| 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?
|
|
|
Kwint Sommer
Caldari
XERCORE
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 16:44:00 -
[31]
I would argue that, while annoying, .01'ing has an important place in the market. It allows small traders to make better margins than large traders (at least per unit of time spent managing the orders) which is important if you don't want veterans to hold a perpetual monopoly. Furthermore, an automated system like that would just add overhead and complexity to the database, both of which are likely to result in lag and crashes.
The system, though annoying, is fine as is. The young traders can earn a good margin/high turnove playing .01 games and the wealthy veterans use their large cash reserves and superior knowledge of the market to make good profits without it.
|
Dzil
Caldari
Apache Research Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 17:09:00 -
[32]
If we introduced automatically updated bids based on neighboring bids, couldn't the customer just place bids to force yours down before selling/buying?
Which means, aren't you just passing the penny isk game on to the customer?
|
Hexxx
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 17:34:00 -
[33]
Better dead than red.
You could introduce higher costs on bid modifications maybe, but beyond that I'd say leave the market alone...it operates very efficiently.
EBANK - Chairman of the Board | www.eve-bank.net
|
Resamo
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:00:00 -
[34]
Have not read all the responses so someone has probably posted this.
Wont you just have people 1 isk out bidding each others low and high ends? it would really change nothing.
It works on ebay because its single item... cant work when you are placeing an order that could be filled with any number of items comeing from any number of people.
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:16:00 -
[35]
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.
The current time minimum between edits if 5 minutes.
You say it happens way too frequently then they should be. which sounds subjective.
My question to you is what objectionably defines how frequent they should be?
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:20:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Cors
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.
Its currently setup so that at equal price, the person with the smallest volume goes first.
so your list would look like.
90 Mil sell orders.
Player3 has 1 Ravens @ 90Mil
Player5 has 2 Ravens @ 90Mil
Player1 has 3 ravens @ 90Mil
Player2 has 9 Ravens @ 90Mil
Player4 has 14 Ravens @ 90Mil
I can only speculate at this time as to the logic behind that idea.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:24:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Resamo
Have not read all the responses so someone has probably posted this.
Wont you just have people 1 isk out bidding each others low and high ends? it would really change nothing.
It works on ebay because its single item... cant work when you are placeing an order that could be filled with any number of items comeing from any number of people.
Actually it can work, simply adding a new field in the advanced buying and selling window.
You set how far you are willing to trade up (in case of buy orders) and trade down to (in case of sell orders)
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:27:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Dasfry on 16/03/2009 22:29:03
Originally by: Dzil
If we introduced automatically updated bids based on neighboring bids, couldn't the customer just place bids to force yours down before selling/buying?
Which means, aren't you just passing the penny isk game on to the customer?
This is why you set a limit to your max.
Also said customer would have to own one of said item to do it.
For example if your selling charons that customer would have to own one to list it.
Which means their charon potentially gets bought at that cheaper prices
and they lose out on the taxes for 2 items.
this setup would also effect buy order, and if the customer attempted to manipulate the price lower then the highest buy order they're item they listed would be bought up by the buy orders which is how it works now.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 22:31:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Hexxx
I'd say leave the market alone...it operates very efficiently.
I bet there are many players that would argue that point with you.
A whole other thread would be required to cover that.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.03.16 23:28:00 -
[40]
Only solution to one isk orders is get more orders in the game.
Current orderbook is limiting where to trade, thus the void is what makes it worthwile to place 1 isk orders..
Increase and change the orderbook system to balance this better..
Simple solution make orderbook tab work on time range.
Thus 30 days and 3 month orders should be "free" or cheaper on the order book and even on escrow..
This is all about price normalizing and removing the incentives to price in a grief like manner..
Some find this to be a natural thing, but really its all a product of the order book limitation.. It seriously need a bit of rethinking imho..
- Money is Love -
Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
|
|
Zalmun
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 01:36:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: Hexxx
I'd say leave the market alone...it operates very efficiently.
I bet there are many players that would argue that point with you.
A whole other thread would be required to cover that.
Just because a bunch of players think something is wrong doesn't make them right. This game isn't what it is because it was designed by a committee of players. EVE is known for its sandbox play and laissez-faire market. Why should it change because some people are lazy or feel that it is unfair?
Also, don't assume your opinion is the majority opinion.
|
Selina Candor
Chernobyl Trading Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 01:45:00 -
[42]
Working as intended. If a player has more time to devote to manipulating the market, more power to them.
Next thing after this, someone will ask for automated placement of a sell order.
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 05:26:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Zalmun
Why should it change because some people are lazy or feel that it is unfair?
I never said about it being unfair.
I just want to give traders another tool
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 05:28:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
Current orderbook is limiting where to trade, thus the void is what makes it worthwile to place 1 isk orders..
What do you mean by order book?
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 05:30:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Selina Candor
Working as intended. If a player has more time to devote to manipulating the market, more power to them.
Yes, more power to them. I still see this as a add tool to existing and future traders that will help the market in the long run.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Amais
Minmatar
Medusas and Snails
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 12:06:00 -
[46]
Hello,
I see here two eternal issues: a trader cannot leave a region if he wants to be the most efficient and a trader has to be in front of he's screen 24/7 to under/over cut other orders.
The automatic bidding system is not viable, as soon as two people have their margins over each other, one of them will automatically arrive to he's maximum in a very short time. And, the system is not made for rapid changes in prices (did you ever had the "This order doesn't exist anymore...").
As a trader, I will feel myself more confortable with just one additional information next to my order. A new coloumn which will tell me when, statistically, my order will be processed. CCP has the average number of items sold for the last weeks, they know how many people are "in front of you" with the number of items and their prices "in front of you".
An exemple ... of this estimated time of completion.
A buy order looks like this:
.........................Units...............Price............Station......Expiration time.......ETC
Ferrogel_____19988/20000____42.185_____Jita 4.4_____89d 23h 58'_____1d 21h
2 days ? I think I wouldn't be happy with that :) So I'll go and change it to overcut my first opponent. And this will give:
.........................Units...............Price............Station......Expiration time.......ETC
Ferrogel_____19988/20000____42.250_____Jita 4.4_____89d 23h 58'_____Imminent
Imminent is quiet ok, but I'll feel a little bit dumb if the market is dropping so I decide to put a price with a latence of 12 hours.
.........................Units...............Price............Station......Expiration time.......ETC
Ferrogel_____19988/20000____42.200_____Jita 4.4_____89d 23h 58'_______13h
13h is ok for me. I can go to sleep. I can go whatever spend my isk in pvp and never don't come back again to this f***ing orders page.
I see you coming, "your ETC will change very fast and is very nasty to set up a correct formula to look into the future"
You are perfectly right, but ... I don't really care of the accuracy :) I just want to be quiet in my Ishtar pwning n00bs in Branch ...
Of course, the ETC can be seen independently of your current location...
|
Frenzei
Gallente
Fortuna inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 13:01:00 -
[47]
I'd have to disagree on your idea, Dasfry.
It'll lead back to an 0.1 isk game, though delayed but still irritating. And it'd not show the same info as today. Knowing that this is the lowest or highest bid currently, and not having to bid over or under it, then to have it change again. it will create more initial work in finding the limits, then increasing your own setting until you are satisfied, and then someone else will start over. it adds tediousness to 0.01 wars, actually.
I'd rather have seen modification costs fire up quite a bit before any changes to 0.01 wars, tbh.
and greet the 42nd for me, will you? |
Dzil
Caldari
Apache Research Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 14:52:00 -
[48]
To clarify, I think of two types of people in the market:
This is why you set a limit to your max.
Which represents the price you are actually willing to pay for an item, or the least you're willing to sell it for. But you'll make your customer work to figure out what that price is under the proposed system, instead of it being up front in the order.
Also said customer would have to own one of said item to do it.
So, more work for the customer to use the market effectively?
For example if your selling charons that customer would have to own one to list it.
Okay, yea for charons that's not so likely. For Tritanium or anything you'd buy more than, say 25 of, read on.
this setup would also effect buy order, and if the customer attempted to manipulate the price lower then the highest buy order they're item they listed would be bought up by the buy orders which is how it works now.
Customer manipulation, as I see it, would look like them placing fake sell orders to force down your sell order. Placing buy orders is what they do today to try and get a better price.
On a side note, you would create this interesting paradox:
- What happens when the hidden reserves of a buy order and sell order cross, but the actual listed values don't? Does the order sell? For how much? What happens when someone tries to buy straight off the lowest sell order, but the top buy order is then immediately bumped up higher than your "buy at market price"?
Here's a counter example of how I see this system being a waste of the customer's time:
A businessman acquires 100 BBQ Cannon IIs and lists them on the market @ 10mil, with this "autobid" feature set to lower the price to a min of 9mil if competing orders come in.
Another trader decides to resupply his local trade hub with BBQ Cannon IIs. He sees the list price of 10 mil isk. However, he's wise to game mechanics, and knows he can get a better deal on the lot by manipulating the price. So:
1. He brings a couple BBQ Cannon IIs back with him. Or if he knows he'll make this trip regularly, he just keeps a few in Jita.
2. He then lists them singly on the market under the 10k mil price, observing it drop, modifying his order in 5 minute increments or just placing more orders. He closes on the min autobid price by bringing more BBQ Cannon IIs with more free order slots, or more time.
3. Now he pulls his orders off the market, buys BBQ Cannon IIs at or near 9 mil, and transports them back to whereever.[/*]
Summary:
The first trader didn't make/save any significant money.
They buyer had to spend extra resources to get the same deal.
So I argue you're just pawning the penny isk game onto the buyer, instead of the guy placing the orders. I think this is a fundamentally wrong direction to shift the burden of playing the market, when it is the order holders that make the money off the market.
|
Derivi alicon
HSV Coalition
United Freemen Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 16:35:00 -
[49]
i shall throw my 4 cents on this! 0.04isk :) lol
A. this belongs in ideas?
b. the already stated database load issue
c. another reason you don't need to be there to play the game to profit, which CCP is against, as they stated in a blog about their skill queue. this is a social environment. Hench i will say, dont like it eve mail the guy about it lol.
d. uhm, just why? Q_Q more?
|
Delpsi
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 20:40:00 -
[50]
Even if the 0.01 ISK problem is a problem, this idea makes no sense. It certainly isn't a solution to said problem. It helps the buyer because prices will quickly drop, but does nothing for the seller. Most likely, the sellers just end up playing the 0.01 ISK with their limits.
|
|
|
Dranakolys
Gallente
Theurgy
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 20:52:00 -
[51]
Not this **** again...
The market mechanics are fine, leave it alone. Find some new over-used topic.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.17 20:54:00 -
[52]
The "solution" to this "problem" is simple. You need just two things:
a) eliminating the NEED to play the 0.01 ISK game
b) making it COSTLY to play the 0.01 ISK game if you still want to do it for some reason
So... how do you do that ?
Well, for "A", you make it so that ALL orders at a certain price have a chance to get a sale.
Simplest way to do this would be a kind of combined guaranteed/percentage chance to make a sale.
Say you have three orders at the same price, one has 1 unit, one has 9 units, the last has 90 units for sale, so 100 in total.
Each unit gets a 1% chance of a sale.
If a customer wants to buy just one unit, he gets 1% chance to buy from the first one, 9% chance for the second, 90% chance for the last.
If a customer wants to buy 20 units, the first order has a 20% chance to make a sale, the second one gets 180%, so that's one guaranteed sale plus a 80% chance of a second sale, with the last order getting 1800%, or 18 guaranteed sales.
For "B", the necessary and sufficient think to do would be to reissue the broker's fee (even if at a reduced percentage) instead of the broker fee difference.
In other words, if you have 0.3% broker's fees and you have a 500 mil total sales volume, INSTEAD of only charging 100 ISK to lower the price by 0.01 ISK, you charge 2.5 mil ISK (or a certain percentage of it, say at least 50% of it - so 1.25 mil).
In other words, you might get a quicker sale, but it costs YOU more than the difference the customer pays (and the broker likes it more too, I mean, he's basically reissuing the order anyway).
____
Bottom line, you no longer absolutely need to play the 0.01 ISK game to sell some stuff, it becomes "whoever has more sells more" at a certain price.
And if you undercut, it costs you, so most people will either undercut only to make a really quick sale, or just wait you out (at least for a while).
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
ingenting
Cohors Alaria
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 00:56:00 -
[53]
Edited by: ingenting on 18/03/2009 00:56:53
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
,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?
easy way around that: dont sell everything in 1 batch, and when someone 0.01 isks you, put up another order.
Originally by: Unbowed Ash
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
this n that
_________________
- "Welcome to EVE, remember to insu *BAAOOM*... Told you, newb."
|
Aviditas
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 02:25:00 -
[54]
For reference, I've day traded for a living..now then.
You're griping about something that is not a problem, it is part of being a trader. If you dont like it, do something else. There are skills available in the Trading arena that allow you to check and modify orders from great distances. Griping about being one upped by .01 isk is just childish. Its part of the game, it reflects how real markets work. Get over it. You just want autopilot for trading and it doesnt work that way. I can very honestly say I once lost 10 grand on a trade in the time it took me to go pee and come back to my computers. About 60 seconds. Trading is not an afk business. :)
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 07:01:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Amais
a trader cannot leave a region if he wants to be the most efficient and a trader has to be in front of he's screen 24/7 to under/over cut other orders.
This is just another tool for a trader so he does not have to be there 24/7 or 23/7.
However it is not the end all solution.
Again it is just another tool.
Originally by: Amais
The automatic bidding system is not viable,
I disagree and believe it is viable.
Originally by: Amais
as soon as two people have their margins over each other, one of them will automatically arrive to he's maximum in a very short time.
Yes, this is how it is intended to work.
Then the items sell from trader 1's stock, and price falls back to the next trader 2's price limit, in relation to trader 3's price limit.
Originally by: Amais
As a trader, I will feel myself more confortable with just one additional information next to my order. A new coloumn which will tell me when, statistically, my order will be processed. CCP has the average number of items sold for the last weeks, they know how many people are "in front of you" with the number of items and their prices "in front of you".
