Guild Wars 2

I found a bug on the trade post that buyers are listed that are under vender costs.

There should be a scanning etc for buying vs vender then auto correct there database fields or remove them from the tp database as I have found a few items that are doing this.

Screenshot attached showing that the highest buyer is listed at below vender cost when it is the exact same.

Appears to be the listing fee as price is 18 copper on vender.

If anyone sees a item doing this please list in this thread.

I’ll start:

Metal Scrap
Frayed Rag
Frayed Garment
Strong Trident (Highest buyer is listed at 1 copper)

Not a bug it’s just annoying (although maybe could be classed as an issue/bug). You can’t buy something lower or equal to the vendor price but some idiots are putting in orders for items for say 1c etc. Lower than the vendor price so those orders will never be filled.

Oh, Thank goodness.

The last few days have been quite annoying with trying to sell things to the buyers to only find out that everything your trying to sell and they want to buy is lower than vendor price and cannot be sold, and everyday as those prices stay up the new buyers come giving an even lower offer to try to get first bid on the items. So now we have items going for 1-3c when vendor price is 30c+.

On a sort of related note it really is to bad that the block that should be preventing buyers from making bid offers below vendor didn’t automatically add what the seller would pay as a listing fee for selling as an adjustment to the vendor price so that if they try to offer (for example) 18c on a 20c vendor item it ups it to at least 21c as there lowest allowed bid. Basically so that the seller can end up with at least the vendor price after the listing fee is taking from the item.

I (and I am sure many from what it sounds like on the forum posts here) don’t mind selling something for vendor price to a real player, and under normal circumstances don’t mind the listing fee applied as a cost (such as selling a 3c item for 1s and paying Xc fee). At least until we start getting hit with the listing fees that reduce what you make after a sale to under the vendor price.

In which case you might as well just let players list/buy items for less than vendor.

Michael Fejervary.8576:

Oh, Thank goodness.

The last few days have been quite annoying with trying to sell things to the buyers to only find out that everything your trying to sell and they want to buy is lower than vendor price and cannot be sold, and everyday as those prices stay up the new buyers come giving an even lower offer to try to get first bid on the items. So now we have items going for 1-3c when vendor price is 30c+.

On a sort of related note it really is to bad that the block that should be preventing buyers from making bid offers below vendor didn’t automatically add what the seller would pay as a listing fee for selling as an adjustment to the vendor price so that if they try to offer (for example) 18c on a 20c vendor item it ups it to at least 21c as there lowest allowed bid. Basically so that the seller can end up with at least the vendor price after the listing fee is taking from the item.

I (and I am sure many from what it sounds like on the forum posts here) don’t mind selling something for vendor price to a real player, and under normal circumstances don’t mind the listing fee applied as a cost (such as selling a 3c item for 1s and paying Xc fee). At least until we start getting hit with the listing fees that reduce what you make after a sale to under the vendor price.

In which case you might as well just let players list/buy items for less than vendor.

The reason why this restriction is in place is so that the buyer can’t flip them them to a vendor. The vendor price is the vendor sell price. The vendor does not necessarily sell the item.

anzenketh.3759:

Michael Fejervary.8576:

Oh, Thank goodness.

The last few days have been quite annoying with trying to sell things to the buyers to only find out that everything your trying to sell and they want to buy is lower than vendor price and cannot be sold, and everyday as those prices stay up the new buyers come giving an even lower offer to try to get first bid on the items. So now we have items going for 1-3c when vendor price is 30c+.

On a sort of related note it really is to bad that the block that should be preventing buyers from making bid offers below vendor didn’t automatically add what the seller would pay as a listing fee for selling as an adjustment to the vendor price so that if they try to offer (for example) 18c on a 20c vendor item it ups it to at least 21c as there lowest allowed bid. Basically so that the seller can end up with at least the vendor price after the listing fee is taking from the item.

