Min. 1% price-difference
I’m not sure there is a relation between items changing hands and more items listed. Not everyone using the TP is a flipper.
Let’s simmer down a bit, this is getting necessarily heated. I believe the issue in question is, does a minimum increment of of 1c effectively represent a different willingness to pay or willingness to buy from the original price being compared against, and does that answer change relative to the end price of the item.
Obviously, in some cases 1c is just fine, but is that true in all cases? Why or Why not?
It’s much harder to prove that it is the same price because “technically” it’s a different price, so the origin lies on those who believe that it’s not an effective difference. I think an argument can be made somewhere, but lets do it as academically as possible. have to run, but I’ll be back to check on this shortly.
For those who can’t “perceive” a difference in price, we can’t use that as a justification to change a system. I mean if 99% of the players who use the Trading Post can tell the difference between 100 Gold and 99 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper, how do we frame the debate at hand?
Using a real world analogy, let’s take a player who is color blind. This player looks at a strawberry and a watermelon, and “perceives” both to be the same color – grey. Considering the fact that one is red and one is green, are we supposed to now categorize a new separate color system to satisfy one person?
I love a good debate, but it’s hard to have one when one side is so fundamentally wrong.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
OK, so I am willing to concede that 1c undercutting for very high value, slow moving items is not a difference in willingness to sell and its only value is to sell before another and is very frustrating for previous sellers. But this is only a small portion of what is bought and sold on the market. Making changes to adjust this affects the rest of the market.
And undercutting by percentages doesn’t stop undercutting. It just reduces the amount of room for undercutting and prices are now on chunks which reduce the finest value we can get to before reach a point that the seller would loose money. So the lowest they would reach is the chunk before losing money which could result in a higher price then necessary.
I believe the issue in question is, does a minimum increment of of 1c effectively represent a different willingness to pay or willingness to buy from the original price being compared against, and does that answer change relative to the end price of the item.
While a 1c difference on an item that’s 100’s of G will not influence my decision to buy or wait for a better price, it does give advantage to the seller. I won’t go into them but since the seller is taking all the risk through listing fee/tax and time, I would find it hard for someone to justify larger margin loses, just because they ‘feel’ it’s more correct.
As an example, if I’m going to take a risk on my listing fee and ONLY undercut 1c on a 100g item, why stop me? If the market already knows my price is the ‘same’ as the guy above me and still too high to buy it, why should GW2 have a larger min increment to ‘save’ me and reduce my risk? What do I learn about the market if this were implemented?
After 5 pages, I’m still trying to understand why we need to protect people who play the market. The gains to be made are massive. If anything, maybe their should be MORE risk. It’s simply buy low, sell high here.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
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.
So volatility is caused by more items changing hands, which means more items being listed, which means more listing fees, which means more of a gold sink. Wheres your math on that?
I guess I needed to be more clear with that last statement.
What I meant by volatility was that the PRICE of an item is less volatile. As you’ve stated before, items listed with a 1c difference between them give the illusion of a stack, which means as buyers and sellers view those prices, they view them as all being the same price. With the 1% model, prices would be more volatile because they would be going up and down in greater increments.
The math I showed was in regards to the amount of gold sunk by the system at the various prices and the impact sinking less gold could / would have on the system and economy. You chose to ignore that math though and focus on a single word, or selection of words, in an attempt to discredit what I had shown a few lines above that.
The point of my post was to show that a 1c undercut is NOT insignificant to the system as a whole, whereas a 1% undercut IS significant to the amount of gold sunk. I think I was effectively able to illustrate that point. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is, of course, your prerogative.
Guild: Member of Charter Vanguard [CV]
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
The primary reason for undercutting is to skip ahead of someone else in line to sell something. That skipping should come with a cost of some minimal difference in price.
Someone listing something for half the cost of an existing listing is really just trying to sell the item and not terribly concerned with profit. Someone listing 1 copper under the existing listing is really just skipping ahead for pretty much the same profit as the original listing.
Most items for sale have at most 20% profit so a 10% minimum undercut would be pretty harsh. I think a minimum of 1% is fine, but would be OK with as high as a 5% limit.
Just think how nice it would be to craft and list something for 10% or 15% profit and not have to worry about being continuously undercut and never selling your item.
Let’s simmer down a bit, this is getting necessarily heated. I believe the issue in question is, does a minimum increment of of 1c effectively represent a different willingness to pay or willingness to buy from the original price being compared against, and does that answer change relative to the end price of the item.
Obviously, in some cases 1c is just fine, but is that true in all cases? Why or Why not?
It’s much harder to prove that it is the same price because “technically” it’s a different price, so the origin lies on those who believe that it’s not an effective difference. I think an argument can be made somewhere, but lets do it as academically as possible. have to run, but I’ll be back to check on this shortly.
Here is my best approach at an academic explanation taken from a consumer point of view. Sorry for the horrible formatting of the equations.
My assumptions:
The value to a consumer is directly related to his willingness to buy
consumer perceived value(V) = willingness to buy
Value is a function of Benefit/Cost
V = consumer perceived benefit(B)/consumer perceived cost ( C )
There are two of the exact same product X and Y
Those two items are listed on the trading post 1c apart
To derive the change in willingness to buy/pay for an item with 1c difference:
Since the items are the same the consumer benefit is the same
Bx = By = B
Since 1 copper difference
Cy – Cx = 1
To find delta V
Vx = B/Cx
Vy = B/Cy
Vx-Vy = (B/Cx)-(B/Cy)
delta V = (BCy/CxCy) – (BCx/CxCy)
delta V = (BCy – BCx)/CxCy
delta V = B(Cy-Cx)/CxCy
delta V = B(1)/CxCy
delta V = B/CxCy
The change in willingness to buy is equal to a constant benefit divided by the product of the costs given all of the above assumptions. This proves as cost increases to a very large number the difference in willingness to buy will approach zero.
Hopefully my math is correct here as it has been a while.
