All I know is that I’ve played 10 games since the new system, coming from kitten win rate under joining without a team in the old team queue system, and 5 of those games have been 50-500 for the other team, and no other game has had my team go above 200.
Now I might have suddenly suffered an aneurysm and am dragging the rest of my team down, or the matchmaking system has been completely broken.
You can ‘wait and see’ all your want, but I’m quitting tpvp for the next few months. Hopefully you fix it before killing the already minuscule pvp playerbase.
Okay, thanks.
Would have been nice if the functionality that worked wasn’t specifically disabled before the API caught up, but I’m assuming that’s outside your purview.
Querying the TP via the web endpoints was never a supported option, and we made no guarantees that we wouldn’t remove it.
Of course.
It’s just a tad frustrating that someone had to go out of their way and spend time disabling something that wasn’t in any way substitutable by the API.
It’s completely understandable that API isn’t the a main priority for development resources, I just expected the removal of the web endpoints to be the result of lack of maintenance causing them to break and be left broken- rather than a specific action to disable them.
Anyway, almost certainly wasn’t your call, just venting. Ignore me.
Okay, thanks.
Would have been nice if the functionality that worked wasn’t specifically disabled before the API caught up, but I’m assuming that’s outside your purview.
Using the trading post web UI has now been disabled so I need to transition to using /v2/, but there seems to be a glaring omission- how does one actually search for itemids?
If I want a list of all Tempest weapons I would previously simply do a search for ‘Tempest’, and then queried the returned list for price information, but /v2/ doesn’t seem to have this at all.
‘Marketing’ means a different thing, you mean ‘trading’.
Your guide is also focused on improving ‘effectiveness’ rather than ‘efficiency’.
Reddit is likely a better place to advertise your guide. Most people here either know the basics of money management, or are just here to suggest the need for socialist policies to ensure fair wealth distribution and wouldn’t want to sully their hands by participating in ‘the system’,
It’s fairly basic.
People who farm value their time close to zero. Any item that can be achieved through farming consistently will therefore always be undervalued.
You will always be better off just buying the weapons off the TP while they are still available for 1 ticket. This would also be the case if real money was the only method to participate in RNG as lucky people always undervalue their luck.
Don’t listen to the people suggesting you simply were on the bad end of RNG, you’re paying for a raffle where most of the tickets are handed out to people for free.
BLTC weapons could be turned in to a real endgame goal, and all they’d need to do is introduce 4 recolored versions for every set put in (red, blue, green, purple).
That would give a wealth of high effort rewards that could be distributed throughout every playstyle, and make each new set a gigantic expansion of rewards.
Instead we get a 70g*13 tax every 2-10 weeks, that has no connection to actually achieving something in the game.
Even if they made the colored versions with a quick reshade, and completely ignored making them work with that color, they’d still function as prestige items while maintaining the appeal of the uncolored versions.
Issues with GW2 core systems and raiding
Agro: While agro is based upon dps in other games, GW2 largely seems to fix targets based on stat distributions (some mobs go after squishies, some after heavies). And agro changes are often based on a mix of proximity and randomness.
This makes the control mechanic that is given to the ‘main tank’ non-existant and things very chaotic to the point of meaninglessness when large numbers of players are doing the same thing.
Example: Triple Wurm/Teq, the only way to counter this was with fixed position bosses who employ mostly AE skills. But alternatives exist, such as the Aetherpath Duo mechanic of people purposefully debuffing themselves to draw agro.
Humanoid graphics spam: Even with 5 people humanoid bosses become a mass of flashes and smoke. Telegraphs are meaningless if they cannot be seen. Even worse is that even if you manage to see through the fire the damage numbers will often block enemies even with single targets, multiple targets make watching for telegraphs pointless.
Example: Any humanoid dungeon boss as a ranged character. This is an issue with the UI.
Condition cap: Taking more than 1 condition specced person to a 5 man dungeon will test the condi cap, essentially turning them in to dead weight. If the cap was unchangable, then encounters would need to include multiple targets so the per unit cap wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
Advantages of GW2 core systems and raiding
Mobility: Since characters can move and cast encounters can be far more dynamic and fun for all participants. The trinity meant nothing much more than 1,2,3,4,5 spam for dps, and only the tank had any real impact on survival- while healers played reverse-whack-a-mole.
Example: Aetherpath Duo.
Dodges: Clutch avoidance is good to keep encounters from being too unforgiving, and allow for long telegraphed instant kills to be put in. But the balance between challenging and unfair is easy to trip over if encounters are balanced with too many required dodges in mind. Encounters that do require it would need a clear indicator that dodges shouldn’t be wasted.
Example: I really cannot think of an encounter that actually targets the dodge mechanic well. In CoF P1 the last boss becomes trivialized because of it, other encounters seem to ignore it at best. I’m sure I’ll kick myself for forgetting one, but since TA/Arah don’t have any I’m not sure where they’d be.
Deadeye could actually be a good example of dodging done right. But the boss becomes even more exceptional with the zero vigor debuff (forcing players to really push their invulnerabilities and pull skills), so it’d be strange to use as a baseline.
We seem to be skipping over the implied assumption that an additional 15% tax on high frequency traders would only hurt the traders.
Spread and velocity would be severly damaged across all items, and this would mean lower returns for farmers, and longer wait times for listers.
The more traders competing against each other means a better economy for the normal player. Treating this extra 15% tax as a poor vs rich argument ignores the actual consequences.
@Essence Snow.3194
The reason trading profits and faucets are different is that faucets create money and trading destroys money.
If you increase or introduce a faucet you don’t “improve rewards” because rewards are relative. It used to be that 2g an hour was amazing, now it’s 10g an hour- and that’s because of faucets.
If trading velocity is slowed down that will increase the amount of money floating around and will increase inflation. Making the rewards feel even worse.
Traders provide liquidity to the market, and reduce spreads. Do you recognize this as true? Because your first post seems to suggest you misunderstand markets themselves on a fundamental level.
PS: Progressive taxation is necessary in reality because there are necessities. You cannot starve in GW2, there are no orphans who need a place to sleep, you cannot receive an education. Talking about progressive taxation in a game (we’re just playing a game right, this is what we apparently don’t understand) requires a deep incomprehension of the moral justification for taxation.
Another annoying feature loss from the old TP has been fixed in the most recent patch.
We can now see all of our bids and orders instead of having any past 200 disappear forever.
Good to see ANet are actually putting a good deal of effort in to readding features.
Is that everything? Can we now call the new TP an unequivocal success?
@John Smith:
RNG was fairly bad in other games, but it’s far worse in GW2 because while in other games the loot roll is for the group, in GW2 there is an individual roll for each person.
This eliminates the concept of luck sharing based upon preference.
When a end-tier light armor chestpiece dropped for the group you wouldn’t have to compete with heavy/medium users, or with those who already have that chestpiece. In GW2 the game rolls 5 times and if you happen to get the item it takes no consideration of if you actually want it or not.
For tradable items this can be argued to be ‘fair’, as you can just sell your drops over time and purchase the wanted items- even though this greatly diminishes the ability of players to directly link a sense of achievement with their items.
But for untradable items, personal RNG is a monster that sucks all the fun from any activity it touches.
“kitten another <the item you desperately want>, guess I’ll need to vendor it for 5 silver.” Is a sentence that you should never, ever- ever, allow your players to ever hear. The fact such a sentence can exist is a kitten ing indicator that the system needs to change.
How many Daily AP do you have? (Hover over the AP icon in the top left of your AP UI.
Good news everyone! I’m currently working on implementing the official trading post api.
What that exactly means and what features are supported, will be announced with the actual release.I’m currently working on the item search and fixing bugs and I’m looking forward for a test release this week.
Thank God, thought you’d stopped playing.
I’ve been trying to modify it myself since I can’t really manage without it, have you already found a way to draw the user key from CoherantUI- or have you given up on personalized data?
even 1 listing per second a human can’t match. it’s currently at about 10 every 30 seconds (0.3 listings per second).
this new TP is slower at posting stuff than the last one, so it’s harder to reach the limit (which shouldn’t be the case, but that’s a complaint for a different thread), but it is still possible.
The limit is still 7 within a minute of each other.
This at least suggests that the limitation may indeed be a result of underlying architecture rather than a design choice.
It’s simple spam prevention and is a feature commonly found in online services. Without it, I could buy and sell in quantities of over 100k per second which would negatively impact the trading post’s performance.
Great logic there Chief. Because the OP was asking to be able to post 100k per second.
How about instead of 100k per second or 7 per minute, we put in something a bit more reasonable like 30 per minute. Something a human cannot possibly hit, yet something that prevents an automated program from spamming the TP.
I think a lot of issues could be solved by simply splitting the UI in to a ‘power user’ version and a ‘default’ version.
CON: For example: The side UI element is woefully underused currently. I assume this is to not confuse normal traders, but for someone using the TP constantly it’s incredibly annoying to have button hidden behind other buttons.
Making the side UI as follows:
Gem Store
Currency Exchange
Trading Post (Home)
——-
Buy
Sell
Current Buying
Current Selling
Historical Bought
Historcial Sold
would be a huge leap forward in terms of power user functionality.
Whether this was an options menu option or a togglable dropdown that remembered the previous state is irrelevent. It would eliminate a huge number of clicks.
CON: Having the Current Transaction Buying/Selling screen refresh it’s position to the top every time you cancel an order is infuriating. This cannot be desired behavior for any user as they’ve already scrolled down to that point. I can only assume it’s a design oversight. It makes cancelling a large row of items extremely frustrating.
PRO: ‘I am Evon Gnashblade’ mode. A perfect example of how the trading post should be handled, customizable for power users. (CON: Have to do it every time you login, Icons need to be positions so that quantity appears).
CON: Historical doesn’t even cover 24 hours for me now. You’ve mentioned that you’re aware of this so I wont belabor the point, but I hope you realize how unacceptable this is. If the amount of history was customizable, with a huge warning that it would hurt responsiveness then everyone would be happy.
PRO: The ability to have the buy screen popup inside the Historcial Buying/Selling is amazing and eliminates one of the major timewasters in the OldTP.
CON: The ridiculous 250 selling limit is still in force. I know perfectly well that this is arbitrary as you could sell up to 250,000 in the beta- and I did constantly. The fact you’re using both the 7 item limit and the 250 limit and then trying to blame botting is ridiculous. People who buy 5 million of something still need to sell that 5 million, you cannot make people pay more than an item is worth. A bot that tried to corner a market would quickly find itself becoming walled in by people getting fresh drops.
I’d stay away from weapon skins, bit too shallow a market.
Put a buy order at 22c for Quartz Crystals.
You’ll likely get them fulfilled and they’re currently in the money with the potential to go up 200-300% without significant walls (trading at 1s22c, a 513% diff, before the supply dump). If the trade fails you can vendor for a loss of 10%, but at worst you’re likely to walk away with 15% in a month if a new market opens up that you’d rather jump on to.
Some players want Ascended armor, but don’t like Crafting. Some players like challenges, and don’t want “easy mode”. And some players want the “easy mode”, and want everything handed to them.
You’ve essentially said here: “A suggestions validity is based upon if people complain about it. People complain about everything. Therefore all suggestions are equally valid.”
I hope you see how ridiculous that is.
People complain way too much, but what you’re suggesting is both harmful and unnecessary.
Just as a rebuttal, no one in this game is being “forced” to buy Gems. We do so on our own free will.
Don’t be disingenuous @Smooth Penguin, you know perfectly well what I and others mean by forced. Attack the core of the argument, not semantics.
Adding a 15% buff would mean every person would have to make a choice, “Do I want to be a regular player, or a scrub?” There is no other way to look at a +15% damage sigil.
The issue is the same with cheats in single player, you can choose not to use them but if you hit a rough patch there is always that thought there in the back of your mind. So then you think “is this rough patch because I’ve suddenly gotten bad at the game, is this poor design, or is this here to encourage people to buy the new cash shop item?”.
Under a system with buyable cheats either content is too easy, in which case the people who buy the sigil feel ripped off, or too hard in which the people who buy the sigil feel forced (yes forced, in the sense that normal people mean the word) to buy it.
Even assuming the advantages don’t work in WvW, PvE would be made either boring to those with the sigils, or frustrating to those without it. Allowing your most loyal customer base to become bored with what is essentially a repetitive set of tasks is a death kneel to the game in the medium run.
And all this misses the fact that it’s entirely unnecessary, you don’t need statistical advantages to be sold in order to provide value to players- just add real and inexpensive convenience items.
@Smooth Penguin
Sometimes you seem like the biggest troll on these forums, but let’s assume you’re being genuine since you seem to alternate between the two poles with abandon and I’d hate to label this flight of fancy incorrectly.
The gemstore is indeed broken, things listed there are far too superflouos and at the same time pricey. Who in their right mind would pay $12 for a minipet? How many would really pay $10 for an instrument, there would be some sure- but many?
People end up buying them for sure, but the value compared to how much they are paying is abysmal. But the solution isn’t to destroy the game, because make no mistake- adding stat boosts to the gemstore would destroy the game.
Think about the psyche of the common player, currently getting stomped in WvW tells an individual that their gear is bad and the person that beat them spent more of their life on the game. This is frustrating but it’s acceptable- you get to blame your failure on their lack of life. With cash shop stat boosts, now (with imperfect information) the individual assumes they were beaten because the other person bought their victory. Now they feel cheated, both by their opponent and the game.
People who did open their wallets would also feel cheated, because they’ve been forced to spend money. Currently the gemshop is a ripoff because things are too useless and expensive. What you’re suggesting would push things off the other edge of the cliff.
Instead the gemstore simply needs more convieniance items at lower prices. Swim boosters shouldn’t cost more than a few cents as that’s how much a rational person would pay for them, nothing should be on the gem store just so it can be thrown in to a package or in to a Black Lion chest so ANet can pretend the random junk has value.
Add more bags, 18 times as many slots as they do now. Scale each bag slot to be 20% more expensive than the last. Someone spending thousands of gems on bag slots doesn’t effect other people. Add permanent transmutation stones that unlock specific armors, make them cost 25 gems. Add custom dodge animations that can be purchased for 150 gems.
Add stuff that doesn’t hurt others, but makes things easier or funner for the people purchasing them, and make it so they get multiple things for putting in $10 instead of treating the gemstore like a loyalty tax.
So would those opposed to this idea on a fundamental level (not just tweaking and ironing out kinks) be in support of removing all of the other DR and time gates in this game so people can do whatever they want as far and as much as they want?
If not, would those in fundamental opposition be able to detail whether and/or why:
1.) this proposal is not comparable to DR, or
2.) why this proposal should be an exception and be immune to DR
All other activities in game, that are rightfully affected by DR, are item and money creating activities. You put in effort and the game magically creates things.
Trading is a gold sink, every trade destroys money (15%). This makes it fundamentally different than other activities and the more trading there is the more beneficial to keeping inflation under control.
What you’re asking for is for a beneficial activity with no barriers to entry, to be punished because farmers are hurt they can’t grind 24 hours a day while causing massive inflation.
You’re suggesting increasing the price of buy orders, this will lead to a decrease in the number of buy orders. This results in a reduced buy price, and an increased spread.
The people who will be hurt by this are people who get drops and wish to sell them. They’ll either need to sacrifice time by listing the item, or money by accepting the lower buy price.
What benefit do you imagine is worth hurting the market equilibrium, and why do you value people without items over people who have received items?
If your aim is to increase participation in different game modes then argue for an increase in rewards over on the general forum, don’t attempt to hurt trading and then patch it back up again.
I’m already running on max gambits
There needs to be a way to burn through them faster
Drop squeamish, it is not worth it.
+20% reward for +100% time to kill. Already done.
The time to burn through tickets is still ridiculous. An option to increase risk/cost to reduce time should be added, or it’s just an ordeal rather than a challenge.
Paying more tickets to get more rewards is exactly what the gambits do. So pick a few gambits, and perhaps mix up some gauntlet bosses. (Doobroosh and Ragemaw are rather easy too.)
I’m already running on max gambits, did you even read the post?
There needs to be a way to burn through them faster at the rate they’re given at gold level.
The gauntlet isn’t for you.
Experience the rest of the game, get to 80, then try it next time the event rolls around.
You’re attempting to do the highest skill content the game offers without having gone over the basics.
I’ve spent the last 2 hours grinding Hammerfell with pistol whip and I’m bored as anything.
With the event handing out 20 tickets at a time I’ve easily gotten several thousand to get through, yet the only decent way to burn them is Hammerfell, and even that’s way too much.
Patch in a way to use them up quicker and in a more interesting way.
Allow us to double down our tickets, to get double the reward. Allow us to double down on our double down, etc. Alternatively, just add an option to repeat your last gambit setup and boss choice to one of the NPCs so we don’t need to menu spam between every run.
Please do not put back in, finally getting close to breaking even on Dragonfly Cupcakes.
Inventory space is far too limiting.
I don’t see why the number of bags would be limited considering we need to pay gems for each new one. Doing so would hurt no one and take next to zero development time, while providing a lot of income to ANet.
Seems like a no-brainer.
Of course it’s bugged. They’ll take a while to fix it and wont acknowledge it in the meantime, just like that Necro staff that now sells for 2 gold and was once the most sought after item in the game.
Account wide bonuses are a great way to give players something to shoot for beyond a fairly shallow level cap, or the time-gated AP circuit.
The luck cap has done it’s job as an anti-gold fountain and increased the market for most greens and blues beyond the vendor+1 graveyard they used to be.
But it’s time to move the concept forward. The MF stat is limited to drops, not affecting chests, or popup chests: the areas most players would actually most notice the increased percentages.
The stat should be split in to all areas of drops, and once a certain 300% cap is reached the next stat should unlock. Even if the 30,000 per level cap was maintained for each percentage point, many players would gladly participate and keep the markets for luck items moving.
Ideally more items that should have value but are currently vendor+1ed should be added to the luck system. Sigils, and runes (for example) are prime candidates for salvaging in to luck appropriate to their vendor value.
Even if a slither of the population is currently 300% capped, eventually the average percentage will creep upwards. It’s better to move now and give people something to aim for than to have a hard cap preventing progress.
@Psychol.5783
Don’t attribute everything to bots. There are thousands of traders at any moment, and if you personally can see a trade being cancelled and resent then another person can easily cancel and relist in the same time.
The forums are filled with inflation rants, and how inflation helps the despicable 1%.
The forums are then filled with deflation rants, and how deflation help the disgusting 1%.
You guys really need to crack a book and pick a story.
Inflation -> hoard items and reduce total wealth held in coin and wait for wave to peak.
Deflation -> reduce item storage where possible and increase gold reserves where possible.
That isn’t a rational explanation. What that’s really saying is “rich people are smarter than others so they can shift things around to make every market condition work for them”- it has nothing to do with what is happening in the present.
If you want to deal with deflation you need to increase gold drops, which will make the rich richer. If you want to deal with inflation you need to reduce gold drops, which will lock in the rich who can invest in items.
What exactly is the solution here? Give every whiner 500g? What does any of this amount to other than base jealousy?
TPvP, once a person makes the mistake once they’ll not make it again.
The forums are filled with inflation rants, and how inflation helps the despicable 1%.
The forums are then filled with deflation rants, and how deflation help the disgusting 1%.
You guys really need to crack a book and pick a story.
Yes, read the item. It used to be 100% extra glory, but it changed to 100% extra rank points.
It’s 100% exp, 100% gold, 100% karma, 100% rank points, 100% wvw exp. I don’t really care about any of the others so I haven’t tested whether everything isn’t working, I’d say it’s rank point specific though since that was a recent change.
Since glory was removed the boost is supposed to be for rank points, but it’s not resulting in any gains at all.
This is effecting both the reward tracks (no gain, unsure if intentional), and rank points themselves (clearly unintended, points go up the exact amount of the popup which is the same (500 for loss, 1500 for win) regardless of the boost.
What about not being unable to differentiate traits between pve/pvp?
(edited by Risingashes.8694)
^ You forget that the time difference between your two scenarios. It’s more likely that:
a) You list at 499g 99s and 99c. A few undercutters may do the same, pushing the price down to 97c with a few Dawn sellers at each tier.
2 weeks pass before your Dawn finally sells. (And I base this off my experience where I listed my Precursor, the Hunter, for sale slightly ABOVE the lowest seller. It took about 2.5 weeks to get a buyer.)
b) You list at 350g. Perhaps one (maybe 2, if we’re generous) undercutter sells at this price because he didn’t look at the price difference between your offering and the 500g offer above yours.
Both your Dawns sell within minutes because the market saw the 350g, realised it was an incredible bargain and snapped it up.
So the question becomes “Is two weeks time of having 350g for further investments/purchases worth the 150g loss?”
To the individual that’s already listed it’s irrelevent whether the undercutter undercuts by 1c or by 5g, so they’re now number #2 in the queue regardless.
But the buyer who is a price taker is paying 4g99s99c more than they would otherwise if the undercutter had to actually sacrifice something in order to gain that priority. The undercutter is avoiding competition and the buyers are worse off because of it.
And on the listers side: “So the question becomes “Is two weeks time of having 350g for further investments/purchases worth the 150g loss?”
What you’re missing is that in those 2 weeks all the undercutters have already had their item sold before you, and they’ve all made the same amount of profit (minus 0.0001%). Whether it takes 2 hours, 2 weeks or 2 years for your item to sell, the undercutter will always sell first regardless of the fact they listed second. And even if both items sell 20 seconds later, the undercutter still increased the risk of your item taking much longer to sell it just so happened that increased risk wasn’t realised.
If the undercutter paid a price for this it would be competition, and no one can fault that- it’s how markets work (and how they should work). But the undercutters currently don’t need to sacrifice anything non-trivial on higher priced items, and the amount of triviality increases the more the item is worth.
So it is of my opinion that if you keep getting undercut then you guessed wrong on what the value of the item was. You took a risk gamble and loss.
You can either cut your losses and pull out adjusting your bid to get the coin now. Or stick to your trade for the long term. Eventually it may be fulfilled.
I got a Dawn to drop (never happened, had to earn my gold the hard way: by exploiting the lazy). Yay.
Now I need to do this magical process you’ve suggested ‘pick the right price’. The spread is gigantic for some reason (cough 1c undercutters), so I need to think hard.
Let’s examine realities: the lowest current listing is 500g and the highest buy order is 250g.
I list at 499g99s99c. I’ve taken a big risk according to your mindset. But the success or failure of my stratagy depends on:
1) an undercutter comes along straight away and undercuts me. The cost of doing so is 1c.
2) an undercutter takes a while to come along. They arrive after a buyer so my item gets sold.
But instead I wanted to play it safe: so I significantly undercut and list at 350g. Now:
1) an undercutter comes along straight away and undercuts me. The cost of doing so is 1c.
2) an undercutter takes a while to come along. They arrive after a buyer so my item gets sold.
3) an undercutter comes along and decides that velocity is high enough and historical prices are high enough that they ignore my listing and 1c undercut the 500g.
So, what is the issue here? The undercutter can choose both times to jump ahead of me regardless of how low I list. They get the exact same profit as I do but get to sell first. They listed last but got sold first and didn’t sacrifice any real profit (0.0001%).
There is nothing you can do to prevent this, all the undercutter needs to do is take the same profit that you are willing to take.
This isn’t ‘emotional’ it’s unfair to both the original lister and the buyer. If you want to get priority you should pay for it, and doing so would mean the market is moved closer to equilibrium and spreads would close.
It is a priority queue, not a LIFO. And this priority queue makes spread smaller, not larger as undercutting leads to competition and prevents price manipulation.
Items are FIFO on specific prices, defining it only as a priority queue completely misses the point being made in this thread.
“And this priority queue makes spread smaller, not larger”
This is demonstrably false. Let’s work with an example. One original lister at 5g, a new entrant comes along and wants to determine price. They have the choice in the current system to list at 5g and give up priority, or list at 4g99s99c. They choose the later. The highest buy listing is 1g so the spread is 3g99s99c.
With a 1% minimum, the undercutter would have to actually sacrifice something non-trivial in order to get priority. So the spread is either 3g95s or 4g. Since 1% is something, but not overly significant, the undercutter is likely to choose to undercut, meaning price has moved towards equilibrium by 50 times more than under the current system.
Even if the undercutter chooses to list at 5g, the only thing lost is a 1c movement, and the original lister doesn’t have their space stolen by someone attempting to turn the item temporaryily in to LIFO.
No one has yet to prove this is a clear market failure.
You seem to have a poor understanding of what ‘market failure’ means, it means a failing in the market that distorts prices, not that the market ceases to exist. It’s a technical terms, look it up.
1) Buying the items outright is not the only option. Placing Buy Orders is actually the more cost efficient way to purchase something. If the velocity of an item is so great that 10 undercuts didn’t have an effect on the item being sold, then the ones who bought them aren’t being hurt.
Justify ‘they are not hurt’. Because the message of mine you quoted explained exactly how they are hurt: their orders were not filled despite listing first at essentially the same price. Their time (liquidity) was stolen. This would be fine if they were underbid as that’s competition, but the undercutters aren’t competing, they haven’t sacrificed any real profit. They’re exploiting a market failure to reap the rewards of undercutting without sacrifice.
Chalk it up to impatience or ignorance, it doesn’t matter. The buyer made a conscious decision to pay X price for an item listed, and are further rewarded by getting the item right away.
The buyers are sacrificing money for time. But under actual competition they would either be selling to the undercutter after they had lowered their ask price in order to gain a time advantage, or to the original lister as the potential undercutter instead decided to list at the same price as the original lister (decided the time risk wasn’t worth the 1% hit).
Under competition the buyer is either 1% better off, or no worse off (minus 1c or 2c, an insignificant amount compared to the 1% for the items the change would effect).
2) Sellers can be impatient too. Part of the reason to undercut a listing is to give yourself a chance to sell your item faster.
And in order to gain that time advantage you are supposed to list for a lower price, giving up some of your profit. For items over 1g the price to gain this advantage is absurdly small, to the point of insignificance.
then it make sense to undercut by only 1 Copper, thus getting ahead of the line. Even if your item gets undercut as well, if the velocity of that item is high enough, the only drawbacks is that you sell your item some time later.
Of course it ‘makes sense’: it’s the only logical strategy under the current system. The point isn’t that doing so is the wrong way to do it for the individual, the point is that allowing people to gain that advantage without paying anything hurts the market (in terms of competition, equilibrium, and fairness).
3) Undercutter vs Undercutter. The mini game we play is TPvP. Sometimes, I’ll purposely 1 Copper undercut someone on an item with low velocity just to make them wait longer to sell. Sure I want my item to sell too, but the psychological effects of seeing someone undercut you by just 1 Copper might make them think twice about participating in that market.
I do the same thing. But you’ve seemed to of mistaken this as ‘smart’ or ‘sneaky’. You’re making use of a design flaw in the market.
consider the velocity of the market. .. At this point, 1 Copper undercuts had no effect on the outcome. T
You are absurdly wrong.
In an example with 10 1c undercutters and 10 purchases, there are 30 people effected (assuming each sell and purchase was an individual). With a 1% limit all 10 undercutters would need to actually choose between additional profit and time risk, with your hypothetical velocity they’d all be best off choosing the 1% undercut (although in reality this would be somewhat randomly distributed with later entries likely choosing additional undercuts).
So under this situation the undercutters are receiving 0.999999% more for their goods than under proper competition. The buyers are paying 0.999999% more for their goods than under proper competition. And the 10 original listers before undercuts have had their time risk artificially increased by undercutters who were not forced to pay any real amount in order to have their listings sold first.
Effectively the undercutters turned the market in to LIFO, meaning buyers are hurt and listers who arrived before them are hurt.
Acting as if just because the original listers are back in #1 position means that everything is the same is disingenuous. 10 people stole money from buyers and time from sellers without the market punishing them for jumping the queue.
@John Smith
Effectively the issue is a choice between FIFO and LIFO. Once 1c becomes an insignificant amount people are able to turn a FIFO system in to a LIFO system without sacrifice on their part.
1% seems far too high, personally. But I would hope most rational people would see that some non-zero limit is needed to avoid an effective LIFO system for higher end items.
The people on the other end of this issue are being selfish to the detriment of the market itself. LIFO makes the spread larger and slows the trend towards equilibrium. Market failures such as this should be addressed without waxing philosophical about whether it should be done. It’s a market failure, it’s a clear market failure, and it should be fixed- whether it be a 1% limit, or a 0.01% limit- a 0% limit is simply advocating LIFO.
They should just make all models increase by 1% per kill. Mobs and players alike, resets on death.
Make it a refreshing 5 hour buff so it remains between zones.
@Ohoni.6057
Traders provide liquidity to other players.
The reason discontinued items are still on the market is because of traders. The reason prices don’t spike up and down every day is because of traders.
If traders were stopped the only time you’d be able to get limited skins is during the events themselves, and your drops wouldn’t have a predictable price as it would all depend on at what time you’re playing.
Unlike farming, trading must be on benifit to two other people. Farmers pull money out of thin air and cause inflation, traders compete against themselves in order to provide the best deals to buyers and sellers. No one is being forced to sell to traders, or to have their items bought by traders- they’re simply the ones offering the highest and lowest prices.
Removing traders reduces the time things take to sell and be bought, it also reduces the money you get for your items and the amount you need to pay to buy them.
And all this to fix a ridiculous philosophical problem. Redistribution of income in reality is necessary as otherwise hoarding can result in people starving in the streets- but we’re not talking about reality- we’re talking about a video game where there are zero necessities. Characters don’t starve, or require housing, or heat, or water and so acting as if the same impetus exists for equality is misleading as best and closer to ignorant.
All you need is a ready button.
This should have been done 8 months ago.
So with the history >90 days being removed from the UI after the next update- the important question is who got the highest sold/bought numbers.
The winner becomes TP Czar for one day.
1,056,775 bought
131,013 sold
Why do you consider it fair to not compensate TPvPers for the effort they’ve already put in to the system?
TPvPers have not received achievement credit for rank points gained by winning tournaments.
They’ve had their efforts trivialized by a ten-fold increase in winning rewards without retroactive adjustments.
They’ve had their rank trivialized by a quartering of the max rank achievable.
The effect is new players getting ten times more, and having to do a significant amount less, all the while the original participants have had hundreds of hours effectively negated.
Win chests will be deleted with no compensation, and no method to actually convert the items from these chests has been provided.
Glory boosters have already been effectively deleted without compensation.
Would it really be so horrible to do some token gesture to players who’ve been using an imbalanced system so their time isn’t wasted? How exactly would it hurt anyone for someone who has 200 chests to be given the same reward that they’d get under the new system? Why are they simply out of luck while new players are showered with rewards?
You did this with Fractals, while making the reward system worse, and failing to provide the leaderboards- the only justifiable reason for a reset. So this attitude must be some core design philosophy, but I’m unable to really understand how you justify screwing over old players for seamingly no reason. Is there really no way to give ANY recognition to people who’ve kept formats going prior to revamps?
All you’d need to do is put in a vendor that converts glory boosters to 100 glory, that would be nothing compared to how much the boosters could actually get if they were used. But it would be less of a slap in the face, it would acknowledge that you’re taking something away.
Allow a convertion of chests on a 5:1 ratio for new chests, so people stuck without glory can get something for a year of effort. Same with crafting mats.