I (and I am sure many from what it sounds like on the forum posts here) don’t mind selling something for vendor price to a real player, and under normal circumstances don’t mind the listing fee applied as a cost (such as selling a 3c item for 1s and paying Xc fee). At least until we start getting hit with the listing fees that reduce what you make after a sale to under the vendor price.

In which case you might as well just let players list/buy items for less than vendor.

The reason why this restriction is in place is so that the buyer can’t flip them them to a vendor. The vendor price is the vendor sell price. The vendor does not necessarily sell the item.

This makes absolutely no sense. Think about it.

Player sells an item for 1 copper below vender price. That player now sold an item worth 100 copper for 99 copper. The seller lost 1 copper off vender price and 15% of that items posted value (5% posting fee and 10% tax). The player lost 16 copper selling his 100 copper item at 99 copper.

The player that buys the item only made 1 copper by junking it at the vender. Do you see what happened. No additional money was generated by one player buying an item sold cheaper than the vender price and selling it to a vender. Instead, what happened is the buyer created an additional 10% money sink for the seller by purchasing the item.

Had the item never sold, the seller would have taken it off the TP with only a 5% loss in value and full vender price back to the seller.

ANet is not actually doing anything positive for the players, the economy, or themselves by blocking people who want to sell below vender price.

Right now all we have are 1035899283475 of one type of item sitting at +1 copper above the vender price. No one is buying these items and instead the sellers are canceling the sale once they get into town and vendering the item themselves.

If ANet allows players to sell items below the vender price, not only are they creating an additional 10% money sink for the economy, they are getting rid of a lot of random crap no one would purchase.

Players selling 1c above the vendor price(in effect them earning bellow the vendor) is the fault of the player.

The system is put in place to have a minimum price because people will and did place buy orders and sell to the buy orders for below the vendor price before this system was in place(in the beta). People then bought items of the trading post and sold them to the vendors flipping them for a profit.

This does hurt the economy. The reason why the restriction was in place for sell orders was to prevent people from accidently causing someone to loose money on selling a item by not selling it to a vendor. The reason for preventing someone from buying is they can then buy the item. Turn right around and sell it to a vendor making profit.

The fact that they were able to place a buy order for below the vendor price is a bug.

i’d also add that you shouldnt be able to place orders for BoA items

there are currently around 18000 orders for lemons…some orders even range to 10s a lemon…people dont seem to realize it and are too silly to read or google

illgot.1056:

This makes absolutely no sense. Think about it.

Player sells an item for 1 copper below vender price. That player now sold an item worth 100 copper for 99 copper. The seller lost 1 copper off vender price and 15% of that items posted value (5% posting fee and 10% tax). The player lost 16 copper selling his 100 copper item at 99 copper.

The player that buys the item only made 1 copper by junking it at the vender. Do you see what happened. No additional money was generated by one player buying an item sold cheaper than the vender price and selling it to a vender. Instead, what happened is the buyer created an additional 10% money sink for the seller by purchasing the item.

Had the item never sold, the seller would have taken it off the TP with only a 5% loss in value and full vender price back to the seller.

ANet is not actually doing anything positive for the players, the economy, or themselves by blocking people who want to sell below vender price.

Right now all we have are 1035899283475 of one type of item sitting at +1 copper above the vender price. No one is buying these items and instead the sellers are canceling the sale once they get into town and vendering the item themselves.

If ANet allows players to sell items below the vender price, not only are they creating an additional 10% money sink for the economy, they are getting rid of a lot of random crap no one would purchase.

Actually they are. Look at it from a different perspective – the back-end.

The database for the Trade Post is gargantuan and has to take into account every single thing that is put on it. There are a lot of people that are using it to dump their items instead of vendoring them. From a database perspective I am NOT going to have the TP and the vendors in the same table because this will save from having performance hits against those tables, which causes delays to the end-user [players]. We want to avoid this and because of this concern for the customer/end-user/gamer/player ANet is ABSOLUTELY doing something positive for their players.

So we give people incentive to vendor their items. Why? Because then all you have to do is store the item in memory in a buyback table that is significantly smaller and then clear it as soon as the person exits the game. Less overhead and it keeps people from unnecessarily using the TP as a trash-bin. If they are willing to lose 5% to “store” items on the TP until they get back to town then so be it – that can’t be helped but it gold-sinks as you were wishing.

The other aspect of this that bears repeating is that ultimately they do not want people to be able to sell something for less than what a vendor will purchase it for because it causes disruptions in their market control. Once a person can buy it on the TP for less than what the vendor buys it for then the mad rush is on to benefit from this.

The recent post by John Smith on the economy (click here if you are interested) makes it clear that anyone who can gain something from nothing is exploiting. If you can sit at the TP and buy something that isn’t intended to be bought and immediately flip it for gold then that goes against the design philosophy of ANet and it will get fixed immediately.

There are plenty of other gold-sinks in the game for your focus about losing a gold-sink to be a non-issue.

I just want to point out that my post was not intended to be negative toward Anet at all or in the least. I also did not mean to have people get upset with each other over it as I actually respect ( and like ) the idea behind what they are trying to do with the whole not allowing a sale under what a vendor would pay for the item.

I can understand (and know firsthand) what it is they are trying to prevent so I can understand that system is not meant to hurt or punish the playerbase. In the end its their view of trying to do what other games have not to try to keep the economy healthy over the long term which in the end helps the playerbase by them not having to inflate in game costs or introduce an over abundance of coin sinks.

My ending statement was not meant to imply any seriousness towards being for them removing the block. It was simply said out of sarcasm due to my perception of the reasoning behind a block that prevents players from gaining (and injecting) large amounts of money into the economy to quickly by buying cheap and selling high to the merchants, but still allowing the seller to take a hit without at least making what they would have got by simply going to the vendor.

I just don’t see asking that they consider the effect to the selling side of the block to take into account that maybe considering to implement a listing fee waiver on items that are set for sale at what the merchant would give is asking for (or creating) anything that would be game breaking.

Part of the TP is the whole global economy and community that it helps foster, and selling to a merchant instead of a player just doesn’t feel like your adding to a economy or community.

It may not be a huge deal in the end, and while I would rather fell like I was taking part in a global economy and community I can just go merchant the items, but in the end I just wanted to share my views with Anet. Its up to them to do with that what they like.

You and apparently ANet are completely missing something here.

For the over all health of the economy, buying an item sold below vender price off the TP then reselling it to the vender has no negative effect on the economies health.

There is actually less money generated if an item sells off the TP because of the 10% tax.

A person that sells an item for 1 copper below the vender price loses 15% of their items posted price and 1 copper.

A person that buys an item for 1 copper below vender price is only getting the 1 copper the seller would have received if the seller had vendered the item themselves.

Because there is no reason for anyone to buy an item at +1 copper above vender price, we now have 120958984598 of that same item sitting on the TP waiting for their owner to get to town and cancel the order and vender it themselves.

In effect, basically turning the TP into a temporary bag at the cost of 5% versus allowing players to sell an item below vender price, clearing out the vender and getting an additional 10% money out of the economy.

If those numbers confused people… there is no additional money being generated when people sell and buy below vender price. On the contrary, we get people to buy and sell below vender price, we take an additional 10% out of the economy as a money sink.

Yes it is true that there is less money generated across the entire economy. However it creates a 1% problem. Whenever there is a 1% it can at times create instability in a market. Due to this problem is created there needs to be a floor. The floor was not originally there. It was put in place in beta.

There are two reasons why the floor exists. These were the two reasons put forth in the thread post in beta about the topic of implementing a floor.

1.) Players don’t know what price to sell things for. They will guess on a price and they will often guess too low. Due to happens (and it did in beta and is still happening see the 1c over problem.) players would loose out on some income potential from there items. The floor was put in place to help uneducated buyers. (Why would you want to sell below the vendor price anyways. You would get more money from the vendor).

2.) It creates a unfair advantage for people who know the sell price of the item(easily found by a mouse-over of a tooltip. They will then go out and buy all the items and flip them to a vendor. Making easy loop of coin income for that player. This is preventable and to keep coin income distributed across the playerbase the floor was put in place.

anzenketh.3759:

Yes it is true that there is less money generated across the entire economy. However it creates a 1% problem. Whenever there is a 1% it can at times create instability in a market. Due to this problem is created there needs to be a floor. The floor was not originally there. It was put in place in beta.

There are two reasons why the floor exists. These were the two reasons put forth in the thread post in beta about the topic of implementing a floor.

1.) Players don’t know what price to sell things for. They will guess on a price and they will often guess too low. Due to happens (and it did in beta and is still happening see the 1c over problem.) players would loose out on some income potential from there items. The floor was put in place to help uneducated buyers. (Why would you want to sell below the vendor price anyways. You would get more money from the vendor).

2.) It creates a unfair advantage for people who know the sell price of the item(easily found by a mouse-over of a tooltip. They will then go out and buy all the items and flip them to a vendor. Making easy loop of coin income for that player. This is preventable and to keep coin income distributed across the playerbase the floor was put in place.

what are you talking about? Unfair to ignorant people at the cost of the over all economies health (10% at a time)?

How is it unfair or economy breaking that a person, ignorant or not, sells an item below vender price, when it generates no additional money, but also takes out 10% more of the items value out of the economy permanently?

Your suggestions are moot because it’s a bug they can be sold below vendor value and it is being fixed so there’s no longer an issue once that is implemented. Anet even responded to you directly in this thread.

For the over all health of the economy, buying an item sold below vender price off the TP then reselling it to the vender has no negative effect on the economies health.

Based upon what logic, illgot? It has a negative effect because then people can create an infinite-loop of profit without any input except time and that is against their design philosophy [and that of ALL MMOs, not just this one].

A person that buys an item for 1 copper below vender price is only getting the 1 copper the seller would have received if the seller had vendered the item themselves.

And that one copper eventually turns into several thousand if the “one copper” is actually more and widely known. I thought you said that this wouldn’t have any negative effect on the economy’s health? Over the longer-term this is going to cause players to create money out of thin air that the design team did NOT account for. Since they cannot control that variable it will have an affect on the economy that cannot be predicted and that is why this is a bug, non-intended and will be coded properly as soon as they can.

Because there is no reason for anyone to buy an item at +1 copper above vender price, we now have 120958984598 of that same item sitting on the TP waiting for their owner to get to town and cancel the order and vender it themselves.

Yes there is. “Sweet, I don’t have to travel to the vendor in town A where it would cost me x+3s to transport. I’m actually saving money!”

Asides you make a flawed assumption this is the only reason people list for 1c over vendor.

If those numbers confused people… there is no additional money being generated when people sell and buy below vender price. On the contrary, we get people to buy and sell below vender price, we take an additional 10% out of the economy as a money sink.

Wrong.

Person A gets Item Z. It vendors for 50c.
Person A puts Item Z on the TP for 30c because they want to clear their bag space for the 1g Rare waiting in the unclaimed loot window.
Person B wants Item Z. They go to the TP and see it for 30c. They purchase it, unknowingly saving themselves 21c [because it SHOULD be going for 51c but it is bugged].
Person C finds out that since people are selling item Z for 30c and he can vendor it for 50c he can make a pretty sweet deal.

What’s the problem here?
Initially Item Z created a potential 50c in the economy out of nowhere assuming it was vendored. We cannot assume every single item made will be vendored so it is not a guaranteed 50c going into the economy. Someone might destroy it or salvage it so the only fact we have is potential revenue.
However, someone else is making a realized 20c by buying the items at a discounted rate and in the process destroying them by vendoring them.