Thats very interesting that you want it to attempt to predict how fast your items will sell.
I believe there are some already existing API programs that attempt to predict just that.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 07:11:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Frenzei
I'd have to disagree on your idea, Dasfry.
You are welcome to do so,
And I encourage you to explain why.
Originally by: Frenzei
It'll lead back to an 0.1 isk game,
It will not eliminate all 1 isk games.
Things that have a lot of traffic and traders will still be fighting for the small margins.
However many other items will benefit from this tool.
Originally by: Frenzei
it will create more initial work in finding the limits, then increasing your own setting until you are satisfied, and then someone else will start over.
Again its optional.
Its an extra tool, that traders can choose to use.
Auto bidding to their advantage or avoid it and use the old method of manual single values.
Originally by: Frenzei
it adds tediousness to 0.01 wars.
I believe the reverse.
As it would not be forced on anyone.
Rather it would be an optional tool.
You can choose to use it or not.
Thus adding more options for the trader if he/she so wishes.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 07:17:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Dzil
On a side note, you would create this interesting paradox:
What happens when the hidden reserves of a buy order and sell order cross, but the actual listed values don't? Does the order sell? For how much?
The hidden reserve price is just that hidden.
So it would not matter if they cross...
It would only matter if as you say the actual listed values do.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 07:19:00 -
[58]
Quote:
Its currently setup so that at equal price, the person with the smallest volume goes first.
Maybe, but there's one more step that goes before that.
First it goes to the cheapest.
Then it goes to the one with the least time remaining on their order.
Then it goes to quantity (maybe)
I know that because it's how I set my market bids for a bit, while everyone generally sets 90 day orders, I set mine at 30 days and was *always* top of the pile when I set my order to the same price as the cheapest.
And believe me, people will *never* collude at a single price if it means sharing sales.
|
Vested Interest
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 07:19:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Vested Interest on 18/03/2009 07:19:25
Personally I'd rather see them implement naked short selling (covered by open long interest or items in your hanger) instead of auto-stepping orders. Does the guy that undercut you really have those units for sale or is he short against your long? Do you feel lucky?
The market display would require a field showing long vs. short interest but it could work pretty slick.
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 07:37:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Delpsi
Even if the 0.01 ISK problem is a problem, this idea makes no sense.
I believe it does make sense.
Originally by: Delpsi
It certainly isn't a solution to said problem. It helps the buyer because prices will quickly drop, but does nothing for the seller.
If you only look at sell orders then yes.
But this infact would effect both sell orders AND buy orders.
So the gap between buying prices and selling prices would come closer to their equilibriums.
Meaning the market would be closer to Perfect Competition
Moving the Demand curve for products toward an elastic model.
Every product will respond differently in their own way.
Traders will still be able to arbitrage between different markets & take advantages of gaps in local markets.
Manufactures will still be able to sell their products.
Mission runners will still be able to sell their loot.
Consumers will still do just that consume.
Originally by: Delpsi
Most likely, the sellers just end up playing the 0.01 ISK with their limits.
Again same question from Frenzei, same response from me.
It will not eliminate all 1 isk games.
Things that have a lot of traffic and traders will still be fighting for the small margins.
However many other items will benefit from this tool.
As it would not be forced on anyone.
Rather it would be an optional tool.
You can choose to use it or not.
Thus adding more options for the trader if he/she so wishes.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
|
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 07:42:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Dranakolys
The market mechanics are fine, leave it alone.
If CCP thought this way, we would still be using the classic Client of Eve.
ex... "The game graphics are fine, leave it alone."
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
flakeys
Tier 3 Technologies Inc
Lazy is our middle name
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 15:56:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: Dranakolys
The market mechanics are fine, leave it alone.
If CCP thought this way, we would still be using the classic Client of Eve.
ex... "The game graphics are fine, leave it alone."
Would be glad if i could use classic again tbh
|
Dzil
Caldari
Apache Research Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 16:50:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Akita T
Well, for "A", you make it so that ALL orders at a certain price have a chance to get a sale.
For "B", the necessary and sufficient think to do would be to reissue the broker's fee (even if at a reduced percentage) instead of the broker fee difference.
Bottom line, you no longer absolutely need to play the 0.01 ISK game to sell some stuff, it becomes "whoever has more sells more" at a certain price.
-A- doesn't seem like it would work - you'd only sell at the same price if you were in collusion with the other marketer. Otherwise, whenever another player entered the market with a new order, they would set their price at a penny lower every time. Penny isk wars aren't a problem today between allies.
-B- sounds like eliminating order modification altogether, and just changing the mechanic to cancelling the order and posting a new one. It's not a wholly bad idea, but if implemented I think it would be more fair to introduce some kind of hybrid between the change and full price of the order. e.g. paying a broker fee on the change, +10% of the original order amount.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 00:27:00 -
[64]
Neither A nor B would work right if done separately, that's true, but combining them both will yield desirable end results.
If you only do A, then there's no incentive to leave the price at the same level as anybody else, you just go a bit lower.
If you only do B, all you accomplish is people only putting up orders one at a time (or as small as they can stand to, given their activity level).
But if you do both A and B, true, there will be SOME people that still put up very small orders very often, but the vast majority of items up for sale will be at the "stable" price everybody ends up agreeing as being "decent enough".
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Ahro Thariori
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 02:20:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Ahro Thariori on 19/03/2009 02:22:04
I think Akita T's suggestions would work even better with a bucket approach. Group orders within the same 1% margin (100 being e.g. the region average) into one bucket. Then apply A). 0.01 on many items is just meaningless*, 1% isnt.
I totally get the "if I spend more time micro-managing my orders I should get more market coverage" argument though. Just dont expect me to spend my life like that.
* there is a reason you local store advertises 15, 20, 50 or even 70% deals not "save 1 penny a piece"
|
Sola Veritas
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 03:24:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Ahro Thariori
I think Akita T's suggestions would work even better with a bucket approach. Group orders within the same 1% margin (100 being e.g. the region average) into one bucket. Then apply A). 0.01 on many items is just meaningless*, 1% isnt.
I think percentages would be the best way to make a solution. Bidding by a set amount of ISK won't scale obviously between, say, Battlecruisers and Tritanium. I think anything above one percent though, even five percent, will cause price havoc with really small things like Tritanium.
While at a level I do agree that bidding by 0.01 to buy something worth 100M is silly, I'm going to tow the line that the solution here is needing a problem. I personally was never annoyed by 0.01 ISK games. It's a time-sharing agreement. Maybe a hair-thinning one, but then it's not the only way to trade. And even though it is a game that comes down to who logs in more, people who are smart will recognize what a person will sell for to their buy order, and will then squelch out the 0.01 ISKers. Or simply get creative and move on.
Sorry, but working as intended.
***
|
Sola Veritas
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 03:43:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Sola Veritas on 19/03/2009 03:47:11
Originally by: Akita T
Well, for "A", you make it so that ALL orders at a certain price have a chance to get a sale.
Simplest way to do this would be a kind of combined guaranteed/percentage chance to make a sale.
Say you have three orders at the same price, one has 1 unit, one has 9 units, the last has 90 units for sale, so 100 in total.
Each unit gets a 1% chance of a sale.
If a customer wants to buy just one unit, he gets 1% chance to buy from the first one, 9% chance for the second, 90% chance for the last.
If a customer wants to buy 20 units, the first order has a 20% chance to make a sale, the second one gets 180%, so that's one guaranteed sale plus a 80% chance of a second sale, with the last order getting 1800%, or 18 guaranteed sales.
I get the concept, but I immediately have a bad gut reaction to it. I don't like the idea that larger market orders will be able to squelch out smaller ones. It will encourage market spamming, and it will make it much easier for larger players to topple over smaller ones (thus making it harder for beginner traders to break in).
Even though the logic makes sense in the context of a general, level playing field (i.e. they're all the same product, mix them up, who has a better chance of selling?ùobviously the one with more product), I don't like what I think it would do to the culture of the market and trading within the game. It just seems to open a lot of dark rabbit holes I'm not interested in tumbling down.
Market manipulators would have a field day, though.
***
|
Thoraemund
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 03:44:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Ahro Thariori
There is a reason your local store advertises 15, 20, 50 or even 70% deals, not "save 1 penny apiece".
It is also true that some people will drive many kilometers to buy gasoline that's cheaper by only barely-measurable fractions of the price per volume (i.e., less than 1% savings, lower by a difference in only the third or fourth significant digit). In some cases these 'price conscious' consumers will go so far that the extra travel costs them more in fuel consumption than they think they are saving at the till.
You don't see neighbouring gas stations in real life dividing up their potential consumers because it's 'more fair'. Rather they tend to frequently adjust their prices by small amounts to capture market share.
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 03:54:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Akita T
If a customer wants to buy 20 units, the first order has a 20% chance to make a sale, the second one gets 180%,
100% chance is the max.
100% means u win the bet.
if u toss a coin its 50/50, not 50/150 chances
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 04:15:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: Akita T
If a customer wants to buy 20 units, the first order has a 20% chance to make a sale, the second one gets 180%,
100% chance is the max.100% means u win the bet.
if u toss a coin its 50/50, not 50/150 chances
Yeah, how about you also quote the rest of the post where it says "so that's one guaranteed sale plus a 80% chance of a second sale" ? You will also notice that while the word "chance" seems to be implied, it's not actually written. You know, if you really want to be nitpicky.
Originally by: Sola Veritas
I get the concept, but I immediately have a bad gut reaction to it. I don't like the idea that larger market orders will be able to squelch out smaller ones. It will encourage market spamming, and it will make it much easier for larger players to topple over smaller ones (thus making it harder for beginner traders to break in).
Well, the funny thing is, this actually gives MORE market share to small-time traders (and the "hyperactive" traders aren't affected much at all either way), you know, the people that can actually babysit their orders, since the "big guys" don't actually bother 0.01 ISK price-warring with them anymore, they will be much more inclined to just let their bigger orders sit at the "acceptable" price.
Quote:
Even though the logic makes sense in the context of a general, level playing field (i.e. they're all the same product, mix them up, who has a better chance of selling?—obviously the one with more product), I don't like what I think it would do to the culture of the market and trading within the game. It just seems to open a lot of dark rabbit holes I'm not interested in tumbling down.
Well, the one with more products is also taking a big risk leaving all those products at that big price.
In a way, this change hurts the BIG traders most, since with big volumes and frequent adjustments, they'd lose a lot of the profit. It promotes larger temporary ISK sinks in form of huge orders, both for buy and sell.
If anything, this system promotes much tighter sell/buy order price differences, and the end user is the one that will reap most of the benefits anyway.
Quote:
Market manipulators would have a field day, though.
If by that you mean a really tough day, yeah, sure
It's no longer a game of "who can be online longer" or "who can make it look like the market is going bonkers in the opposite direction where the market is actually heading", but a game of "who can predict price movement better" and "who can afford to permanently underbid the other big competitors".
Local, small scale trading wouldn't change much, if at all... the margins will just get a bit thinner.
At the same time, inter-regional trading might actually make a big comeback, since inter-regional margins are bound to be better than "marketmaker" margins in a single station.
_
Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
|
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 06:21:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: Akita T
If a customer wants to buy 20 units, the first order has a 20% chance to make a sale, the second one gets 180%,
100% chance is the max.100% means u win the bet.
if u toss a coin its 50/50, not 50/150 chances
Yeah, how about you also quote the rest of the post where it says "so that's one guaranteed sale plus a 80% chance of a second sale" ? You will also notice that while the word "chance" seems to be implied, it's not actually written. You know, if you really want to be nitpicky.
Being nitpicky wasn't the goal,
it just wasn't clear what you where trying to say.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 09:36:00 -
[72]
Best solution to all this endless discussion about micro bidding and backmarket orders buying items at extremely low prices is all pointing toward the solution and beef I have had with the amount of orders by skill for years.
Let me explain the last part first. To many items are in the game to effectively cover every item, this might seem like a good thing to open up opertune markets for the traders, but if effect the missing fairness in price and abusive nature breeds mistrust in prices where there is low volume activities. Ok a small solution to this would ofc be checking outgame tools like eve metrics for historic prices and jita avg, but if you selling big piles of loot or simply wont bother using outgame tools, well your going to suffer from this missing saturation of fairpricing.
The more orders the wider traders could spread their activities and thus even with small escrows increase the prices to a more real level. They would never remove the margin of real earning because if say I place a back order in region quite far from my operation my pricetag will be low to reflect the time I need to wait and spend working the item. It would however never be a griefers 1 isk for a 2500 isk commodety.
Ok how does more orders help in micro bidding?
Well one way is that it dont remove it, but it makes it possible for traders to split stacks and thus mess up the field a bit. This way you would basically split your stacks according to your resulting "threshold" and the microbidder would have to do the same on all stack sizes, or place his orders either in front loosing his margin or inbetween sacrificing a part of the market to the original seller or buyer. A small example but without to deep details.
Where would you microbid a sell in this scenario
Same seller spilts his TRT selling as follows.
1.000.000 Units sold at 4.5
500.000 Units sold at 4.2
250.000 Units sold at 3.9
See in that market (and even more with more traders) the micro bidder is in a conundrum, because his sacrifice ends up to high if he wants the entire market, sure he can then split the same way and micro match all prices, but this have increased his burden, and thus makes his strategy a bit impaired, while still not taking it away in practice.
My personal view is that broker price should be removed on 3 month contracts, and you should not be able to modify daytrade/fast orders. Modification should be volume and price, and should cost less than daytrade orders.
In thread a a daytrader said this microbidding reflects real life trade, that is not entirely true because there are a few different types of trade time wise and price wise, and when you place an order w the broker he stacks them and trades in larger volumes, and he will never slow trade on the floor by microbidding, thats not at all how things work.. No one on the floor would over bid or underbid with such lame increments. The microbids could and would only exist in pretrade w the broker.
