| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mykpilot
   |
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:26:00 -
[1]
There should be minimum prices that one can ask to buy a module for, around the value of the reprocessing value "base cost".
There should be price maximums for a region, like 300% the average cost over a period of time.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 22:26:00 -
[2]
The reason for my suggestion is because there are often players who post sell order for items that are 1000% above the norm in order to catch someone not paying attention to what they are doing. It just takes up extra space on the market sheets than their needs to be.
In addition "max price restrictions" could be market only and those who want sell above that could use contracts.
The maximum price with a range of X% would adjust over time if the rate was increasing, as the average price increases.
Its not like todays goverments use these policy in our "player driven markets" to make sure the market operates efficently. A 100% free market isn't what we have not in Eve anyways.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 18:59:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 15/04/2009 19:02:09
 Quote:
EVE is much closer to a free market than anything the civilized world has to offer.
Its also much more simpler than anything in the civilized world. For EVE to be a true free market pretty much every service in the game would have to replaced with a player owned or run system. Then you still have the issue that CCP created the world and everything would be derived from raw materials and loot drops, thus they would still manipulate the market if they adjusted mining respawns and PvE content.
Quote:
Frankly, if someone is being inattentive enough to pay 1000% of the normal market value then they deserve to pay.
I disagree on the grounds that the user didn't want to pay that price and wouldn't have given a better UI. The gap between the UI of EVE and a real life transaction shouldn't reward those who wish to exploit someone either with a lack of knowledge or a person being inattentive or overtired. With that said the EVE UI is great, but that doesn't mean it a perfect.
Quote:
Occasionally, those 1000% markups are meant for people in dire need of a replacement "do-hickey" in a location that doesn't normally carry such things.
I can't think of a situation that isn't extremely unlikely for something like that to occur. The opportunity cost of traveling to a location with a normalized price is often the cost to switch to high sec jump clone or make the number of jumps to get that location. The players time would have to awfully valuable if they couldn't afford to get to a location that would offer goods at a normal or near normal price.
With that said, there is the option of having price ceilings and floors put in place in empire space only and leaving null sec with unrestricted prices.
Quote:
This idea would put me out of business the minimal price of materials would barely give me profits of the product i want to sell at max pricing.
Your business relies on a player willing to sell their modules at a price that is less the value of materials the player could get from reprocessing in the station? That makes no sense at all, since no player should make the decision to sell a module at a price lower than he can earn for reprocessing and selling the ores themselves. It often takes quite a bit a time for a player to know what the value of the sum of the ores and their relationship to the highest buy order in the market their in.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 22:16:00 -
[4]
Quote:
This would remove 90% of my income in game... And who are you to say my orders are 'just taking up space'... People regularly buy my 5m shuttles and 20k emp s, why should I be denied my awesome profits to protect stupid inattentive people who deserve to be liberated of their undeserved ISK?
This is the reason for the maximum price restriction. Activity in the market like that only serves to "trick" players into making the purchase.
Quote:
Yes, because anti-capitalistic price controls worked SO well in the 1970s. Gas lines were incredibly popular here in the USA.
Idiot. Please learn economics before you troll again. The market is working much better now that such controls (like shuttles) were removed.
While the price controls in the 70's didn't help the problem it wasn't the main problem. You are aware that the pricing restrictions I'm discussing is not at all like than the one you use your example? You are aware that the goverments still use effectively use price controls today, although again they are not really like the ones I'm suggesting?
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 23:02:00 -
[5]
Eve's market isn't a pure free market as it is now. In addition I can remember at least one one time that CCP stepped in and shutdown a group of players who had a signficant influence on market prices because they control a large share of T2 BPOs. It apparent that CCP doesn't want monopolies forming.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 13:11:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 16/04/2009 13:16:57
Quote:
^This. Price floors would effectively kill the 'ScrapMan' mini-profession. These guys clear up a lot of unwanted junk drops from the universe and turn it into useful minerals. How does losing that sound? Sounds bad to me.
No, the unwanted drops are still turned into the minerals by the players. Anyone can reprocess.
Quote:
Sorry mate, you'll have to explain this to me. I'm no economics major but surely preventing monopolies forming prevents price-fixing - the very thing you are, in essence, asking for. Therefore making it much less of a 'free-market' economics model.
A monopoly can be complex and comes in various form but in short a monopoly controls all inputs and therefore can set a price for a "need" item at whatever they choose as long as their is no close substitue. The monopoly/player is setting the price. What I am asking for is for the "empire" set market restricitons on absurd price, ones that are so high the only intention of the seller is the "trick" an inattentive buyer into purchasing the item. What does that really promote? It certainly not something that socially acceptable in the real world. The price mins would prevent a buy order from being posted at 1 isk, in essense the min buy order should only be set a the value of the reprocess materials for an item. Otherwise why would the player sell the module at a loss when there is NO COST to reprocessing the item?
These are system in place to prevent tricking a player who may be inattentive or not have the time to understand the value of his items. Everything reprocessed is still going back onto the market it just going back in ores and refinables.
The issue is there is currently too many markets in relation to players, the free market system is going to have flaws when this happens. I find it hard to understand how people for some reason seem to think that it is an infallible system.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 15:30:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 16/04/2009 15:34:46
Quote:
If price controls of any kind are implemented, I will quit without hesitation.
Of any kind? Quit now then. The patch notes just reduced the base cost of the interdictor. In addition CCP controls the primary resources aka minerals/ores which determine the cost of all the player made items in the game (in addition to them setting the amounts require to produce). CCP controls the price of most skill books, all T1 basic modules which determine the pricing for the T1 named modules and to a lesser degree T2 modules.
Make no mistake as much as people like to think this is a free market game driven by the players, CCP has a very big effect on the shape of the market because they are god and god creates all things.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 16:00:00 -
[8]
Quote:
No. there's no reason that you should ever be able to flood your crappy t1 mods and get a higher price for it and screw up the economy in eve.
I don't think your sentence makes complete sense, but you don't understand the type of price floor/ceilings that I want implemented. If this forum supported pictures I would draw a diagram.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 18:02:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 16/04/2009 18:06:58
300% above the market average price was just a number thrown out there. Technically it would be set where the demand curve intersect the y-axis (price). Sure you could manipulate what the game thought was the maximum value that a person would pay for the item, but what would that let you do? That would only let you set prices even higher above demand curve Price max where supply would already be 0. That doesn't gain you anything.
The min value could be solved by taking the average price of the mineral/ore for the market or empire space. The min price would be set to where account profit would be 0 for a supplier given the value that a "no skill" character would generate from reporcessing an item in empire space. Eve acutally already does this if you set create a courier contract, under collateral you can select "base price" which the game would then dervice a value for based on the reprocessing of the item and current market prices of minerals/ore.
For those who would attempt to push the market around using alts and large buy and sell orders the market price can ignore the few large purchase that deviate from the average. And its not like CCP hasn't stepped in and punished people who try to manipulate the market before.
So, to make my idea at little bit more clear:
I would like to see price minimum and price maximum safe guards in the market to make it easier for new players to understand the eve marketplace and reduce the number of unnecessary buy/sell orders.
1) The max price a player could set their sell order would be where the demand curve intersects the price/y-axis.
2) The min price a player could set a buy order would be the value of the minerals that would be created from a "no skill" player reprocessing a given item in empire space. This should be around where account profits for a seller equals 0 which is below where their economic profits would lie. Or a little below where the supply curve intersects the price/y-axis.
These pricing restrictions could be restricted to empire space.
From what I can tell the only people who object to such an idea are:
1) Those who are setting these buy/sell orders to take advantage of consumers.
2) Those who like the thrill of these pitfalls in the market place.
3) Those who think that setting price maximum above where the demand curve intersects the price axis and the minimum price where the suppy curve intersects the price axis would be harmful?
The third one I would really need someone to explain to me in detail because when you look at supply and demand diagram and you put price restrictions above and below the points I mentioned it doesn't affect the market.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 18:41:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 16/04/2009 18:46:33
Eve already derives a "base cost" for an item when you create a courier contract and want to set the collateral for the items in the contract. The base cost is based off price of the minerals. This would be the starting point.
I don't have the numbers and formulas for every detail of this suggestion, the idea is what I want to discuss.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 20:07:00 -
[11]
No idea what ITT means, but I don't have to be murdered to want to have a law against it. With that said, I do have to look at this absurd prices and shake my head and say, "Things would be easier if the scammers couldn't post in the market".
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 23:10:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 16/04/2009 23:13:40
Were not talking about the same thing.
Please draw a supply and demand curve. Then draw in the price floors and price ceilings at the points I stated. If you spent two weeks in an Economics course you would be able to do this in about 30 seconds. Then comment.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 00:30:00 -
[13]
Teras Menac, your first really didn't touch on the goal of what such as policy would accomplish. So you reponse missed the point.
Is stated that primary resources like minerals and ores could be exempt from price restrictions.
I don't want to set prices of items the same range of every market. I don't want trit to fall between 2.01 and 2.05.
If the demand for an item is 0 at X isk then I want th max price to be near that value.
Your making assumptions that free market system is perfect and can't be improved upon.
Your making assumption that I've been a victim of this scam.
Did I say it was hard to sort the list? No, Would it be easier to navigate the market when these listing posted? Yes.
I was merely presenting an idea that could potentially have a postive impact on the game. Your response totally missed what I was talking about. I wanted you draw the diagram so we could have a better discussion about the effects of such a policy because it was apparent you didn't understand the implications of the policy.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 00:32:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kuranta
I misquote people all the time because it makes me feel good about myself
How do you get by in RL doing that kind of stuff?
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 03:05:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 17/04/2009 03:11:38
Again, I stated that the price on minerals and ores could be exempt from the price restrictions.
Please understand that the price max and price mins would be self adjusting, I didn't say they were fixed. If the demand and supply curves changed so would the price max and/or price mins.
Before we continue, do you know what a basic supply and demand curve looks like?
Do you know how demand is affected if you set a price above the demand curves y-intercept?
Do you know how supply is affected if you set a price below the supply curves y-intercept?
I only ask because if your familiar with these tools it would help me understand why it wouldn't work if you could put in these terms or allow me to use a different way to express my ideas.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 04:21:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 17/04/2009 04:22:33
I would like to see price minimum and price maximum safe guards in the market to make it easier for new players to understand the eve marketplace and reduce the number of unnecessary buy/sell orders. To reiterate, they price restrictions are placed outside the supply and demand curves intersection to the price/y-axis it doesn't affect the supply and demand of the items on the market.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 05:25:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 17/04/2009 05:26:12
Quote:
If you instill max and minium price people would stop giving a care and would never motivate into messing or balancing the market out overall effect would result everything being sold at max prices or NOT AT ALL
Players are still able to choose any value between the max and min price. Heres is an example lets look at a "cap recharger I", the average price on this item has been between 20000 ISK and 50000 ISK over the last 12 months, as the market is, a player can set any price between 0.01 ISK and infinity. Now, if said the restriction would be 0.02 ISK and 999999999999999999999999999999 ISK. Would anyone object to this? Would my price restrictions prevent the market from operating efficently? If I said the price restriciton would be 10000 and 200000 ISK, would any objet?
The value in Jita from the ores/minerals is about 15500-16000 isk (this character has no industry skills). There is several thousand buy orders above 15000K which makes sense, if someone can take that item and reproces it more efficently or just wants the item for their own use as a module at lower price than the current sell orders. The question I ask is how does it help the market to have buy orders below 15500 ISK? Why would a player make the decision to sell at lower price than the value he can recieve with no opportunity cost. On the flip side if the average price is 40000 ISK today, what good does it do the market to have a sell order posted for 400000000 isk, when the market is perfectly competitive?
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 05:42:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 17/04/2009 05:44:52
Quote:
so how would your equation work in areas that havent seen a specific item in MONTHS? Long enough for the regional average price to fall to 0.1 ISK. In places like those 1000% above average may actually be at cost or lower. no buy orders + no sell orders = no supply/demand graph, which would put the max price at roughly ummm.. ZERO????
Besides, unless its an isk sink CCP wouldnt do it.
I don't know any empire space regions that would be in a situation where a item would be unavailable for months, but either drawing pricing restrictions from the neighboring region would be a start or just giving it no price restriction at all if its that rare, but the really rare drops aren't availble in the market anyways, you go to contracts.
Quote:
Before you tote out the "commodities and materials would be excluded", the first thing traders would do under you proposed system is everything they can to jump the price of materials so they could charge as much as possible for everything they trade, and it would happen. It wouldnt be a case of a few plyers manipulating the mineral market, it would be a spontanous MASS manipulation by every trader in the game so they could continue to BE traders and make a profit, so materials would HAVE to be included to give your system any chance of working. Why is it that every idealist in the world refuses to acknowledge human nature?
Just to be clear, under my proposed system, which is simply an adjusting maximum and minmum price on items, traders would then do whatever they could to cut supply of minerals by hording them all minerals (assuming this is the way they are forcing prices up unless they convince everyone to go into all out war increase demand on production which in turn requires more minerials). But all traders will do this in a copycat move (because prices have already started to skyrocket from a few traders who took a huge hit in ISK and poured all their ISK into a minerals, which will now be worth less than what they paid for it since they had to start the demand shortage buy buying at low prices) so that traders can continue and make profits... this is why minerals would have to be protect under my system as well. I don't see the connection to that point as well as problems with traders increasing prices by cutting supply. Since if that started happening more players would turn to mining to reap the rewards of these traders buying these minerals at anycost, then the prices would fall and the traders would run out of money and have to dump the minerals back on the market at a loss. I fail to see how this type of behavior would be provoked by an adjusting min/max pricing on items.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 12:41:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Tvaishk Suzuki
Just to add more things to this How do you propose caping T2 items? quite a few of those are already selling on the market for over 100% of the build/ invention price in the lowest sell orders, and lets not forget that there are the odd t2 BOP's out there still and at current selling prices there probably past the 300% build cost limit, and there build cost is different from those people who invent there t2.
Price max is self adjusting and is set at or above where the demand curve would intersect the x-axis on a supply/demand graph. Price min is self adjusting and is sets at or below where the supply curve intersects the x-axis.
Originally by: Tvaishk Suzuki
And how is 0.0 going to be affected by this? and lowsec for that matter, often a lot of the price hiking your complaining about is in lowsec where supply on those materials is not as high, it is also more dangerous to put them there so would loesec have to have the same restrictions as highsec? and if so how the hell would you implement that given lowsec and highsec share the same region boundrys.
I'd have to review the boundries of the maps, but from my experience, regions were either almost all empire or almost all null sec. But this would be a problem.
Quote:
This solution your proposing would just make more problems in the long run not to mention the impracticability in programing and managing the Database.
I can't see this being something that any second year computer science student couldn't accomplish. I have no idea what additional database manangement your refering to that would be worth mentioning. But, this isn't the point, technical implementation isn't what the topic is about, every idea that posted in F&I doesn't need to come with an algorithim and action plan for implementing the idea.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 12:52:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Durzel
Let's take your first question - "why would a player make the decision to sell at a lower price than the value he can receive with no opportunity cost". There can be numerous reasons why someone might want to post a "lower price than he can get". Disregarding for a moment the fact that "lower price than he can get" is an objective assessment based on the current market, perhaps that player couldn't be bothered to travel to one of the major hubs? Maybe that player just wanted to sell the item quickly at a price he/she knew would put them at the top of the pecking order? There are so many variables involved.
The example your quoting is not being quoted properly becaues I stated that we were in Jita. There was no opportunity cost, so you can't say maybe the player was not in Jita or the item was in another location thus the player now has an opportunity cost.
Originally by: Durzel
Then we have "what good does it do the market to have a sell order posted for 400000000 isk, when the market is perfectly competitive?". Well, items can (and do) cost differing amounts of ISK depending on where they are located, either due to the rarity of the item in that region, or whatever. Again the market really does take care of itself in this regard.
People who try and game the market by artificially inflating the price of something (beyond your ideological price ceiling) will soon find themselves with one of two things happening (or both): 1) People unwilling to pay the amount being asked and 2) Other traders willing to accept less for the item and posting a lower sell order price. In either event the organic market manages itself, prices do not stay artificially high for long simply because in a competitive market there will always be someone else out there willing to produce whatever it is you're producing for less profit.
As has been remarked to you several times - you've invented a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The market is self-regulating.
(Teras Menac's posts really spell it out far better than I am capable of explaining it, I suggest you re-read them)
I fully acknowledge that player will do their best to avoid purchasing items at price they are not willing to play. I understand supply and demand and that the market will adjust naturally and people will ultimately pay what for an item at fair price (where supply meets demand). But people are under the assumption that an unregulated market is without flaws, that its infallible and it can't be guided to better efficency.
What I seem to unable to convey is that my price restrictions would not affect any price that would fall on the demand and supply curve. This is probably the most important thing to take away.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 15:11:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 17/04/2009 15:11:47
Originally by: Sep'Shoni
You can't convey that because it can't happen.
It can though. If I had the power to say no one can set a sell order for a cap recharger I for 9999999999 ISK and no one can set a buy order for a cap recharger I for 0.01 ISK. I would have implemented a extreme version of what I want to do without affecting the market in anyway.
Originally by: Sep'Shoni
Supply, demand, and price are ALWAYS linked.
When the government sets the price the other two factors compensate -- which is why you got long lines for scare/practically non-existent items in the Soviet Union.
And if the government actually manages to command the official economy supply, demand, and price move to the black market instead.
Even in Eve it would be possible for me to drop into a mission hub with a supply of scarce, desirable ammo and offer it here and now via player-to-player trade for the attic-level price that demand sets.
I don't disagree with any of this but it has nothing to do with putting restriction on prices that are outside the demand and supply curve y-intercepts.
Originally by: Sep'Shoni
The only legitimate prices floor is the price below which no one is willing to provide a supply. The only legitimate price ceiling is the price above which no one is willing to buy.
Yes, this is what the suggested policy would implement.
Originally by: Sep'Shoni
The Eve market sets those just fine without help from any "government" restrictions.
It actually doesn't if you travel around to various markets a look at the absurd prices that are so high that its only set to that price to catch a player making a mistake on a buy order or buy orders so low that it tries to take advantage of a player with imperfect knowledge or making a mistake.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 16:52:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 17/04/2009 16:56:09
Quote:
Being able to scam and by controlling supply & demand twist the prices in the markets is integral part of the game. If nothing it should be encouraged more as a pure form of pvp.
Agreed, but this has nothing to do with preventing players from affecting supply and demand.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:58:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 17/04/2009 17:59:51
If the change could be done, would it make the game better or worse? Why?
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:09:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Tvaishk Suzuki
Just taking an example here one which I've actually done recently you find yourself in your pod in a station on a hostile system lucky I hadn't picked up the high value item I want to pick up.
So how am I going to get it out of the system... I look on the market, now the item isnt big so I decide to look for shuttles..... given I normally set my market browser to show cheapest at the top and yes there are some cheep shuttles on there though sadly there 5 jumps away in a high sec mission hub...and I'm out here in lowsec.
So I look for the closes shuttle out there and yes luckily there is 10 in the station I'm in though it will cost me 5 mil.... now I wouldn't normally buy a shuttle for that much but I need to get out of here and the item I have will cover that cost when I sell it, so I buy the shuttle.
Now I've just bought a shuttle for at the very least over 500% of the average price, and for a completely legitimate reason. I have no doubt that that shuttle would not of been there if the seller could not put in there at such a high price, it just wouldn't of been worth there time getting it out there.
What your proposing will stop total valid price hikes, the market works as it is sure you come across deliberately raised prices aiming to catch someone but just shake your head and tut to yourself and move on. The market now works putting limits on it will kill it.
Restrictions are in empire space only.
Originally by: Tvaishk Suzuki
Btw I am a second year comp student =) I'm not saying it cant be done though the additional database calls could be a problem, its mainly the fact that it would be horrendously time consuming to impliment and manage.
Define "time consuming to impliment and manage" even if the student was average as long as he was working with a language he's familiar with, and had co-workers to bounce ideas off it should only take a week to have written, debugged and beautified. I don't know where the horrible managing is coming from, the system would be self adjusting and whoever looks after the market fulltime would deal with any bumps that may occur. But it doesn't matter because again technicial hurdles aren't the point here.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:45:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 17/04/2009 19:46:32
Other benefits include...
Less items listed in the market make easier to view
Less items listed in the market could make the market respond quicker when other times it would be laggy.
Take a tool away from scammers.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:08:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Teras Menac
Except that your balancing system would require extra database calls for every item for every region, so it wouldn't really reduce the lag in any significant way.
Its hard to say how it would balance out really, but for every item there would be two additional pieces of information required to be called on each item which is the price min/max versus the number of listings (and the information that is required with each one).
Originally by: Teras Menac
As to your question before, I can read a supply/demand graph but I was never trained in how to generate them.
But again, the problem is you have a solution where no problem exists. bottom line, no noob has the cash to buy a Vexor for 4,000,000,000, so they aren't the ones victimized by these scams. Really the people who would get saved by this are the people who trade while drunk. 
I see your point here, experienced players with the cash are aware of this pitfalls and thus will be able to avoid them. However, in the long run, even a experienced player is liable to make the mistake of buying something severly overpriced. Because the single posting of sell order at a high price last 90 days and how many people will be subject to seeing the pricing over that time.
Maybe an alternative solution would be to give a player a buyer's remorse option, say after 15 mins the player if they haven't moved the item can return it for a full refund less a deductable like 1%.
Originally by: Teras Menac
But you didn't address my commodity spike question. You haven't stated precisely what the time period for establishing the mean would be. By eliminating commodities from your price controls you leave it open to massive spiking in the price of commodities. Trust me if your system were implemented I'd set myself to proactively breaking it. I don't have the isk myself to do it, but I know exactly how to do it and I know plenty of very wealthy industrialists who with the proper motivation could be encouraged to do destroy the Tritanium market in an effort to break this idea. What would result is a cabal of rich industrialists who capitalize off of your price controls by dominating the price of tritanium, who make money hand over fist by taking advantage of the mission loot sell orders that preceded the manufactured commodity spike. Trust me, if I get 10b isk, and hook up with ten other people who have 10b isk we could change the prices on everything in every region in Eve. An artificial price ceiling just gives us incentive to do it.
I believe the market stats that are available in EVE are updated daily (ie average price, average price of x days, quantity demaned,etc) so this would be update at the same time.
100B isk isn't really a lot of money given the number of players in the market. How much isk is generate each hour? The average number of players online is abotu 30 000. If each player is making 1M ISK, thats 30B an hour, if each player is making 10M ISK, thats 300B an hour. 100B is but a small fraction of what moves through the eve economy.
In addition the supply/demand rules would apply if the you cornered the market on trit and increased the price via supply shortage then everyone and their dog would be out mining trit to match demand. It would be unlikely that a few players would be able to keep up the escapade against the entire mining community. Also keep in mind for modules there are close substitues that players would use if the player made modules were too expensive such as T1 basics and named "dropped" modules that would be used in the short run.
The kicker is that CCP has stepped in and shut down players who pulled stunts like this before, so if they feel that a group of players are effectively undermining the market they'll step in.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:13:00 -
[27]
Quote:
Be careful when messing with the market PVPers because we'll wage war on you, and it won't benefit the noobs in any way shape or form. Like most idealistic economic ideas you are leaving proactive opposition out of your calculations. There are those of who would want to break it and would work toward doing it, or we'd work toward exploiting it, as was explained.
So if you develop the price controls over a long period of time they don't account for wild short-term fluctuations, and if you account for wild short term fluctuations, then it will become arbitrary because your price caps will fluctuate wildly. In short you make the market less adaptable.
Try to break the market, like I said before CCP will stop players who are successfully influencing the market in a way that negatively affects most players. Eitherway, If players to try to run the market for 24 hours before the server goes into downtime and the new scales are put into place they can be my guest. I can't see it happening given the number of alternatives that players would have in the short run and the stocks that they may hold themselves.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:54:00 -
[28]
Quote:
The lowsec systems I'm talking about are in empire hell all of lowsec is empire basically, and if your trying to only have this applying to high sec then it won't work even if it could as most regions are made up of lowsec and highsec systems.
I not 100% clear on your example, but you in a pod in a station in 0.1 - 0.4. There are reds/pirates in local? They are willing to take a security rating hit to kill you? Your corp is not able to assist. The know your there and they are going to get you? Shuttle or not your probably not getting out there if you try and make a run for it. And why aren't there shuttles in the station? Aren't they generate by the game in unlimited numbers? Sounds like a log and come back later day or where the heck is your corp?
A shuttle is 10K you paid 5M or 5000K, you paid a 50000% mark up.
Btw its not just a fue extra Database calls your talking about here its a complete multitude of them, take just a single t1 item you will be calling up A) what is used to build it b) what price those minerals are (this will consist of multiple calls for each type of mineral used, + others I'm not up for working out. all this to just put one module on the market, and don't say you can just take the prices every dt or something like that and have them run fixed for the day minral prices can change so fast that just wouldnt work.
I really do think the update on DT would work. You really going to have to show proof that the consumer market are that responsive. I'm pretty sure the consumer market has a lag time in which demand and supply curve adjust slowly, I know this is true for macroeconomic policies. Would 24 hours be enough time for explotation to occur where players couldn't switch to close substitue, were unwilling to wait till DT regardless of cost, didn't have any stocks in reserve, every single market was effected in this window of 24 hours. Doesn't seem reasonable.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:58:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dasfry
Originally by: Mykpilot
There should be minimum prices that one can ask to buy a module for, around the value of the reprocessing value "base cost".
There should be price maximums for a region, like 300% the average cost over a period of time.
NO.
What you're suggesting is not necessary.
When you do this, it is considered a market inefficiency.
Also it goes against the idea of a player driven market
You probably haven't read through most of the thread but you also don't understand the placement points of the price restrictions don't fall on either the supply or demand side of the curve and therefore create no deadweight loss (market inefficeny).
And its not against the idea of a player driven market, because price controls (like the one your reffering to) are implemented in the countries we may live in like Canada and the USA. And I would consider this markets "player driven" and I would consider the spirit of the market to be "player driven" with the guidance of goverment.
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 03:03:00 -
[30]
I guess I'm just familiar enough with price corner techniques in Eve. Cornering the market has always failed in the text book examples either because the market caught up or someone shut them down. I just don't understand how your technique of inflating trit prices in market with price restriction on modules would be any different than in a market without.
You buy up all the trit in every market... to create a shortage
You place the highest buy orders in every market... to prevent supply from entering the market
Then I'm not sure where you go from here....
You buy up all the modules/ships that you plan to target?
You make modules that use trit and sell them at high prices?
|
Mykpilot
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 04:13:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Mykpilot on 19/04/2009 04:13:43
Originally by: Teras Menac
I won't tell you the method for cornering the market on trit because then you'd know how to do it. ;) Your assumptions as to how it would be done are not how it would be done. It isn't really done because the hard part is getting 10 wealthy industrialists to devote the lion's share of their wealth to the same goal. Like I said though, if you provided incentive, then well that's useful to the scheme.
Right... To prevent me from cornering the market (or least knowing how its done) if a feature that has no hope in hell of getting implemented... And its not like your keeping anything a secert, this tactic isn't something that isn't in public domain already. Its not going to work period. Thats all.
The rule for a monopoly is that your MUST control nearly all of the inputs and there be no close substitue for the product (or the products it affects). And you can't possible control all the minerals by buying it all faster than the market would increase supply to meet demand with the fact that there are substitues.
|
| |
|