(edited by Drago Ivansen.5398)
1% wouldn’t stop people from undercutting. From 1g to 99s still serves the same purpose as undercutting by 1c. And the larger you increase the percentage to make it not worth undercutting prices start becoming more unstable as they are now divided into larger and larger chunks.
1% wouldn’t stop people from undercutting. From 1g to 99s still serves the same purpose as undercutting by 1c. And the larger you increase the percentage to make it not worth undercutting prices start becoming more unstable as they are now divided into larger and larger chunks.
Again undercutting is not the issue, it’s the constant differentials between listing prices
(edited by Drago Ivansen.5398)
Constant differentials (I’m assuming you are talking about the 1c minimum increment) has not been shown to be anything but a perception issue. Any (reasonable) percent based increment would be pseudo-constant as well in a given range so it doesn’t solve whatever perceived issue you have with constant differentials.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
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.
So volatility is caused by more items changing hands, which means more items being listed, which means more listing fees, which means more of a gold sink. Wheres your math on that?
I guess I needed to be more clear with that last statement.
What I meant by volatility was that the PRICE of an item is less volatile. As you’ve stated before, items listed with a 1c difference between them give the illusion of a stack, which means as buyers and sellers view those prices, they view them as all being the same price. With the 1% model, prices would be more volatile because they would be going up and down in greater increments.
The math I showed was in regards to the amount of gold sunk by the system at the various prices and the impact sinking less gold could / would have on the system and economy. You chose to ignore that math though and focus on a single word, or selection of words, in an attempt to discredit what I had shown a few lines above that.
The point of my post was to show that a 1c undercut is NOT insignificant to the system as a whole, whereas a 1% undercut IS significant to the amount of gold sunk. I think I was effectively able to illustrate that point. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is, of course, your prerogative.
Prices move up and down because items are better priced and consumers are buying, so the system is collecting their 10% tax instead of items sitting stale on the market.
Equations and math….
I don’t feel that players in the market to buy goods over 100g (just so we keep to the same price point) will view the price of 99g99s99c (current 1c model) much differently than 99g (1% model). If they’re going to be spending ~100g….they’re spending 100g.
From a buyer’s perspective either system looks pretty much the same.
From a seller’s perspective, the 1c market is preferable so they can “jump ahead in line”, but in a 1% system, they’ll still do it. 1% vs 1c won’t make any difference.
From an economic and game perspective, the 1c model is preferred as well due to the fact that more gold is sunk per transaction, thus combating inflation better.
Guild: Member of Charter Vanguard [CV]
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
Equations and math….
I don’t feel that players in the market to buy goods over 100g (just so we keep to the same price point) will view the price of 99g99s99c (current 1c model) much differently than 99g (1% model). If they’re going to be spending ~100g….they’re spending 100g.
From a buyer’s perspective either system looks pretty much the same.
From a seller’s perspective, the 1c market is preferable so they can “jump ahead in line”, but in a 1% system, they’ll still do it. 1% vs 1c won’t make any difference.
From an economic and game perspective, the 1c model is preferred as well due to the fact that more gold is sunk per transaction, thus combating inflation better.
The same equation could be used to prove a buyer is more willing to make a purchase when noticing a greater difference in price.
Prices move up and down because items are better priced and consumers are buying, so the system is collecting their 10% tax instead of items sitting stale on the market.
What you’re suggesting is that more gold is sunk by the 10% sales fee than the 5% listing fee. I would tend to disagree with you.
Using the item listed at 100g again for continuity…..
There are ten thousand (10,000) 1c increments between the 100g listing price and the 99g (1% lower) listing price. That’s 10,000 opportunities for a 5% listing fee that would be an average of 4g97s50c. While it’s not likely that 10,000 items spaced out with a 1c difference would happen….it could. Let’s be more realistic with the number and say that 10 items would be listed between 100g and 99g with an average sunk value of 4g97s50c. That’s 49g75s00c. If the lowest of those items is sold, it generates another 9g90s00c at sale, for a total amount of gold sunk equating to 59g65s00c.
A single item that is sold at 1% lower would generate 4g95s00c as a listing fee, then another 9g90s00c, for a total of 14g85s00c.
The amount of gold sunk due to listing fees far outweighs the gold sunk due to the sales fee.
In both examples, only one item sold.
Guild: Member of Charter Vanguard [CV]
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
(edited by Charismatic Harm.9683)
The same equation could be used to prove a buyer is more willing to make a purchase when noticing a greater difference in price.
If there’s a difference in price greater than 1c or 1%, it’s a moot point. Neither system applies. The seller “created their own system”.
Are you suggesting that it should be even greater than 1%? 5%? 10%?
Guild: Member of Charter Vanguard [CV]
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
1% wouldn’t stop people from undercutting. From 1g to 99s still serves the same purpose as undercutting by 1c. And the larger you increase the percentage to make it not worth undercutting prices start becoming more unstable as they are now divided into larger and larger chunks.
Again undercutting is not the issue, it’s the constant differentials between listing prices
Ok then my point still stands regardless of your motivation.
If there’s a difference in price greater than 1c or 1%, it’s a moot point. Neither system applies. The seller “created their own system”.
Are you suggesting that it should be even greater than 1%? 5%? 10%?
I am saying that a constant increment is bad whether its 1 copper or 1 gold there will always be a price point where that change in price does not make an item more likely to sell. This is fixed by making the bid increment a function of the price point. It doesn’t matter if it is 1% 5% 10% 100%. I am sure John Smith and his Team can figure out a good percentage, but 1% seems reasonable. 1% says all markets will act exactly as markets valued at 1s and less.
have to run, …
Get a mount…
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.
I am saying that a constant increment is bad whether its 1 copper or 1 gold there will always be a price point where that change in price does not make an item more likely to sell. This is fixed by making the bid increment a function of the price point. It doesn’t matter if it is 1% 5% 10% 100%. I am sure John Smith and his Team can figure out a good percentage, but 1% seems reasonable. 1% says all markets will act exactly as markets valued at 1s and less.
A constant increment of 1c is perceived as “bad” if:
- You are a buyer who has placed buy orders and has recently been outbid by 1c
- You are a seller who has placed an item for sale and has recently been undercut by 1c
A constant increment of 1c is perceived as “good” if:
- You are the economy and you want inflation to be kept in check by keeping gold faucets in balance with gold sinks.
A variable increment of 1% (or any %) is perceived as “bad” if:
- You are a buyer who has placed buy orders and has recently been outbid by 1%
- You are a seller who has placed an item for sale and has recently been undercut by 1%
- You are the economy and you want inflation to be kept in check by keeping gold faucets in balance with gold sinks.
A variable increment of 1% (or any %) is perceived as “good” if:
- ______________________________________ (Please fill in the blank with a statement that is from the perspective of the game as a whole and not the individual)
Note: John Smith and his team HAVE figured out a % that functions very well…..it’s 1c above (for Buy Orders) or 1c below (for Sell Listings). That 1c is a % of the previous sale / buy price…..albeit a variable %.
Guild: Member of Charter Vanguard [CV]
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
(edited by Charismatic Harm.9683)
A variable increment of 1% (or any %) is perceived as “good” if:
- ______________________________________ (Please fill in the blank with a statement that is from the perspective of the game as a whole and not the individual)
- You are buyer waiting for a 1% less sell listing
- You are a seller waiting for a 1% more buy listing
- You are the economy and you want inflation to be kept in check by keeping gold faucets in balance with gold sinks.
(edited by Drago Ivansen.5398)
- You are buyer waiting for a 1% less sell listing
- You are a seller waiting for a 1% more buy listing
- You are the economy and you want inflation to be kept in check by keeping gold faucets in balance with gold sinks.
Point #1: You didn’t follow directions – Invalid
- As a buyer, you could place a Buy Order at 1% less than the current sale price
Point #2: You didn’t follow directions – Invalid
- As a seller, you could list your item at 1% higher than the current Buy Order
Point #3: You’d still be better off with a 1c difference than a fixed % difference
- Gold faucets would need to be adjusted to account for the reduced gold sink as noted in previous posts.
As an individual, you can set the price you’re willing to pay for an item or the price you’re willing to sell an item at. That is why I asked for you to fill in the blank with a statement that wasn’t from the perspective of an individual, but rather from the perspective of the game as a whole.
Guild: Member of Charter Vanguard [CV]
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
Logic will never win an argument on the forums…..only a sense of entitlement will.
(edited by Charismatic Harm.9683)
Let’s simplify the debate a bit. We have a lot of variables in discussion, let’s say that TP Fees are still a factor, but controlling inflation and gold sinks are not.
Furthermore let’s assume that we all agree that 1c holds a virtual non-value on goods above X price. How do you determine a system that effectively chooses what an appropriate value is that doesn’t
1. Injure the market 2. Discourage use of the TP
Note: this value may be algorithmic, but you must PROVE the values are effective. You may assume you have perfect data of the TP if you need it to support a hypothesis.
From a completely personal view, X would be 5 silver. There isn’t really any analysis there other than the fact that if the min increment for items 5 silver or less remains at 1c, I wouldn’t feel ‘screwed over’. i.e., it wouldn’t affect my decision to buy or sell any different than it did now. My perspective on this is simple; I farm materials from open world to make gold.
I won’t pretend to propose how a minimum increment should be determined for items higher than X because I believe it’s preposterous unless some of the risk for selling is removed or put onto the buyer.
If I start having to pay a pseudo-fee by placing my item in a price bucket lower than I believe is necessary to make a good sale, then you already discouraged me. That’s a very personal thing that’s dependent only on my own capacity to earn gold, not some data from the TP.
(edited by Obtena.7952)
Let’s simplify the debate a bit. We have a lot of variables in discussion, let’s say that TP Fees are still a factor, but controlling inflation and gold sinks are not.
Furthermore let’s assume that we all agree that 1c holds a virtual non-value on goods above X price. How do you determine a system that effectively chooses what an appropriate value is that doesn’t
1. Injure the market 2. Discourage use of the TP
Note: this value may be algorithmic, but you must PROVE the values are effective. You may assume you have perfect data of the TP if you need it to support a hypothesis.
I believe my following link proves the problem with a constant fee and the need for an algorithmic value as a function of the cost, no one has commented otherwise:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Min-1-price-difference/3873034
And now for the more difficult part of determining what that value should be:
Any change to system already in place will introduce risk. Any risk could, but doesn’t have to, injure the current market. Based off of the feedback from this forum I would believe any change would discourage use of the TP in the short term, people fear change, but in the long term people want to make gold and will come back. So if possible I would not change the current system in place until a new system was derived and tested.
How do you derive a new system with out changing the old?
Every update numerous items are magically added to the world that never existed before. These are new markets with completely new traders and no expectation. These items would make an amazing test bed for a new system without breaking the old, without introducing risk, and losing traders of the old system. I have no idea if this is actually feasible to implement, but I will continue as if it is. I would chose my initial test percentage base off of already existing healthy markets that constantly trade at prices where the difference is always 1c, e.g., Iron Ore. Iron Ore trades at about 1s the bids here increment at 1%. The Iron Ore market is not imploding, traders are making money and goods are being exchanged. I would start here at 1% expecting higher priced market to reflect the health of the iron ore market.
What if 1% is wrong?
You can adjust. 1% was close but we think we can do better. This is implemented on new item.
You can abort. Simply roll back the markets to the old system. If any of this is accepted I have some ideas on how this can be done gracefully. Opening up previously closed off gaps in the price could create major problems.
Why this might not work?
Most likely this will be overly complex and too expensive to implement.
This solution would allow for isolated test market and introduce minimal risk until tested at which point all risk would be mitigated. It allows traders to be eased into a new system with out being scared off. It provides for an exit plan in case of failure.
I encourage any comments to this suggestion.
I like your thought process and it’s a smart idea to attempt to introduce n-testing into the TP to find the values. The downside is it would be a lot of work to implement without any evidence that we wouldn’t end up keeping the same system we have.