That 20c is real and will eventually have a real effect on the economy if it is left unchecked. That problem is called hyper-inflation because money is being created literally out of nowhere but there is NO CHECK against it running away. How quickly that Item Z is being “produced” by the algorithms designed to create it is the only check at that point and if that item is created in mass quantities then it can easily be exploited.

This will devalue all gold in circulation but we won’t see it by knowing how much gold is being circulated. We’ll see it in higher prices, prices that ANet is attempting to keep under control based upon their design philosophy.

So you are wrong. It isn’t a money sink at all if this bug isn’t squashed. It’s an exploit waiting to happen [and it probably already is] because it has the potential to cause hyper-inflation in the economy.

Someone sells an item for 30 copper on the TP when it’s vender value is 50 copper.

Yes, someone can then purchase the item for 30 copper and vender it for 50 copper, making a 20 copper profit.

You forgot to calculate the 15% tax the seller is charged. The seller does not make 30 copper, they in fact make 25.5 copper or 25 copper as it rounds down. This generated less money than if the person were to post a sell order, then cancel the sell order and vender the item themselves.

Salvaging…

Currently, only 2 types of items are worth salvaging for basic crafting materials. Starter level cloth and metal armor which have an item value of less than jute cloth or copper or on the market. Both types of these items currently sell for nearly double what 1 copper ore or jute cloth sells for.

Trying to salvage anything else will net in a loss of money at this point due to the amount of crafting materials on the market.

But you are completely right, if you, as you did in your post above mine, completely left out the posting fee and sales tax, it would generate more money than the current system which has a posting fee and sales tax. So no, it is not an exploit and does no harm to the economies health, it in fact is better to allow people to sell below vender price.

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that when an item sells an additional 10% is taken out of the economy?

You forgot to calculate the 15% tax the seller is charged. The seller does not make 30 copper, they in fact make 25.5 copper or 25 copper as it rounds down. This generated less money than if the person were to post a sell order, then cancel the sell order and vender the item themselves.

This is true. They will make 25 copper. My point still stands, just change everywhere you see 30 to 25.

You CANNOT make an assumption that the piece WAS going to be sold for 50c. It’s only a potential realization. All that matters here is what actually happened, not what COULD happen.

Currently, only 2 types of items are worth salvaging for basic crafting materials. Starter level cloth and metal armor which have an item value of less than jute cloth or copper or on the market. Both types of these items currently sell for nearly double what 1 copper ore or jute cloth sells for.

Trying to salvage anything else will net in a loss of money at this point due to the amount of crafting materials on the market.

This argument is irrelevant because you are making a flawed assumption – that all people everywhere are only salvaging for the reasons that you stated. Since you cannot accurately make this assumption your conclusion is also false.

But you are completely right, if you, as you did in your post above mine, completely left out the posting fee and sales tax, it would generate more money than the current system which has a posting fee and sales tax. So no, it is not an exploit and does no harm to the economies health, it in fact is better to allow people to sell below vender price.

It doesn’t matter. Any copper is greater than 0 copper so it only requires c > 0 for my statement to be accurate… and it is for every single item generated EXCEPT those that are destroyed without ever being bartered.

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that when an item sells an additional 10% is taken out of the economy?

I ignored it for my argument because it is extraneous. You can dive into the details all you want until you arrive at a conclusive argument but so far this has not been the case.

Your. Theory. Does. Not. Work.

A person can TP his item, or sell it directly to vendor. Take the example that you guys are arguing about…someone selling a 50c item at 30c. If the item doesn’t get sold to the vendor for whatever reason, no money is generated to the game world. If he vendors it, 50c get added into the economy. If he sells in TP for 30c, 15% of that gets taken out from the economy, but if the person buy it sells to vendor, a total of 50c-(15% of 30c) <50c is created. I think this is what illgot.1056 is trying to illustrate.

Under this scenario, less money is created in the economy…so viewing only on the economy, less money is created than someone selling directly to vendor. Viewing on a wealth distribution point of view however, we have 1 player pocketing a portion of the wealth that was to be the other person if he didn’t TP it and sold directly to vendor instead. So, it’s the smart player profiting form the stupidity of another player…I personally see nothing wrong in that. I believe in darwin’s theory. But since A-net wants to foster a casual environment and a sense of fairness to all players, then so be it…

I’m all in for free market like Eve online. No spoon feeding or hand holding on the market. Players won’t learn until they make some costly mistakes. Game company trying to save players from their own ignorance and stupidity had foster a new generation of gamers that relies on the game design to feed everything to them.

so lets ignore the fact that it takes out an additional 10% out of the economy and works as a money sink which is the whole reason it is more beneficial than just using the TP as a temporary storage facility (If there are 105093746934 of that same item on the TP for +1 copper, it will never sell for a reason).

That’s fine, at least you admit that your argument hinges on leaving out a major factor in mine because creating a money sink that is twice as effective is “extraneous”.

John Smith.4610:

You shouldn’t be able to place buy orders below vendor price, that is the bug. We’re aware of it and will have a fix soon.

How is stupidity a bug? should be a free market?

free market ftw!!! I think these mechanism is put in to make stupidity less obvious.

I don’t want to get into things.

But if the cap wasn’t there then people would loose money selling it to others when the buyers make money and sometimes your not near a vender to sell it yourself when you need the space.

The ultimate question is does anyone here want buyers to profit from other people? whether its gold sellers or people who just turn around to vender stuff for copper answer is no the buyers should never be able to profit like this regardless of if you think its hurting the economy or not.

Also damages the higher up economy as stuff will be eventually forced below vender costs to meet a market.

As we have already seen the market come to parity with venders in most items with people trying to make it lower.

More and more items I go on the TP to sell are coming up below up below vender price for highest buyers.

Now I like highest buyer as it shows me how many people want items and how many they ordered.

This is good so I can tell if I should vender it or sell to them or try to sell for higher.

I’m seeing allot of items going for vender prices some with 50-a few hundred listed but are not sold because people are wanting them a few hundred or more below vender prices hence trying to force the market lower.

This is a bug when sellers cannot sell stuff even at vender prices as no one is buying as all the orders for a couple copper below.

Also it skews people like me trying to get quick instant sales on common stuff to free up backpack etc when not near a vender and also make a slight little extra from vender profit.

As I want to sell above what I can vender it for and want to see the demand of a item vs how many items are sold and how many ordered and then make a decision.

But at the moment everything is ordered for below vender cost and its getting worse to the point I cant use TP as I did a week or two ago where I cannot see if I can get a quick sale or not on salvage materials etc.

And that is the bug and hope it does get fixed as its getting worse.

@ drguild

Prices have hit the floor because there is a surplus of items and no one is buying them.

Selling an item below vender price and having another player purchase said item does not generate any more money than if the player were to go straight to a vender and sell it directly.

On the contrary, by allowing a player sell an item below vender price on the TP, 15% of that sale is taken out of the economy permanently which is positive for the economy.

This is also more beneficial to the economy than a person using the TP as temporary storage as it charges 15% over the 5% listing fee.

I will say again, there is no additional money being generated by allowing players to sell items below vender price. Any money a buyer makes by selling an item to a vender is only money the seller would have made if they vendered the item.

AND a lot of people do not care if they lose an extra 1-20 copper if they sell an item and do not have to bother with canceling the sale later and vender it themselves (again doing so takes up inventory space).

If we really want to be concerned with everything people do, lets not allow people to Salvage an item that venders for more than the resources salvaging produces (99% of the items in game).

Lets not allow people to post items at +1 copper above vender price, because they are already going to lose more than that 1 copper due to the 15% charges.

Lets also not allow people to be in control of their own choices on how to play this game, because really, most of the game play in GW2 costs money and it would be better spent if everyone was parked in town playing the TP.

It should be a choice made by each individual player if they want to lose a little money to sell an item quickly for cash, not other players that want to “save” them from them selves.

John Smith.4610:

You shouldn’t be able to place buy orders below vendor price, that is the bug. We’re aware of it and will have a fix soon.

Just don’t forget to clean those up so we don’t see them when we happen to have an item that they’re requesting but no one has offered higher than them, since we’ll never be able to fill their order so might as well remove their orders from the TP.

Pfft, this reminds me of Fable, where there were certain items that were being sold by the vendor for less than what you would get for selling them back to the vendor. I know I never had to think about money ever again.

That is the scenario that would happen if there were items being sold for less than what you would get for vendoring them. The overall economy not taken into account at all, this is already broken and an exploit because individuals would be raking in thousands of gold.

Taikanaru.5746:

Pfft, this reminds me of Fable, where there were certain items that were being sold by the vendor for less than what you would get for selling them back to the vendor. I know I never had to think about money ever again.

That is the scenario that would happen if there were items being sold for less than what you would get for vendoring them. The overall economy not taken into account at all, this is already broken and an exploit because individuals would be raking in thousands of gold.

But the vender was selling those not other players.

If other players sell those items below vender price, there is no additional money being generated in game, just money exchanging hands.

Along with that, every time an item sells, there is an additional 10% money sink factored in, which is better than the person posting an item which will never sell, canceling the item and vendering that item themselves.

@taikanaru
In single player game there is only 1 living person in the market, and anything sold spawns money into the world to only 1 person, you.

In GW2 there are 2 million living person. Money doesn’t spawn in player to player trade…so no infinite money. If a player wants to sell below vendor for whatever reasons, then the one buying it makes a profit by buying and selling to vendor…I don’t see anything wrong in that…as long as someone is willing to sell. It is not broken, and I’m afraid you failed to take the human factor and dynamics into account in your analysis.

I was under the impression that while it was being sold for less than vendor no one could purchase it so it rendered the entire discussion theoretical in exercise.

Perhaps that is incorrect. Can anyone validate this for me?

To the point Wazabi made – ANet is trying to level the playing field in the TP because let’s face it – if this were truly a free-market the noobs would get eaten alive and it would not only ruin their MMO experience but it would ruin ANet’s revenue stream, reputation and gaming experience as well.

It’s in everyone’s best interest to have SOME checks in play against ignorance… but only minimal. I am ALL for them doing everything they can to alleviate scamming and hacking and botting at the expense of other people… but if I can make more profit than you by getting in on the good deals early, I’m going to.

I would suggest as is the real world case with many goods, that you require a buy that is say 15% above what a vendor will offer on ‘trade in’. This will gaurantee that the seller gets reimbursed post listing/taxes and at least breaks even. As it is, if you sell “at” the vendor price, you already are losing due to listing fees/taxes.

@ Prophet,

why? Why do we care if someone sells an item at or below vender price? If an item is worthless and there are 403493957 of that same item at vender price, why do we care what the owner of that items sells it for?

why should there be safe guards to stop people from selling below what the vender offers if they do not care about losing a little money just to clear their bags or can not do enough math to understand the posting + sales tax exists?

Put up a message that notifies a player about the posting fee and sales tax and allow them to sell the item for what ever they wish.

@illgot
I fully agree with no price floor and just let people selling below vendor if they want to. I don’t like constrains in the market.

However, looking at A-net’s intention to protect the Newb/“carebears” (always loved that term in eve), they’ve put in a price floor…if that was an intention, then I think a 15% price floor above vendor price would be more effective in what they are trying to achieve.

Having said that…the reason we have so many carebears around is that all other MMO had placed them in a protective environment…and they got accustomed to a world where some of their ignorance has no consequences. They rely on the game to prevent them from making stupid mistakes. This is much like the nanny states in real world. It doesn’t actually protect them in the long run but only makes them more ignorant and rely on the game (government) to further protect them from themselves.