wait a bit longer to sell their item for what they think it’s worth.

Since anywhere else in game 100g == 99s99c, it should sell

A -> B -> C

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

False, he had it correct: C -> B -> A

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Since anywhere else in game 100g == 99g 99s99c, it should sell

A -> B -> C

Fixed it for you.

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

A stack is a First In Last Out. A First In First Out queue would be A → B → C.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Schizo.1375:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Undercutting by negligible amounts imitates a stack

Okay so then I would counter this by saying that cutting by 1c (we’ve already covered what is and is not negligible) doesn’t imitate a stack.

Lets look at an an example…

Person A puts an item up for 10g
Person B puts an item up for 10g thinking the first one will sell quickly
Person C would rather not wait and puts in an item for 99s 99c

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a priority queue, as the TP works now the sell order would be
C-> A -> B

So we can’t call it a stack as this is not accurate. Instead the lowest item is sold first.
The advantages of this are….
*Lower prices for the consumer as orders keep getting undercut
*Prevents sellers from manipulating the market by posting at ridiculously high prices as it is easy for others to come in and sell their more reasonably priced goods
*The undercutter is able to sell his products faster for reduced profit if he is impatient

Disadvantages
*People that post first at higher values have to wait a bit longer to sell their item for what they think it’s worth.

Since anywhere else in game 100g == 99s99c, it should sell

A -> B -> C

The problem is that 100g != 99s99c. You could say they are approximately equal but they are two discrete values and are not equal to each other.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

False, he had it correct: C -> B -> A

In a stack, its FIFO, so ABC, as A listed first and C after B.

Wanze.8410:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

False, he had it correct: C -> B -> A

In a stack, its FIFO, so ABC, as A listed first and C after B.

http://www.cmpe.boun.edu.tr/~akin/cmpe223/chap2.htm

Schizo.1375:

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

A stack is a First In Last Out. A First In First Out queue would be A -> B -> C.

Since when do we have FILO for same value listings? That bug was fixed months ago.

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

A stack is a First In Last Out. A First In First Out queue would be A -> B -> C.

Since when do we have FILO for same value listings? That bug was fixed months ago.

We don’t have a FILO that’s my point. What we have is a priority queue with the weight being lowest sell price.

I think I see where you are getting confused Wanze. By stack I mean the general FILO data structure, not the list of sell offerings at the same price.

Schizo.1375:

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

Wanze.8410:

Schizo.1375:

In a stack the sell order would be
C -> B -> A

In a stack, the sell order would be ABC.

A stack is a First In Last Out. A First In First Out queue would be A -> B -> C.

Since when do we have FILO for same value listings? That bug was fixed months ago.

We don’t have a FILO that’s my point. What we have is a priority queue with the weight being lowest sell price.

OK.

ACAB.

Schizo.1375:

I think I see where you are getting confused Wanze. By stack I mean the general FILO data structure, not the list of sell offerings at the same price.

+1

100g and 99g99s99c are discrete numbers, but not discrete perceived values

Drago Ivansen.5398:

100g and 99g99s99c are discrete numbers, but not discrete perceived values

Well the thing about perception is that it depends on your perception (yay tautologies). For me your statement is true. To me 100g and 99g99s99c are are close enough that I don’t care. It’s only value to me is that it helps move my product faster. However, I was raised by a mother who’s Sunday morning routine was to cut out all the coupons in the paper, regardless if she regularly shopped at that store or not, in order to save a few pennies here and there with the belief that they add up. And they do whether that sum is large enough to be worth anything to you is based on your perception. And if we are going to take various perceptions into account the best way to do that is let people set the price at whatever they want. And if it results in slower moving of goods for people who get undercut, than its an unfortunate side affect for the seller but is better for the economy over all.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

here is another post stating the same thing.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Undercutting-any-solution/2636921

You just countered your own arguments again.

John Smith.4610:

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.

This all boils down to you not understanding numbers. 100 Gold is different than 99 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper. The lower number is listed first. Once you realize this, you’ll then know why your whole argument fails.

I find this thread amusing and somewhat educational.

Keep it up, guys.

Schizo.1375:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

100g and 99g99s99c are discrete numbers, but not discrete perceived values

Well the thing about perception is that it depends on your perception (yay tautologies). For me your statement is true. To me 100g and 99g99s99c are are close enough that I don’t care. It’s only value to me is that it helps move my product faster. However, I was raised by a mother who’s Sunday morning routine was to cut out all the coupons in the paper, regardless if she regularly shopped at that store or not, in order to save a few pennies here and there with the belief that they add up. And they do whether that sum is large enough to be worth anything to you is based on your perception. And if we are going to take various perceptions into account the best way to do that is let people set the price at whatever they want. And if it results in slower moving of goods for people who get undercut, than its an unfortunate side affect for the seller but is better for the economy over all.

I will chalk you up to agreeing to the foundation of what I consider to be a problem, but that you disagree with the statement “a 1c undercut is a negligible way to buy yourself to the front of the queue” being a problem.

To reiterate “the Problem”:
If the perceived value of 100g, 100g1c, 100g2c, and 100g3c is the same and there is 1 item list at each amount, then the resulting structure is priority queue behaving exactly as a LIFO stack and not a FIFO queue. I has already been documented a LIFO stack is not the intent of the trading post design.

FenrirSlakt.3692:

I find this thread amusing and somewhat educational.

Keep it up, guys.

Please, feel free to add some input to our friendly discussion

Drago Ivansen.5398:

To reiterate “the Problem”:
If the perceived value of 100g, 100g1c, 100g2c, and 100g3c is the same and there is 1 item list at each amount, then the resulting structure is priority queue behaving exactly as a LIFO stack and not a FIFO queue. I has already been documented a LIFO stack is not the intent of the trading post design.

This doesn’t make any sense. I bolded the four prices you listed. Each one of them is a different price. The cheaper one will always go first. Now if you have two or more items in the stack that’s the same price, then it’s FIFO when it’s sold.

I’m still waiting for two things:

1. Why this should be done (because the 1c increment in offers isn’t a problem)
2. Why sellers should lose more margin than they do now under the proposed change to get the same “First in Queue” opportunity.

Essentially, you just want people to make less money based on what you perceive as an insignificant amount.

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yeah, I’m not drinking that Kool Aid

Obtena.7952:

I’m still waiting for two things:

1. Why this should be done (because the 1c increment isn’t a problem)
2. Why sellers should lose more margin than they do now under the proposed change to get the same opportunity they get now to be first in Queue

1. 1c increments at large amounts is a problem as outlined previously
2. They only get to be first in the Stack if they sell last

Obtena.7952:

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yes! All users of the trading post should pay a significant amount to begin a new queue. This would remove the 10 queues of 1 items each within 1 copper of each other effectively creating a stack because the last person to list will be the first to sell.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yes! All users of the trading post should pay a significant amount to begin a new queue. This would remove the 10 queues of 1 items each within 1 copper of each other effectively creating a stack because the last person to list will be the first to sell.

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

Obtena.7952:

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

Because the stack is against the intent of the design as already documented via fixes in the queue structure

Obtena.7952:

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yes! All users of the trading post should pay a significant amount to begin a new queue. This would remove the 10 queues of 1 items each within 1 copper of each other effectively creating a stack because the last person to list will be the first to sell.

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

He’s been avoiding giving any answer to this, because there is none. We’ve reached four pages of this debate, and there’s still no reason given to this idea, except to satisfy the incorrect perceptions of one person.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

Because the stack is against the intent of the design as already documented via fixes in the queue structure

That’s not answering my question: What is the benefit of your proposal? Simply to adhere to your idea of what the TP design intent should be, based on something that was fixed? I get this is your reasoning. I want to know WHY anyone should support this … what is broken that needs to be fixed? What is the pragmatic benefit to implementing this? Even if it’s not the design intent, it STILL works as a stack, so how can you justify changing it?

So just to be clear, you want everyone to lose profit margin because of what you believe is a lack of adherence of the TP to its intended design even though the current and the proposed approaches BOTH work properly as a stack … :/

Obtena.7952:

I’m still waiting for two things:

1. Why this should be done (because the 1c increment in offers isn’t a problem)
2. Why sellers should lose more margin than they do now under the proposed change to get the same “First in Queue” opportunity.

Essentially, you just want people to make less money based on what you perceive as an insignificant amount.

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yeah, I’m not drinking that Kool Aid

DING DING

Obtena.7952:

I’m still waiting for two things:

1. Why this should be done (because the 1c increment in offers isn’t a problem)
2. Why sellers should lose more margin than they do now under the proposed change to get the same “First in Queue” opportunity.

Essentially, you just want people to make less money based on what you perceive as an insignificant amount.

Let me put another way: “We should pay a SIGNIFICANT amount for the opportunity to be first in Q simply because we currently only pay an insignificant amount for the same opportunity”.

Yeah, I’m not drinking that Kool Aid

DING DING

(Am I having deja vu or has this poor equine been roughed up in here previously?)

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

OK, so why? Why is this needed? You want people to lose margins on selling for this idea. What is the benefit of your proposal?

Because the stack is against the intent of the design as already documented via fixes in the queue structure

Your documentation shows that the TP is working as intended.

Obtena.7952:

That’s not answering my question: What is the benefit of your proposal? Simply to adhere to your idea of design intent? This is why we should lose margin?

Currently, when you post a listing at 1 copper less than 100 gold item, what do you lose (Money, A quick sale, Nothing)? The answer is you gain a quick sale time at the cost of 1c. This is a great steal of a bargain. So, there is no reason to ever jump on an already existing queue. You should be able to buy a quick sale, but it should come at the cost of margin. Currently the price is effectively free. Since none of the queues are being used why do they exist at all? Why not allow infinite precision at the cheaper values so we could do the same hack there? e.g. I want to sell at 10 copper, dang someone just undercut me at 9.99999 copper. Ah, the joke is on them someone else just bid 9.99998. (seems silly right?)

This all comes back to the same problem of the trading post operating differently at high values than it does at low values because the bid increment is insignificant at high values.

Brother Grimm.5176:

(Am I having deja vu or has this poor equine been roughed up in here previously?)

Not unless you provide some links

All this argument and no one really threw “maths” at it? I’m surprised.

The Trading Post serves 3 purposes:

• It provides players with a secure way to buy goods quickly and easily
• It provides players with a secure way to sell goods quickly and easily
• It is a gold sink

The final part of that is, by far, the most important part in this discussion.

Let’s use the example of selling an item at 100g

The Current System:

• Item #1 is listed at 100g
  • Listing Fee: 5g
• Item #2 is listed at 99g99s99c
  • Listing Fee: 4g99s99.95c….rounded to 5g

Immediate gold sunk at either price: 5g

Using the 1% System:

• Listing #1 is listed at 100g
  • Listing Fee: 5g
• Item #2 is listed at 99g
  • Listing Fee: 4g95s00c

Difference in gold sunk at different prices: 5s

Now….take that difference over 1,000’s, 100,000’s, or 1,000,000’s of transactions and you can see that undercutting by 1c is by no means insignificant to the system. It may perhaps “feel” insignificant to an individual player selling an individual item, but when looking beyond a single item to the game as a whole, the 1c undercutting system actually does a better job of keeping inflation in check and as an added bonus, keeps market prices more stable and less volitile.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Obtena.7952:

That’s not answering my question: What is the benefit of your proposal? Simply to adhere to your idea of design intent? This is why we should lose margin?

Currently, when you post a listing at 1 copper less than 100 gold item, what do you lose (Money, A quick sale, Nothing)? The answer is you gain a quick sale time at the cost of 1c. This is a great steal of a bargain. So, there is no reason to ever jump on an already existing queue. You should be able to buy a quick sale, but it should come at the cost of margin. Currently the price is effectively free. Since none of the queues are being used why do they exist at all? Why not allow infinite precision at the cheaper values so we could do the same hack there? e.g. I want to sell at 10 copper, dang someone just undercut me at 9.99999 copper. Ah, the joke is on them someone else just bid 9.99998. (seems silly right?)

This all comes back to the same problem of the trading post operating differently at high values than it does at low values because the bid increment is insignificant at high values.

An example when I lose money is that the item has been undercut so many times that undercutting anymore does not make a large enough margin to make money.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Currently, when you post a listing at 1 copper less than 100 gold item, what do you lose (Money, A quick sale, Nothing)? The answer is you gain a quick sale time at the cost of 1c. This is a great steal of a bargain. So, there is no reason to ever jump on an already existing queue.

OK so really what you want to do is protect the selling interests of people that price their goods ‘high’ at the expense of those that want to price competitively with them.

Why? The market has risk, this is part of it. Why do we need to lose margin to protect people that don’t want those risks? The real solution here is for people to price their goods in a way that reflects the amount of risk they are willing to take. That’s not something you or Anet can decide. It’s a personal preference. I believe this is why the min increment is equal to the minimum monetary unit.