a social solution to price undercutting
People do all sorts of hard-to-explain things on the TP:
- People still sell items in massive quantities at less than 10% above vendor value, even though the projected profit is clearly posted on the screen (yes, they really shouldn’t sell for less than 15+% above vendor, but that second amount isn’t as obvious).
- People buy items with a unique name for crazy amounts. Compare Sam to Opal Orichalcum Earring of Opal — the generic has the same function and offers the same outward appearance, yet trades at 70-90% less.
- People pay a premium for items with unique names, but common skins.
So, sure, if you offer people the opportunity to pay more than the lowest sale offer or sell for less than the highest buy offer, some people will do that.
However
- I still don’t see that anyone has established why undercutting is a problem for game’s overall economy or
- (for those who believe this as an article of faith) how this particular solution would help resolve the stated concern.
Currently, the game already offers me the ability to adjust my offer: if I think the sell offers are too high (and I usually do), I put in a custom buy order that makes sense for me. Similarly, as I generally think people are offering too little for items I want to sell, I am able to ask for more.
alright those are two productive questions and il answer them
1. currently you can undercut by 1c, this hurts both the previous seller (who might never get his offer looked at again if undercutting continues) and the buyer who isnt really getting a better deal. the result of this is TP sellers have to sell low for fear of being undercut by 1c which drives prices down in every category, eventually making the economy unusable (remember when green items could be sold on the top? now we just sell them to vendor or salvage them) lastly it isnt fair, why give so much power to the person who comes second and offers nothing? there is no incentive to sell at same value as lowest bidder
2. this resolves the moral issue because it allows people who are concerned with undercutters to take action, but doesnt force anyone into it who doesnt care.
I’m all for the idea that Sellers have 100% freedom to post items for whatever prices they want. Tis how capitalism works.
#Yayifications!
sooooo do u aggree that the BUYER should have total freedom of choice aswell?
I can guarantee you that if a buyer had the ability to pick and choose whatever priced item he wanted, he’d still end up buying one of my listings. Because I could make it that the first 10 items you see on the list will be all mine. That’s not to say that people already do this.
another one who is awful sure of himself, but your unrealistic like the rest of the career traders, you selectivley ignore all the times when trades get around you, and even so this has little to do with my post other than to suggest that you think that people like you will always control the market no matter what changes we make. which is another way of saying that deep down you dont think my changes are enough and we should do even more to stop people from bossing around the TP. well said friend =)
I don’t think it helps to insult people because they don’t agree with you. Your idea is another solution looking for a problem. If you want to pay more for the goods than they are worth on the TP because of a moral crusade, just make the appropriate buy orders.
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
I don’t think this is a real problem. RMT sellers appear to have no difficulty finding ways to send gold, and this would be a less efficient way to send it (since there’s a 15% cut). I also think there would be ways to do this even without buying a specific sell offer.
I find it amusing that people claim they should have complete freedom to sell at whatever price you want … but then hedge and accept limits on minimum prices (liquidity price doesn’t mean that btw) and also on what sell offers buyers should be willing to buy.
The only argument I see against trying to improve this is that most improvements would come with a complicated UI or would add a lot of additional restrictions making them more of mixed bags.
I would say that the current model doesn’t destroy the market, and it’s easy enough to deal with … but it is occasionally annoying and inefficient.
(edited by linuxotaku.4731)
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
they can mail it to people….why would they need to?
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
they can mail it to people….why would they need to?
Anet monitors large gold sums being sent by mail.
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
they can mail it to people….why would they need to?
Anet monitors large gold sums being sent by mail.
if they can monitor that then they can monitor the TP, dont worry about the gold sellers they have plenty of ways to catch them and the TP is already a way to transfer money, honestly i see “oooh what about the gold sellers” as the excuse of TP bosses who dont want this done because they thrive on destoying the economy.
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
they can mail it to people….why would they need to?
Anet monitors large gold sums being sent by mail.
I think there are enough legit cases of large transfers via mail (I do this often between my accounts) to make this difficult to enforce. Looking at the current situation, it appears that RMT sellers are already present, so clearly they’re getting cash (whether or not the players are getting to keep the gold that’s sent … I’d guess that the players are usually able to keep it).
You could monitor anomalous transactions on the TP in the same way — OTOH, it would be easier to fake a legit (but careless) transaction via the TP than via email transfers, so if you were actually concerned about detection you’d want there to be a few cover offers, and you’d buy them up as well as the intended (high-priced) sell offer all at the same time. I.e. you just need a market with relatively few listings and this is easy already …
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
they can mail it to people….why would they need to?
Anet monitors large gold sums being sent by mail.
if they can monitor that then they can monitor the TP, dont worry about the gold sellers they have plenty of ways to catch them and the TP is already a way to transfer money, honestly i see “oooh what about the gold sellers” as the excuse of TP bosses who dont want this done because they thrive on destoying the economy.
They can monitor the mail because there is no exchange. The TP is not the same. Besides, assuming they would put resources towards this is presumptuous. Just because it could be done doesn’t make it a good idea.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
they can mail it to people….why would they need to?
Anet monitors large gold sums being sent by mail.
if they can monitor that then they can monitor the TP, dont worry about the gold sellers they have plenty of ways to catch them and the TP is already a way to transfer money, honestly i see “oooh what about the gold sellers” as the excuse of TP bosses who dont want this done because they thrive on destoying the economy.
They can monitor the mail because there is no exchange. The TP is not the same. Besides, assuming they would put resources towards this is presumptuous. Just because it could be done doesn’t make it a good idea.
Two separate arguments.
(1) is this a good idea? (I don’t really think so — at least I don’t think it’s worth the amount of effort … though it would be easy to include in the UI via a checkbox by the sell offers) You’re bringing this up when we’re discussing:
(2) does this make it easier for RMT sellers to send gold? (I don’t think so — both because it’s already trivially easy with markets like http://www.gw2spidy.com/item/30683 ( http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Quetzal_Harpoon_ ), and because they obviously have no problem right now.)
And how do you stop Real Money Traders to exploit this feature for funneling gold through the tp?
they can mail it to people….why would they need to?
Anet monitors large gold sums being sent by mail.
if they can monitor that then they can monitor the TP, dont worry about the gold sellers they have plenty of ways to catch them and the TP is already a way to transfer money, honestly i see “oooh what about the gold sellers” as the excuse of TP bosses who dont want this done because they thrive on destoying the economy.
I for once couldnt care less, if this was implemented or not because it will have no measurable impact on the economy.
Thanks for the laugh, though.
Tin Foil [HATS]-Hardcore BLTC-PvP Guild
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
Bloin – Running around, tagging Keeps, getting whack on Scoobie Snacks.
What happrns when the good guy lists his item 1c below the lowest WTS. Will you just buy from the big bad tp trader because he lists higher price?
Ranger | Elementalist
What happrns when the good guy lists his item 1c below the lowest WTS. Will you just buy from the big bad tp trader because he lists higher price?
I think some people consider anyone who undercuts by 1c to be evil by default. But it doesn’t matter, since nothing in this thread will ever be implemented by Anet or the players.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
What happrns when the good guy lists his item 1c below the lowest WTS. Will you just buy from the big bad tp trader because he lists higher price?
I think some people consider anyone who undercuts by 1c to be evil by default. But it doesn’t matter, since nothing in this thread will ever be implemented by Anet or the players.
i do consider the undercutter to be unfavorable, and i find your confidence in nothing getting done laughable
What happrns when the good guy lists his item 1c below the lowest WTS. Will you just buy from the big bad tp trader because he lists higher price?
I think some people consider anyone who undercuts by 1c to be evil by default. But it doesn’t matter, since nothing in this thread will ever be implemented by Anet or the players.
i do consider the undercutter to be unfavorable, and i find your confidence in nothing getting done laughable
Your entire thread is progressive nonsense you’re pushing as though it was an actual problem in this game economy. It’s not – it’s a problem you’re creating in your mind based upon assumptions you have about character and emotional state and intent of the sellers.
1) You have attributed in MANY posts within this thread a (fake) monetary transaction to emotions and intent: “greedy”, “evil”, etc. No-one is purposefully trying to harm anyone – the speed to sell desire derives from the need to get their capital and profit back so they can make their currency “work” again. Period. Noone is thinking “man, I can drive that unknown player into the poorhouse if I just undercut them 1c”. You and others like you aim to re-define capitalist behavior as inherently evil – real intent of the human partaking in the behavior ignored because it doesn’t fit your convenient narrative.
2) You look at each transaction as a moment-in-time vs. a continuum. This goes back to the speed to sell in point 1. Your argument is only problematic if you think each transaction is a PvP game mode – round by round. TP players are not thinking that way. We think “I spent 78 silver to buy those greens, flushed and got 1.8G worth of rares for a profit of .3 G to add to capital AND they sold in ~4 minutes vs. bogging down” or something similar. We are not thinking of other players at all – we are thinking how fast to get the money back onto the craps table (in my case).
Undercutting is an intended feature of the economy. It will either happen on the TP or off it if you keep trying to “fix” it. Adapt and handle it.
The only one driving you into the poorhouse is yourself.
Just deal with it
I would still choose the cheaper option 100% of the time.
Undercutting is an intended feature of the economy. It will either happen on the TP or off it if you keep trying to “fix” it. Adapt and handle it.
The only one driving you into the poorhouse is yourself.
You’re arguing against strawmen, and I don’t think you bothered to understand the arguments.
(1) No one has said that underbids are bad. I make sell offers under the current low one when I think the market may move — and I make sell offers above the current low bid when I think it’s mostly range bound.
(2) I don’t think there’s anything wrong morally with undercutting by 1c — I just think that method of adjusting prices is horribly inefficient. I hate inefficiency.
(3) I also think it’s suboptimal because the system rewards the second person to post instead of the first person to post (it’s basically a LIFO for high ticket items).
I don’t mind items where I have to sit on them for weeks or months (I had a Shark’s Tooth Axe Skin which sat on the market for a long time, though it did eventually sell). If my price is too high, it should be undercut; and I may have to give up — that’s fine.
But undercutting won’t help the price adjust unless it’s by a non-trivial amount — which is why undercutting by 1c is worse than undercutting by 0.5%. The former says that I’ve priced it approximately correctly, but you want to go first (well duh — I’d also like to go first, and I posted first). The latter says that you think my price is a little high, and are going somewhat below it.
Either way, supply and demand will lead to a mostly-similar place; but it’ll take a lot longer with tiny underbids.
That said, I don’t have data showing this is a serious enough problem to warrant investing in changes here, when there are likely other bugs o features which would be more beneficial.
Just deal with it
I would still choose the cheaper option 100% of the time.
not a helpful comment but im sure that was your intention
Undercutting is an intended feature of the economy. It will either happen on the TP or off it if you keep trying to “fix” it. Adapt and handle it.
The only one driving you into the poorhouse is yourself.
oh look another angry person assuming that i am the seller in this scenario and that i want to stop ppl from undercutting me….if u really dont think its a big deal then you wont mind if we implement it? great =D
and as per your first “point” im pretty sure nobody will resort to trading off the TP just because we give ppl the CHOICE of who they want to buy from
What happrns when the good guy lists his item 1c below the lowest WTS. Will you just buy from the big bad tp trader because he lists higher price?
I think some people consider anyone who undercuts by 1c to be evil by default. But it doesn’t matter, since nothing in this thread will ever be implemented by Anet or the players.
i do consider the undercutter to be unfavorable, and i find your confidence in nothing getting done laughable
Your entire thread is progressive nonsense you’re pushing as though it was an actual problem in this game economy. It’s not – it’s a problem you’re creating in your mind based upon assumptions you have about character and emotional state and intent of the sellers.
1) You have attributed in MANY posts within this thread a (fake) monetary transaction to emotions and intent: “greedy”, “evil”, etc. No-one is purposefully trying to harm anyone – the speed to sell desire derives from the need to get their capital and profit back so they can make their currency “work” again. Period. Noone is thinking “man, I can drive that unknown player into the poorhouse if I just undercut them 1c”. You and others like you aim to re-define capitalist behavior as inherently evil – real intent of the human partaking in the behavior ignored because it doesn’t fit your convenient narrative.
2) You look at each transaction as a moment-in-time vs. a continuum. This goes back to the speed to sell in point 1. Your argument is only problematic if you think each transaction is a PvP game mode – round by round. TP players are not thinking that way. We think “I spent 78 silver to buy those greens, flushed and got 1.8G worth of rares for a profit of .3 G to add to capital AND they sold in ~4 minutes vs. bogging down” or something similar. We are not thinking of other players at all – we are thinking how fast to get the money back onto the craps table (in my case).
your post is very biased and bigoted, just because you dont perceive a problem doesnt mean you can disrespect other people’s view that it is infact, a problem. you say i am making it a problem in my mind, how do you know your not making it less of a problem in your mind?
also i dont care if anyone is intentionally trying to harm another person or not, it doesn’t mean they arnt. great acts of “evil” as you call them (as iv said before i dont believe in evil) are usually done by people who dont know what they are doing.
and please keep your politics in real life to yourself. nobody is trying to “re define capitalism” you have mistakenly perceived me to have some global agenda i dont have
I’ve re-read the original post and it occurs to me that the title is misleading: the proposal is to change the mechanics of the TP; it’s not a social solution (that would involve people choosing on their own to do something differently).
I also haven’t see anyone make the argument as to why this change is more important than any of the many other suggestions involving the TP’s interface. How is this more beneficial to more people than making the custom sell and buy panels more like each other? (e.g. showing a list of buy/sell offers in the first and including your other orders in the second)
…i dont like price undercutting, …when its one copper …
…for buyers like me who look at an offer of 99[g] 99[s] 99© under an offer of 100g and go “thats despicable”
Correct if I’m wrong, but isn’t this is an expression of a personal preference? I don’t think it represents evidence of a fundamental issue with the TP or the economy. (That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant; it does, however, affect how much energy ANet should spend addressing it.)