I think people are getting hung up debating how to treat a particular symptom (1c undercutting) rather than the actual problem, or in other words, the reason some sellers find 1c undercutting upsetting. I don’t think we would be having this discussion at all if a seller could lower their price to match or beat a later seller’s price without the need to pay the listing fee each and every time.
As it stands, the trading post is unnecessarily biased toward the later-posting seller, because they can ensure their item sells before the earlier posting seller’s by sacrificing just 1 copper, whereas the earlier-posting seller must sacrifice the entire value of the listing fee if they want their item to sell before the later poster’s.
In my understanding, the purpose of the listing fee is the prevent the use of the trading post as free storage by posting items at prices no one will ever pay. That goal can be accomplished without putting the first seller at a disadvantage: increase the completed transaction fee by the current amount of the listing fee, and make the listing fee a refundable deposit. This would allow sellers to adjust the price of their items without permanent financial loss, keeps the current level of gold-sinking tax in effect, and continues to make it impractical to use sell orders as storage.
(edited by VincentDW.9376)
I think people are getting hung up debating how to treat a particular symptom (1c undercutting) rather than the actual problem, or in other words, the reason some sellers find 1c undercutting upsetting. I don’t think we would be having this discussion at all if a seller could lower their price to match or beat a later seller’s price without the need to pay the listing fee each and every time.
As it stands, the trading post is unnecessarily biased toward the later-posting seller, because they can ensure their item sells before the earlier posting seller’s by sacrificing just 1 copper, whereas the earlier-posting seller must sacrifice the entire value of the listing fee if they want their item to sell before the later poster’s.
In my understanding, the purpose of the listing fee is the prevent the use of the trading post as free storage by posting items at prices no one will ever pay. That goal can be accomplished without putting the first seller at a disadvantage: increase the completed transaction fee by the current amount of the listing fee, and make the listing fee a refundable deposit. This would allow sellers to adjust the price of their items without permanent financial loss, keeps the current level of gold-sinking tax in effect, and continues to make it impractical to use sell orders as storage.
In relation to the issue you stated, you also have to consider the velocity of the market. You can have 10 players undercutting each other by 1 Copper within the span of minutes. At the same time, all 10 players could have their item sold several minutes later. At this point, 1 Copper undercuts had no effect on the outcome. This happens to a lot of items, low and high priced alike. The only time a 1 Copper undercut could possibly effect an item’s saleability in the short term is if it’s an overpriced luxury item, like Precursors or Jetpacks.
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
I like your thought process and it’s a smart idea to attempt to introduce n-testing into the TP to find the values. The downside is it would be a lot of work to implement without any evidence that we wouldn’t end up keeping the same system we have.
I have a simple and non intrusive idea for collecting more data or evidence, but due to the subjective nature of the research would prefer not to post it on a forum. Is there a better way to make a suggestion that is not public knowledge?
@John Smith
Effectively the issue is a choice between FIFO and LIFO. Once 1c becomes an insignificant amount people are able to turn a FIFO system in to a LIFO system without sacrifice on their part.
1% seems far too high, personally. But I would hope most rational people would see that some non-zero limit is needed to avoid an effective LIFO system for higher end items.
The people on the other end of this issue are being selfish to the detriment of the market itself. LIFO makes the spread larger and slows the trend towards equilibrium. Market failures such as this should be addressed without waxing philosophical about whether it should be done. It’s a market failure, it’s a clear market failure, and it should be fixed- whether it be a 1% limit, or a 0.01% limit- a 0% limit is simply advocating LIFO.
consider the velocity of the market. .. At this point, 1 Copper undercuts had no effect on the outcome. T
You are absurdly wrong.
In an example with 10 1c undercutters and 10 purchases, there are 30 people effected (assuming each sell and purchase was an individual). With a 1% limit all 10 undercutters would need to actually choose between additional profit and time risk, with your hypothetical velocity they’d all be best off choosing the 1% undercut (although in reality this would be somewhat randomly distributed with later entries likely choosing additional undercuts).
So under this situation the undercutters are receiving 0.999999% more for their goods than under proper competition. The buyers are paying 0.999999% more for their goods than under proper competition. And the 10 original listers before undercuts have had their time risk artificially increased by undercutters who were not forced to pay any real amount in order to have their listings sold first.
Effectively the undercutters turned the market in to LIFO, meaning buyers are hurt and listers who arrived before them are hurt.
Acting as if just because the original listers are back in #1 position means that everything is the same is disingenuous. 10 people stole money from buyers and time from sellers without the market punishing them for jumping the queue.
@John Smith
Effectively the issue is a choice between FIFO and LIFO. Once 1c becomes an insignificant amount people are able to turn a FIFO system in to a LIFO system without sacrifice on their part.
1% seems far too high, personally. But I would hope most rational people would see that some non-zero limit is needed to avoid an effective LIFO system for higher end items.
The people on the other end of this issue are being selfish to the detriment of the market itself. LIFO makes the spread larger and slows the trend towards equilibrium. Market failures such as this should be addressed without waxing philosophical about whether it should be done. It’s a market failure, it’s a clear market failure, and it should be fixed- whether it be a 1% limit, or a 0.01% limit- a 0% limit is simply advocating LIFO.
It is a priority queue, not a LIFO. And this priority queue makes spread smaller, not larger as undercutting leads to competition and prevents price manipulation.
Please refrain from insulting others that don’t agree with you. It doesn’t prove your point, makes you look bad, and can result in a degradation of the argument.
No one has yet to prove this is a clear market failure. However the market running as it currently is shows that it works just fine. Try again, this time with an explanation of WHY you think you are right.
Setting a certain amount by which you are allowed to undercut only replaces the smallest monetary denomination with a new one. This also creates prices as chunks as opposed to discrete values which leads to larger gaps in pricing and higher prices overall.
(edited by Schizo.1375)
Here’s my suggestion from a while back on this topic:
My suggestion is as follows:
Listings (bids and asks) on the market should only be possible in the following price increments:
1s and below -> increments of 1c
10s and below -> increments of 10c
1g and below -> increments of 1s
10g and below -> increments of 10s
…If 1% granularity is not low enough this can be debated, but essentially what we need is to make costs of undercutting relative to the cost of the item traded, so that prices can actually move toward equilibrium in a meaningful way with every competitive bid, and that every non-competitive bid will be filled in proper FIFO order.
The use of static price points avoids the need for any extra calculations in the server-side implementation, so performance should be unaffected. And it makes for a easy transition from the old system (i.e. simply round current price to determine the nearest price point in the new system and place into queue at the new price point based on current price in existing FIFO order for that price point).
The biggest issue I can think of with this particular implementation is at the edges cases where increments increase, where the minimum increment becomes 10x the normal granularity. But even at 1% granularity, this translates to a 10% spread at these edge cases, which is not enough to turn a profit. This can be decreased further if we use a lower granularity like 0.1% (starting at 1c increments at 10s and below).
With a 1c minimum order on a 1000g item in the status quo, it is possible for 1000 “competitive” bids to move the price of the item by only 0.01%. This is not an efficient market by any definition.
Before you start saying you can choose to bid in more than 1c increments, it is completely irrational to do so in the current market climate on higher priced items because the abundance of trading post bots and notifiers means that your order will be beaten by 1c soon after you place it regardless how large your increment is, as long as there is still a spread larger than the profit margin.
This new system will ensure that every 100 competitive bids will move the price by at least an order of magnitude, and that non-competitive bids will be filled on a FIFO basis as it should be.
Some additional justification on why I think we need to change the minimum increment to be something other than a static 1c across all price points:
It would make each competitive bid tangibly drive prices toward equilibrium. Whether it be higher or lower than the status quo is up to the current level of demand. It is impossible to judge where the actual equilibrium lies for certain items precisely because of the lack of agility in current market prices.
This will reduce spread and reduce (but not remove) the opportunity for profit in flipping for high priced, low volume items. That is the whole point of this change.
A lower spread benefits everyone except traders that depend on spreads to flip items and turn a profit, because actual buyers can buy immediately at lower prices and actual sellers can sell immediately to higher buy orders. And everyone will be getting closer to what the market deems to be a fair price i.e. the equilibrium price point.
Of course I don’t expect flippers to agree with this change due to conflicts of interest, but I’m sure most reasonable people can understand that having more items closer to equilibrium pricing is healthier for the game economy as a whole.
(edited by Kaon.7192)
You are absurdly wrong.
In an example with 10 1c undercutters and 10 purchases, there are 30 people effected (assuming each sell and purchase was an individual). With a 1% limit all 10 undercutters would need to actually choose between additional profit and time risk, with your hypothetical velocity they’d all be best off choosing the 1% undercut (although in reality this would be somewhat randomly distributed with later entries likely choosing additional undercuts).
So under this situation the undercutters are receiving 0.999999% more for their goods than under proper competition. The buyers are paying 0.999999% more for their goods than under proper competition. And the 10 original listers before undercuts have had their time risk artificially increased by undercutters who were not forced to pay any real amount in order to have their listings sold first.
Effectively the undercutters turned the market in to LIFO, meaning buyers are hurt and listers who arrived before them are hurt.
Acting as if just because the original listers are back in #1 position means that everything is the same is disingenuous. 10 people stole money from buyers and time from sellers without the market punishing them for jumping the queue.
Back up a bit, my friend. There’s a few things I’d like for you to consider.
1) Buying the items outright is not the only option. Placing Buy Orders is actually the more cost efficient way to purchase something. If the velocity of an item is so great that 10 undercuts didn’t have an effect on the item being sold, then the ones who bought them aren’t being hurt. Chalk it up to impatience or ignorance, it doesn’t matter. The buyer made a conscious decision to pay X price for an item listed, and are further rewarded by getting the item right away.
2) Sellers can be impatient too. Part of the reason to undercut a listing is to give yourself a chance to sell your item faster. This is where the seller needs to make a choice. Do they want to sell it really fast so they can get their money? If so, they have the option to fill a Buy Order, or list the item for a price that’s so yummy, it’s guaranteed to sell. But if that particular item sells really fast, regardless of how low you price it, then it make sense to undercut by only 1 Copper, thus getting ahead of the line. Even if your item gets undercut as well, if the velocity of that item is high enough, the only drawbacks is that you sell your item some time later.
3) Undercutter vs Undercutter. The mini game we play is TPvP. Sometimes, I’ll purposely 1 Copper undercut someone on an item with low velocity just to make them wait longer to sell. Sure I want my item to sell too, but the psychological effects of seeing someone undercut you by just 1 Copper might make them think twice about participating in that market. In other words, it’s a valid tactic to eliminate your competition. Sometimes I’ll purposely outbid someone placing a Buy Order on an item I’m selling, because I want them to just out right buy that same item from me at full retail. A minimum 1% does not change anything when dealing with the above, so why change it at all?
In GW2, Trading Post plays you!
I do not think a minimum price difference should be enforced for the following reasons with my basic understanding of markets. If I am off people who understand the markets better feel free to correct me. I will likely change my stance at that point.:
A large bid-ask spread on high volume items will not allow a item to reach it’s true value(equilibrium) so you will always be over or under paying for the item. Likely loosing coin in the long run. The 1 copper undercut is not felt as much on high volume items due to the volume of trades will frequently not only fill the order of the person that did the undercutting but the person who was undercut.
On less frequently traded item there is currently a larger bid ask spread having the item priced above it’s equilibrium. This premium on price is often earned as the player is taking a higher risk on a less frequently traded item then on a item of high volume.
The one copper undercut is mostly felt here. This is also when people get the most emotional about this type of undercutting. But none the less the player who undercut still took a risk. The funny thing is I highly doubt that on low volume items 1 copper is not going to get his item sold much faster then yours. So this in my opinion is the wrong way to trade. If he wanted his sold faster then yours and take less risk and less reward he should have undercut you more. Also someone else can come around and undercut him. By a lot or just a little. Eventually with enough trades the bid-ask spread would be close enough that people are willing to pay the premium to have it now rather then wait for someone to fulfill the buy order. Thus fulfilling it’s equilibrium with the adjustment to risk. So it is of my opinion that if you keep getting undercut then you guessed wrong on what the value of the item was. You took a risk gamble and loss. You can either cut your losses and pull out adjusting your bid to get the coin now. Or stick to your trade for the long term. Eventually it may be fulfilled.
TL;DR 1c undercutting is the market working as designed. We are not talking about High frequency traders skimming of your earning here. They are players taking risks just like you. Maybe they just don’t know how to correctly trade.
Also:
Enforcing a percentage difference can lead to emotional changes in the traders of the market possibility hurting the market. Reason being is that a enforced minimum difference from the previous bid will create large bid-ask spreads. The bid ask spread is commonly a measurement used by investors in relation to volume and liquidity to determine if a item is over or under valued.
In Game: Storm Bluff Isle — Anzz, Anzenketh Kyoto
1) Buying the items outright is not the only option. Placing Buy Orders is actually the more cost efficient way to purchase something. If the velocity of an item is so great that 10 undercuts didn’t have an effect on the item being sold, then the ones who bought them aren’t being hurt.
Justify ‘they are not hurt’. Because the message of mine you quoted explained exactly how they are hurt: their orders were not filled despite listing first at essentially the same price. Their time (liquidity) was stolen. This would be fine if they were underbid as that’s competition, but the undercutters aren’t competing, they haven’t sacrificed any real profit. They’re exploiting a market failure to reap the rewards of undercutting without sacrifice.
Chalk it up to impatience or ignorance, it doesn’t matter. The buyer made a conscious decision to pay X price for an item listed, and are further rewarded by getting the item right away.
The buyers are sacrificing money for time. But under actual competition they would either be selling to the undercutter after they had lowered their ask price in order to gain a time advantage, or to the original lister as the potential undercutter instead decided to list at the same price as the original lister (decided the time risk wasn’t worth the 1% hit).
Under competition the buyer is either 1% better off, or no worse off (minus 1c or 2c, an insignificant amount compared to the 1% for the items the change would effect).
2) Sellers can be impatient too. Part of the reason to undercut a listing is to give yourself a chance to sell your item faster.
And in order to gain that time advantage you are supposed to list for a lower price, giving up some of your profit. For items over 1g the price to gain this advantage is absurdly small, to the point of insignificance.
then it make sense to undercut by only 1 Copper, thus getting ahead of the line. Even if your item gets undercut as well, if the velocity of that item is high enough, the only drawbacks is that you sell your item some time later.
Of course it ‘makes sense’: it’s the only logical strategy under the current system. The point isn’t that doing so is the wrong way to do it for the individual, the point is that allowing people to gain that advantage without paying anything hurts the market (in terms of competition, equilibrium, and fairness).
3) Undercutter vs Undercutter. The mini game we play is TPvP. Sometimes, I’ll purposely 1 Copper undercut someone on an item with low velocity just to make them wait longer to sell. Sure I want my item to sell too, but the psychological effects of seeing someone undercut you by just 1 Copper might make them think twice about participating in that market.
I do the same thing. But you’ve seemed to of mistaken this as ‘smart’ or ‘sneaky’. You’re making use of a design flaw in the market.
It is a priority queue, not a LIFO. And this priority queue makes spread smaller, not larger as undercutting leads to competition and prevents price manipulation.
Items are FIFO on specific prices, defining it only as a priority queue completely misses the point being made in this thread.
“And this priority queue makes spread smaller, not larger”
This is demonstrably false. Let’s work with an example. One original lister at 5g, a new entrant comes along and wants to determine price. They have the choice in the current system to list at 5g and give up priority, or list at 4g99s99c. They choose the later. The highest buy listing is 1g so the spread is 3g99s99c.
With a 1% minimum, the undercutter would have to actually sacrifice something non-trivial in order to get priority. So the spread is either 3g95s or 4g. Since 1% is something, but not overly significant, the undercutter is likely to choose to undercut, meaning price has moved towards equilibrium by 50 times more than under the current system.
Even if the undercutter chooses to list at 5g, the only thing lost is a 1c movement, and the original lister doesn’t have their space stolen by someone attempting to turn the item temporaryily in to LIFO.
No one has yet to prove this is a clear market failure.
You seem to have a poor understanding of what ‘market failure’ means, it means a failing in the market that distorts prices, not that the market ceases to exist. It’s a technical terms, look it up.
Let’s simplify the debate a bit. We have a lot of variables in discussion, let’s say that TP Fees are still a factor, but controlling inflation and gold sinks are not.
Furthermore let’s assume that we all agree that 1c holds a virtual non-value on goods above X price. How do you determine a system that effectively chooses what an appropriate value is that doesn’t
1. Injure the market 2. Discourage use of the TP
Note: this value may be algorithmic, but you must PROVE the values are effective. You may assume you have perfect data of the TP if you need it to support a hypothesis.
The controlling factor could be Time.
The goal is (I think) to reach equilibrium price quickly – but without forcing an overshoot by having a minimum undercut larger than the distance from current lowest offer and actual equilibrium (hence the concerns around algorithmically generated undercuts for lower cost items).
What if the minimum undercut changes as a particular item stagnates? Specifically: the longer its been since an item has sold, the larger the undercut becomes – the item is clearly not at equilibrium and we want the system to speed things along.
Hmm. This is human look-up chart for a moment, rather than a formula, but bear with me.
Use the lowest that is true:
Item has not sold in the last 72 hours — 5% undercut required
If the item has sold in the last 72 hours — 3% undercut required
If the item has sold in the last 12 hours — 2% undercut required
If the item has sold in the last 2 hours — 1% undercut required
If the item has sold in the last 20 minutes — 1c undercut required
High volume items would be unaffected relative to our current model, but things that sit now require a sincere effort to get them back into motion.
“You keep saying ‘its unfair.’
I wonder what your basis for comparison is…”
- Jareth, King of Goblins.
I wonder what your basis for comparison is…”
- Jareth, King of Goblins.
(edited by Nike.2631)
So it is of my opinion that if you keep getting undercut then you guessed wrong on what the value of the item was. You took a risk gamble and loss.
You can either cut your losses and pull out adjusting your bid to get the coin now. Or stick to your trade for the long term. Eventually it may be fulfilled.
I got a Dawn to drop (never happened, had to earn my gold the hard way: by exploiting the lazy). Yay.
Now I need to do this magical process you’ve suggested ‘pick the right price’. The spread is gigantic for some reason (cough 1c undercutters), so I need to think hard.
Let’s examine realities: the lowest current listing is 500g and the highest buy order is 250g.
I list at 499g99s99c. I’ve taken a big risk according to your mindset. But the success or failure of my stratagy depends on:
1) an undercutter comes along straight away and undercuts me. The cost of doing so is 1c.
2) an undercutter takes a while to come along. They arrive after a buyer so my item gets sold.
But instead I wanted to play it safe: so I significantly undercut and list at 350g. Now:
1) an undercutter comes along straight away and undercuts me. The cost of doing so is 1c.
2) an undercutter takes a while to come along. They arrive after a buyer so my item gets sold.
3) an undercutter comes along and decides that velocity is high enough and historical prices are high enough that they ignore my listing and 1c undercut the 500g.
So, what is the issue here? The undercutter can choose both times to jump ahead of me regardless of how low I list. They get the exact same profit as I do but get to sell first. They listed last but got sold first and didn’t sacrifice any real profit (0.0001%).
There is nothing you can do to prevent this, all the undercutter needs to do is take the same profit that you are willing to take.
This isn’t ‘emotional’ it’s unfair to both the original lister and the buyer. If you want to get priority you should pay for it, and doing so would mean the market is moved closer to equilibrium and spreads would close.
^ You forget that the time difference between your two scenarios. It’s more likely that:
a) You list at 499g 99s and 99c. A few undercutters may do the same, pushing the price down to 97c with a few Dawn sellers at each tier.
2 weeks pass before your Dawn finally sells. (And I base this off my experience where I listed my Precursor, the Hunter, for sale slightly ABOVE the lowest seller. It took about 2.5 weeks to get a buyer.)
b) You list at 350g. Perhaps one (maybe 2, if we’re generous) undercutter sells at this price because he didn’t look at the price difference between your offering and the 500g offer above yours.
Both your Dawns sell within minutes because the market saw the 350g, realised it was an incredible bargain and snapped it up.
So the question becomes “Is two weeks time of having 350g for further investments/purchases worth the 150g loss?”
^ You forget that the time difference between your two scenarios. It’s more likely that:
a) You list at 499g 99s and 99c. A few undercutters may do the same, pushing the price down to 97c with a few Dawn sellers at each tier.
2 weeks pass before your Dawn finally sells. (And I base this off my experience where I listed my Precursor, the Hunter, for sale slightly ABOVE the lowest seller. It took about 2.5 weeks to get a buyer.)
b) You list at 350g. Perhaps one (maybe 2, if we’re generous) undercutter sells at this price because he didn’t look at the price difference between your offering and the 500g offer above yours.
Both your Dawns sell within minutes because the market saw the 350g, realised it was an incredible bargain and snapped it up.
So the question becomes “Is two weeks time of having 350g for further investments/purchases worth the 150g loss?”
To the individual that’s already listed it’s irrelevent whether the undercutter undercuts by 1c or by 5g, so they’re now number #2 in the queue regardless.
But the buyer who is a price taker is paying 4g99s99c more than they would otherwise if the undercutter had to actually sacrifice something in order to gain that priority. The undercutter is avoiding competition and the buyers are worse off because of it.
And on the listers side: “So the question becomes “Is two weeks time of having 350g for further investments/purchases worth the 150g loss?”
What you’re missing is that in those 2 weeks all the undercutters have already had their item sold before you, and they’ve all made the same amount of profit (minus 0.0001%). Whether it takes 2 hours, 2 weeks or 2 years for your item to sell, the undercutter will always sell first regardless of the fact they listed second. And even if both items sell 20 seconds later, the undercutter still increased the risk of your item taking much longer to sell it just so happened that increased risk wasn’t realised.
If the undercutter paid a price for this it would be competition, and no one can fault that- it’s how markets work (and how they should work). But the undercutters currently don’t need to sacrifice anything non-trivial on higher priced items, and the amount of triviality increases the more the item is worth.
Allowing people to lower their sales listings for free (without first delisting and paying another listing fee) would be an interesting option. It would only be useful for sales that take a significant amount of time to complete, but those are the only ones that seem relevant to this discussion anyway.
I say “interesting” because it could drive prices toward equilibrium much faster if enough people would exercise the option. It would favor people that monitor their listings aggressively though, especially those using 3rd party automation. Multiple people aggressively adjusting their prices could cause prices to drop dramatically for some items.
Unlikely to be implemented I guess.
What you’re missing is that in those 2 weeks all the undercutters have already had their item sold before you, and they’ve all made the same amount of profit (minus 0.0001%). Whether it takes 2 hours, 2 weeks or 2 years for your item to sell, the undercutter will always sell first regardless of the fact they listed second. And even if both items sell 20 seconds later, the undercutter still increased the risk of your item taking much longer to sell it just so happened that increased risk wasn’t realised.
If the undercutter paid a price for this it would be competition, and no one can fault that- it’s how markets work (and how they should work). But the undercutters currently don’t need to sacrifice anything non-trivial on higher priced items, and the amount of triviality increases the more the item is worth.
The undercutters also often undercut themselves. It’s extremely rare for there to be only one other seller except in very niche markets (even Precursors aren’t a niche enough market. JS once told us that around 13 Dusks gets sold in one day!) Thus they also lose out on relisting fees by having to take down and re-list their item in order to remain 1c lower than the competition. You’re presuming that the person who undercut you “stole” your sale; in reality they might have to re-list their item multiple times before getting that sale.
The whole LIFO/FIFO argument in reference to the TP is simply an incorrect way to look at how business is done on the TP. The TP’s underlying principle is best price goes first. There is no “queue” in terms of temporal order of posting. And from the mechanics it’s all rather objective what best price is and that alone determines which order is executed first.
Now when a player posts and order, they can trade coin for an advantage that their order is executed sooner than later if at all. However when we are talking high end items with large price tags, the current minimum difference of 1c is an insignificant trade off for an advantage in trade position. I think that’s the gist of the argument.
So how about this, you bin closely priced items and if that bin is the current best price then execute orders from that bin as a FIFO. You can even set bin size in a non linear fashion relative to price. This way you don’t directly restrict players to a minimum difference in order price but since all items within the bin amount from the best price are lumped together and then ordered FIFO wise you could have a slightly higher priced item being sold first because it staked out that price range first.
It’s a wacky notion but those suggesting a minimum do have a point. On higher valued items the trade of coin for immediacy becomes extremely cheap, to the point of being meaningless.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
The whole LIFO/FIFO argument in reference to the TP is simply an incorrect way to look at how business is done on the TP. The TP’s underlying principle is best price goes first. There is no “queue” in terms of temporal order of posting. And from the mechanics it’s all rather objective what best price is and that alone determines which order is executed first.
Now when a player posts and order, they can trade coin for an advantage that their order is executed sooner than later if at all. However when we are talking high end items with large price tags, the current minimum difference of 1c is an insignificant trade off for an advantage in trade position. I think that’s the gist of the argument.
So how about this, you bin closely priced items and if that bin is the current best price then execute orders from that bin as a FIFO. You can even set bin size in a non linear fashion relative to price. This way you don’t directly restrict players to a minimum difference in order price but since all items within the bin amount from the best price are lumped together and then ordered FIFO wise you could have a slightly higher priced item being sold first because it staked out that price range first.
It’s a wacky notion but those suggesting a minimum do have a point. On higher valued items the trade of coin for immediacy becomes extremely cheap, to the point of being meaningless.
I can’t see your proposal working.
What if you went to a shop and tried to buy something on consignment at a certain price and were told you couldn’t buy it at that price. That there were other identical items that had been sitting in the shop longer, were more expensive and you had to buy one of them instead. Would you think that system was fair and made sense?
You pick up an item selling for $90 and take it to the register. The clerk there takes it from you and says, “sorry, you have to buy this one for $100 because it’s been sitting in the shop longer. It’s only fair to that person who is trying to sell it. He got undercut several times and now he has the most expensive one in that price grouping. Once all the more expensive ones are sold that have been sitting here longer, then we can sell the one that is sitting on our shelves priced at $90”
(edited by Astral Projections.7320)
If you are buying immediately, they price isn’t a priority. You will buy an item that’s been lumped into the “cheapest” bin, a bin that is “subjectively” the same price.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
If you are buying immediately, they price isn’t a priority. You will buy an item that’s been lumped into the “cheapest” bin, a bin that is “subjectively” the same price.
I’m still seeing this:
“So how about this, you bin closely priced items and if that bin is the current best price then execute orders from that bin as a FIFO. You can even set bin size in a non linear fashion relative to price. This way you don’t directly restrict players to a minimum difference in order price but since all items within the bin amount from the best price are lumped together and then ordered FIFO wise you could have a slightly higher priced item being sold first because it staked out that price range first.”
In other words, the slightly higher price (the $100 item) is sold before the lesser priced item (the $90 item) regardless of what the customer wants. The customer is going to want to buy the $90 item but is forced to buy the $100 item because it’s in the same price bin and has been there longer.
If you are buying immediately, they price isn’t a priority. You will buy an item that’s been lumped into the “cheapest” bin, a bin that is “subjectively” the same price.
I’m still seeing this:
“So how about this, you bin closely priced items and if that bin is the current best price then execute orders from that bin as a FIFO. You can even set bin size in a non linear fashion relative to price. This way you don’t directly restrict players to a minimum difference in order price but since all items within the bin amount from the best price are lumped together and then ordered FIFO wise you could have a slightly higher priced item being sold first because it staked out that price range first.”
In other words, the slightly higher price (the $100 item) is sold before the lesser priced item (the $90 item) regardless of what the customer wants. The customer is going to want to buy the $90 item but is forced to buy the $100 item because it’s in the same price bin and has been there longer.
I had this same idea and think it would be a fair solution.
If you are buying immediately, they price isn’t a priority. You will buy an item that’s been lumped into the “cheapest” bin, a bin that is “subjectively” the same price.
I’m still seeing this:
“So how about this, you bin closely priced items and if that bin is the current best price then execute orders from that bin as a FIFO. You can even set bin size in a non linear fashion relative to price. This way you don’t directly restrict players to a minimum difference in order price but since all items within the bin amount from the best price are lumped together and then ordered FIFO wise you could have a slightly higher priced item being sold first because it staked out that price range first.”
In other words, the slightly higher price (the $100 item) is sold before the lesser priced item (the $90 item) regardless of what the customer wants. The customer is going to want to buy the $90 item but is forced to buy the $100 item because it’s in the same price bin and has been there longer.
I had this same idea and think it would be a fair solution.
Is it? If you walked into a store and tried to buy something for $90 dollars and they refused and told you it had to be the $100 dollar item even though the absolutely identical $90 one was sitting on the shelf, you would walk away with the $100 one, perfectly happy?
Most people wouldn’t you know.
Is it? If you walked into a store and tried to buy something for $90 dollars and they refused and told you it had to be the $100 dollar item even though the absolutely identical $90 one was sitting on the shelf, you would walk away with the $100 one, perfectly happy?
Most people wouldn’t you know.
Following the idea of this topic a more appropriate price difference would be at most a dollar difference on a $100 product. I would argue most consumers would neither be aware of nor care about the difference between $100 vs $99.50 vs $99