EVE Search - The 1 isk trade order problem... with a potential solution

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Market Discussions

The 1 isk trade order problem... with a potential solution

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:06:00 - [1] The 1 isk trade order problem... with a potential So often I hear this come up. Yet to me it is not a problem but part of competition, the act of giving a better value to your customer then the competition. Yet again and again I notice people talk about "The 1 isk trade order problem" as its a problem. Example of a recent post by someone mentioning this problem. In Caleb Ayrania's post about topic "Are sleepers a threat to the player-driven market?", dated 2009.03.12 15:32:00, he says in his last sentence "...1 isk buy order problem.." I'm sure if you wanted to you can find more examples of players mentioning the issue. So why not be fair to both sides of the coin and look at the issue here. "The 0.01 isk trade order problem..." Pro's * It encourages competition to out do each other to get the customer Con's * It is annoying and time consuming, a hindrance to active traders sanity The next question is how can u encourage trade competition while limiting the annoyance factor? To answer that I look if this particular problem (or one simliar to it) has been solved already elsewhere. And yes it has, EBAY has a way to combat this exact annoyance. Its called Automatic Bidding. Basicly you set your limit and the automatic billing will adjust your price to your advantage up to your limit. Limiting the annoyance factor while still promoting competition. * In the case of sell orders it will lower the price (relative to the competition), until it reaches your lower limit you set as a automatic seller. * In the case of buy orders it will raise the price (relative to the competition), until it reaches your upper limit you set as a automatic buyer. *********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation Military Tactics
Business Ethics	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:20:00 - [2] I'm not honestly positive this is needed or wanted. 0.01'ing your orders is an attempt to force your order onto the current market price. The correct approach is to set your order and wait for the strike price to come to you, as it will without fail unless you price too aggressively. Basically you have a solution looking for a problem here. It sound nifty at first glance but no thank you. If another trader has more time to babysit their orders, more power to them. The system as we have it is somewhat self-limiting in that a single player can only dominate a small section of the market.
Einstein's Ghost	Posted - 2009.03.16 07:45:00 - [3] First, this would probably put unnecessary pressure on the already slow database. Second, there is a much better solution - dont play 0.01 games. You are just offsetting the equilibration of the market forces. In my opinion this is a bad thing.
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 08:26:00 - [4] Originally by: Einstein's Ghost First, this would probably put unnecessary pressure on the already slow database. First, depending on the programing this could have a lower impact on the server, as the majority of market adjustments would be done internally server side. Without manual player updates that are going on regularly now as we speak. Originally by: Einstein's Ghost Second, there is a much better solution - dont play 0.01 games. You are just offsetting the equilibration of the market forces. In my opinion this is a bad thing. Asking market traders to not do 0.01 games is silly, its like asking to stop eating. Would you prefer they do 1 isk? or 10 isk? 100isk? 1,000 isk? steps... The equilibrium you speak of is actually based off the balance between supply and demand. And as many of us know first hand demand is a liquid thing, not something set in stone. *********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation Military Tactics
Ambo EMMA Test Corp	Posted - 2009.03.16 08:32:00 - [5] I really don't think it's a problem. I 0.01 isk somtimes, other times, I won't. The problem with your solution is that it will almost totally kill the market. If a system as you describe was implemented in-game, maknig decent money from trading would become a LOT harder. -------------------------------------- Trader? Investor? Just want to track your finances? Check out EMMA
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 08:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Ambo I really don't think it's a problem. I 0.01 isk somtimes, other times, I won't. The problem with your solution is that it will almost totally kill the market. If a system as you describe was implemented in-game, maknig decent money from trading would become a LOT harder. The very essence of the market is competition. This would only encourage competition not destroy it. *********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation Military Tactics
Manalapan Dynasty Banking	Posted - 2009.03.16 08:47:00 - [7] I think we would still have .01 ISK games....the prices would just drop really fast with implementation. Dynasty Banking
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 08:54:00 - [8] Originally by: Business Ethics Basically you have a solution looking for a problem here. No the problem is clearly defined. Regarding the 1 isk game. * It is annoying and time consuming, a hindrance to active traders sanity *********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation Military Tactics
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 08:57:00 - [9] Edited by: Dasfry on 16/03/2009 08:59:42 Originally by: Manalapan I think we would still have .01 ISK games....the prices would just drop really fast with implementation. If you are right about sell orders... It would also have the reverse effect on buy orders. Buy order prices would rise fast... If you think about it, the combination there of, would mean market equilibrium would be more common. As well as increased market liquidity. *********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation Military Tactics
Manalapan Dynasty Banking	Posted - 2009.03.16 09:05:00 - [10] Awwww the poor traders......otherwise touche Dynasty Banking

searchi tiberian suns	Posted - 2009.03.16 09:39:00 - [11] i have to deal with this issue a lot but i have another suggestion to solve it. make it so, that u have to keep a certain precentage to the actual highest or lowest order. for instance if the highest buy price is now 1 million isk then to top it u have to increase by 1 k or u cant place the bid. that would seriously limit the possible steps of increase. the actual best percentage could be 0,1%
Darwin's Market	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:41:00 - [12] I don't see a problem with the 0.01, the lazy shouldn't be rewarded, and those who overextend themselves shouldn't either. A big trader, preferably, should not waste time with low profit items, leave that to the new traders. Concentrate on highly profitable items and you should have a portfolio of 40-60 items at most. Of course there are nubs that try to trade everything, all items of a category and then find it boring cause THERE"S A LOT OF ITEMS. What might help is constellation-limited market viewing.
Unbowed Ash Gallente Ad Astra Vexillum Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:42:00 - [13] And then 50 traders would put max ammount bid XY. System would bid to max. Then you would again have to login an put max ammount - and everyone else. Only thing this would accomplish is to destroy a price even faster. we see so many newb traders lately. Ever since MD got to top. They are destroying profit margins as it is - dont think they need any more help.
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 10:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Unbowed Ash And then 50 traders would put max ammount bid XY. System would bid to max. Then you would again have to login an put max ammount - and everyone else. Only thing this would accomplish is to destroy a price even faster. we see so many newb traders lately. Ever since MD got to top. They are destroying profit margins as it is - dont think they need any more help. From my reply to Manalapan's post. This will not destroy the market price. It would bring the sellers and buyers prices closer to a equalibrium *********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation Military Tactics
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:20:00 - [15] ,01 favours the guy that can stay online the longest. I think that buy orders should be limited to one change per three hours or so instead of the current of five minutes is it?
Unbowed Ash Gallente Ad Astra Vexillum Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:23:00 - [16] Originally by: Dasfry Originally by: Unbowed Ash And then 50 traders would put max ammount bid XY. System would bid to max. Then you would again have to login an put max ammount - and everyone else. Only thing this would accomplish is to destroy a price even faster. we see so many newb traders lately. Ever since MD got to top. They are destroying profit margins as it is - dont think they need any more help. From my reply to Manalapan's post. This will not destroy the market price. It would bring the sellers and buyers prices closer to a equalibrium Considering traders live off difference between buy and sell - we dont WANT equilibrium
Frosty Nuggetz	Posted - 2009.03.16 11:51:00 - [17] I'm just going to cut to the bone on this and say I like the "0.01" game in the Market. Keeps you on your toes, keeps you sharp. "Boring" you say? Ja, whatever. I've heard the same comment about mining, and gatecamps and a dozen other activities. Point is, the "0.01" game is exactly why the Markets in EvE are great competitive fun. Just like PVP combat, that tiny fraction of advantage is what usually separates the winners from those going home "feet first".
No Profit	Posted - 2009.03.16 12:25:00 - [18] Originally by: Dasfry This will not destroy the market price. It would bring the sellers and buyers prices closer to a equalibrium These two statements are almost totally contradictory. Your proposed change WOULD destroy trading. At least for station traders, inter-region traders might still be able to make some isk but it would be a lot less than before.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.03.16 12:30:00 - [19] Just allow people to choose what they buy. If they right click -> Buy on the Random Module II selling for $5000, then sell to him the one that's going for $5000, not the one going for $4800.
flakeys Tier 3 Technologies Inc Lazy is our middle name	Posted - 2009.03.16 12:32:00 - [20] Edited by: flakeys on 16/03/2009 12:34:05 Originally by: Dasfry Originally by: Ambo I really don't think it's a problem. I 0.01 isk somtimes, other times, I won't. The problem with your solution is that it will almost totally kill the market. If a system as you describe was implemented in-game, maknig decent money from trading would become a LOT harder. The very essence of the market is competition. This would only encourage competition not destroy it. And this is exactly what the 0.01 trade does.It gives all competitors a good profit and hence why i love it.Doing a 1 month regional now with high bids for big volume and little 0.01 updates to find out if those who oppose it actually are right in saying volume is better then 0.01 updating. So far i can tell you that my 0.01 region by FAR exceeds my high volume region in profits.Both profit per item as total value of isk. Volume region now has about 6 bille spend in it with an approx return of 20% to 30% , 0.01 region has about 3 bille in it with a return of approx 200% to 300% now my test has still 2 weeks to go but i can tell you now that i am going back to full 0.01 after this because my test allready proved to ME that the 0.01 game in the end was the most profitable for me AND i still need to update my high volume orders more then my 0.01 orders. Example:A certain high reprocc unit in volume region is 50k per unit profit , in 0.01 region i have 200k profit.Four times more on this item wich in both cases has about the same volume in return as well. Offcourse it is dependant on the region.My volume region has those who oppose 0.01 isk games and all pay high input while my 0.01-region has allmost no competition so i safely can do this there. I however agree with the change to make updating orders time limited.Once every hour or so instead of what we have now.This is better for players like me who have less playtime and also for the big trade hubs where people are actually babysitting their orders and changing them way too frequently so the prices fluctuate more then they should.Especially for sale orders.

Clair Bear Perkone	Posted - 2009.03.16 12:42:00 - [21] Originally by: flakeys I however agree with the change to make updating orders time limited.Once every hour or so instead of what we have now.This is better for players like me who have less playtime and also for the big trade hubs where people are actually babysitting their orders and changing them way too frequently so the prices fluctuate more then they should.Especially for sale orders. Unless it's limited to # of orders per item per character it'd just people things to do with all their spare order slots. If it is limited by character per item it'd give people things to do with their alts... Either way, eve needs fewer unnatural cooldown timers to avoid with alts, not more.
Hel O'Ween Aliastra	Posted - 2009.03.16 12:58:00 - [22] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Just allow people to choose what they buy. If they right click -> Buy on the Random Module II selling for $5000, then sell to him the one that's going for $5000, not the one going for $4800. This! I never understood that in the first place. If a customer could actually decide what to buy, we might see the benefits for traders doing the 0.01 ISK game drop a bit. I still remember my first weeks in EVE, when I was totally confused that the item I just purchased (the 5000 ISK item, not the 4999.99 ISK one) was still there after I bought it. I don't like the way EVE limits a player's choice here. -- EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon	Posted - 2009.03.16 13:40:00 - [23] Originally by: Dasfry 0.01 isk .. encourages competition .. annoying No no no. The mechanism is for friendly market sharing. It's for the benefit of co-operating sellers; not for buyers. If you are not in friendly mood, you never have to participate in 0.1 ISK game and can go for margin competition. If you wanted CCP to remove the annoyism factor, ask them a) have server pick randomly from same priced offers, and b) restrict changes to orders to 3 per 24h per order (i.e. allow fast changes to fix typoes, but slow updates otherwise). Far easier to implement than autobidders. -Lasse who thinks markets works about fine, until there is enough circumstantial proof of market bots
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.03.16 13:49:00 - [24] Originally by: Hel O'Ween Originally by: Kahega Amielden Just allow people to choose what they buy. If they right click -> Buy on the Random Module II selling for $5000, then sell to him the one that's going for $5000, not the one going for $4800. This! ... I don't like the way EVE limits a player's choice here. you choice in this case is only at what price to buy, since items are exactly the same. in that case, i would assume most people would want to buy cheapest. atm, my preffered solution to 0.01 wars would be longer update period. would probably lighten up trade hubs load, too :)
flakeys Tier 3 Technologies Inc Lazy is our middle name	Posted - 2009.03.16 14:54:00 - [25] Originally by: Clair Bear Originally by: flakeys I however agree with the change to make updating orders time limited.Once every hour or so instead of what we have now.This is better for players like me who have less playtime and also for the big trade hubs where people are actually babysitting their orders and changing them way too frequently so the prices fluctuate more then they should.Especially for sale orders. Unless it's limited to # of orders per item per character it'd just people things to do with all their spare order slots. If it is limited by character per item it'd give people things to do with their alts... Either way, eve needs fewer unnatural cooldown timers to avoid with alts, not more. Just X amount in between updating each order seperatly just like we have now but get the timer up BIG time so at most every hour but i wouldn't mind once every 2 hours.
Hexxx Minmatar	Posted - 2009.03.16 15:35:00 - [26] Personally, I up my bid in large chunks. Pretty quick it gets pretty expensive and I have the capital to play thin margins for long periods of time so it works well. As a bonus, if they're so busy upping their bids you can sometimes dump excess inventory on them for a profit or take advantage of movements in mineral prices. I've gotten more than one angry eve mail about me nuking profit margins. Sometimes I do it more for the eve mails than the profits. EBANK - Chairman of the Board \| www.eve-bank.net
Cors It's A Trap	Posted - 2009.03.16 15:36:00 - [27] Actually, the "Easy" answer is setup some sort of automated system that rotates purchases. Example. If there are 5 people selling Ravens at 90Mil, and 2 at 92 Mil, instead of showing 7 seperate sell orders, only show 2. when purchase's go through, they cycle through the sellers in the list. EG: 90 Mil sell orders. Player1 has 3 ravens @ 90Mil Player2 has 9 Ravens @ 90Mil Player3 has 1 Ravens @ 90Mil Player4 has 14 Ravens @ 90Mil Player5 has 2 Ravens @ 90Mil Each purchase by players would work down that list, distributeing the sales amongst those with the same price. This would encourage sellers to all sell at the same price. As it is, folks undercut others by .01 is or whatever to speed up their sale, becuase atm if they're all at the same price, folks just pick the one at the top. We would still get the undercutting, but those selling volume continously would have it easier as they could all set at one price, and all would get sales. SIG: FULL WINDOWS CLIENT 1.9gig
Vested Interest	Posted - 2009.03.16 15:43:00 - [28] Originally by: Dasfry No the problem is clearly defined. Regarding the 1 isk game. * It is annoying and time consuming, a hindrance to active traders sanity As a market trader, you don't have to keep coming back to re-bid every time someone places another bid. That's your problem not our problem. 0.01'ing is min-max play at its worst. You don't have to do it. If you find yourself outbid within second or minutes you are doing it wrong.
Ralatina Minmatar Another Market Alt Corp	Posted - 2009.03.16 16:00:00 - [29] Originally by: Vested Interest Originally by: Dasfry No the problem is clearly defined. Regarding the 1 isk game. * It is annoying and time consuming, a hindrance to active traders sanity As a market trader, you don't have to keep coming back to re-bid every time someone places another bid. That's your problem not our problem. 0.01'ing is min-max play at its worst. You don't have to do it. If you find yourself outbid within second or minutes you are doing it wrong. Or you're in Jita :D
Khrillian Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.03.16 16:20:00 - [30] Prices would move a lot initially, but then you'd just be back to square one where people would change their bid limits by .01ISK at a time. Is this in any way a "problem" for EVE generally, or just an annoyance to traders?



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.