…i wana …make it so … the buyer … [has] the power to decide which offer … to purchase,
…. [so that] we are no longer FORCED to buy from the undercutter
This might be of value to the purchaser, but it does nothing for the economy as a whole. As noted by other posters, it also has the unintended consequence of ultimately increasing costs for the other buyers not involved in the transaction: purchasing above the lowest sell offer puts pressure on the market to rise and reduces the rate at which the item can find its equilibrium price (theoretically, within a 15% difference between highest buy and lowest sell offers).
I don’t mean to discount the importance of people having a choice or feeling that they are contributing to a better gaming environment. My point is that this proposal only benefits the buyer in this way; it has a minor benefit to a single seller and a negative impact on the rest of the market.
tl;dr there are others changes to the TP that would benefit more people; this one is even likely to harm more people than it helps.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
1. the discussion of a minimum gap would only make the market more volatile and easier to manipulate(as wanze demonstrated). That should just go by the wayside.
2. The only person who inst an under-cutter is the person who posted the highest price. This person usually bought up all the stock to put it at that high price point. So you are saying you would rather give gold to a market manipulator then to other players.
0.o
1. the discussion of a minimum gap would only make the market more volatile and easier to manipulate(as wanze demonstrated). That should just go by the wayside.
How did Wanze demonstrate this? He may have stated it — but while I generally have respect for his arguments, I didn’t find anything convincing that a minimum gap would increase volatility. It is possible that it would, mind you — just hardly demonstrated.
The arguments I find more convincing are that it would be difficult to express cleanly in the UI or would involve decreasing the overall granularity possible … without a compelling reason for the change. 1c is arbitrary (why not allow fractional coppers for orders of hundreds of items?), and IMO suboptimal for listings over 1g (where it’s 0.01%), but it’s also the status quo.
2. The only person who inst an under-cutter is the person who posted the highest price. This person usually bought up all the stock to put it at that high price point. So you are saying you would rather give gold to a market manipulator then to other players.
0.o
I don’t see how this argument makes any sense … I’m trying to parse it and failing. I think a person doing range trading is doing a service to other market participants by providing liquidity. (I don’t generally have patience to do this, though.) I don’t think a person who buys the stock and relists it is doing something that it’s either good or bad — if they anticipate that the market will move, either they’ll lose money (others will undercut them by a substantial amount because demand will be insufficient to sustain those prices) or they’re right and they’ll sell.
If someone buys all the stock at 10g and relists at 20g, and you offer to sell for 19.9999g (1c under) — I don’t see a reason your offer to sell should go before theirs. OTOH, if you offer to sell for 19.9g (10s less) — that is different enough that people underbidding like that will bring the market back into equilibrium quickly, so I think there’s value in letting your sale go first (this encourages undercutting by a percentage).
In practice, this isn’t that big a deal since markets move fast enough that if you try to undercut by 1c on a large number and the market isn’t in balance (in terms of supply and demand), then others will undercut more aggressively, which brings balance back quickly enough.
My only strong opinions about this is that under/overbids by trivial amounts on large nominal bids are an inefficient way (== requires lots of operations) for prices to adjust, and they slightly penalize the first person to post a listing (which is contrary to the apparent design — the market is a FIFO for bids at exactly the same value).
If someone lists an item for 20 Gold, and I offer it for 19 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper, my item goes first because it’s cheaper. FIFO doesn’t apply here, since the prices are different. Now if the market velocity is high enough, the 1 Copper price difference won’t matter, as both should sell within a reasonable time frame.
Take the same scenario, but now the item is in a market with next to no velocity, both our items may not sell. That means the original seller who posted at 20 Gold is at fault. It means he’s asking way too much for an item no one wants. Likewise, it’s also his fault he got undercut and won’t sell his item for a long time.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
If someone lists an item for 20 Gold, and I offer it for 19 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper, my item goes first because it’s cheaper. FIFO doesn’t apply here, since the prices are different. Now if the market velocity is high enough, the 1 Copper price difference won’t matter, as both should sell within a reasonable time frame.
Take the same scenario, but now the item is in a market with next to no velocity, both our items may not sell. That means the original seller who posted at 20 Gold is at fault. It means he’s asking way too much for an item no one wants. Likewise, it’s also his fault he got undercut and won’t sell his item for a long time.
I understand how the market works. I’m asserting that — in terms of prices adjusting back to an equilibrium point — 200,000 and 199,999 are effectively the same price; you got your sale to happen first without giving a price which is actually better for buyers, which makes the fact that the market is formally FIFO basically meaningless for high ticket items: they might as well have made it LIFO.
I think it’s worth rewarding the first poster (making listings FIFOs), and it’s worth encouraging people to move towards an equilibrium price faster. Obviously you’re not convinced — either that this is accurate or that it’s possible to implement in a good way with the TP. But I continue to believe that 1c underbids are suboptimal except in the very narrow sense that they’re a good strategy if you’re trying to optimize your time playing the TP (in the same sense that it would be a good strategy it wait till others have posted first if the listings were a LIFO).
I don’t see a clearly better design, so I’m willing to grant that the current system is probably better than the alternatives proposed so far, and it may be hard to improve on this given the current structure of the TP — but that doesn’t mean it’s optimal.
As long as the prices are different, even by 1 Copper, the cheaper item always sells first. You “think” our prices are the same, but the reality of it is that my price is cheaper. That’s the psychology of marketing at work. Consumers in the real world gravitate towards the lower number.
Why should we create a system that punishes players who sells an item cheaper? Just because the other seller made a mistake by listing a price point that’s too high, doesn’t mean we need to bend over backwards to assist them to correct their mistake.
When you think about it, getting undercut should encourage people to sell their items cheaper to avoid having it buried in the listings. In a roundabout way, 1 Copper undercuts moves items faster to equilibrium. People like me will always undercut your prices, so if you want to sell your item fast, sell it cheap.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
(edited by Smooth Penguin.5294)
I think Penguin is saying something to the extent that since the first poster knows he could be undercut by 1c, he has a responsibility to list at a price that will move the item.
A market with a proportional minimum undercut would not put nearly this much pressure on the first seller, so the hypothetical scenario of 20.0000 vs 19.9999 and 20.0000 vs 19.9000 may be a false dilemma.
A more relevant comparison may be 15.0000 vs 14.9999 and 20.0000 vs 19.9000. The whole idea of which is less inefficient now changes dramatically.
Content in this game will always seem
to be faceroll at the high levels, because it
needs to be accessible to the casuals and bads.
to be faceroll at the high levels, because it
needs to be accessible to the casuals and bads.
As long as the prices are different, even by 1 Copper, the cheaper item always sells first. You “think” our prices are the same, but the reality of it is that my price is cheaper. That’s the psychology of marketing at work. Consumers in the real world gravitate towards the lower number.
Why should we create a system that punishes players who sells an item cheaper? Just because the other seller made a mistake by listing a price point that’s too high, doesn’t mean we need to bend over backwards to assist them to correct their mistake.
You say it’s cheaper; I assert that the difference is too small to matter in an economics sense. I know you don’t agree with my perspective, but your second argument makes no sense given that I don’t think the price is effectively different.
I’m not trying to punish the player who lists cheaper since I don’t agree that it’s actually cheaper. I want to reward either: (1) the player who either lists first (FIFO) or (2) lists as a price which is lower (in a meaningful way).
When you think about it, getting undercut should encourage people to sell their items cheaper to avoid having it buried in the listings. In a roundabout way, 1 Copper undercuts moves items faster to equilibrium. People like me will always undercut your prices, so if you wan to sell your item fast, sell it cheap.
The first part of this is the only one that I think holds any water as a response to my arguments. It’s possible that the threat of small undercuts makes me more careful with what prices I list items at — to be sure that I’m within the range where I expect trades to happen. But I think the same would apply even if the minimum bid increment was 0.5% … since I usually list either above the current low sell offer (high volume markets that I know well) or below it by 1% or more (low volume markets or ones I don’t know as well).
I think it might force you to think more carefully if you want to either list at a price lower than the current low sell, or at the current low sell … which seems like a good effect to me.
I undercut just to undercut sometimes. It’s a way of letting other players know that “I see your item, and I’m part of that market” sorta thing. Remember, while the TP is there as a tool to access the marketplace, it’s also a competitive one. If it costs me Gold to list an item just to send a message, so be it. The same thing happens to me with items I’m selling.
As for minimum price increments, that’s a waste of time. That takes away the freedom to list an item at whatever price you want. Plus, we’d already had this discussion, an no one who advocates for this can provide any valid arguments for it. People push this as a solution to a non-existent problem. It’s like saying “I want to change the color of strawberries, because oak trees are too tall”.
Back to the argument at hand. Perspectives of individuals don’t matter much here. What matter is that one price is lower than the other. Computers don’t have emotions, or the capability to determine if one player is sad that their item was undercut. They see numbers. And if one item is worth 20, and the other is 19.99.99, guess which one is lower? These two prices will never be the same. It’s impossible with all that we know about math.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
I undercut just to undercut sometimes. It’s a way of letting other players know that “I see your item, and I’m part of that market” sorta thing. Remember, while the TP is there as a tool to access the marketplace, it’s also a competitive one. If it costs me Gold to list an item just to send a message, so be it. The same thing happens to me with items I’m selling.
As for minimum price increments, that’s a waste of time. That takes away the freedom to list an item at whatever price you want. Plus, we’d already had this discussion, an no one who advocates for this can provide any valid arguments for it. People push this as a solution to a non-existent problem. It’s like saying “I want to change the color of strawberries, because oak trees are too tall”.
Back to the argument at hand. Perspectives of individuals don’t matter much here. What matter is that one price is lower than the other. Computers don’t have emotions, or the capability to determine if one player is sad that their item was undercut. They see numbers. And if one item is worth 20, and the other is 19.99.99, guess which one is lower? These two prices will never be the same. It’s impossible with all that we know about math.
My major was in math; I agree that infinitesimals are not a useful concept. I work with software, I’m familiar with how computers compare integers. I’m not sad when I’m undercut … but I am sad when I see a market which encourages inefficient (== wastes time) behavior. If you’re familiar with computers, you should understand that with large numbers, stepping by 1 will never reach the destination.
I do sometimes undercut as a statement, so I can understand why you like 1c undercuts for that reason … I think that’s the first time I’ve heard that argument, and it makes more sense than the others.
AFAICT the other thread didn’t end with either side convinced — if you won, I’d say that it’s in the sense that the status quo wins by default. :-)
You say it’s cheaper; I assert that the difference is too small to matter in an economics sense. I know you don’t agree with my perspective, but your second argument makes no sense given that I don’t think the price is effectively different.
I’m not trying to punish the player who lists cheaper since I don’t agree that it’s actually cheaper. I want to reward either: (1) the player who either lists first (FIFO) or (2) lists as a price which is lower (in a meaningful way).
I just want to point out a fact:
20,000,000 <> 19,999,999
(“<>” is the “DOES NOT EQUAL” sign in text format, just to clarify)
Philosophically, you or other people may consider the difference to be insignificant, but the fact is that they are two different numbers and thus two different prices.
I prefer systems that rely upon objective facts (like 20,000,000 = 20,000,000) rather than subjective opinions (like 20,000,000 = 19,999,999).
Server: Devona’s Rest
You say it’s cheaper; I assert that the difference is too small to matter in an economics sense. I know you don’t agree with my perspective, but your second argument makes no sense given that I don’t think the price is effectively different.
I’m not trying to punish the player who lists cheaper since I don’t agree that it’s actually cheaper. I want to reward either: (1) the player who either lists first (FIFO) or (2) lists as a price which is lower (in a meaningful way).
I just want to point out a fact:
20,000,000 <> 19,999,999
(“<>” is the “DOES NOT EQUAL” sign in text format, just to clarify)Philosophically, you or other people may consider the difference to be insignificant, but the fact is that they are two different numbers and thus two different prices.
I prefer systems that rely upon objective facts (like 20,000,000 = 20,000,000) rather than subjective opinions (like 20,000,000 = 19,999,999).
0.5% is an objective measure of difference; I use that as an example, but have always proposed an objective measure.
You say it’s cheaper; I assert that the difference is too small to matter in an economics sense. I know you don’t agree with my perspective, but your second argument makes no sense given that I don’t think the price is effectively different.
I’m not trying to punish the player who lists cheaper since I don’t agree that it’s actually cheaper. I want to reward either: (1) the player who either lists first (FIFO) or (2) lists as a price which is lower (in a meaningful way).
I just want to point out a fact:
20,000,000 <> 19,999,999
(“<>” is the “DOES NOT EQUAL” sign in text format, just to clarify)Philosophically, you or other people may consider the difference to be insignificant, but the fact is that they are two different numbers and thus two different prices.
I prefer systems that rely upon objective facts (like 20,000,000 = 20,000,000) rather than subjective opinions (like 20,000,000 = 19,999,999).
0.5% is an objective measure of difference; I use that as an example, but have always proposed an objective measure.
It is an objective measure of difference enforced for subjective reasons.
Server: Devona’s Rest
0.5% is an objective measure of difference; I use that as an example, but have always proposed an objective measure.
It is an objective measure of difference enforced for subjective reasons.
Specifically, the argument I would make for it is that we can model a market which will never reach an equilibrium (== efficient market) price without participants who make underbids with steps larger than the minimum bid difference (either because they choose to or because they’re forced to). I don’t think that’s particularly subjective.
Specifically, the argument I would make for it is that we can model a market which will never reach an equilibrium (== efficient market) price without participants who make underbids with steps larger than the minimum bid difference (either because they choose to or because they’re forced to). I don’t think that’s particularly subjective.
The counter would be that all markets will reach an equilibrium, given enough time. You’re identifying specific, slow moving markets (due to their high price points) and suggesting that they should be treated differently for subjective reasons (“they take too long”).
I’m not saying you’re right/wrong, I’m just saying your position is based on your personal opinion which isn’t the same as the personal opinion of others which is why you are getting a lot of pushback here.
Server: Devona’s Rest
The debate at hand is now “natural equilibrium” or “forced equilibrium”.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
The debate at hand is now “natural equilibrium” or “forced equilibrium”.
Natural equilibrium has worked for the last 2 years, so why should it change?
The debate at hand is now “natural equilibrium” or “forced equilibrium”.
Natural equilibrium has worked for the last 2 years, so why should it change?
I think people want change to happen faster. This is due to a combination of Entitlement and Impatience.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
The problem is the 5% listing fee, that is lost and has to be paid again if you decide to remove your stuff from TP because of undercut , then list it again.
One solution could be moving that 5% to the total 15% after the item is sold, but i’m not sure if thats a good idea.
One solution could be moving that 5% to the total 15% after the item is sold, but i’m not sure if thats a good idea.
The 5% is to prevent people from using the TP as free storage. It could arguably be lower, as even 1% may be enough of a deterrent (given the sell price would have to be set unusually high to guarantee storage).
Content in this game will always seem
to be faceroll at the high levels, because it
needs to be accessible to the casuals and bads.
to be faceroll at the high levels, because it
needs to be accessible to the casuals and bads.
The debate at hand is now “natural equilibrium” or “forced equilibrium”.
Natural equilibrium has worked for the last 2 years, so why should it change?
I think people want change to happen faster. This is due to a combination of Entitlement and Impatience.
I’ll concede Impatience, but I think the only Entitlement in this discussion is those defending the status quo based on the fact that they like it (rather than that it works better). I’ve given my reasons for arguing this, and they don’t include personal gain, so I’m not sure where you’re reading in Entitltement … other than a desire to insult your opponents (as opposed to engage in discussion).
I’m a firm believer that it is appropriate to consider proposed improvements based on their merits; 2 years of things working well enough is not an argument that they are better than they could be.
That said, I’m not going to argue this further because I’m unconvinced that it could be done in a way which wouldn’t be more annoying than the inefficiency of 1c underbids … but that’s different from agreeing that the status quo is better. (And anyway — 1c underbids don’t generally hurt me, since none of my trading is based on fast cycles.)
The debate at hand is now “natural equilibrium” or “forced equilibrium”.
Natural equilibrium has worked for the last 2 years, so why should it change?
I think people want change to happen faster. This is due to a combination of Entitlement and Impatience.
I’ll concede Impatience, but I think the only Entitlement in this discussion is those defending the status quo based on the fact that they like it (rather than that it works better). I’ve given my reasons for arguing this, and they don’t include personal gain, so I’m not sure where you’re reading in Entitltement … other than a desire to insult your opponents (as opposed to engage in discussion).
I’m a firm believer that it is appropriate to consider proposed improvements based on their merits; 2 years of things working well enough is not an argument that they are better than they could be.
That said, I’m not going to argue this further because I’m unconvinced that it could be done in a way which wouldn’t be more annoying than the inefficiency of 1c underbids … but that’s different from agreeing that the status quo is better. (And anyway — 1c underbids don’t generally hurt me, since none of my trading is based on fast cycles.)
There are those who feel entitled to quick returns. This is mostly true when you have the arguments that 20 and 19.99.99 are the same. The person who has the item listed at 20 feel that they’re entitled to selling before the 19.99.99, even though the other item is cheaper. To some, the perception is that the prices are similar enough to warrant a debate. But ultimately, the item that gets sold first is the one priced lower. The current system sees in Black and White, and works well. There’s no room for a Gray area, unless you develop an AI for the TP.
The solution to this conundrum is for the original seller of the item priced at 20, to have listed it for 10 – 15 instead, if the item has low velocity at the higher rate.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
to everyone saying this would take “time” to implement and that the UI would get more complex, heres my very simple suggestion as to how it would work
on the "buy instantly screen (which would not change at all) u just check which order you want to buy THEN you select quantity (incase u want more than one) nothing will start off checked to prevent accidents
also i was just about to buy a super longbow skin and i was annoyed that i have to buy the 24 99 98 offer instead of the 25g offer (3 offers above where im forced to buy) so dont tell me this isnt a problem to the buyer and the seller
The debate at hand is now “natural equilibrium” or “forced equilibrium”.
Natural equilibrium has worked for the last 2 years, so why should it change?
I think people want change to happen faster. This is due to a combination of Entitlement and Impatience.
I’ll concede Impatience, but I think the only Entitlement in this discussion is those defending the status quo based on the fact that they like it (rather than that it works better). I’ve given my reasons for arguing this, and they don’t include personal gain, so I’m not sure where you’re reading in Entitltement … other than a desire to insult your opponents (as opposed to engage in discussion).
I’m a firm believer that it is appropriate to consider proposed improvements based on their merits; 2 years of things working well enough is not an argument that they are better than they could be.
That said, I’m not going to argue this further because I’m unconvinced that it could be done in a way which wouldn’t be more annoying than the inefficiency of 1c underbids … but that’s different from agreeing that the status quo is better. (And anyway — 1c underbids don’t generally hurt me, since none of my trading is based on fast cycles.)
There are those who feel entitled to quick returns. This is mostly true when you have the arguments that 20 and 19.99.99 are the same. The person who has the item listed at 20 feel that they’re entitled to selling before the 19.99.99, even though the other item is cheaper. To some, the perception is that the prices are similar enough to warrant a debate. But ultimately, the item that gets sold first is the one priced lower. The current system sees in Black and White, and works well. There’s no room for a Gray area, unless you develop an AI for the TP.
The solution to this conundrum is for the original seller of the item priced at 20, to have listed it for 10 – 15 instead, if the item has low velocity at the higher rate.
your “solution” is absurd. so we are all supposed to be psychic and read the market? it should be up to the buyer to decide if they want to buy from the 19 99 99 or the 20 00 00, thats a simple change and doesnt restrict anyone, you can still undercut if you want
and why is there no room for a grey area???
your “solution” is absurd. so we are all supposed to be psychic and read the market? it should be up to the buyer to decide if they want to buy from the 19 99 99 or the 20 00 00, thats a simple change and doesnt restrict anyone, you can still undercut if you want
and why is there no room for a grey area???
Nope. Computers cannot “read minds”. It cannot tell if someone is sad that they were undercut. In fact, it would be completely unfair if a computer allowed a lower priced item to sell after a higher priced item. Now if this were 2050, and we have computers capable of human thought and learning, perhaps we could have some gray areas in the market. Maybe then we could see a computer having the compassion necessary to facilitate the need to sell an item priced at 20 ahead of an item priced at 19.99.99.
Going back to selling for cheaper. This tactic actually makes plenty sense. If you list something at 20 Gold, and someone undercuts it with 19.99.99, that sucks right? Well if the velocity of that item’s market is high enough, BOTH items will sell. However, if the velocity of the market is stagnant at those prices, BOTH items will NOT sell. That means it’s the Seller’s fault for overpricing the item. If you want the item to sell, you need to price it lower to attract more people willing to buy it. Thus the need to list it for 10 to 15 Gold.
Now say you list it for 10 to 15 Gold, and someone undercuts you. Ok, that’s no big deal, as the velocity of the item’s market is much higher now, and so being undercut won’t hurt. Both items would sell much faster since it’s cheaper. You went from having 0 potential buyers, to maybe a handful now.
tl;dr – In order to do well in any market, you need to know how to read it. Amateur sellers who list items at any odd price without doing research will always lose.
tl;dr2 – The current market is well balanced, and working as intended. No fix needed.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
it should be up to the buyer to decide if they want to buy from the 19 99 99 or the 20 00 00, thats a simple change and doesnt restrict anyone, you can still undercut if you want
- That’s not a simple change to the mechanics of the TP. It also complicates the UI.
- It only benefits two people: the one asking for a higher price and the person willing to pay more to accommodate that seller.
- It hurts nearly everyone else, by reducing pressure on sell orders to drop closer to buy offers.
I would prefer ANet spend its limited on changes that benefit everyone, such as providing the same data to buyers and sellers.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
it should be up to the buyer to decide if they want to buy from the 19 99 99 or the 20 00 00, thats a simple change and doesnt restrict anyone, you can still undercut if you want
- That’s not a simple change to the mechanics of the TP. It also complicates the UI.
- It only benefits two people: the one asking for a higher price and the person willing to pay more to accommodate that seller.
- It hurts nearly everyone else, by reducing pressure on sell orders to drop closer to buy offers.
I would prefer ANet spend its limited on changes that benefit everyone, such as providing the same data to buyers and sellers.
1, completly absurd its so easy , all they have to do is check/uncheck the boxes that are ALREADY next to the buy instantly page to determine which ones they want to buy, easy
2.wrong it IMMEDIATLEY benefits those 2 people but it eventually benefits all of the economy, every person who gathers resources and gets a rare drop, every person who ever EVER wants to sell something on the TP can get some more money for it.
3. you assume thats a bad thing? it doesnt hurt nearly everyone to drag the entire economy down so that nearly every item is cheap and worhtless? look at this economy we have now, how do u make money in it without laying the market or buying it? its all cuz of undercutting ,
i think if thuroughly thrashed those 3 points but the simple fact remains i believe you and people like you feel that you profit from undercutting and dont want this update done because ur worried it will hurt YOUR bottom line