Guild Wars 2

So there are already protections in place in the market. Things like not being able to sell to people asking less the the item worth, and not being able to post for less either. These protections are a good idea and, apparently, necessary (as evidenced by the first month after release).

But people are still hurting themselves in the market. We all see it, people posting an item for less then the item worth + the listing fee. I would suggest expanding the value limit already in place to include the listing fee+item worth. This is a change that, really, shouldn’t be necessary. But apparently it is. :|

The suggestion above assumes that there is an inherent worth to items, but there really isn’t. The value of an item is whatever the seller is willing to take in order to part with the item and whatever coin the buyer is willing to spend to acquire it. Both depend on the person involved in the transaction and should not be regulated by the government (or, in this case, ANet).

I am not hurting myself when I list an item for vendor price +1c or for less than the cost of crafting an item:

1. Vendor +1c: if there’s no nearby merchant, this is better than salvaging.
2. Crafting costs: I already received value for crafting an item: I got experience, learned a recipe, and increased my rank. Getting any money back is a bonus.

Requiring items to sell at a minimum of Vendor + 1c is a compromise between regulation and a perfectly free market. In my opinion, the only market protection that ANet should consider is preventing people from asking more than vendor price for items that are only available from merchants, notably the trait manuals and the various runes of holding.

There is an inherent worth to almost every item I’ve seen in this game, you even mention it. Mouse over an item and look in the bottom left. Vendor worth. You can sell nearly every item to a vendor, and make a fixed income. You are hurting yourself when you list for 1c over vendor worth, you could have made more money just vendoring it.

There is no agreement between buyer and seller going on, just people loosing money for no reason. I can’t even list a lot of my items because the market has committed suicide, and I would be forced to list at a loss.

Again, no. I am not “losing money” for “no reason;” from my perspective, I am not losing money at all…and my reasons for my trades are rational. They might make it difficult for you, but they are of benefit to me.

If you want to be technical, you are correct that items have a vendor value, but that isn’t an inherent worth — it’s just a minimum amount that people can easily obtain. Again, if there’s no merchant nearby, 50% of vendor value might be better for me than 0%, which is what I would get if I have to start throwing stuff away or choosing not to pick up some items.

But even if ANet raised the floor on prices to vendor +17.x% (break even), you still wouldn’t make any money: the supply of whites, blues, and most greens is always going to many times the demand. The same goes for nearly all crafted items. And since time spent on the TP is time you aren’t spending gathering loot, crafting and TPing high-supply items is going to be a net loss of income, relative to what you could be making.

The trade off for losing that 1 or 2 coppers on the TP is that you get to clear your inventory right then instead of having to find an NPC vendor.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

The value of an item is whatever the seller is willing to take in order to part with the item and whatever coin the buyer is willing to spend to acquire it. Both depend on the person involved in the transaction and should not be regulated by the government (or, in this case, ANet).

The vendor price is as close to an inherent worth as you can ever get: A seller who is guaranteed to buy unlimited amounts of that item for a fixed price.

What’s the difference between an inherent value and a minimum price backed up by an all-powerful god ?

I am not hurting myself when I list an item for vendor price +1c or for less than the cost of crafting an item:

1. Vendor +1c: if there’s no nearby merchant, this is better than salvaging.

But it isn’t better than selling to the vendor. Unless your inventory is so full that you have to chose between trashing it or sticking it on the TP.
In which case you should try to empty your inventory more often so that stops happening.

1. Crafting costs: I already received value for crafting an item: I got experience, learned a recipe, and increased my rank. Getting any money back is a bonus.

What does cost of acquisition have to do with it ?
That’s a sunk cost. Thus it no longer matters.

Requiring items to sell at a minimum of Vendor + 1c is a compromise between regulation and a perfectly free market. In my opinion, the only market protection that ANet should consider is preventing people from asking more than vendor price for items that are only available from merchants, notably the trait manuals and the various runes of holding.

By compromise, you mean a nonsensical decision that satisfies nobody ?
Because that’s what we have here. If the point of the price floor was to protect people who don’t understand the TP fees, then it should be at a level that guarantees they will get at least vendor price if the item sells.

No price floor makes sense. Free market and the full inventory tradeoff by people who don’t have the discipline to prevent it happening.

But vendor +1c doesn’t make any sense. It hinders the free market, while failing to protect anyone.

I don’t care which why ANET moves away from the vendor+1c limit, as both make sense. I just want them to move.