| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Veyda Jar
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
   |
Posted - 2009.04.07 17:04:00 -
[61]
I support the whole notion of ticks as values based off the commodity's average price. 0.1% to 0.2% sounds more reasonable.
The average price could be determined as, for example, a [harmonic mean of (historical bid price TIMES historical bid vol) and (historical ask price TIMES historical ask vol)] DIVIDED by historical combined volume... or using the current EVE method of average calculation (which doesn't seem very just).
If only we could get Dr.EyjoG to comment on this and various other underregulated aspects of the markets. I would very much love to take shorts, especially margin shorts.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 17:19:00 -
[62]
I can't see any "fundamental flaw".
Actually the market would be very flawed if I couldn't rise or drop the price by 0.01 isk. I mean, why shouldn't I?
From my point of view there is NOTHING wrong at all with the current price adjusting.
And if you want to ban bots, well then you have to ask first why people are using bots in the first place and how THAT could be changed. If you want to change something which you think is wrong, then change the fundamental reasons, not just some random effects.
|
Melysa Reul
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 02:05:00 -
[63]
I'm adding my support to this. Regardless of the methods, the fundemental problem is that adjusting your order constantly has no downsides, only positives. This encourages a kind of gameplay where you simply require more time at the keyboard than the other guy to win.
Having more static positions in the market would make the gameplay more interesting. Attempting to predict the markets would be more valuable, and it would allow you to put your positions based on more than just 'am I currently the lowest price in the market'.
Regardless of how it's achieved, I really do feel that this concept that being able to log in the longest means you should always win in the market is silly and leads to very dull gameplay. Even if they had some kind of expotential growth to your adjustment fee for adjusting your orders that rose and fell over a 24 hour period would spice things up a bit. Could you force the other guy to adjust his orders enough that the cost is too high for him to continue.
|
Scorellia Dex
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:15:00 -
[64]
0.01 isk wars are not the result of price ticks. They are the result of 2 things - first, there is only 1 'store' in eve. The "Market" All prices are seen at the same time. This only really affects retail. In the real commodity markets, all prices are seen at once too.
The other think that causes 0.01 isk wars - and the main one - is volume. not trade volume, but trader volume. If there was 500+ traders competing for the same item in the same system, bumping the price by 0.01 isk wouldn't help.
The math: 500 traders, each changes the price 3 times/day - 0.01*3*500= 15isk/day price moves. The average time that 0.01 isk changes would put you in the front of the queue = 24 hours/(1500 changes/day) = 57 seconds.
In eve now maybe 10 traders competing for the same item, 4 changes/day 0.40 isk price changes = no real market movement. Average time in front of the queue = 36 minutes. For an active item this means some orders. It seems to me that 10 active daytraders/item/system is a lot of competition in eve for many items.
Think of the difference this way. Eve - 50,000 logged in players, most of them not traders. Real world, several times that in hedge funds alone, let alone individuals, banks, pension funds, etc.
Ending 0.01 isk wars is easy - change your price by more than 0.01 isk.
|
Lep Erd
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 05:59:00 -
[65]
I can understand the attraction of a 0.01% system... or anything to undermine Penny Wars. But I think it's a flawed idea to force new sellers to undercut an existing order by a fixed amount. What this does is introduce a pricing penalty to traders/producers that are not first to market. On the one hand, the market in eve is a commodities market... but on the other hand, it's also the proxy for a conventional marketplace. And in a conventional marketplace, multiple people can offer the same product at the same price. While that's not exactly possible in Eve, with the lowest priced order always being filled... it is possible to give sellers the ability to choose their price rather than force significant iterative price decreases with every new sell order.
Penny wars suck, and does favor people that are adjusting their prices frequently or use bots. But on the other hand, you have plenty of options for responding. Leaving the market... substantially undercutting in order to discourage competition... or finding products with fewer active sellers proportionate to the volume. If an item has 20 people that updated in the last 30 minutes, but sells like hotcakes, it might not be a bad item to sell. But if it has 20 active sellers and only sells 5 units a day, chances are you won't be one of those five units.
Trade smart. That's the best solution for the market. Far better than arbitrary pricing rules.
-l
|
Lep Erd
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 06:04:00 -
[66]
 Originally by: Veyda Jar
If only we could get Dr.EyjoG to comment on this and various other underregulated aspects of the markets.
I'm leery of concerns of "under-regulated aspects" of the market. Regulation should only be implemented to address market failures and fraud. I don't see much of that in the actual market. Plenty of fraud in contracts... but not in the market. Nor do I believe that the market mechanism in Eve has any express market failures or contributes to them in the wider economy.
I could be wrong, since I'm focused in one corner of trading and it's working just fine from my perspective.
-l
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |