Guild Wars 2

I am working on an application for personal use, that I may want to distribute publicly at some point. There are certain areas of the screen I would like to monitor for keys/triggers/icons/text/etc.

The application would be an overlay and would require Guild Wars 2 to be run in Windowed Full Screen mode.

The application would not read memory locations on my PC, nor would it hack into, modify, or in any other way interact with the physical gw2.exe file or any files provided with the installation of Guild Wars 2.

The application WILL use ArenaNet provided API’s to acquire data via given and approved methods.

I know this is a VERY vague description of what the app is, but since it’s still in early development and I’m unsure if it will be distributed publicly, I want to know whether or not I would be in violation of the ToS and/or EULA so that if I do decide distribute the application publicly, I will not be angering the GW2 gods. :-)

P.S.: The only answer I will mark as an answer to this question would be an official response from an ANet representative.

Jigain.8231:

Do not try to sell the spoon. That’s impossible. Instead… only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you’ll see, it is not the spoon that’s being sold, it is only yourself.

Man!!!! I really wish they’d have made a sequel to that movie. I really wanted to see what happened next.

Nightshade.5924:

Here’s where the inflation comes in… the prices in the shop HAVE NOT CHANGED. SO…. the GOLD PRICE for any GIVEN item is NOW EIGHT POINT FIVE TIMES what it was a year and a half ago. That is the VERY DEFINITION OF INFLATION. To the last two chaps who don’t apparently don’t think so, I say get an education.

This is where your fundamental mistake is.

You’re ASSUMING that items in the Gem Store are intended to be purchased with Gold. In fact, you would be completely and totally wrong in that assumption.

Items in the Gem Store are purchased with Gems, not Gold. Anet wants you buy Gems with real world money, not Gold. As a “convenience”, Anet added an Exchange that allows you exchange EITHER real money OR Gold for Gems.

I find it amusing that you state that the price of items in the Gem Store have gone up 8.5 times in Gold over what they were a year and a half ago, but neglect the other side of the Exchange completely. You also state, then completely ignore the fact, that the prices of items in the shop have not changed at all. Which is it?

Your entire argument is centered around the prices of items in the Gem Store inflating. This is 100% completely and totally wrong. A Character Slot Expansion costs the exact same 800 Gems as it did the day the game was released. Those 800 Gems can be purchased with the same $10 they could be the day the game was released.

Read this and understand it:

Anet wants you to buy Gems with money, then buy things in the Gem Store with those Gems. “Inflation” in the Gem Store does not exist. 800 Gems = $10….just like it did on Day 1.

Rauderi.8706:

Ayup.

So, better question to you, someone who has tons of cash:

“What would you spend money on?”

GW2 does need ways to siphon money out of the economy, but making it a forced tweak to earnings just builds player resentment and slows growth on newer players. Rather, we need to encourage players to spend money on things. These things either need to be non-permanent or a swank cosmetic upgrade, since power-creep isn’t much an option.

One of the best things a non-sub game can do is to sell convenience. So, what can GW2 do to both provide convenience at a premium?

There’s very little Anet could do to siphon huge amounts of gold out of super wealthy players’ bankrolls…..for many reasons:

1. Wealthy players have gotten wealthy by informing themselves and making smart decisions. They’re not likely to just dump 10%, 20%, or 50% of their bankroll on “something cool”. That wouldn’t be a smart decision.
2. Anything that would be priced high enough to pull enough gold out of the system to be worthwhile would need to be absolutely amazing. This would end up causing player resentment throughout the community based on the fact that ONLY the super wealthy could afford to buy it. With the level of entitlement in this game, the outrage would be enormous (See: Any Precursor thread).
3. Anet would need to find a way to get into the psyche of a wealthy players mind to figure out what they would need to create in order to part this wealthy player from their money. Good luck. I doubt the wants / needs of wealthy players align….unless that want / need is “more money”.

The following is not directed toward the quoted posts:

So many threads are created from the point of view of a single individual and not from the point of view of “is this feature doing it’s job” or “what’s best for the players at large”.

The Gem —> Gold and Gold --> Gem controversies are just individual players complaining that THEY can’t buy what they want from the Gem store for “free”. The entire Gem Exchange is built on the foundation of player psychology. Most players don’t want to spend money….ESPECIALLY if there is an option to acquire the same item using in-game currency. The Exchanges has been explain in such depth SO many times, it amazes me that players are still confused by what’s happening.

More gold sinks ARE good for a game like GW2, but one time, Account Bound, gold sinks do VERY little for the game in the long run. Sure, they might take out a bunch of gold right when the “feature” is released, but the longer the game is out, the distribution of that sink is spread so thin that a one time sink of 1,000,000g turns into an average daily sink of 20c per player. What’s needed in the realm of gold sinks are sustained and flexible sinks that are used by the player on a daily basis. The Trading Post fees are the PERFECT example of this. ANY sale removes 15% of the purchase price of the item from the system. As prices rise, more gold is removed from the system, but it’s never more than 15% of the purchase price. Brilliant!!!

Waypoints are another good gold sink. They’re something that all players use on a daily basis. On low level characters, the price for using a WP is relatively low, but as the player levels the character, the WP cost increases….to its maximum when a player reaches level 80. Also, depending on how far a player wants their character to travel, the cost is adjusted. Close WP’s are cheaper than WP’s that are further away. Players don’t think much about these WP costs because, in comparison to the amount of money the player earns after using a WP, they’re pretty cheap. Using WP’s is a “no brainer” for most players. They’ll bounce around the world without a second thought to how much it costs. Perhaps, if more gold needs to be sunk from the economy, Anet should consider increasing the costs of WP’s….maybe 10x, so a WP that costs 4s to use now, would cost 40s. I guarantee something like that would cause an enormous amount of outrage from the player-base though.

My suggestion, to those making suggestions, is to try and open your point of view to the player-base and game as a whole. Take off the blinders. Stop thinking about what YOU want and think more about “what’s best for the game?”. I know this won’t happen though based on the way I see many suggestions worded. Individuals word suggestions in such a way to make them sound as if they’re speaking for the entire player-base. I KNOW they’re worded that way because if they’re speaking for the entire player-base, why do I disapprove of their suggestions? That means they don’t speak for me.

I’ll step down from my soapbox now. Continue.

FaceRoll.6972:

Hi I wan’t to fill upp my HoM with more points, I currently have only 7 points. My character is really crappy and I’m really a noob at the first guild wars. I’m currently trying to do Glint’s Challange, to get some hero armor.

However I have crap gear and not the right henchmen, if someone would like to help with this and or other stuff to get som more HoM points. It would be greatly appriciated. =)

What type of character profession are you playing?

I have a nice Water Ele build that I used to use to “solo” Glint’s Challenge with heros. Got a TON of armors with it when I was doing it….but it’s been a while.

Here’s a link to my OLD wiki page with a few builds. I don’t have the link code for the Glint’s build though. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Jfarris964/Builds

@Wanze

I really like your proposal….especially that of the addition of White Karma. I would like to offer a couple of modifications, or enhancements, though.

1. White Karma should be relegated to the act of trading only and would be restricted to the “buy order side” of transactions.
2. To place a buy order, the player is required to offer the White Karma up front, as they do the gold. If the player doesn’t have enough White Karma, they are unable to place a buy order. This is the way the gold side of buy orders works now, why not make the White Karma side work the same way?
3. When a player sells an item to a buy order, they would receive 85% of the White Karma the buyer put up. 15% of the White Karma would go to the BLTC as a service fee….just like the gold. This is the ONLY way to gain White Karma. You’re doing a “good deed” by selling an item at a lower price, which will in turn allow you to place buy orders for items.

For players that buy and sell items at the sell listing prices, White Karma is an unused, and ungained, resource. It is only gained and used on the buy order side of the TP.

The way I see it working for various types of players:

Flippers: They want to buy items using buy order and sell using sell listings. They will have difficulty buying generating White Karma to fuel their buy orders unless they sell other items to buy orders….which is against their normal way of doing things to generate the most amount of money.

Impatient Players: They want to sell their items as fast as possible, sacrificing the amount of gold they receive to sell their items right away. This type of player generally buys items from sell listings as well. They will end up generating White Karma, but never using it. They MAY use it if they want to place a buy order for a high value item like a precursor though.

Normal players that pay attention to their currencies: These players will likely generate and use White Karma fairly equally as they will sell off junk they don’t need to buy orders to gain White Karma for use in placing buy orders for items they DO want.

I’m sure there are GIANT holes in this proposal and I’m sure they will be pointed out, but I wanted to add to the conversation as I feel it’s a good proposal. It may add an unnecessary level of complication to the TP, but it could force all players to “play” other content and gain a more general knowledge of how all of the aspects of the game coordinate with each other.

@AuTomA

What is the name of any one of your characters in Guild Wars 1?

I’d like to check out your character in the Hall of Monuments Reward Calculator. It may help “us” to figure out where the issue may be.

For example, if you type “Charismatic Harm” into the Reward Calculator, you’ll see that I have 49/50 points and if you switch between tabs, you’ll see the different things I’ve added to my HoM to achieve those points.

Please note that a GW2 character name or your account name is not something we can look up in the Reward Calculator. I’d need the name of one of your characters in GW1.

If you can provide that to us, someone here might be able to give you a bit more guidance.

Would it solve anything to make the tokens that come out specific by weapon thrown in?

If the system were to be implemented as discussed, players would throw the cheapest rares and exotics into the forge just to get tokens, not really caring about the precursors themselves.

If tokens were specific to the items thrown in, it might not change the current state of things dramatically. If you’re throwing rare and exotic greatswords in….you’ll get greatsword tokens out (if you don’t get a precursor). If you throw rare and exotic tridents or focii in, you’ll get trident or focii tokens out.

The chance to get a precursor wouldn’t change and those specifically looking for a certain type of precursor would be gaining tokens toward that specific kind of precursor.

I would say that the tokens would be account bound so that you could stack and use them between characters. Also, it might be an option to make any precursor “purchased” with tokens Account Bound. That way, the tokens are ONLY useful for those attempting to get a precursor for themselves and wouldn’t be able to sell a precursor purchased with tokens.

They are not too expensive. They are exactly as expensive as ArenaNet wants them to be.

On the other hand, many players “perceive” the “value” of these keys to be “too high” based on the “quality” of “loot” they receive when those keys are used.

Just know that every time a player uses a key to open a Black Lion Chest, they receive something. Don’t listen to any player claiming that they “didn’t get anything” when they opened the chest. They are lying. What they’re really saying is: “I didn’t get what I wanted when I opened the chest.” or “I didn’t get anything of value to me when I opened the chest.”

The “value” of the items in the chest are purely subjective based on the reasons why the player opened the chest.

Gene Archer.8560:

Wanting to be rewarded for equivalent effort when effort is the bar being set for getting rewards is not wanting everything for nothing.

I used strike-through because I wanted to try and provide a real world example to the first part of your statement.

Example:

The Artist decides to look out in the world and provide a product, but they don’t know exactly what their product should be. The Artist goes into an Art Gallery and talks to the owner. They ask questions about what types of art has been bought recently and what the art medium was (paint, sculpture, etc.).

The Artist has now done their research and decided to visit the Art Supply Store. The Artist buys goods from the owner in order to create a new piece of art.

The Artist determines the sale price of the piece of art based on the amount of money the Artist invested to create the art, a value the Artist places on his/her time researching what kind of art to create, and a value of money the Artist would like to make as a profit.

The Artist now takes this new piece of art to the Art Gallery and places it up for sale.

Some amount of time later, the Art Gallery Patron decides to buy the piece of art and pays the requested amount of the Artist.

The Artist has provided goods and services to the Patron before knowing whether or not the Patron actually existed. There’s no guarantee that a Patron would come along and buy their art for the price they were asking. They took a calculated risk by creating a new piece of art.

After making some money, this Artist decides to do it again…and again….and again. Over the course of time, the Artist becomes exceedingly wealthy using the skill set they’ve developed while creating art.

Now……take that example and in place of the various people and places, replace them with these values:

• Person #1: Owns an art supply store (represents the Seller)
• Person #2: Art gallery patron (represents the Buyer)
• Person #3: Artist (Trading Post player)
• Place #1: Art Supply Store (represented by the Trading Post….a place to buy goods)
• Place #2: Art Gallery (represented by the Trading Post….a place to sell goods)

Without the Sellers selling goods to the Trading Post player, the research involved in analyzing the goods that could possibly sell well for profit on the Trading Post, and the Buyers that buy the Trading Post players goods, the Trading Post player cannot make a profit.

How, in any way, shape, or form, could any other part of the game be “equal” to the effort put in by the Trading Post player? If they buy goods too high, or sell goods too low, they don’t profit. If they don’t do their research, they don’t profit. No one, besides the individual playing the Trading Post, knows how much “effort” they put in to profiting on the Trading Post. That individual player valued their effort at a certain amount…..and a Buyer paid it.

Kaon.7192:

….. unnecessarily ……

My brain completely missed that word when I responded to your previous post. My mistake.

I don’t feel that a different minimum increment, beyond the current 1c increment, is necessary if the cost to re-list at a lower price is removed though. This is where we disagree.

Also, I think it would be far easier to implement the single change rather than implementing 2 changes, one of which requires a calculation of an increment (whether it be a constant 1% or a calculated value based on actual sales) when the other (removal of the re-list fee) will push prices to equilibrium well enough without it.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Just to touch on this. If you were to implement free price changes to combat undercutters, you open Pandora’s Box. TP players would start Price Wars with each other, and the effects on the economy could be devastating. There wouldn’t be movement to price equilibrium, but rather you’d see a destabilizing of prices. It would be a contest to see which seller would be screwed the most.

I’m sure there would be some of this, but I doubt it would destabilize prices on a global basis. Sellers duking it out just to “screw each other” would end up taking losses, and in some cases, massive losses. Buyers would benefit from these sellers beating each other up. Sellers that aren’t participating in the Price War, will just sit back and watch it happen….laughing all the way to the bank. Once those sellers drop out, the price should recover quickly.

The system as it is now forces a Seller to stay where he is, even if he’s undercut, unless he is willing to take an additional 5% loss. The new Seller that just undercut him gains all of the benefit by jumping ahead in line for virtually the same price, while transferring addition risk to the previous Seller if they want to retain their position in line.

Kaon.7192:

Price agility in the current system is unnecessarily slowed down by this lack of a minimal increment, which reduces the probability that an item is near equilibrium at a given time.

And when prices are not near equilibrium, the consideration I raised remains a real issue.

As such I feel minimal increments are still necessary even without a relisting fee.

You are correct in saying that the lack of a minimum increment isn’t what’s currently slowing down price agility. What’s slowing it down is the penalty of 5% of the listing price instituted if you wanted to re-list your item for a lower price.

If that re-listing fee was removed price agility would be increased and prices would reach equilibrium faster. If the re-listing fees are removed, the discussion of a minimum increment, above 1c, is no longer necessary.

Aidan Savage.2078:

This does injure the market. You dont make it difficult for players to make money using inefficiencies, you also make it difficult for them to make money just selling what they’re looting or crafting.

Moving prices to the equilibrium point does not injure the market. It injures your ability to make money by identifying inefficiencies in the market of items with prices that aren’t currently at equilibrium.

If you want to push towards a minimal spread of buy/sell prices, you need to increase demand and supply of the item. Artificially closing the gap via forced relisting prices is not “reaching equilibrium,” it’s attempting to induce a pattern of behavior that particular market clearly has no intention of doing. True equilibrium is the market not doing wild fluctuations in prices in a short order of time, and then persisting at those prices.

Supply and Demand of an item will adjust to equal levels once the price of the item in question reaches its equilibrium price. I will agree that artificially closing the gap isn’t the best way to reach that equilibrium point. Up until the point in this thread where I suggested my idea, the units used to move a price to its equilibrium point were completely arbitrary (1c vs. 1%). After that, William Bradley Knight introduced an idea that does a MUCH better job of pushing a price to equilibrium by letting the Buyers and Sellers do it. I endorse his proposal over mine as I believe it to be more efficient and much more elegant.

The perfect example of this is Radiant Dust during the LA ls week. It was extremely stable at 1-2s each, and the introduction of the recipe caused a massive spike in demand such that the price rose to over 20s each, and then induced a nearly instantaneous dump of supply that suppressed the price back down to 2-3s. All in about 10 minutes. That’s a shift in equilibrium due to the increased demand and the subsequent surplus of supply.

This demonstrates the idea of Supply and Demand perfectly. As Demand spiked, so did the price. Once Supply caught up and surpassed the Demand, the prices crashed. I’m not suggesting that the equilibrium price of any given item is a constant and stagnant number. I’m suggesting that the equilibrium price will shift up or down depending on Supply and Demand for that item. Radiant Dust is the perfect example of this.

Many items on the market are already in equilibrium because the prices that buy orders and sell orders are at do not fluctuate much. The fact that the state of equilibrium also includes a spread that is often 50% of the highest buy order is irrelevant. Not to mention that outside of external influences, in which case it’s new recipes anet adds, those prices will not shift because the supply and demand are consistently equal. The only way to bring those prices together by natural market movement is to increase the demand and supply of the item.

If an item is already at an equilibrium price, William’s idea to remove fees to re-list an item at a lower price would not impact these markets whatsoever. If Demand or Supply for these markets in equilibrium currently were to change….a new equilibrium price point would be found.

Flipping can make a lot of money if you’re able to move large quantity on a regular basis. If I’m making 2s every time I flip 1x of Item A, and item A sells on a consistent and regular basis, I can make 200g off Item A if I move enough of it quickly enough that someone else does not impede on my attempt. The low profit margins on some items make them unusable for large-scale flipping because if something goes wrong, you’re stuck at a no profit value or a loss at worst.
Safer money can be found on the tradepost by supplying the needs of crafters, whether those that are leveling to 400 or to 500, or those crafting ascended gear.

This basically proves my point. While a great deal of money could be made flipping, it depends on how much competition you have and as you’ve stated, there are much safer ways to make money on the Trading Post, such as supplying the needs of crafters. I’m sure Wanze utilizes even more ways to generate safer money, such as bags and salvaging (he’s stated as such before). Finding those safer methods of making money take a higher skill set though.

I still believe that moving item prices to equilibrium creates the most ideally healthy market. My idea of artificially doing so isn’t great and I don’t endorse it any longer, nor would I endorse an idea that places any arbitrary increment….especially since William Bradley Knight has proposed a much more elegant solution.

Kaon.7192:

The change suggested by William Bradley Knight would simply turn the Last List First Fill system we have right now into a Last Relist First Fill system, that still benefits TP bots/notification users at the expense of regular buyers and sellers. Again, it’s admittedly better than the status quo where even relisting is prohibitively costly and slows the convergence to equilibrium price, but ideally I’d like to see a solution that addresses the other fundamental problem as well.

This is true, but the point that you’re missing is:

• Once prices reach equilibrium, the benefits of undercutting no longer exist because Buyers and Sellers have reached a mutually beneficial price for an item. It’s only a Last Relist / First Fill state until the price reaches equilibrium.

Currently, it’s exceedingly beneficial for new sellers to undercut, especially on high valued items, because the new seller KNOWS it will cost the old seller an additional 5% to pull his listing and undercut him in return. This new seller gets to jump ahead in line for virtually the same price. The only risk this new seller has is being undercut by another new seller.

In either William Bradley Knight’s, or my model, undercutting is discouraged by pushing the price to equilibrium. His model does it in a manner that allows endless undercutting by everyone “for free”. My model associates an increased cost to do so.

The equilibrium point is the point where the Supply and Demand curves cross. It’s the point where the quantity of items buyers want equals the quantity of items sellers are willing to sell.

If there is a sudden increase in Demand for an item, the price will push up to accommodate for it. If there is a sudden increase in Supply of an item, the price will push down.

William’s model actually does this better than mine by making the Sell Listing side of the equation act more like the Buy Order side. Currently, there is no real penalty for outbidding someone with a higher Buy Order, outside of a little bit more money, but there Buyer is already willing to pay that, so it’s a moot point. Currently, on the Sell Listing side, there is the penalty of an additional 5% of the Sell Listing to lower your price. His model removes that penalty and is the reason his model works better to push the price to equilibrium faster than mine.

Nike.2631:

Volume based is still interesting, but the ability to “shift” your asking price downwards without de-listing/re-list the item has potential.

It would cause a lot of 5% fees to not exit the system, but it could drive things towards equilibrium much faster in some markets.

Basically we let the ‘early posters’ and ‘undercutters’ beat each other to death for the buyers’ amusement. I’m so ok with that .

I agree. There would be a lot less gold sunk through 5% fees at higher prices and from those re-listing currently, but would it be an overall increase or decrease of gold sunk through the Trading Post based on a higher trading volume, meaning more items sold, at lower prices, thereby sinking gold at the actual sale removing an additional 10% from the economy?

It’s interesting to think about. That’s for sure.

I’m all for a more healthy economy where more Buyers are getting the items they want and more Sellers are selling items. I think the faster an item moves to its equilibrium price, the more healthy that item is.

Kaon.7192:

Reposting my suggestion because I honestly think it’d work reasonably well and be simpler to implement and transition to than anything else suggested so far:

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

Actually, I believe that William Bradley Knight’s suggestion is the most elegant and easiest to implement. Your price increments are no more or less arbitrary than any other static increment, such as 1c (as it is now) or 1% (as has been suggest).

Using your 10g and below increment as an example:

• A 10g Sell Listing has a 10s Listing Fee, or 1% of the Sell Listing
• A 1g00s01c Sell Listing has a 10s Listing Fee, or 9.9999999% of the Sell Listing

If what you’re wanting is a 1% undercut increment, it would be better served using a static 1% rather than “buckets” as you’ve suggested.

brittitude.1983:

Charismatic Harm.9683:

If it becomes more difficult for the average trader to make money, there’s less competition. Above average traders should now have an even greater advantage. Traders with extremely high level trading skills and tools will still look at the Trading Post as a candy store.

Doesn’t this classify as injuring the market?

I don’t believe this injures the market. It just makes it more difficult for players to make money by using the market inefficiencies to their advantage. The system would be attempting to correct those inefficiencies by moving prices to the equilibrium point.

The average player with little analysis skill that makes money using the Trading Post does so through “flipping”. “Flipping” is the easiest type of market to get into, thus has the most competition. “Flipping” is simple math. Profit = 0.85 * Sell Price – Buy Price. “Flipping” is also the reason that many players say “It’s easy to make a metric tonne of money off the Trading Post.” Savvy traders know that you can make a little bit of money a lot of times by flipping, but you won’t get super rich doing it. There comes a point where you just can’t invest enough money to make a size-able return for the amount of work you have to put in. Players that are making lots of money aren’t doing it by flipping. That’s why I said that players with a higher level of skill will still see the Trading Post as a candy store. They’re already not flipping, so new markets will likely open up to them, like crafting.

William Bradley Knight.2609:

Regarding equilibrium price and assuming this is something desirable, what if the listing fee were simply removed for re-listing items? E.g. if you have a Dusk listed for 800g and someone lists it for 799g99s99c, you could click a button to re-list your Dusk for 799g99s98c without having to remove it and pay the additional listing fee. This might quickly drive prices to the aforementioned equilibrium. It would also reduce the significance of undercutting as people would effectively be forced to list their item at the lowest price at which they are really willing to sell it. It would also probably be simpler to implement something like this than calculating and setting a minimum price increment. It also would not prevent anyone from asking or bidding at exactly the price they want. Not sure if it would result in a bunch of extra TP server processing though as people flip back and forth undercutting their way to equilibrium. But it would be simple enough to implement a timer to prevent re-listing too frequently, e.g. once per minute.

Free re-listing might also get some of the lingering junk off the TP as people could re-list for free rather than leave it there in hopes that something they listed in a falling market will eventually get sell.

There are probably a bunch of holes in this idea, for which I will blame not enough coffee yet this morning…

This could possibly work too if:

• The 5% listing fee remained in place for the item when it’s originally listed
• If an item is removed from the Trading Post (cancelled listing, not re-listed) and the seller wants to re-list the item again, the 5% listing fee would be required.
• A “free re-list” would only be granted if the new price is lower than the current price they’ve listed their item at.
• A “time between re-lists” was implemented (as you suggested).

I like the idea of “free re-lists” as it would still keep players from using the Trading Post as storage. It would also not penalize a seller twice, three times, or more, for lowering their price to get their item to sell.

A QoL change to the Buy Order side would be a nice compliment to this as well. Allow players with existing Buy Orders to increase the price on it, if they have enough money to cover increase. Currently, the player has to cancel their Buy Order, pick up their money (if they don’t have enough to place the new one in full), then submit a new Buy Order.

Overall….I like it. It’s simple and could be effective at moving prices to equilibrium as well.

Aidan Savage.2078:

A FIFO system would only work if item quality degraded over time, or the items have such a high movement speed with a very minute spread that even 1c lower is profit loss (some crafting materials).

The problem with forced undercuts is that IF I’m selling an item that has a really high value, if I’m forced to lose 10’s of gold JUST to list it, I may as well never sell the item because I’m going to be forced to wait until stock of the item sells so that I can list at the price I want. All because some system made the decision that losing that money is a nonvalue to protect some scrub that listed on the TP.

Why should someone be afforded such protections when participating in a market specifically opens you up to such risks? Undercutting, buyouts, and market crashing are all risks you are open to, and Anet should not protect you from them. Asking for such protections is basically asking Anet to hand-hold you while selling your items.

This system doesn’t force you to list at the undercut price. You can still list your item at the current Sell Listing price. IF you WANT to undercut, the system attempts to push the price toward equilibrium based on actual sales over a set period of time by calculating the increment at which you can undercut by.

You asked why someone should be afforded such protection. Ask yourself why you should be able to jump ahead of the line for essentially the same price. The same goes for Buy Orders. Outbidding by 1c is rampant on the Buy Order side as well. This isn’t just about sellers. It’s about creating a more efficient market that’s equally unfair to all.

Have you ever been undercut? Were you ever upset about it? Did you understand that it’s just the way the game is played? Did you find that when you were undercut, someone undercut them, and then someone undercut them, then again….and again? Now you’re like 5th or 6th in line. With the system I’ve proposed, there’s still the option for other sellers to undercut you, but what’s the likelihood they will take less money just to jump the line? Maybe one or two of them will, but the other 4….they’ll get in line behind you. That means your item sells sooner….and for more money.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

So then we go back to how your system harms sellers. Your idea effectively forced me to lose ~21.25 Gold where Dusk was sold at:

800 – 120 (listing fee + tax) = 680
775 – 116.25 (listing fee + tax) = 658.75 <—- forced minimum undercut

The person who sold his at 500 took a huge hit, but that was his own choice. I took a hit as well, but that was not by choice. Why should I be forced to lose money, when theoretically both 800 and 799.99.99 price ranges would sell?

The system I proposed didn’t “force” you to do anything other than to make a more difficult decision. The system makes you choose between: “Do I take a significantly lower amount of money for my product to jump ahead of the current line?” or “Do I wait in line behind the other guy to get a larger amount of money?”

The answer to those questions lies in your understanding of the market. If you feel the market moves fast enough for your item to sell at the higher amount, why not get in line? If you feel it doesn’t and you won’t see a return on your investment in a time period suited to you, then take less for it and jump the line.

I believe many of your contradictions to the idea I’ve proposed come from a place of “I make money trading on the Trading Post and I don’t want my profits impacted.” That’s a perfectly fine and legitimate opinion to have. I make my money on the Trading Post too, but I am willing to sacrifice some of those potential earnings if the system, and the game, becomes more fair to everyone. Fair is a subjective term though. What’s fair to one player is not necessarily fair to another. I guess it’s not about making a system that’s equally fair, because that would be extremely difficult. It’s about making a system that’s equally unfair.

If this system were to be implemented, the Trading Post will not become instantly unprofitable. It would just be more difficult to make profits. Savvy traders should see that as a good thing….and a challenge. If it becomes more difficult for the average trader to make money, there’s less competition. Above average traders should now have an even greater advantage. Traders with extremely high level trading skills and tools will still look at the Trading Post as a candy store.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

For large spreads, I’ll use a hypothetical situation.

Player A buys Dusk for the listed price of 799 Gold 99 Silver 99 Copper.
Player B buys Dusk for the listed price of 800 Gold.
Player C buys Dusk when someone fills their Buy Order for 500 Gold.

If the market is moving at this rate, wouldn’t a 1% implemented minimum increment hurt the market? Remember, the seller is part of this market. The person who sold his Dusk to the highest Buy Order hurt himself in exchange for a quick sale.

You are correct, the seller is part of the market. So are all of the other sellers, the 3 buyers you listed above….and all of the other buyers. While the one seller sold his item at a much lower price than the other 2 sellers, he still sold his item, so his item counts. Player C deemed the value of his item at 500g, while Players A and B valued theirs at ~800g. All of them sold, so all of their values are viable.

Using your hypothetical sales, the calculated increment would come to approximately 25g according to the system I’ve proposed, or about 3% of the current Sell Listing price.

Since most of the comments in this thread have been focused on “how much is enough / too much to undercut by”, my initial explanation of the new system focused on the Sell Listing side. There is no reason whatsoever that this minimum increment shouldn’t be placed on the Buy Order side as well. It would even more efficiently move the Sell Listings and Buy Orders toward an equilibrium price.

If that is the case and there remains a Sell Listing at 800g and a Buy Order at 500g, the next Sell Listing would be set to 775g and the next Buy Order would be set to 525g.

Side note:
I’ve been having a conversation with some co-workers and we’ve been discussing the basics of economics. Here’s what it boils down to:

• Buyers want to acquire an infinitely large amount of “things” for an infinitely small amount of money. Buyers will be displeased at any price higher than that.
• Sellers want to sell an infinitely small number of “things” for an infinitely large amount of money. Sellers will be displeased at any price lower than that.
• The equilibrium price of a “thing” is the point where both Buyers and Sellers are equally displeased with the price.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

In regards to the assumed equilibrium prices. Even if we know the definite answer to what each price is for each item, the next question will always come up: Why are we forced to sell an item in the area of such a price? Yes it’s good for buyers, because then the item is sold towards a price to their liking. But that comes at the expense of sellers who want to sell items for prices “they” feel is valid.

Any change should benefit all players. It should not cater to the ones who want something for a good price, or the ones who feel a certain percentage bid is more justifiable on higher priced goods.

The only prices that a seller aren’t allowed to post a new item at are the ones between the current minimum increment and the current Sell Listing.

A seller is able to post at any price between the current highest Buy Order and minimum sell increment, or at the current Sell Listing and any price above that.

Keep in mind that if the average running value of the sales is at or above current Sell Listing, the minimum bid increment would be 1c.

The calculated increment is done in such a way that shows an undercut increment of 1c, at this point in time for increments above 1c, would create a Sell Listing that is too far away from the equilibrium price because actual sales of items, during the time period used to calculate the increment, have determined that Buyers and Sellers (the player base) have deemed it so.

Without actual transactions, you have neither Buyers nor Sellers. You have offers and listings.

To address your question: Why are we forced to sell an item in the area of such a price?

You state that it’s good for buyers and you are correct. The prices of items should be lower than they are now, but by how much remains in question.

As for sellers, it makes the 5% listing fee a little smaller because of lower prices and shows you a price at which the item your listing is more likely to sell, providing less risk, although accompanied by less reward. If the seller wants more reward and more risk, they can very easily list at the current Sell Listing price.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Ah thanks. I was lazy and probably missed that as I skimmed. So basically, John challenged the complainers to prove the 1% minimum is effective and doesn’t harm the market. So then, even if you come of with ways to automatically limit bid increments, I don’t think anyone has come up with any evidence that supports the effectiveness of this on the market as a whole.

The assumption I’ve made is that the “evidence” that supports the idea is evidence we, as players, can’t provide. What I mean by that is we don’t know if the current price is actually the equilibrium price.

My idea (above) also assumes that the equilibrium price for an item IS the best price and the algorithm used attempts to push the current price to that price quickly, yet reasonably.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I don’t log in for a day, and I get lost in the current flow of the debate. Let me simplify this, since a lot of people have put up good arguments against this idea.

Q) Why should I have to do unnecessary maths in order to sell an item?

It’s far easier to think “1 Copper less” than it is to think “1% less”. Putting artificial limits just makes selling more complicated. When I’m out and about, I want to just effortlessly post items for sale, on my own terms.

There’s currently no reasons thus far that say the current system is broken, outside of a few players’ personal preferences that 1 Copper increments are bad. They have offered no evidence that a change is necessary in 7 pages of this debate.

To answer your question:
A) You don’t have to do the math, the system would do it for you.

As to why this discussion is currently ongoing:
Since you’ve been logged out for a day, you missed this post:

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.

After his post, the discussion has evolved.

I thought of another negative impact this system could have.

The increment system could be exploited to still place a Sell Listing at 1c below the current Sell Listing price (but it requires you to have at least 2 of the same item) by:

• Creating a listing at the lower increment price
• Creating Sell Listing(s) ABOVE the newly listed item, but 1c below the previous listing
• Remove the lowest listing

This “exploit” comes at the cost of 5% of the item listed to “get around” the increment.

I don’t see this as a viable option in most cases though as the cost to do so far outweighs the benefits.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Sometimes items have such a large spread (look at precs and legendaries) because there’s too few of the items or because buyers refuse to pay more than X and sellers refuse to sell for less than Y. That wont change regardless of changes to listing methods.

I’ll provide an example of how it would work for a precursor (specifically Dusk), but some assumptions will need to be made.

Assumptions:

• A total of 10 Dusks have been sold in the last 24 hours (John Smith gave data similar to this a few months back in a different thread)
• More items were sold to Buy Orders than were purchased from Sell Listings (6 from BO / 4 from SL)
• The Buy Order price was 866g03s97c (current highest BO at the time of this post)
• The Sell Listing price was 919g98s99c (current lowest SL at the time of this post)
• Buy Order and Sell Listing prices remain constant, to the prices above, at the time of a new listing
• A fixed % of 25% will be used for the example (keep in mind this % is used on the gap between the average price of the items that actually sold and the current Sell Listing, not the gap between Buy Orders and Sell Listings)

Example:

• Running Average price = Total sales / Total number sold (during the time period of 24h)
  • (6 * 8660397 + 4 * 9199899) / 10 = 887g61s98c
• Price Gap = Current Sell Listing – Running Average Price
  • 9199899 – 8876198 = 32g37s01c
• Increment = Price Gap * 25%
  • 323701 * .25 = 8g09s25c (this calculates to 0.8% of the current Sell Listing)
• Next lowest listing price = Current Sell Listing price – Increment
  • 9199899 – 80925 = 911g89s74c

In this example, the player base has determined that the price they’re willing to sell Dusk’s at is actually closer to the Buy Order price than the current Sell Listing price, because players actually sold Dusk’s that way.

With the calculation of the new increment, undercutting by 1c isn’t a viable option anymore. So, the new seller has to determine if they are willing to lose ~8g to undercut someone, or if they’re willing to wait in line behind the seller that is currently at ~920g.

As more items are sold in one direction or another, the increment will go up or down and the price should move closer to equilibrium.

As the price moves closer to equilibrium, the difference between Buy Orders and Sell Listings closes, the prices of items sold come closer together, the price gap decreases and the increment decreases (to a minimum of 1c).

It all depends on how Buyers and Sellers actually buy items and the prices they pay for them / sell them for.

What could this system do to the market (in a positive way)?

• It could move items to their equilibrium prices more quickly
• Trading volumes could increase based on more quickly reaching equilibrium pricing
• Sink a larger total amount of gold based on higher trading volumes, even though prices are lower
• It could offer players protection of their “place in line” on high value, high gap items
  • New sellers would have a tougher choice to make as to whether they want to make more profit, but get in line to do so, or make much less profit to jump ahead in line.
• It wouldn’t change the markets on high velocity, high volume, low gap items as these items are likely near equilibrium price now
• The longer the time period is for the calculated Running Average price, the less likely it could be manipulated.
• Increment changes aren’t based off of single items that are sold, but rather the group of items that were sold during the time period
• The minimum increment for all items will end up being 1c, but with prices at equilibrium values, a 1c undercut could be more tolerable as items will sell more quickly

What could this system do the the market (in a negative way)?

• It could sink less gold per item due to prices being lower
• It could reduce profits of the casual player that gets lucky with a drop
• It could make it more difficult for players to make money through trading as the price increment is now variable depending on the item they’re trading
• It could remove the possiblity of the casual player to make money via trading as the skill set required to profit are at a higher level, requiring more savvy investing and a better set of “tools” than those currently available online
• It could send the entire market into turmoil at the intial implementation and the time to settle down is unknown

I’m SURE there are other positives and negatives to this system, but I should probably get back to work as my company isn’t paying me to post on a video game forum, lol.

I’ve thought a bit more about Nike’s proposal (quoted below) and believe it could be a good starting point.

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

Astral Projections.7320 brought up a question regarding why players deserve to have their price protected that I’d like to address as well. I don’t believe a player should be “protected” from undercutting either. I believe the market should be protected from items that are priced too high and Buy Orders that are priced too low. I’m also not sure of the motivation of Nike’s proposal as to whether or not it came from a place of wanting to protect a player’s place in line, but using his idea as a starting point, it could be tweaked in a manner that’s less about protection and more about getting items to move to their equilibrium pricing more quickly. What that means is pushing a price up or down to where the supply and demand of items is nearly equal at a given price point. If prices are pushed to their equilibrium prices, a 1c undercut wouldn’t be much of an issue as the velocity of trading, even in slow markets, would still allow those players selling item that were “first in line” to sell them in a reasonably quick time period.

My tweak to Nike’s idea (assuming perfect data that we as players don’t have access to):

• Determine the Running Average sale price of an item during a set time period (24 to 48 hrs)
  • Total value of items sold / Total number of items sold = Running Average price
    • This takes into account all items sold to Buy Orders
    • This takes into account all items bought from Sell Listings
    • This uses the ACTUAL items sold during the time period
    • If more items are sold to Buy Orders, the average price will be lower and give the impression that the player base “feels” the correct price should be closer to the current Buy Order price
    • If more items are bought from Sell Listings, the average price will be higher and give the impression that the player base “feels” the correct price should be closer to the current Sell Listing Price
• Use the Running Average and the current Sell Listing price to determine the gap between them
  • Current Sell Listing price – Running Average price = Price Gap
    • A larger gap would show that the player base “feels” that the current Sell Listing price is too high
    • A smaller gap would show that the player base “feels” the item is more appropriately priced at the current Sell Listing price
• Use a flat percentage (1%, 5%, 10%, 50%, TBD) of the gap to determine the increment at which the next item can be listed at below the current Sell Listing (rounded up to the nearest 1c with a minimum of 1c)
  • Price Gap * TBD% = Increment
    • The % is unknown at this time and would need to be determined by John Smith and his team
    • Could be tested offline using live data to determine a “best fit”
    • A lower % would bring the item price down more slowly, but more quickly than the current 1c model. Less protection against undercutting.
    • A higher % would bring the item price down more quickly, but may cause serious heartburn amongst players. More protection against undercutting.
• Determine the next lowest price an item can be listed at
  • Current Sell Price – Increment = Next Lowest Sell Listing Price

Continued….

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.

mtpelion.4562:

An example of a “Risk Free” activity:

Mine Iron Ore.
Sell Iron Ore to Merchant for 3c.

And you’ve made a 2.4c profit without using the Trading Post at all. Congratulations!!! :-)

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

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 %.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

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%?

Drago Ivansen.5398:

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.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

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.

Drago Ivansen.5398:

Charismatic Harm.9683:

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.

All this argument and no one really threw “maths” at it? I’m surprised.

The Trading Post serves 3 purposes:

• It provides players with a secure way to buy goods quickly and easily
• It provides players with a secure way to sell goods quickly and easily
• It is a gold sink

The final part of that is, by far, the most important part in this discussion.

Let’s use the example of selling an item at 100g

The Current System:

• Item #1 is listed at 100g
  • Listing Fee: 5g
• Item #2 is listed at 99g99s99c
  • Listing Fee: 4g99s99.95c….rounded to 5g

Immediate gold sunk at either price: 5g

Using the 1% System:

• Listing #1 is listed at 100g
  • Listing Fee: 5g
• Item #2 is listed at 99g
  • Listing Fee: 4g95s00c

Difference in gold sunk at different prices: 5s

Now….take that difference over 1,000’s, 100,000’s, or 1,000,000’s of transactions and you can see that undercutting by 1c is by no means insignificant to the system. It may perhaps “feel” insignificant to an individual player selling an individual item, but when looking beyond a single item to the game as a whole, 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.

Ohoni.6057:

Not really. I’ve never heard anyone who gives direct advice. It’s always vague stuff, like “look at this market in general.” It’s never “buy X amount of this stuff, and then sell it under these conditions.” Basically, advice is given, but only so long as it doesn’t hurt the advice-giver’s own profits because it avoids the specific market he actually profits from while they remain profitable, and in a form that is difficult to understand for people who aren’t good at economics. I feel I have a good idea of how markets worked months ago that were profitable, but I don’t have a good grasp on what is profitable right now, or what will be in the future, both of which are essential for actually making money myself. If working the TP were someone everyone could do effectively, then nobody would profit enough to bother with it, which is kind of the problem. A well balanced system would work equally well no matter how many people are involved.

These players that give “vague advice” do so for two reasons.

The first, you’ve already touched on. Why would any sane player that makes money on the Trading Post directly give out exactly how they’re doing it? All that would do is completely destroy the market they’re playing in.

The second reason comes down to the old adage: “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” Those players giving vague advice are attempting to help you develop the skills necessary to continue playing the Trading Post on a daily basis. Learning the ideas behind what to look for and, more importantly, HOW to look for it. I’m sure you can find several threads within this forum that give specific advise on exactly what to buy, but you’ll have to dig deeper than the front page to find them. The reason is that those specific markets are no longer profitable because the player “gave it up”. They told the populace exactly what to do and exactly how do it…..now it’s no longer profitable.

Those ideas are the ones that I see suggested most often, but is not an “all inclusive” list of ideas. Many of the ideas come from an individual perspective and little thought is given to how the suggested change would affect the game as a whole. Everyone plays the game differently and has a different opinion of how the game should be structured. Because of this, players tend to make suggestions that they feel would benefit them.

I’ve thought about ways to change the Trading Post to “make it more fair”, but have yet to come up with any ideas that would actually be so. The problem with trying to make it fair is that there are far too many different opinions of what’s fair. One point of view could be that it’s fair in its current form. It’s obvious that that opinion is not the only one though.

If we, as players of a game we enjoy, really want to introduce change, we need to view how the change we suggest would affect the game as a whole. If we’re only going to look at it from our point of view without taking into consideration the views of others, threads like this are going to continue to be giant arguments.

My personal opinion is that the Trading Post is working as intended. It is a quick, easy, and secure way for players to buy and sell goods and acts as a gold sink with each and every transaction.

I’m going to go ahead and chime in, because….why not? I have an opinion too.

TL;DR: This post highlights what the Trading Post is currently and some of the ideas that have been brought up in this, and previous, threads. It also asks some questions to us, the player-base, as to how effective some of those suggested changes would be.

I fully understand the arguments on both sides of the fence. I’ve read this entire thread….and ALL of the other ones that came before it.

For this thread specifically, the OP thinks the Trading Post fees should be increased by 1% to balance out the gold sinks that were removed with free trait resets and free armor repair instead of reducing the gold faucet that comes from Champion Bags. Since then, the comments in this thread have taken it to the same place all of the other threads go. It’s a discussion as to whether or not players should be able to profit using the Trading Post.

Let’s look at the Trading Post for what it is intended to be. My opinion is that it was created to do three things:

• Give players that find loot in the world a place to sell their goods quickly and easily, for a price they deem worthy, if that loot is unwanted and do so in a secure manner.
• Give players that want to buy goods they don’t currently have a place they can buy them, for a price they deem worthy, quickly and easily and do so in a secure manner.
• To be a gold sink

Does the Trading Post do those three things? The answer is “yes….quite effectively” to all three. Keep in mind, it does all of those things without injecting any money into the economy. It merely moves money between players while also removing 15% of every transaction.

There are two points of view beyond this. The first point of view stems from players that don’t want to, or are not capable of, playing the Trading Post in order to increase the amount of gold they have. The other comes from players that do use the Trading Post to increase the amount of gold they have, or from players that do not see anything wrong with the Trading Post in its current form.

Many players that share the first point of view would like to see a change made to the Trading Post that limits the amount of gold another player acquire using the Trading Post to be more in line with what can be acquired through “farming”. Several ideas have cropped up along this line and are as follows:

• Tax the “rich”: Players that make over a certain amount of money using the Trading Post should be taxed a higher percentage than “normal” players. How would this actually work? How much is “too much”? As the game goes on, would this idea actually end up affecting everyone, thereby making the Trading Post unusable due to the taxes for using it?
• Bind on Purchase: Any item purchased from the Trading Post is immediately Account Bound and cannot be resold. This idea was originally suggested to combat “flipping”. While it would certainly do that, it would NOT remove the ability of savvy players to profit using the Trading Post. The programming complications that would arise from this idea would be a nightmare as well. Imagine two of every item in the game….a trade-able one and an Account Bound one. Would the two items be able to stack together? What would happen to crafting? What would happen to the Mystic Forge?
• Remove the Trading Post: Players that want to buy and sell items now do so through a Vendor. All prices are set by ArenaNet. This idea “looks good on paper” because the prices of goods will never go up. I have a feeling that this idea would greatly affect crafting. The only items that would be worth crafting are the ones that can’t be purchased (i.e. Ascended Items). Crafting would become an enormous gold sink as the items you create to level up have little to no value when sold to a vendor. Many players would avoid crafting all together in hopes of finding the items they need “out in the world”. Would this idea work to equalize how much money a player could make based on their preferred play-style, or would there be a new way to make money most effectively? Would it be good for the game to remove the single largest gold sink?
• Player to Player Trading: Introduce a secure trading window like in GW1. This idea is brought up many times by players that want to avoid the 15% “tax” from the Trading Post. This idea would be great for that, but it would be more difficult for the players as now they have to find someone selling the item they want, then open up trade with them and begin “haggling”. It also opens up a barter system. Cool idea, but it too has it’s drawbacks. The largest of which will be the likely return of “Spamadan”. The second of which would be the increase in the number of scams that happen between players. Would this idea reduce, or remove, the ability of a player to make more money through trading than can be acquired through “normal” play?

Continued…..

There are a number of sites that can give you an “over the thumb” view of where money can be made, but they’re all lacking in one way or another. Either their data is delayed, they’re running their calculations based on the lowest current sell price, etc.

The best way to make money on the TP is to create your own tool using the unofficial API. Doing your own analysis is the best way to give you an advantage.

Starting small and using websites like www.gw2spidy.com is a good place to start though. Once you start getting some of the basics for your analysis, your “tool” will grow and evolve. If you’re serious about playing on the Trading Post, you’ll likely start by creating a simple spreadsheet that tracks a few items. Once you have that, you’ll want more and look for ways to automate it. After that, it’s likely that you’ll create your own database that automatically updates the data and runs the analysis for you. That’s what I did.

Most of the time I have spent to make money was actually in development of the tool I use to analyze the TP. I want to spend as little of my in-game time making money so that I can actually play the game. I started by looking for an item, or group of items, that could provide profit but required more information than was available online. The first group of items I started with were containers. While information about flipping containers is available online, I found that if I bought certain containers I could make more money selling the contents than I could flipping the container itself. The key was that the drop research isn’t online anywhere or what is online is lacking in information. By doing my own research, I was able to look at every single container in one shot and have my database tell me which ones I should buy to make money with.

After that, I expanded my database to analyze generic Mystic Forge recipes. After that….crafting recipes. Now, the tool I’ve created is basically complete and I can bounce back and forth between markets easily to broaden my investments.

Flipping can be used to make a little bit of money a lot of times….until your competition catches up with you.

Speculation can yield enormous rewards, but it also comes with an enormous amount of risk.

I wanted a tool that allows me to make decent money, whenever I want, with low to zero risk of losing my investment.

Sure, some people get lucky and end up making a truckload of money, but the ones that are truly investing in the TP are doing it intelligently and have created their own tools for analysis. It’s not as “easy” as everyone seems to think it is. It does take work, but it pays off in the end.

Since you’re lvl 422, it might take some tweaking, but this link….

http://www.gw2crafts.net/weaponcraft_400.html

…..should be able to give you some guidance on getting to 500.

Basically….you’re going to need to figure out how to get to 425, then just follow the guide.