So in conclusion. To reflect a better system add more skill levels and more trader specialized skills. To the profession trader in EVE the skills should mean as much as range wise as gunnery skills, and this is not elitist because you survive entry into trader pvp, you dont in combat pvp.
My 2 isk..
- Money is Love -
Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Eleri Bree
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 10:01:00 -
[73]
There is no problem, its called a free market wherein i as a buyer get to purchase the items at the lowest avalable price.
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 10:56:00 -
[74]
Whether 0.01 footsie, as some call it, is a problem (maybe just timeconsuming annoyance) is really a matter of the average trade price of the item, and who is doing the talking: the seller or the customer.
0.01 out of 4.00 isk for trit (roughly, for arguments sake), is that a problem?
No and you trade such bulks of it that 0.01 really amounts to something. So it is worth persuing even 1 cent differences.
0.01 of a 90000000.00 (90M) isk battleship, is that a problem?
Yes. It is 0.000000011%.
Or how about 0.01 out of a 80k a piece salvage?
That could well be argued. 0.01 is not going to matter significantly out of sum like that.
So when are nudges too small?
At smaller than 0.01 changes to trit/pyerite, which would be less than about 1/400~ 0.2500%?
Or should we say 0.01 out of the about 2isk trit price more than year ago? Which would be about 0.1250%
How about just saying if it is less than 0.1000%
0.1000% of the 90M battleship above would be 90000 (90k) isk.
Or is that too big?
If you worry about 0.1% margin...
To the buyer, one BC sized rat blown up would pay that difference, as would a number of common salvage bits (melted caps, trit bars, armor plates).
So, no, customers (as in those buying from sell orders) don't give a farting spacemonkey about the 1 or 0.01 games that sellers (or buy orders) play on pricy items. Their time is too valuable to worry about microscopic margins on infrequently needed items.
They think more like: does the trip time justify the lower price or is the much closer, but suboptimal price, a better deal.
Look at the time issue. Even at a modest 3M/hour, it would come to 50k per minute - and newbies in a BC can make that if they salvage thier stuff.
If the newbie actually thinks about it, he/she would realize that travel time frequently outweighs the benefit of a lower price. Suprisingly many don't, of course, which is part of why we have such a problem with micro-margin whining.
Sellers on the other hand do care, particular the tradehub ones. Not because they care that fiercely about the 0.0000001%, but because they care that it is them getting the sale, not anyone else.
To them, even a 0.0000001 isk difference, if it was possible, would matter in terms of being the one listed on top, in a trade hub where people sort by price.
To them there is no margin too small.
Currently the minimal change margin is 0.01 isk.
I don't see any reason why we could not change this to 0.1% or a similarly low percent of your current unitprice in your market order.
It would speed up the order manipulation cycle (do 0.1% ten times and you have 1% - and that can hurt on low margin trades - but do 0.01 of 100k 10 times and you still have 100k isk (999999.9 or 100000.1, depending on direction).
It would not drive them as insane as the 0.01 games do, simply because they would not be changing as frequently.
Either way they have to make up their mind.
You can't both have the freedom to use the 0.01 games to your advantage and complain about it being used against your market orders.
Push for a proportional, scaling order-change minimum, like 0.1% or some small figure like that, is my recommendation.
|
Hel O'Ween
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 10:59:00 -
[75]
In a *truely* free market, I as a buyer, would have the right to decide from whom I buy my stuff.
I would actually like to see two improvements (from a buyer's perspective) implemented in the market:
- Let me decide from which order I get the goods.
- Let me see who's selling the stuff.
I might want to support that little newbie and pay a million more for a certain item. And I would rather not support our current war targets by buying stuff from them.
--
EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
Red Wid0w
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 14:46:00 -
[76]
Yes the 0.01 isk issue is a total joke and could be trivially fixed by CCP (by just limiting changes to 1 per hour or whatever).
The hilarious thing is that all the people saying "market is working like it's supposed to" are cheating macro scum.
In case you guys did not know... people use macros to play the 0.01 isk game while they are in work. I sincerely pity anyone that sits in front of their PC clicking on market orders all day..... Would they keep doing it if they know they were competing against bots?
|
Thoraemond
Minmatar
Far Ranger
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 18:39:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
I would actually like to see two improvements (from a buyer's perspective) implemented in the market:
- Let me decide from which order I get the goods.
- Let me see who's selling the stuff.
In a universe populated with so many 'alts', the second point's not really practicable, so would you require also that people aggregate their accounts and declare their 'main(s)' somehow, as a precondition to setting standing orders in the market?
|
Zalmun
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 18:57:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
In thread a a daytrader said this microbidding reflects real life trade, that is not entirely true because there are a few different types of trade time wise and price wise, and when you place an order w the broker he stacks them and trades in larger volumes, and he will never slow trade on the floor by microbidding, thats not at all how things work.. No one on the floor would over bid or underbid with such lame increments. The microbids could and would only exist in pretrade w the broker.
So in conclusion. To reflect a better system add more skill levels and more trader specialized skills. To the profession trader in EVE the skills should mean as much as range wise as gunnery skills, and this is not elitist because you survive entry into trader pvp, you dont in combat pvp.
My 2 isk..
Most insightful post yet, and makes good food for thought. Trade in EVE could use more skills to open up different aspects of the market. How about a different market for wholesale, separate from the current retail market. The wholesale market could be EVE wide or across certain regions, accessible only with high enough skill (like a T2-level market). There could be time thresholds on entries in this market, with differing broker costs depending on how long or short the orders are. Maybe even different classes of orders, where certain order types allow for faster changes than others, but have a higher operating cost. I'm not sure if allowing buying of any order in such a scheme would be a good idea though.
People might complain that the skill requirement would just prevent people from using the market, so they wouldn't bother. However, if there were features to the market that made it worth while (like multi-region orders, etc), I'm sure it would appeal to serious traders.
|
Zalmun
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 19:03:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Thoraemond
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
I would actually like to see two improvements (from a buyer's perspective) implemented in the market:
- Let me decide from which order I get the goods.
- Let me see who's selling the stuff.
In a universe populated with so many 'alts', the second point's not really practicable, so would you require also that people aggregate their accounts and declare their 'main(s)' somehow, as a precondition to setting standing orders in the market?
Showing the seller could either be useful as a promotional tool, where sellers spam their name so people search for other products from the same seller. On the other hand, showing the seller might not be useful, as the seller could be alts, shell corporations, etc. That would probably only fuel tin foil hatters that think someone has a grudge against them.
Personally, I think the market could be treated as a broker, where the identity of the buyer and seller are not relevant, and wouldn't even be shown in the transaction logs. That's my personal opinion though. Some people probably find that information useful, but I don't, from my perspective as a retailer at least.
|
Vested Interest
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 19:06:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Red Wid0w
Yes the 0.01 isk issue is a total joke and could be trivially fixed by CCP (by just limiting changes to 1 per hour or whatever).
The hilarious thing is that all the people saying "market is working like it's supposed to" are cheating macro scum.
In case you guys did not know... people use macros to play the 0.01 isk game while they are in work. I sincerely pity anyone that sits in front of their PC clicking on market orders all day..... Would they keep doing it if they know they were competing against bots?
/failpost
|
|
|
Khrillian
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 02:23:00 -
[81]
.01ISK undercutting in the absence of significant price changes just seems like sellers trying to collect economic rents. They are clearly willing to sell for less, but instead of immediately dropping to the lowest price they would be willing to sell at, they wait around and slowly undercut. I don't see why CCP should make this harder - if you value time highly just post your sell orders at the lowest price you're willing to sell at and don't modify them.
|
Hel O'Ween
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 11:18:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Hel O''Ween on 20/03/2009 11:19:14
Originally by: Thoraemond
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
I would actually like to see two improvements (from a buyer's perspective) implemented in the market:
- Let me decide from which order I get the goods.
- Let me see who's selling the stuff.
In a universe populated with so many 'alts', the second point's not really practicable, so would you require also that people aggregate their accounts and declare their 'main(s)' somehow, as a precondition to setting standing orders in the market?
Of course not. But just with alts in other parts of the game, some (traders) might be interested in digging up who's alt this is and others are not. And some mains might be able to hide their alts and some don't care. Some even might not use alts at all.
And let me add just another feature I'd like to see. The last two suggestions were made in regards to the customer. Now, from a seller's point of view I'd sometimes also would like to be able to control to whom I sell. Taking my war targets example from above: Supplying replacement parts to my enemies so that they can reequip themselves right here instead of having to go to a 'neutral' place, might keep them longer around than I'd wish to.
In regards to the original topic of this thread, this would also mean that a buyer might not be served from the cheapest sell order, but the cheapest sell order his permitted to buy from (which in 99.99% wold be the cheapest one).
--
EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
Ms Delerium
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 11:24:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Ms Delerium on 20/03/2009 11:24:47
- Market is already enough profitable while afk, you want to make it even easier to make isk??
- You want to know seller's name to send hate-eve-mails admit it 
Oh I also hate it when a dude overtakes my buying orders by 0.01isk and 5 seconds difference so I'm leading the market for 5 seconds and he does for 4m 55s, but this is the 0.01isk game 
Removing it, would be like "hey remove warp scramblers I dont want to lose my ships when other is better than me at PVP..."
Finally, if limit time becomes much higher, like 12hours, it will be much worse. Taking above example, I would lead the market 5 seconds and the other dude for 11h 59m 55s and this would generate HUGE amount of hate mails and epic marketragequits
|
Tasko Pal
THE IRIS
United Freemen Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 11:48:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Tasko Pal on 20/03/2009 11:49:32
It's worth noting that CCP is heavily pro-trader here. For example, the single biggest factor in favor of traders is that people who place market orders pay that price not the best price. For example, if there are 100 widgets at 50 isk and 100 widgets at 60, if I buy directly 200 widgets at 60 isk, I pay 60. Most real life markets would have me pay best price, 100@50 and 100@60. The point is CCP has put into place policies that favor active traders over people just buying stuff. Best price would also eliminate the decimal place scams where people could accidentally buy goods for a thousand times their average value.
I think CCP would be strongly against anything that would nerf active traders. For example, automatic bidding means that an inactive trader can compete effectively in busy markets with someone that spends considerable more time online. I don't think CCP wants that.
Also, you have to consider the problem of undercutting with small orders. Suppose you place a million item book order. What threshold do you use before you automatically drop the price? If I sell 100 items just under your book order, do you drop? 1000? Keep in mind that I can deliberately test for your threshold (assuming you can set it) and outbid you with the absolute minimum needed. End result is a good trader can get your automatic sell bid down to its minimum at the least risk to themselves.
OTOH, this should provide liquidity for a lot of sporadically traded items. Just be aware that things work differently when someone can game the system heavily.
|
Anos Tammo
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 14:08:00 -
[85]
Changes I'd like to see:
1) Players actually buy the item they chose to purchase from the market window from whomever made that particular sell order.
-This would make price changes meaningful, you'd have to make a price change that the customer would notice and care about in order to increase the odds of your item selling over another.
2) Updating of prices can be made once per hour.
3) One price amendment is possible to this new price within 5 minutes of the price update, to allow players to fix any errors they may have made in their entries.
|
Martosh Toma
Gallente
Fraction Investment
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 15:42:00 -
[86]
Could adding the option to sell in batches perhaps be an option to seperate the smaller and larger orders
the sell box gets 2 extra fields
batch size (perhaps limited to 10x, 100x, 10000x as options)
batch prize
price per unit stays (to help users so they can fill in either batch prize or size)
number then refers to the number of batches you offer rather than single units
A column is added to the overview showing batch size for orders
If you buy form such an order you do not buy single items but a number of batches you specify
broker fees for these orders should be reduced or broker fees for smaller orders incresed (and while there is diferentiation in broker fees being introduced (and perhaps on taxes too) also add differentiation in broker fees for order duration, making shorter order cheaper
Oh and stop resetting order duration each time you edit an order so orders actually end sometime making people think how many items they will be able to sell from that order in 3 months time.
this could also help to reduce transactions on the database.
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:53:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Sola Veritas
Market manipulators would have a field day, though.
If by that you mean a really tough day, yeah, sure
It's no longer a game of "who can be online longer" or "who can make it look like the market is going bonkers in the opposite direction where the market is actually heading", but a game of "who can predict price movement better" and "who can afford to permanently underbid the other big competitors".
Local, small scale trading wouldn't change much, if at all... the margins will just get a bit thinner.
At the same time, inter-regional trading might actually make a big comeback, since inter-regional margins are bound to be better than "marketmaker" margins in a single station.
I agree for the most part on what you're saying here Akita T.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:00:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
Same seller spilts his TRT selling as follows.
1.000.000 Units sold at 4.5
500.000 Units sold at 4.2
250.000 Units sold at 3.9
I actually practice this strategy on some of my market orders myself.
It does several things, including giving the false impression that there is more competition to others then their really is.
It also allows u to sell some of your order quickly, so you can work your existing funds... while at the same time the rest of your order sells at a better profit.
Depending on the existing competition of course.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:02:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Eleri Bree
There is no problem, its called a free market wherein i as a buyer get to purchase the items at the lowest avalable price.
This tool would help serious traders cut out some of the tediousness of trading.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:07:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei
Whether 0.01 footsie, as some call it, is a problem (maybe just timeconsuming annoyance) is really a matter of the average trade price of the item, and who is doing the talking: the seller or the customer.
0.01 out of 4.00 isk for trit (roughly, for arguments sake), is that a problem?
No and you trade such bulks of it that 0.01 really amounts to something. So it is worth persuing even 1 cent differences.
0.01 of a 90000000.00 (90M) isk battleship, is that a problem?
Yes. It is 0.000000011%.
Or how about 0.01 out of a 80k a piece salvage?
That could well be argued. 0.01 is not going to matter significantly out of sum like that.
So when are nudges too small?
At smaller than 0.01 changes to trit/pyerite, which would be less than about 1/400~ 0.2500%?
Or should we say 0.01 out of the about 2isk trit price more than year ago? Which would be about 0.1250%
How about just saying if it is less than 0.1000%
0.1000% of the 90M battleship above would be 90000 (90k) isk.
Or is that too big?
If you worry about 0.1% margin...
To the buyer, one BC sized rat blown up would pay that difference, as would a number of common salvage bits (melted caps, trit bars, armor plates).
So, no, customers (as in those buying from sell orders) don't give a farting spacemonkey about the 1 or 0.01 games that sellers (or buy orders) play on pricy items. Their time is too valuable to worry about microscopic margins on infrequently needed items.
They think more like: does the trip time justify the lower price or is the much closer, but suboptimal price, a better deal.
Look at the time issue. Even at a modest 3M/hour, it would come to 50k per minute - and newbies in a BC can make that if they salvage thier stuff.
If the newbie actually thinks about it, he/she would realize that travel time frequently outweighs the benefit of a lower price. Suprisingly many don't, of course, which is part of why we have such a problem with micro-margin whining.
Sellers on the other hand do care, particular the tradehub ones. Not because they care that fiercely about the 0.0000001%, but because they care that it is them getting the sale, not anyone else.
To them, even a 0.0000001 isk difference, if it was possible, would matter in terms of being the one listed on top, in a trade hub where people sort by price.
To them there is no margin too small.
Currently the minimal change margin is 0.01 isk.
I don't see any reason why we could not change this to 0.1% or a similarly low percent of your current unitprice in your market order.
It would speed up the order manipulation cycle (do 0.1% ten times and you have 1% - and that can hurt on low margin trades - but do 0.01 of 100k 10 times and you still have 100k isk (999999.9 or 100000.1, depending on direction).
It would not drive them as insane as the 0.01 games do, simply because they would not be changing as frequently.
Either way they have to make up their mind.
You can't both have the freedom to use the 0.01 games to your advantage and complain about it being used against your market orders.
Push for a proportional, scaling order-change minimum, like 0.1% or some small figure like that, is my recommendation.
I don't agree, with regards to changing it from being able to change your sell price 0.01 isk to instead having to do it 0.1%, percentage wise.
Even if your setup was in place people could just list their item anew, at any price they wanted.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
|
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:11:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
In a *truely* free market, I as a buyer, would have the right to decide from whom I buy my stuff.
I would actually like to see two improvements (from a buyer's perspective) implemented in the market:
- Let me decide from which order I get the goods.
- Let me see who's selling the stuff.
I might want to support that little newbie and pay a million more for a certain item. And I would rather not support our current war targets by buying stuff from them.
This would introduce a political tool...
The trade embargo.
I kinda like the anonymous ability to sell items.
Can you explain deeper why you'd want this?
Not just the trade embargo/trade support.
what other trade pro's/con's can this have?
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:15:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Red Wid0w
Yes the 0.01 isk issue is a total joke and could be trivially fixed by CCP (by just limiting changes to 1 per hour or whatever).
Even with this change you propose, the 0.01 isk game would still exist.
Originally by: Red Wid0w
The hilarious thing is that all the people saying "market is working like it's supposed to" are cheating macro scum.
All? thats false.
Originally by: Red Wid0w
In case you guys did not know... people use macros to play the 0.01 isk game while they are in work.
Prove it.
Originally by: Red Wid0w
I sincerely pity anyone that sits in front of their PC clicking on market orders all day..... Would they keep doing it if they know they were competing against bots?
Yes, People actually do this.
Especially when billions of isk are invested.
Yes, many people would keep doing if they where competing against bots.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:24:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Khrillian
if you value time highly just post your sell orders at the lowest price you're willing to sell at and don't modify them.
No, because traders want to make the largest profit available to them.
Profits encourage supply.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:27:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
Now, from a seller's point of view I'd sometimes also would like to be able to control to whom I sell. Taking my war targets example from above: Supplying replacement parts to my enemies so that they can reequip themselves right here instead of having to go to a 'neutral' place, might keep them longer around than I'd wish to.
Whats to keep your war targets from using an alt to buy supplies?
or using a friend to purchase it, from you anyways?
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:28:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Ms Delerium
- Market is already enough profitable while afk, you want to make it even easier to make isk??
Yes, more trade tools for traders.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:32:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Ms Delerium
Finally, if limit time becomes much higher, like 12hours, it will be much worse. Taking above example, I would lead the market 5 seconds and the other dude for 11h 59m 55s and this would generate HUGE amount of hate mails and epic marketragequits
No matter what time limit is set (1, 5, 10, 15, 30 mins, etc.) you can always beat the other guy, by simply having more orders then him.
In your example.
Just have your items split between 2 orders.
And you will ALWAYS be ahead of the competitions order.
The time limit has no other purpose than to keep the orders within a set speed the server can keep up with.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:44:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Tasko Pal
It's worth noting that CCP is heavily pro-trader here.
I'm glad.
Originally by: Tasko Pal
For example, automatic bidding means that an inactive trader can compete effectively in busy markets with someone that spends considerable more time online. I don't think CCP wants that.
I disagree, this feature would allow people to manage many more trade orders then they could now. Using this feature would allow more traders to participate in many more markets/items than they could currently.
Have you tried manually adjusting 300+ orders.
Your looking at hours of just upding, and by the time you've gone through your list. Its time to update the first items on your list.
So you are basicly stuck in an endless loop of updating just to have your items sell.
I realize other traders solution to that is to focus on a few items. However the counter argument is don't put all your eggs in one basket.
I believe if this autobidding tool where added you'd see more orders on the market. As well as more players training up skills such as Tycoon
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Hel O'Ween
Academy of Truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:42:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
In a *truely* free market, I as a buyer, would have the right to decide from whom I buy my stuff.
I would actually like to see two improvements (from a buyer's perspective) implemented in the market:
- Let me decide from which order I get the goods.
- Let me see who's selling the stuff.
I might want to support that little newbie and pay a million more for a certain item. And I would rather not support our current war targets by buying stuff from them.
This would introduce a political tool...
The trade embargo.
I kinda like the anonymous ability to sell items.
Can you explain deeper why you'd want this?
Not just the trade embargo/trade support.
what other trade pro's/con's can this have?
Basically, I'm sick and tired of this 0,01 ISK game. Be assured, I would always buy from the 1000 ISK guy, not from the 999.99 ISK guy.
And I'd rather buy from my corp mate or, in broader terms, from a 'blue guy', than from a neutral/red.
And, yes, this would turn the market into another political tool.
Quote:
Whats to keep your war targets from using an alt to buy supplies?
or using a friend to purchase it, from you anyways?
As I explained earlier: if you feel the need to, you're already willing to figure out the alts (for ganking their freighters, for example). Besides, all those changes would be a "can", not a "must". If you as a trader don't bother, you could just continue to run your business like you do nowadays.
--
EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
Aviditas
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:43:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
In thread a a daytrader said this microbidding reflects real life trade, that is not entirely true because there are a few different types of trade time wise and price wise, and when you place an order w the broker he stacks them and trades in larger volumes, and he will never slow trade on the floor by microbidding, thats not at all how things work.. No one on the floor would over bid or underbid with such lame increments. The microbids could and would only exist in pretrade w the broker.
You're paraphrasing me, and what you say is correct only as far as (some)investors are concerned. Daytraders do NOT work through brokers. We directly access the various markets we trade in.
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:57:00 -
[100]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 25/03/2009 17:05:26
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
Basically, I'm sick and tired of this 0,01 ISK game. Be assured, I would always buy from the 1000 ISK guy, not from the 999.99 ISK guy.
And I'd rather buy from my corp mate or, in broader terms, from a 'blue guy', than from a neutral/red.
And, yes, this would turn the market into another political tool.
I strongly doubt that CCP will want to change the way the market operates as it will negatively affect new players.
However, they might be willing to improve the way the corp/alliance contract system works to allow partially fulfilling a contract (buying just 1 unit of the product for example).
Quote:
1. Add advanced options to the current contract system to set the recycling efficiency level and the price per unit for the yielded raw materials.
Thus when transferring ownership of mission loot you'd only have to fill in the recycling efficiency level and price per unit for trit, pye, iso, mex, etc making the production manager's verification job much easier.
I find it laughable that in a game that revolves around PVP, the tools to take corporation/alliance warfare to market level are nonexistent.
Black Sun Empire |
|
|
Dzil
Caldari
TankSox Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:42:00 -
[101]
Just throwing this out there:
I think if you really wanted to curtail the popularity and perceived "unfair advantage" of people sitting in Jita trading and penny isking all day, you could modify the way order limits work to create a maximum number of orders you can enter/change in a given timeframe, based on your trade skills. So for example, if my trade skills allow 100 open orders, maybe that also limits me to 100 entered or changed orders per 24 hours.
|
Business Ethics
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:03:00 -
[102]
When I first started trading and looked over the trade skills I assumed that Daytrading allowed for more frequent updates of the orders. What a surprise!
Anyway.
I'm not in favor of any kind of automatic market updating as proposed here. Consistent with CCP's theme of "you gotta do it by hand" I don't think they want to change the mechanics either. Think of the frightful profit machines we could manage with such tools at our disposal. I juggle well over 2000 orders currently myself. Do we really need the ability to manage 10000 orders solo?
Neither am interested in any co-pricing, price-sharing, or other mechanisms to make the processing of vaguely like-priced items "more equitable" as some here might describe it.
I don't really care if some guy undercuts me so why change the "best price gets the deal" system to reward the lazy or the misinformed? The smart trader waits for the price to come to him.
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:58:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Business Ethics
I juggle well over 2000 orders currently myself.
If a single player can manage only approx 300...
how in the amarr name are you able to manage 2000?
how many alts are u using ?
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dzil
Caldari
TankSox Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:46:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: Business Ethics
I juggle well over 2000 orders currently myself.
If a single player can manage only approx 300...
how in the amarr name are you able to manage 2000?
how many alts are u using ?
I think it caps at 321
So that'd be at least 7 characters. Or 6 if he meant to say 1946. Which would nicely fit into 2 accounts, but would take forever to train up.
Of course, 7 accounts on 7 different screens could actually be enough spreadsheets to produce a nergasm. If you could afford the 2 bil/month isk overhead, it might be worth it.
|
Lordofbones
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:30:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Kwint Sommer
I would argue that, while annoying, .01'ing has an important place in the market. It allows small traders to make better margins than large traders (at least per unit of time spent managing the orders) which is important if you don't want veterans to hold a perpetual monopoly. Furthermore, an automated system like that would just add overhead and complexity to the database, both of which are likely to result in lag and crashes.
The system, though annoying, is fine as is. The young traders can earn a good margin/high turnove playing .01 games and the wealthy veterans use their large cash reserves and superior knowledge of the market to make good profits without it.
This I think? Small traders/new players can't move large enough volumes over distances to supply large orders and markets? They make their profit by selling their smaller lots at better prices locally, quickly...? You might wish you could make a better profit margin, I do, but options are limited if you try to trade for profit early in your career...? If you removed the ability to .1, small traders would just sell smaller lots, and instead of updating price on their orders, just offer a new lot at the next lowest price increment... when each order's price change limit was up, set it for the new lower price... If you make it a global timer on how much you can adjust all orders during a day, you hamstring the large traders more than a small trader, because big traders move more items and orders...?
Sorry I'm new, I just don't think changing the system would be a good idea...
|
Lordofbones
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:33:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Lordofbones on 26/03/2009 17:34:40
blargle
|
Pirva
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:59:00 -
[107]
In short you would like a macro which works when you are offline or if you leave your char logged in? In even shorter language a bot.
Dream on.
|
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:24:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Pirva
In even shorter language a bot.
There are a ton of features already in game that could be argued to be defined as a bot.
Here let me give you an example.
The weapon aimbot
When you're flying a ship, you do not manually aim the guns.
Rather you give your ship target and it AUTO AIMS for you.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 06:56:00 -
[109]
Originally by: YouGotRipped
I strongly doubt that CCP will want to change the way the market operates
Only CCP can answer that one.
Although my impression is CCP would like to improve the game overall.
Originally by: YouGotRipped
... as it will negatively affect new players.
In reference to:
How updating the market can negatively affect new players.
I disagree, as long as the improvements are made with competitive fairness in mind.
Although how you define what's competitively fair is arguable.
***********
Dasfry, Director
Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
small chimp
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:07:00 -
[110]
I really think that the op should be banished from this forum?
There is nothing wrong with 0.01 isk warfare even if you say so!
Tears of bears are so juicy!
|
|
|
Terrahh
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:42:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Dasfry
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.
The current time minimum between edits if 5 minutes.
You say it happens way too frequently then they should be. which sounds subjective.
My question to you is what objectionably defines how frequent they should be?
Agreed. If you want to 'fix' .01ISKing, what you really want to fix is the bid modification window. Set it to a base of 24h, with the 1st window after 5 min for error correction. Cut that time in half for each skill level of Daytrading. Maxed out daytraders will still be able to make price adjustments every 45 minutes, but those corrections will need to be more aggressive if they want to maximize the exposure of their bids.
Doing this would reduce the server load vs adding to it.
Remote bid modification could be left attached to Daytrading skill, or a new skill could replace it. ie. Trade Networking or Telecommuting.
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 18:49:00 -
[112]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 27/03/2009 18:55:22
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: YouGotRipped
I strongly doubt that CCP will want to change the way the market operates
Only CCP can answer that one.
Although my impression is CCP would like to improve the game overall.
Originally by: YouGotRipped
... as it will negatively affect new players.
In reference to:
How updating the market can negatively affect new players.
I disagree, as long as the improvements are made with competitive fairness in mind.
Although how you define what's competitively fair is arguable.
Believe me when I saY that apart from market bots, the current system is fine as it is.
New players compensate the lack of capital for diversifying their op by a heightened stamina and daytrading.
0.1 isk price adjusting is a normal result of high competition in a given market.
One way to avoid it is to always match supply and demand by bundling suppliers, producers and consumers in self sufficient mega corporations / power blocks and operating changes in the contract system as I described somewhere above.
The other one would be to shrink your profit margins and diversify.
Black Sun Empire |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |