Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jakko Merkhan
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 15:39:00 -
[1]
Here an an example. Player A and Player B put up sell orders for Prismatic Conflagulators in the same station. Player A sets his price at $100 each and Player B sets her price at $200 each. Player C comes along and buys a Prismatic Conflagulator buy selecting the $200 buy order and choosing "Buy This". Player C is charged $200 and he receives one Prismatic Conflagulator. However, Player A receives the $200 not Player B. While Player A smiles about receiving twice their asking price Player B silently wonders why they are not getting sales.
This is clearly a bug that should be fixed! What do you think?
|
Kyle Ryder
Ryder Science and Industry Empire Research
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 15:43:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Jakko Merkhan Here an an example. Player A and Player B put up sell orders for Prismatic Conflagulators in the same station. Player A sets his price at $100 each and Player B sets her price at $200 each. Player C comes along and buys a Prismatic Conflagulator buy selecting the $200 buy order and choosing "Buy This". Player C is charged $200 and he receives one Prismatic Conflagulator. However, Player A receives the $200 not Player B. While Player A smiles about receiving twice their asking price Player B silently wonders why they are not getting sales.
This is clearly a bug that should be fixed! What do you think?
I have once pondered if this was a bug aswell. However, I believe this was intentionally stuck there. I wont pretend I know why
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 15:48:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Jakko Merkhan This is clearly a bug that should be fixed! What do you think?
It is not a bug and nothing new I might add. When the buyer chooses to purchase an item it is actually an instant duration buy order being put into the database. The buy order gets set at the price acceptable to the buyer and then the system goes looking for the first available sell order that meets the minimum requirements. Since the lowest price order meets the standard first (time would be the next filtering quality) that is where the item gets purchased from. And, since the buyer intentionally chose his price, the transaction goes through at the price the buyer dictated to the benefit of the seller. This system figures that the choice of the buyer is paramount even if the seller would've somehow loved to get a lower payment. Once all the lower priced items move then the higher prices move up the chain of preference. Nothing remarkable about it at all.
Quote: The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it.
Misanthropy: It's not just for Rednecks! |
Ricdic
Caldari Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 15:49:00 -
[4]
I demand to know why it wasn't Taikun who started this thread!!!!
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 15:49:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ricdic I demand to know why it wasn't Taikun who started this thread!!!!
You didn't notice the !?
Quote: The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it.
Misanthropy: It's not just for Rednecks! |
Jakko Merkhan
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 15:55:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Jakko Merkhan on 11/07/2007 15:54:48 Edited by: Jakko Merkhan on 11/07/2007 15:54:32 Ok. So you take the mechanics and accept them. So I will stop calling it a bug. It is a design flaw. It is no different than to talking to one street vendor, negotiating a price, and then having the vendor 10 feet away get the sale. It is a stupid "feature". What is the point of having a "Buy This" option on the context menu? In my opinion this is something that should change but I have always been a nonconformist.
|
Kyle Ryder
Ryder Science and Industry Empire Research
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 15:57:00 -
[7]
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=479797
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 16:05:00 -
[8]
Very good link there. This is an oft hashed out topic.
History lesson: Long ago there was a notice giving you the name of the seller before you accepted the purchase. This practice, after watching it in action, was anti-competitive for various reasons. By going to a system that anonymizes the seller trade activity exlpoded on the server. (Very long time ago I might add.)
Personal Opinion: I've always hated not being able to fully exercise my isk voting power. I would prefer a system that allows me to purchase only from people I want to purchase from on-the-fly. However that is not the case so I'm quite happy that anonymity is protected and that the system works with hard logic.
You may disagree with the logic so used but it is infallible, predictable, and not at all accidental.
Quote: The Eve-Online forums may not have invented whining, but they sure have perfected it.
Misanthropy: It's not just for Rednecks! |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 16:23:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ricdic I demand to know why it wasn't Taikun who started this thread!!!!
Because there was no rant about how CCP screwed this up intentionally to make him lose millions of isk.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.07.11 17:04:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Matalino on 11/07/2007 17:11:15
Originally by: Jakko Merkhan Ok. So you take the mechanics and accept them. So I will stop calling it a bug. It is a design flaw. It is no different than to talking to one street vendor, negotiating a price, and then having the vendor 10 feet away get the sale. It is a stupid "feature". What is the point of having a "Buy This" option on the context menu? In my opinion this is something that should change but I have always been a nonconformist.
This is not a mistake, there is a very good reason for this feature. The problem is that you are thinking of the market as a vender model. It is not. If you want to buy from a specific seller use a contract. The market is more like a stock or commodities market. You really have no idea who you buy from or sell to. The only thing that could be classed a bug is that your wallet will show you who got the money.
The very good reason for the market working this way is that it allows PvP pricing. If you undercut your competitor, your stuff will always sell first. That is how you can defeat him in controlling the market. The only way he can fight back is to drop his prices. The market is a PvP price battlefield.
When buying stuff the reverse is true. If you offer more for something, you will always get the goods. If you and your competition are both fighting over a limited supply of goods, the person offering the highest price will always get the goods first.
As for allowing you to right click on an order and buy, that is just for convience. It makes it easy to select the station where you want to buy your goods from. If you can't be bothered to find the lowest price at that station, the system will just take whatever price you offer, and give that to the seller.
|
|
Sunset Atrea
Minmatar Sunset Asset Management
|
Posted - 2007.07.12 12:54:00 -
[11]
Why on earth would you want to buy the IDENTICAL item at twice the price?
Trust does not enter the market one bit, neither does reputation. There is no product warranty variability, no product guarentee variability and no product quality variability.
The only logical reasons I can see are if you are trying to transfer funds from a trial account or are trying to cripple someone's business. If its the latter, then it would be extremely difficult to get the general public not to buy from said seller.
I used to play SWG, and was a highly regarded weapons manufacturer. I got more sales than most. This was because I could offer better equipment (better damage, speed and HP), but in EVE this sort of variability does not exist.
As was pointed out, you are basically creating a sell order for an item which is insta-filled. Buy an item during heavy lag and you'll see the buy order being placed before the item is removed. |
Kel A'len
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2007.07.12 13:35:00 -
[12]
If it makes it feel any better to have it in RP or storyline terms, look at it this way:
When you place an order, you are not directly making the transaction, but rather setting up an agreement with a broker. Now, if you tell someone that you want twelve of X for 200, and he knows a guy that will sell it to him for 100, then he's going to take your 200 each to the guy who is selling an identical product for half that. Now the only "bug" in it is that the broker in this is frustratingly honest and gives the difference to the seller rather than skimming it for himself (which would probably **** off more people).
|
Pang Grohl
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.07.12 17:54:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kel A'len If it makes it feel any better to have it in RP or storyline terms, look at it this way:
When you place an order, you are not directly making the transaction, but rather setting up an agreement with a broker. Now, if you tell someone that you want twelve of X for 200, and he knows a guy that will sell it to him for 100, then he's going to take your 200 each to the guy who is selling an identical product for half that. Now the only "bug" in it is that the broker in this is frustratingly honest and gives the difference to the seller rather than skimming it for himself (which would probably **** off more people).
The RP justification works better if you remember that the "broker" and the "tax man" are the same entity. There is no broker fee when you do an immediate order, so it's in the "broker's" best interest to maximize the tax paid on a transaction.
Si non adjuvas, noces (If you're not helping, you're hurting) |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |