Guild Wars 2

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Astral Projections.7320:

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

If you actually think that consumers are not aware of nor care about even a dollar difference then I suggest you try this in a retail setting. When ringing up someone, tell them that they will be paying a dollar more than listed price. Go ahead and do that then report back what happens. I suspect you will have a learning experience.

From my experience in retail, people are unamused by being charged more than the listed price and the amount does not matter. The words theft and crook come up pretty quick when people think they are being overcharged.

John Smith.4610:

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 one thing I have to suggest to this is that you need a second assumption (or more) in that 1c is a non-value on goods with a per-player movement speed below or above certain thresholds.

Now, if I’m selling a handful of items here and there, 1c is a non-value if it means selling the item immediately for X amount as opposed to Y-1c opening me up to potential losses via undercutting. This also requires the assumption of what amount of time would have to go by before it’s considered a loss. An hour? Two? Or is it a day/week later? Sometimes people choose the “instant sell” option because the item they’re selling fluctuates enough that listing only a handful (relatively compared to average traffic) means it could be undercut by hundreds or thousands of items listed lower in a matter of seconds.

On the other side of the spectrum, if I’m selling hundreds or thousands of an item, most likely craft resources, 1c IS a value regardless of the item’s price, even if it’s above X. This is because I’m selling in such large quantities that 1c for every item in my “portfolio” could mean the difference between making a profit (1c under a listing) or making a loss (forced to undercut 1%).

A good example of this are globs of ectoplasm, which at the time of writing this post, has buy orders at above 37s, and sell orders no lower than 39s, both of which vary by as little as 1c. With such a tight boundary between buys and sells, if people were forced into a 1% minimum undercut, they would be forced into selling to buy orders in a matter of seconds.

The ability to under/overcut prices by 1c stabilizes prices on items instead of turning them into a freefall to null value (in this case referring to items being more valuable to an npc).

Precursors (legendaries are not a good example because they tend to cost nearly their craft cost if bought on the TP, bifrost only makes a 200g [~10%] profit after tax) are the other end of the scale. They’re a low volume item that sells at a high price. Here, a difference of 1-100g is more substantial and influential on purchases than 1c. People are more likely to buy Zap at 800-900g (125-25g under current low) than they are at 924g99s99c.

That being said, I think any sort of advanced function to determine what should or shouldnt be subject to a 1% under/overcut is more heuristic than algorithmic. Item price and movement speed can change in seconds if updates, or discoveries, show that such an item is now a necessity for certain things. Radiant Dust with the blade packs for example. I personally watched it climb from 1s and change to over 20s for a single Radiant Dust. Some guild members made HUNDREDS of gold when they sold the stacks of the stuff sitting in their storage.

I disagree with the premise that 100g = 99g99s99c.

There is some utility in a copper. The only question is who should be able to extract that value. I can’t see any good reason why it should be the person who places a buy order or the person placing a sell order (as opposed to the seller and buyer, respectively).

TooBz.3065:

I disagree with the premise that 100g = 99g99s99c.

There is some utility in a copper. The only question is who should be able to extract that value. I can’t see any good reason why it should be the person who places a buy order or the person placing a sell order (as opposed to the seller and buyer, respectively).

Regarding tax purposes, they are functionally equivalent as tax is rounded up in most cases. Outside of that, they’re two distinct prices. And BOTH seller and buyer extract value from a difference of 1c. As a seller, it means I receive my money faster, and as a buyer, it means I bought my item cheaper.

And as everyone knows, a copper saved is a copper earned.

Aidan Savage.2078:

A good example of this are globs of ectoplasm, which at the time of writing this post, has buy orders at above 37s, and sell orders no lower than 39s, both of which vary by as little as 1c. With such a tight boundary between buys and sells, if people were forced into a 1% minimum undercut, they would be forced into selling to buy orders in a matter of seconds.

How would someone be forced into selling into buy orders? To me if they wanted ~39s for their sale they would be forced to GET IN LINE with a 1% minimum undercut rule, not forced to sell for 38.7s.

Since John has narrowed the field of possible arguments, I have an idea that could be a possible solution to the “problem”.

While it’s not an algorithmic means of controlling prices, it would be a way of setting prices appropriately.

The idea would be to completely remove the sell side of the Trading Post. If that were to happen, then buyers would compete to purchase an item, rather than sellers competing to sell an item. In this system, sellers will NEVER have to foot the bill for a listing fee and thereby not risk being undercut. If a seller doesn’t like the price that buyers are willing to pay, they don’t sell their item.

All sales would be instant. The Trading Post could be updated to take 15% off the back end instead of 5% off the front and 10% off the back, so if a normal player, with little gold, gets a lucky drop like Dawn or Dusk, they can sell it immediately without needing to come up with the listing fee.

From the buyer’s standpoint, it would be beneficial as well. Since Buy Orders carry no risk when placing them, other than holding that amount of gold out of your wallet, keeping the minimum bid increment of 1c would be just fine. It would also remain a first in / first out system. The buyer that wants the item “first” will be the one that is willing to pay the most amount of money for it. If buyers don’t like the current price, it’s their option to take a place further back in line by placing a Buy Order at a lower value.

Pros of this system:

• Buyers set the price
• Sellers sell items instantly
• The 15% fee comes off at the end of sale and no money is need to sell an item up front
• No complicated algorithm would be required for determining the next lowest sale price of an item
• No risk on the buyer’s side for placing a Buy Order
• No risk on the seller’s side due to the removal of the 5% listing fee and likelihood of being undercut
• More items in the crafting disciplines may become profitable
• This idea would not reduce the amount of money a savvy trader can make using the Trading Post….their methods would just change

Cons of this system:

• Buyers have no way to instantly buy items they want.
• Items can only be sold on the Trading Post if a Buy Order currently exists
• Sellers would likely make less money per item as the equilibrium price may be lower
• “Flipping” would be incredibly difficult (this could be a Pro for some players)
• Crafting items could become difficult as there is no way to instantly buy goods
• Leveling through crafting would become more difficult
• This idea would not reduce the amount of money a savvy trader can make using the Trading Post….their methods would just change (Notice this is listed as both a Pro and a Con)

The basis of this idea is that if there is a buyer willing to buy an item, and a seller willing to sell it at that price, items will sell. Buyers will get the items they want and sellers will continue to sell items.

Elric Of Melnibone.4781:

Aidan Savage.2078:

A good example of this are globs of ectoplasm, which at the time of writing this post, has buy orders at above 37s, and sell orders no lower than 39s, both of which vary by as little as 1c. With such a tight boundary between buys and sells, if people were forced into a 1% minimum undercut, they would be forced into selling to buy orders in a matter of seconds.

How would someone be forced into selling into buy orders? To me if they wanted ~39s for their sale they would be forced to GET IN LINE with a 1% minimum undercut rule, not forced to sell for 38.7s.

I’ve watched ectoplasm shift below 36s on sell orders. With a 1% mandatory undercut, if I dont want to take the risk of ectos shifting below their current buy price and losing more money, I have no choice but to sell TO the buy orders. And you’re also disregarding the fact that as the price creeps down, it’s not ONE PERSON doing a listing here and there, it can be hundreds of players throwing their listings onto the market driving the price down 1c at a time.

In fact, the price of ectos, since the time of my last post, have dropped to just 1c over the buy order prices. Now it’s a matter of time to see if they shift even further down, or rise back up in price.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

In this system, sellers will NEVER have to foot the bill for a listing fee and thereby not risk being undercut. If a seller doesn’t like the price that buyers are willing to pay, they don’t sell their item.

An auction house doesnt work, not would it work in GW2.

Aidan Savage.2078:

I’ve watched ectoplasm shift below 36s on sell orders. With a 1% mandatory undercut, if I dont want to take the risk of ectos shifting below their current buy price and losing more money, I have no choice but to sell TO the buy orders. And you’re also disregarding the fact that as the price creeps down, it’s not ONE PERSON doing a listing here and there, it can be hundreds of players throwing their listings onto the market driving the price down 1c at a time.

In fact, the price of ectos, since the time of my last post, have dropped to just 1c over the buy order prices. Now it’s a matter of time to see if they shift even further down, or rise back up in price.

I guess I am missing something, if you want to be SURE to sell your ecto at the current buy order then just fill it. If your trying to make the max profit without your ecto getting potentially ‘locked up’ for some period of time you sell at 38.7s and are first in line. If someone wants to cut in front of you they now have to settle for 38.4s and risk being cut in front of as well, but not by a meager copper.

It seems to me the 1% would cause a lot more people to actually get in line and stabilize the prices rather than a constant stream of 1c undercutters. People need ecto, and many wont wait for a buy order to fill, so those long lines of sell orders will get filled if people stop undercutting them, and they will get better prices for waiting.

Aidan Savage.2078:

In fact, the price of ectos, since the time of my last post, have dropped to just 1c over the buy order prices. Now it’s a matter of time to see if they shift even further down, or rise back up in price.

Higher priced ectos only have a 1 copper difference when a person sells at “Meet Highest Buyer” price, but is selling more than they want to buy. Any unpurchased items will be listed at that price causing the 1 copper difference. This is usually corrected quickly by buyers because 1 copper does not matter at the price point.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Since John has narrowed the field of possible arguments, I have an idea that could be a possible solution to the “problem”.

While it’s not an algorithmic means of controlling prices, it would be a way of setting prices appropriately.

The idea would be to completely remove the sell side of the Trading Post. If that were to happen, then buyers would compete to purchase an item, rather than sellers competing to sell an item. In this system, sellers will NEVER have to foot the bill for a listing fee and thereby not risk being undercut. If a seller doesn’t like the price that buyers are willing to pay, they don’t sell their item.

All sales would be instant. The Trading Post could be updated to take 15% off the back end instead of 5% off the front and 10% off the back, so if a normal player, with little gold, gets a lucky drop like Dawn or Dusk, they can sell it immediately without needing to come up with the listing fee.

From the buyer’s standpoint, it would be beneficial as well. Since Buy Orders carry no risk when placing them, other than holding that amount of gold out of your wallet, keeping the minimum bid increment of 1c would be just fine. It would also remain a first in / first out system. The buyer that wants the item “first” will be the one that is willing to pay the most amount of money for it. If buyers don’t like the current price, it’s their option to take a place further back in line by placing a Buy Order at a lower value.

Pros of this system:

• Buyers set the price
• Sellers sell items instantly
• The 15% fee comes off at the end of sale and no money is need to sell an item up front
• No complicated algorithm would be required for determining the next lowest sale price of an item
• No risk on the buyer’s side for placing a Buy Order
• No risk on the seller’s side due to the removal of the 5% listing fee and likelihood of being undercut
• More items in the crafting disciplines may become profitable
• This idea would not reduce the amount of money a savvy trader can make using the Trading Post….their methods would just change

Cons of this system:

• Buyers have no way to instantly buy items they want.
• Items can only be sold on the Trading Post if a Buy Order currently exists
• Sellers would likely make less money per item as the equilibrium price may be lower
• “Flipping” would be incredibly difficult (this could be a Pro for some players)
• Crafting items could become difficult as there is no way to instantly buy goods
• Leveling through crafting would become more difficult
• This idea would not reduce the amount of money a savvy trader can make using the Trading Post….their methods would just change (Notice this is listed as both a Pro and a Con)

The basis of this idea is that if there is a buyer willing to buy an item, and a seller willing to sell it at that price, items will sell. Buyers will get the items they want and sellers will continue to sell items.

This would completely erase the TP as a storage and doesnt give players the ability to sell at their desired prices or buy at any given time (as long as there is supply).
It would greatly slow down trading in general and wouldnt work with a global TP as there are way too many participants.

Overall, i think the cons outweigh the pros by a wide margin.

Aidan Savage.2078:

An auction house doesnt work, not would it work in GW2.

The difference in the system I suggested and a true Auction House is that in an Auction House, the seller starts the auction with a low bid and buyers outbid each other. Therefore, an Auction House can have multiple of the same item being sold at the same time with various highest bids. In the system I suggested, there is only one item being bid on and sellers choose to sell to that highest bid or not.

If buyers aren’t getting their items from sellers, then obviously their price isn’t high enough. If a buyer wants an item bad enough, they will continue to outbid other buyers in order to get that item until a seller comes along and sells it to them.

The difference in the two systems is the key.

Wanze.8410:

This would completely erase the TP as a storage and doesnt give players the ability to sell at their desired prices or buy at any given time (as long as there is supply).
It would greatly slow down trading in general and wouldnt work with a global TP as there are way too many participants.

Overall, i think the cons outweigh the pros by a wide margin.

I agree that the cons outweigh the pros, but I have yet to see any other ideas from other players that attempt to change the system where it doesn’t stem from a selfish point of view.

I tried to look at the Trading Post from a point of view where it would still function, add some Pros, and where the Cons weren’t so detrimental that it would lead people to discontinue use of the Trading Post.

I think the system would only work BECAUSE there’s a global Trading Post. The price of an item would climb to a point where players accept buying goods at that price and sellers accept selling goods at that price. I think it’s possible for the price to reach that point more quickly than in the current system. Not every item would reach equilibrium quickly….but many would.

The biggest Con is that buyers will now have to wait for their items.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Aidan Savage.2078:

An auction house doesnt work, not would it work in GW2.

The difference in the system I suggested and a true Auction House is that in an Auction House, the seller starts the auction with a low bid and buyers outbid each other. Therefore, an Auction House can have multiple of the same item being sold at the same time with various highest bids. In the system I suggested, there is only one item being bid on and sellers choose to sell to that highest bid or not.

If buyers aren’t getting their items from sellers, then obviously their price isn’t high enough. If a buyer wants an item bad enough, they will continue to outbid other buyers in order to get that item until a seller comes along and sells it to them.

The difference in the two systems is the key.

There is another major issue here. It would require sellers to be online to sell when the buying is good. Say people in California love to pay a premium for their goods and prices always go up when they are awake and listing buy orders. Those in the same time zone would get first crack follow by those in the Pacific. Anyone that goes to sleep early on the west coast of the US would be hosed. I believe this would discourage most casual gamers.

That difference does not make up for the fact that buyers have to meet an unspecified price in order to receive the item. The trade post as it stands now, ALREADY has your system in it. That’s the half of the system suited to players willing to bid on a specific price and wait for it to be filled. The other half of the system is for the sellers who want to set a “minimum bid” on their item, and the players who have no compunction about paying that price to get it immediately. The TP now works perfectly fine. There’s no reason to change it out for a completely different system. Which really should be in it’s own thread, not one specifically dealing with the issue of pricing wars on the currently established system.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Wanze.8410:

This would completely erase the TP as a storage and doesnt give players the ability to sell at their desired prices or buy at any given time (as long as there is supply).
It would greatly slow down trading in general and wouldnt work with a global TP as there are way too many participants.

Overall, i think the cons outweigh the pros by a wide margin.

I agree that the cons outweigh the pros, but I have yet to see any other ideas from other players that attempt to change the system where it doesn’t stem from a selfish point of view.

I tried to look at the Trading Post from a point of view where it would still function, add some Pros, and where the Cons weren’t so detrimental that it would lead people to discontinue use of the Trading Post.

I think the system would only work BECAUSE there’s a global Trading Post. The price of an item would climb to a point where players accept buying goods at that price and sellers accept selling goods at that price. I think it’s possible for the price to reach that point more quickly than in the current system. Not every item would reach equilibrium quickly….but many would.

But the problem is that the items listed on the tp also work as a buffer to prevent market shock. Just think what would have happened to Iron prices, when the backpiece got introduced, if there wouldnt have been a reserve stock on the tp.

Wanze.8410:

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Wanze.8410:

This would completely erase the TP as a storage and doesnt give players the ability to sell at their desired prices or buy at any given time (as long as there is supply).
It would greatly slow down trading in general and wouldnt work with a global TP as there are way too many participants.

Overall, i think the cons outweigh the pros by a wide margin.

I agree that the cons outweigh the pros, but I have yet to see any other ideas from other players that attempt to change the system where it doesn’t stem from a selfish point of view.

I tried to look at the Trading Post from a point of view where it would still function, add some Pros, and where the Cons weren’t so detrimental that it would lead people to discontinue use of the Trading Post.

I think the system would only work BECAUSE there’s a global Trading Post. The price of an item would climb to a point where players accept buying goods at that price and sellers accept selling goods at that price. I think it’s possible for the price to reach that point more quickly than in the current system. Not every item would reach equilibrium quickly….but many would.

But the problem is that the items listed on the tp also work as a buffer to prevent market shock. Just think what would have happened to Iron prices, when the backpiece got introduced, if there wouldnt have been a reserve stock on the tp.

Or Radiant Dust, which experienced a 1000-2000% increase in price. If hoarders hadnt unloaded their stock, Radiant Dust would either have continued to rise, or stabilized at that price.

Aidan Savage.2078:

That difference does not make up for the fact that buyers have to meet an unspecified price in order to receive the item. The trade post as it stands now, ALREADY has your system in it. That’s the half of the system suited to players willing to bid on a specific price and wait for it to be filled. The other half of the system is for the sellers who want to set a “minimum bid” on their item, and the players who have no compunction about paying that price to get it immediately. The TP now works perfectly fine. There’s no reason to change it out for a completely different system. Which really should be in it’s own thread, not one specifically dealing with the issue of pricing wars on the currently established system.

Want to know something funny? I don’t want the Trading Post to change either. I think it performs its function perfectly fine the way it is. John proposed a discussion to see if there was a way to regulate pricing that wouldn’t cripple the Trading Post.

I had an idea….one that I’ve thought about quite a bit. Do I want it to actually be implemented? No!!!! Would I be ok if it were? Yes.

There are some definite benefits to the system I suggested, but there are some definite drawbacks to it as well. I placed the suggestion in this thread for discussion. That’s all.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

I agree that the cons outweigh the pros, but I have yet to see any other ideas from other players that attempt to change the system where it doesn’t stem from a selfish point of view.

I tried to look at the Trading Post from a point of view where it would still function, add some Pros, and where the Cons weren’t so detrimental that it would lead people to discontinue use of the Trading Post.

I think the system would only work BECAUSE there’s a global Trading Post. The price of an item would climb to a point where players accept buying goods at that price and sellers accept selling goods at that price. I think it’s possible for the price to reach that point more quickly than in the current system. Not every item would reach equilibrium quickly….but many would.

The biggest Con is that buyers will now have to wait for their items.

Another idea not stemmed from a selfish point of view…
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Min-1-price-difference/3873421

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Want to know something funny? I don’t want the Trading Post to change either. I think it performs its function perfectly fine the way it is. John proposed a discussion to see if there was a way to regulate pricing that wouldn’t cripple the Trading Post.

I had an idea….one that I’ve thought about quite a bit. Do I want it to actually be implemented? No!!!! Would I be ok if it were? Yes.

There are some definite benefits to the system I suggested, but there are some definite drawbacks to it as well. I placed the suggestion in this thread for discussion. That’s all.

… and it is being discussed

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Want to know something funny? I don’t want the Trading Post to change either. I think it performs its function perfectly fine the way it is. John proposed a discussion to see if there was a way to regulate pricing that wouldn’t cripple the Trading Post.

And you dont see how removing the sellers’ listing half of the Trade Post so that it becomes an “auction house lite” system can be perceived as crippling the Trade Post? Sell listings act as a control on the “auction” potential of buy orders. If I list an item at 1g, and buy orders are currently at 50s, I’m basically saying “1g is the maximum bid allowed before you can no longer bid and must purchase an item for sale.” If others were to follow my example and the price eventually crept down to 50s20c, that means players cant auction their way to 10g for an item without the items listed at 50s20c to 9g99s99c are bought out. Sellers determine the absolute maximum price of an item, not buyers. Buyers determine the behavior of the item’s price. If they list below the sell prices long enough, sell prices will eventually drop to match. If buyers suddenly increase demand, the sell prices will naturally rise (based on players sometimes choosing to leave listings up instead of relisting) until it reaches a point buyers wont pay more than X.

The problem is that at what point of item value X combined with supply flow Y does the game decide to increase the listing difference by Z?

Nike.2631:

John Smith.4610:

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.

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.

I actually like the thought behind this but i dont think it would change much on the status quo as even precursors propably will never go longer than 12 hours without at least 1 selling.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Want to know something funny? I don’t want the Trading Post to change either. I think it performs its function perfectly fine the way it is. John proposed a discussion to see if there was a way to regulate pricing that wouldn’t cripple the Trading Post.

I had an idea….one that I’ve thought about quite a bit. Do I want it to actually be implemented? No!!!! Would I be ok if it were? Yes.

There are some definite benefits to the system I suggested, but there are some definite drawbacks to it as well. I placed the suggestion in this thread for discussion. That’s all.

… and it is being discussed

Exactly. Dont take offense, just because i dont like your suggestion.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Another idea not stemmed from a selfish point of view…
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/bltc/Min-1-price-difference/3873421

Alright….I’ll bite.

There are actually 2 ideas that you’ve proposed in that post. The first is linking to a previous post from the thread, which I touched on, and I’ll address first.

You proposed a set of equations that attempts to determine a buyer’s “feelings” toward a given price. What information does that provide beyond the obvious? The obvious is…..buyers will feel better buying items at a lower price. If your equations can show that a buyer will feel better about buying the same item at a higher price when they can see that there is a lower priced version of the same item right in front of them, then I’ve missed something.

The second idea you proposed was to introduce a new test item into the game for the purpose of determining a new algorithm for pricing differences during undercutting. As proposed, the idea probably wouldn’t work. There are far too many variables to consider. Is this new item in demand? Is the supply of this new item too high or too low? What is this new item used for? How long would the test run for? Is that time period long enough or too long?

I think you’d have to use items that already exist in the game. Also, it couldn’t be a single item. It would have to be a group of items….probably in the 100’s of different items.

What if you the items that were chosen weren’t the right items? What ARE the right items? Do you cover a wide range of prices, buy order volumes, sell listing volumes? Do you include luxury items? Do you include temporary items that no longer drop but are trade-able?

Let’s assume that Anet decides to do this. Let’s say they’ve selected a set of items to perform this test. Let’s say the time period that this test will run is two weeks….the standard Living Story time period.

Now…..these items will function differently on the Trading Post than they did previously. I see several things happening:

• Many players won’t notice any kind of difference during the test. They will continue to act normally
• Some players will opt out of the testing and avoid those items all together
• Some players will opt in or out depending on how it impacts the way they profit from the Trading Post
• Some players will opt in and specifically attempt to trade within this item set to help Anet during their test
• Some players will opt in and specifically attempt to trade within this item set to skew the data and provide false information just to screw up the data

Now that the testing period has completed…..what has been learned? Can the data acquired during the testing period lead to a decision that would improve the overall function of the Trading Post? Is there any data acquired during the test that, without a doubt, shows that the Trading Post needs to be changed at all?

Honestly….ANY changes to how the Trading Post functions do not need to be made. Outside of QoL updates, like Armor filtering, historical data graphs, etc., the function of the Trading Post works perfectly as is. Even the idea that I proposed above would be silly to consider implementing. It unnecessarily hamstrings the Trading Post and makes is less functional.

TL;DR “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Wanze.8410:

I actually like the thought behind this but i dont think it would change much on the status quo as even precursors propably will never go longer than 12 hours without at least 1 selling.

Precs are usually undercut by a large chunk anyways if it’s one of the “slower” sold ones.

Wanze.8410:

Exactly. Dont take offense, just because i dont like your suggestion.

I’m not offended that you don’t like my suggestion. My suggestion has a GREAT deal of holes in it. Many of which would make the Trading Post worse than it is in its current form.

If I were to suggest that it doesn’t need to be “fixed”, this would be the same discussion that’s happened dozens of times before….as it pretty much is.

The only suggestion I’ve seen for a variable undercutting system is the one based on time listed. That’s intriguing, but as you commented, that probably wouldn’t work either.

Nike.2631:

The controlling factor could be Time.

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

Wanze.8410:

I actually like the thought behind this but i dont think it would change much on the status quo as even precursors propably will never go longer than 12 hours without at least 1 selling.

It seems since that the usual argument for setting a larger threshold to undercut is based on the idea of staking a claim on the order of interactions based on having arrived first, this takes that reasoning to its logical conclusion that the more “first” you are (time spend sitting at the “next to sell” position), the larger the gap should be to jump ahead.

Since we have been granted “perfect knowledge” to prove the utility of our algorithmically generated minimum gap, Agent Smith is obliged to mentally edit my table to timescales relevant to the actual velocity of the market . I picked factors of 6 to space the categories in a way a human reader can easily respond to, but if meaningful brackets are more like~

5 minutes -> 30 minutes -> 3 hours ->18 hours -> 4 days

~I would not be surprised. There are a number of thing in the market that look like they sell less often than precursors though, so I don’t really want to use the “10-12 per day” of those as a ceiling for the scale.

Essentially my premise is if an item has sat for 2-3 days not selling, it actually HELPS the market move towards equilibrium faster for the market to tell the new lister “Hey, cut you price more, ‘cause that price isn’t working.” rather than allowing them to dilly dally with 1c undercuts that aren’t likely to bring buyer and seller together anymore than the seller before them.

Well, there’s another hidden flaw in your suggestion. If it needs to sell within X minutes for a 1c undercut, what’s to stop someone from buying a single item at Y price, then relist Z+1 items at Y-1c price and eat the minor loss associated with that purchase?

Nike.2631:

Nike.2631:

The controlling factor could be Time.

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

Wanze.8410:

I actually like the thought behind this but i dont think it would change much on the status quo as even precursors propably will never go longer than 12 hours without at least 1 selling.

It seems since that the usual argument for setting a larger threshold to undercut is based on the idea of staking a claim on the order of interactions based on having arrived first, this takes that reasoning to its logical conclusion that the more “first” you are (time spend sitting at the “next to sell” position), the larger the gap should be to jump ahead.

Since we have been granted “perfect knowledge” to prove the utility of our algorithmically generated minimum gap, Agent Smith is obliged to mentally edit my table to timescales relevant to the actual velocity of the market . I picked factors of 6 to space the categories in a way a human reader can easily respond to, but if meaningful brackets are more like~

5 minutes -> 30 minutes -> 3 hours ->18 hours -> 4 days

~I would not be surprised. There are a number of thing in the market that look like they sell less often than precursors though, so I don’t really want to use the “10-12 per day” of those as a ceiling for the scale.

This is, by far, the most interesting idea I’ve seen. While I stated above that it probably wouldn’t work, I’ve included your quoted post into my thought process. It could work with some help from John. It would likely have to be an algorithm that includes time, price, and volume of trading in order to work properly though.

We, as mere players, can only see an overall snapshot of how many Buy Orders and Sell Listings that an item has….not how many items have actually traded in a given time period. Only John and his team can see that.

I think the addition of the “time period” factor is what would make an algorithm actually work. The algorithm could calculate either an actual number that the next lowest listing must be posted for, or a percentage. I think it would be a very difficult equation to determine so that it works fairly for all items, no matter their price or trading volume.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Well, there’s another hidden flaw in your suggestion. If it needs to sell within X minutes for a 1c undercut, what’s to stop someone from buying a single item at Y price, then relist Z+1 items at Y-1c price and eat the minor loss associated with that purchase?

Good question (and I’m glad to get some aggressive but also thoughtful feedback – good ideas get better when challenged). There are a couple of events we can use as the start point for the timer. “From the last time the item sold from a standing offer” is one — which would be vulnerable to a single buy to reset the gap as you suggest. It could also be based on the current age of the lowest standing offer… with each purchase essentially peeling off a layer to reveal the offer before that. Less vulnerable but a lot less dynamic, and I think the TP is best served by very dynamic systems.

I don’t have a best answer for you yet . I’m going to have to ponder the game theory interactions a bit for dealing with stacks of past sale offers or putting up 100 items at once.

The proposals I’ve read so far seem to be a plea for a type of government controlled trade restrictions, where the government (ANet) actively restricts trade (stops people from undercutting at will) in order to protect a privileged group (people who have listed earlier than others). The people who are harmed by this price protections are

a) the people who wish to list later for a cheaper price (they have to list at a lower price than they would prefer, therefore taking a loss) or
b) match the higher price (therefore not selling as fast as they wanted) in spite of wishing to sell lower because they don’t want to sell at the mandated lower price.
The other people who are harmed are
c) the buyers who don’t get the sales from group b) because they listed at the higher price.

What I haven’t seen is a reasonable argument saying why the privileged group (the earliest sellers) deserves a better price protection from the government (ANet) and a better deal for their goods (higher prices and faster sales) than the later sellers and the buyers.

History has consistently shown that government imposed trade restrictions increase prices, making goods more expensive and economies more rigid. The arguments I’ve seen here are from people who are upset that their goods are not selling at the prices they want at the speed they want but that is never a good reason for trade restrictions.

Nike.2631:

Aidan Savage.2078:

Well, there’s another hidden flaw in your suggestion. If it needs to sell within X minutes for a 1c undercut, what’s to stop someone from buying a single item at Y price, then relist Z+1 items at Y-1c price and eat the minor loss associated with that purchase?

Good question (and I’m glad to get some aggressive but also thoughtful feedback – good ideas get better when challenged). There are a couple of events we can use as the start point for the timer. “From the last time the item sold from a standing offer” is one — which would be vulnerable to a single buy to reset the gap as you suggest. It could also be based on the current age of the lowest standing offer… with each purchase essentially peeling off a layer to reveal the offer before that. Less vulnerable but a lot less dynamic, and I think the TP is best served by very dynamic systems.

I don’t have a best answer for you yet . I’m going to have to ponder the game theory interactions a bit for dealing with stacks of past sale offers or putting up 100 items at once.

The starting point should be the last time a sell listing got sold, not listed because it would put additional incentive on listing at the same price as the lowest listing, even if an item gets undercut (by whatever margin).

Example:

Seller A lists at 100g
Seller B lists after X amount of time and has to undercut 1% at 99g
Seller C lists after another X amount of time but its X*2 now since the last listing was sold so he has to undercut 99g by 2%.

Granted, that will make little difference to A but it will do to B.

Another downside of this is that savvy players can determine more appropriately the velocity of an item, which they could use to their advantage.

I am not actually sure, if the API allows us to track how many buy orders and sell listings of an item get filled in real time.
If that is some kind of information Anet doesnt want us to know, this solution might not be very good because it allows players to more or less acurately determine when an item sold last.

Wanze.8410:

I am not actually sure, if the API allows us to track how many buy orders and sell listings of an item get filled in real time.
If that is some kind of information Anet doesnt want us to know, this solution might not be very good because it allows players to more or less acurately determine when an item sold last.

It’s theoretically possible using the listings.json API. The issue would be your sampling rate. That API will return the top 20 Buy Orders and Sell Listings for a single Item ID with the following information:

• Price
• Quantity
• Listings

It will return a maximum of 20 price “buckets” on both the buy and sell side, the quantity in each one of those “buckets”, and listings is the number of buyers or sellers (I think). If you were able to sample an Item ID fast enough you could see when there is a change in price, or a change in quantity…..allowing you to calculate the approximate time the last item sold….again based on your sampling rate.

From what I have noticed using that API myself, I can request about 100 Item ID’s before I have to reset the connection and log back in. Those 100 requests take about 5-10 seconds. I’m no programmer and I doubt my code is running as efficiently as possible. That’s also a ballpark guess as I don’t sit there with a stopwatch and run my code.

If you were wanting to monitor ALL of the items on the Trading Post continually, I fear the sampling rate between samples would be too low to give you an accurate assessment. If you limited the number of items you were getting that information for, you could increase the sampling rate on each one….limited by the API itself of course. I’ve seen a post in a different thread asking how many requests per second is “ok”….I think the result was 5 requests per second, but don’t quote me on that.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Wanze.8410:

I am not actually sure, if the API allows us to track how many buy orders and sell listings of an item get filled in real time.
If that is some kind of information Anet doesnt want us to know, this solution might not be very good because it allows players to more or less acurately determine when an item sold last.

It’s theoretically possible using the listings.json API. The issue would be your sampling rate. That API will return the top 20 Buy Orders and Sell Listings for a single Item ID with the following information:

• Price
• Quantity
• Listings

It will return a maximum of 20 price “buckets” on both the buy and sell side, the quantity in each one of those “buckets”, and listings is the number of buyers or sellers (I think). If you were able to sample an Item ID fast enough you could see when there is a change in price, or a change in quantity…..allowing you to calculate the approximate time the last item sold….again based on your sampling rate.

From what I have noticed using that API myself, I can request about 100 Item ID’s before I have to reset the connection and log back in. Those 100 requests take about 5-10 seconds. I’m no programmer and I doubt my code is running as efficiently as possible. That’s also a ballpark guess as I don’t sit there with a stopwatch and run my code.

If you were wanting to monitor ALL of the items on the Trading Post continually, I fear the sampling rate between samples would be too low to give you an accurate assessment. If you limited the number of items you were getting that information for, you could increase the sampling rate on each one….limited by the API itself of course. I’ve seen a post in a different thread asking how many requests per second is “ok”….I think the result was 5 requests per second, but don’t quote me on that.

Thanks, +1

Wanze.8410:

I am not actually sure, if the API allows us to track how many buy orders and sell listings of an item get filled in real time.
If that is some kind of information Anet doesnt want us to know, this solution might not be very good because it allows players to more or less acurately determine when an item sold last.

It’s possible, but due to the sheer quantity of items on the TP, most sites only pull every hour for high traffic items and once a day for everything else. It’s also because Anet’s side of the api will, i believe, blacklist an IP for too many queries in a given amount of time. I think that’s also the reason a lot of sites, and spreadsheets, make their calls to the api gw2spidy wrote so they query his/her database instead of the game’s api.

Nike.2631:

The controlling factor could be Time.

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

I find it interesting the majority of the people arguing against a simple flat ~1%, are seemingly ok with a much more complicated system with increments up to 5 times larger than 1%. Is this because you believe majority of items on the TP trade every 20 mins and the system for the most part will have 1c increments?

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Nike.2631:

The controlling factor could be Time.

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

I find it interesting the majority of the people arguing against a simple flat ~1%, are seemingly ok with a much more complicated system with increments up to 5 times larger than 1%. Is this because you believe majority of items on the TP trade every 20 mins and the system for the most part will have 1c increments?

Mostly, yes. High velocity markets dont need a 1% rule.

Wanze.8410:

Mostly, yes. High velocity markets dont need a 1% rule.

What about the idea of an increment being a function of bid/ask spread instead of time?

I believe this would leave your high velocity markets alone and would encourage markets with large spreads to converge quicker to a stable price and remove the negligible undercut except when the spread is small rendering it no longer negligible. I believe it would make it very difficult to game the system as well.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Wanze.8410:

Mostly, yes. High velocity markets dont need a 1% rule.

What about the idea of an increment being a function of bid/ask spread instead of time?

I believe this would leave your high velocity markets alone and would encourage markets with large spreads to converge quicker to a stable price and remove the negligible undercut except when the spread is small rendering it no longer negligible. I believe it would make it very difficult to game the system as well.

Because determining the point the spread is not negligible is not easy. Is it 1s? 10s? For some items, a spread of 10g is negligible. Plus it’s extremely easy to abuse. If I want to undercut someone by 1c, I’d set a buy order high enough to facilitate such an undercut, then list at the price I want, then remove my buy order. Not to mention you’d have to decide what is and isnt a high velocity market, and that can also be easily abused by those that have that much money.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

I find it interesting the majority of the people arguing against a simple flat ~1%, are seemingly ok with a much more complicated system with increments up to 5 times larger than 1%. Is this because you believe majority of items on the TP trade every 20 mins and the system for the most part will have 1c increments?

Look at the second post in this thread . I’ve no interest in protecting sellers …who price in a fashion that doesn’t move. Sellers that price close to equilibrium never needed the 1% protection in the first place because their goods sell before the undercutter comes along. My target is stale, stagnant prices and the people who list them. A time-derived undercut gap that spreads with time doesn’t help them. What it does is whisper in the ear of the next guy that they’re about to get into a market that is either slow or full-on stagnant, and rather strongly encourages them to make a move towards equilibrium. They can match prices and get in line they know is not moving, or they can post at a price that is far more likely to actually move. Right now we make a lot of uniformed choices. This gives you more information in exchange for giving buyers a better price. And by better I mean closer to equilibrium.

I believe this sort of system-mandated push towards equilibrium is more relevant in slower markets. High volume markets already manage themselves with greater speed and finer nuance than a mere 1% or even a 1 minute timer. They can flex and correct in seconds…

“Time since sell order processed” is just one way of measuring that. I’m a game designer not an economist (related disciplines to be sure, but not the same). I’m hopeful that Agent Smith or others can point me to different/better means of identifying velocity that could be used to guide the undercut gap generation. But the goal is a faster, more robust economy, not “protection”.

What about tying the increase to the velocity of the particular item? More specifically, it’s velocity over the last hour (on the hour)? If item A sells 10,000 in the last hour, and item B sells 100 in the last hour, the listing difference is going to be higher for item B than it is for item A.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Wanze.8410:

Mostly, yes. High velocity markets dont need a 1% rule.

What about the idea of an increment being a function of bid/ask spread instead of time?

I believe this would leave your high velocity markets alone and would encourage markets with large spreads to converge quicker to a stable price and remove the negligible undercut except when the spread is small rendering it no longer negligible. I believe it would make it very difficult to game the system as well.

Interesting concept to get items faster into equilibrium or protect the first seller from undercutting in slow moving markets.

Equilibrium pricespread should be 15% between bid/ask.

The higher the spread, the higher the % you have to undercut. Example:
Spread minimum undercut
15-25% 1%
25-35% 2%
35-45% 3%
etc.

Not sure where the ceiling should be, at 5 or 10% minimum undercut.

However, if any of the systems we are proposing here will actually make the economy and trading post a better place than now, still lacks proof, in my opinion.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Well, there’s another hidden flaw in your suggestion. If it needs to sell within X minutes for a 1c undercut, what’s to stop someone from buying a single item at Y price, then relist Z+1 items at Y-1c price and eat the minor loss associated with that purchase?

You could do a constantly updated average sell time of the item. A player wouldn’t be able to trick a large history of data. How far back this history goes would be extremely important however as this would slow down the adjustment to the undercutting percentage if this item’s role in the economy is changed and gains velocity.

I think you should convert all merchants to BL trading post representative which will buy your goods at best buy offer and pass it off to the seller (minus the fee) if you really want a more robust, more equalized market. So many people just merch things anyway unless there is some significant gap in TP to justify selling it that way. Plus it saves new players from selling off extremely high valued items at vendor value. (which i wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if that didn’t happen regularly). Obviously things that can’t be listed or traded (porus bones and such) would just sell at regular value.

You then could actually toy around more too with some of these concepts (FIFO, average values, 1% undercuts, etc). Since it would actually be a QoL improvement for a lot of players.

munkiman.3068:

I think you should convert all merchants to BL trading post representative which will buy your goods at best buy offer and pass it off to the seller (minus the fee) if you really want a more robust, more equalized market. So many people just merch things anyway unless there is some significant gap in TP to justify selling it that way. Plus it saves new players from selling off extremely high valued items at vendor value. (which i wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if that didn’t happen regularly). Obviously things that can’t be listed or traded (porus bones and such) would just sell at regular value.

You then could actually toy around more too with some of these concepts (FIFO, average values, 1% undercuts, etc). Since it would actually be a QoL improvement for a lot of players.

The problem with this is that the value of an item on the trade post MUST be higher than the merchant’s value by such a price that the 15% fee does not drive the value below that point. That’s why there’s certain items that you NEVER see buy orders for: their sell price is so low that it’s already zero profit compared to merchant cost.

Aidan Savage.2078:

munkiman.3068:

I think you should convert all merchants to BL trading post representative which will buy your goods at best buy offer and pass it off to the seller (minus the fee) if you really want a more robust, more equalized market. So many people just merch things anyway unless there is some significant gap in TP to justify selling it that way. Plus it saves new players from selling off extremely high valued items at vendor value. (which i wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if that didn’t happen regularly). Obviously things that can’t be listed or traded (porus bones and such) would just sell at regular value.

You then could actually toy around more too with some of these concepts (FIFO, average values, 1% undercuts, etc). Since it would actually be a QoL improvement for a lot of players.

The problem with this is that the value of an item on the trade post MUST be higher than the merchant’s value by such a price that the 15% fee does not drive the value below that point. That’s why there’s certain items that you NEVER see buy orders for: their sell price is so low that it’s already zero profit compared to merchant cost.

All items would still have a minimum value, just as they do now. The items would just get removed from the economy, just like they do now.

It still wouldnt change anything that’s a “problem” now. Crap items that get vendored are still crap items whether it’s sold to a vendor or to a player. I myself dont bother selling items to a merchant. If it’s not rare, or obviously worth something, it gets salvaged. However, that doesnt fix the perceived problem that started this thread.

munkiman.3068:

I think you should convert all merchants to BL trading post representative which will buy your goods at best buy offer and pass it off to the seller (minus the fee) if you really want a more robust, more equalized market. So many people just merch things anyway unless there is some significant gap in TP to justify selling it that way. Plus it saves new players from selling off extremely high valued items at vendor value. (which i wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if that didn’t happen regularly). Obviously things that can’t be listed or traded (porus bones and such) would just sell at regular value.

You then could actually toy around more too with some of these concepts (FIFO, average values, 1% undercuts, etc). Since it would actually be a QoL improvement for a lot of players.

Even though your suggestion is off topic because it doesnt solve the problem, its very interesting as a QoL feature for many people, i guess. As you mentioned, it will help new players to gain more value for their loot, if they sell it to the vendor and the tp price is higher. But it also makes them interact less with the TP interface, so there is a possibility that they dont get familiar with that and dont know that they can list their loot at higher prices. But making it an option in the options panel ot sell directly to the highest bidder via a vendor, it might work.

Aidan Savage.2078:

It still wouldnt change anything that’s a “problem” now. Crap items that get vendored are still crap items whether it’s sold to a vendor or to a player. I myself dont bother selling items to a merchant. If it’s not rare, or obviously worth something, it gets salvaged. However, that doesnt fix the perceived problem that started this thread.

I think it might to some extent. If vendors showed actual value of buy orders, more people would be aware of the actual value of an item. Although i have no data to back this up, i would think there are quite a few people that either rarely check the TP or even know how it works. I would say there are even more that don’t even check buy orders prices before they go on a buying spree for crafting and just accept the price that’s listed in the sell orders. I think more common knowledge of the actually buy price of an item would make people think twice before paying the much larger discrepancies of many items. The undercutting between low buy and high sell prices would be a lot tighter, i would think. It’s speculative on my part, but it might be something “fairly” easy to implement and might make the market a bit more stable. I’m no expert though.

Maybe add an automatic system that allows you to carry a hidden minimum sell amount on your items, and will automatically update your sale if someone undercuts you. Maybe a checkbox that allows you to automatically undercut people up to 1% of your initial asking price.