Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SpongeCakeS

Auction house

Recommended Posts

Somehow every other MMO I've taken a gander at manages to make proper marketplace systems work just fine. WF's soi-disant trading system OTOH is, tbqh, a primitive PoS that belongs in the days of Diablo 2 and Ultima Online and nowhere near the present decade; DE's unwillingness and/or inability to implement an industry-standard marketplace is both a grotesque farce, a major strike against both the game and the developer, and outright questionable given the unit of exchange is as close to Real Moneytm as makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Viridias said:

Somehow every other MMO I've taken a gander at manages to make proper marketplace systems work just fine. WF's soi-disant trading system OTOH is, tbqh, a primitive PoS that belongs in the days of Diablo 2 and Ultima Online and nowhere near the present decade; DE's unwillingness and/or inability to implement an industry-standard marketplace is both a grotesque farce, a major strike against both the game and the developer, and outright questionable given the unit of exchange is as close to Real Moneytm as makes no difference.

Here's a hint: you're trying to compare apples to oranges. 

Our economy doesn't have many items with reoccurring demand. 

Do you know what happens in an economic model where supply is infinite and demand is constantly diminishing? That's what you're asking for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Here's a hint: you're trying to compare apples to oranges. 

Our economy doesn't have many items with reoccurring demand. 

Do you know what happens in an economic model where supply is infinite and demand is constantly diminishing? That's what you're asking for. 

could change if we replaced the current riven system with Runic slabs or space sci fi equal. Just lock them to weapon category; Primary, secondary, melee, heavy/archgun, arch melee, sentinel weapons.

Require rune stones of varying types for certain inscriptions. Like a sharp runestone to boost slash dmg on the slab. Include materials of varying kinds so inscribing isn't so cheap one can easily make plat off it without lots of effort.

Give them 3 tiers, lesser, standard and greater or something else to stand for greater. Lock them behind hard missions that can't be overpowered through.

Make kuva tradeable along with those. 

Now there's constant demand that will be hard to sate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, (PS4)chibitonka said:

could change if we replaced the current riven system with Runic slabs or space sci fi equal. Just lock them to weapon category; Primary, secondary, melee, heavy/archgun, arch melee, sentinel weapons.

Require rune stones of varying types for certain inscriptions. Like a sharp runestone to boost slash dmg on the slab. 

Give them 3 tiers, lesser, standard and greater or something else to stand for greater. Lock them behind hard missions that can't be overpowered through.

Make kuva tradeable along with those. 

Now there's constant demand that will be hard to sate.

Yeah, thats probably brilliant! All you need to do is to completely remake the entire game! And turn it into a totally different game!.... Wait a minute... That's probably not a great idea after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Here's a hint: you're trying to compare apples to oranges. 

Our economy doesn't have many items with reoccurring demand. 

Do you know what happens in an economic model where supply is infinite and demand is constantly diminishing? That's what you're asking for. 

In most MMO economies the demand for any given item per player tends to be more or less limited, sometimes quite sharply so. And as the only thing unusual about WF's is the use of the local real-money currency for transactions between players and the laughable primitiveness of the mechanics thereof I'm quite failing to see what's supposed to make it such a special snowflake orange instead of a pretty standard apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Viridias said:

In most MMO economies the demand for any given item per player tends to be more or less limited, sometimes quite sharply so.

Crafting systems would like to say hi. In Warframe, those resources are needed by every player and are used as a progression system, as such they aren't tradable. In something like WoW, those resources are only really in demand from dedicated crafters and other people buy what they end up crafting. You must compare apples to apples or there is no point to the comparison and has 0 weight in an argument to implement an AH.

27 minutes ago, Viridias said:

And as the only thing unusual about WF's is the use of the local real-money currency for transactions between players

You say this as if it isn't the entire reason there is no AH, as if it isn't a huge factor in the argument.

There would be nothing to stop an AH from being made except for the trading of Plat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Yeah, thats probably brilliant! All you need to do is to completely remake the entire game! And turn it into a totally different game!.... Wait a minute... That's probably not a great idea after all. 

did say or sci fi equal. Seems that was clearly overlooked. >.> 

No let's just stick with that rng ridden mess known as riven mods. Let's not give ppl a reason to want to keep playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Viridias said:

In most MMO economies the demand for any given item per player tends to be more or less limited, sometimes quite sharply so. And as the only thing unusual about WF's is the use of the local real-money currency for transactions between players and the laughable primitiveness of the mechanics thereof I'm quite failing to see what's supposed to make it such a special snowflake orange instead of a pretty standard apple.

Limited but reoccurring ≠ one time demand. 

The fact that you're not able to grasp the concept, suggests that you are probably not really understanding what effect the changes you propose will have. 

30 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

There would be nothing to stop an AH from being made except for the trading of Plat.

DE also explained that it's a technical challenge as well, as the prices and inventory will have to synchronize over multiple servers without lag, and they figure that's going to be a headache. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

DE also explained that it's a technical challenge as well, as the prices and inventory will have to synchronize over multiple servers without lag, and they figure that's going to be a headache. 

Right, not to discount the tech angle, but the one thing, beyond all else, that stops them from the very idea being openly considered, is that trade happens in Plat. If it becomes easy to trade Plat, easier than it is now, the incentive to buy it rather than trade for it, diminishes. Thereby directly affecting DE's income.

People can keep ignoring that Jupiter sized elephant or they can actually engage with that beast and try to come to an idea that addresses it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

Right, not to discount the tech angle, but the one thing, beyond all else, that stops them from the very idea being openly considered, is that trade happens in Plat. If it becomes easy to trade Plat, easier than it is now, the incentive to buy it rather than trade for it, diminishes. Thereby directly affecting DE's income.

People can keep ignoring that Jupiter sized elephant or they can actually engage with that beast and try to come to an idea that addresses it.

Nah. It'll be a lot harder to get plat. Because the prices for most items will crash as supply vastly outstrips demand. 

So people will be struggling to get even tiny amounts of plat because most items sell at prime junk prices. 

I'll probably benefit from such a change in the short term, my plat will buy much more stuff. But at the cost of newbs having to grind endlessly for stuff just to afford their slots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

Right, not to discount the tech angle, but the one thing, beyond all else, that stops them from the very idea being openly considered, is that trade happens in Plat. If it becomes easy to trade Plat, easier than it is now, the incentive to buy it rather than trade for it, diminishes. Thereby directly affecting DE's income.

People can keep ignoring that Jupiter sized elephant or they can actually engage with that beast and try to come to an idea that addresses it.

What if they did monthly plat subscriptions? 

Subscriptions are a great means of revenue for live service games after all. 

Maybe exclusive cosmetics that you can only get from subscribing and have them on recycle. Alongside plat ofc. Or make it so you can buy the tennogen stuff with the subscription alongside a set sum of plat. 

Keeps ppl from accusing them of being pay to win even tho it's not and provides more incentive to buy plat. 

Between plat subscriptions alongside prime access packs/prime vaults, tennogen and reknown packs they should fare better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

the prices for most items will crash as supply vastly outstrips demand

It's almost like you've not even read anything that I've written in this thread, on the previous page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read what I said and what you replied carefully again. 

On 2019-06-07 at 9:50 PM, Leyers_of_facade said:

People who are asking for AH mainly is due to them thinking that it is difficult to buy and sell items. In reality, that is actually not the case unless you are trying to greed on some poor soul who doesn’t know the actual prices in the trading channel. One can already easily buy an item by simply going to warframe market and copy the names of whoever is listing the item and is online (although something should be done to make sure that those showing online are actually online), the only thing bad about this is that the prices there tends to be slightly higher than the trading channel. On the other hand, it is also reasonably easy to sell if you just list your items to be “-5p” of the lowest online offer.

 

My argument is as followed

- Stated that an argument is false (The fact that currently it is difficult to buy and sell items)

- Explained why the argument is false

Your response:

On 2019-06-11 at 8:42 AM, SordidDreams said:
On 2019-06-07 at 9:50 PM, Leyers_of_facade said:

People who are asking for AH mainly is due to them thinking that it is difficult to buy and sell items. 

No, it's due to the fact that buying and selling items is inconvenient. You have to either sit in trade chat, which precludes you from actually, y'know, playing the game, or you have to either abort missions when someone messages you or feel like a douchenozzle for making people wait (potentially also losing the trade if your mission takes too long). That's to say nothing of having to go through loading screens for every trade. Wiggling your ship around gets kinda old after the seven hundredth time.

 

- What you are basing on is that it is "a fact" that buying and selling items is inconvenient, which is exactly what I have explained from the second line on to be not the case

And so, the following is arguably just a strawman fallacy 

20 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

Which is why I didn't do that, I cut off the 90% that is irrelevant due to being based on a false premise. That false premise is the only thing I quoted and refuted, the rest falls away with it. I could have quoted the whole thing and replied in exactly the same way, I truncated the quote simply to avoid producing a giant wall of text.

 

In case you are not aware of the following, let me explain it to you in easy words.

AH either requires active input (or participation from what you said), or it doesn't. There is no "intersection" between the 2 cases as one is strictly the complement of the other.

In logic, if you want to proof that something doesn't exist in the sample space, you can create a subset and first show that it does not exist in the subset, and then show that it does not exist in the complement of the subset, to which you can then conclude that it doesn't exist. Now lets go back to our argument

From my first post, I mentioned that

On 2019-06-07 at 9:50 PM, Leyers_of_facade said:

Some people might be thinking that if warframe market didn’t crash the prices, AH won’t. This isn’t the case as AH doesn’t require the active input of the player.

First off, we are basically starting with the subset (lets call it S) that AH does not require active participation, to which I said that it could cause issues.

On 2019-06-11 at 8:42 AM, SordidDreams said:

Says who? You could totally design an AH that did require active input if you wanted to.

Your argument is essentially. "Just because the item doesn't exist in S, doesn't say that it does not exist". To which one would infer that the good AH exists in SC , the complement.

This goes against your point where you basically asked for AH to not require active input so as to "let people play the game"

On 2019-06-11 at 8:42 AM, SordidDreams said:

No, it's due to the fact that buying and selling items is inconvenient. You have to either sit in trade chat, which precludes you from actually, y'know, playing the game, or you have to either abort missions when someone messages you or feel like a douchenozzle for making people wait (potentially also losing the trade if your mission takes too long). That's to say nothing of having to go through loading screens for every trade. Wiggling your ship around gets kinda old after the seven hundredth time.

Now, lets assume you didn't make this mistake of essentially contradicting yourself and go with what you mentioned in your recent post 

20 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

Specifically, the second quote doesn't mention anything about an AH that requires active participation being good. I only say that you could make one like that if you really wanted. In my opinion it would kinda defeat the point, though I suppose it would at least allow players the option to accept trades while in a mission, and that would still be better than having to abort the mission and travel to the dojo.\

So, you are suggesting that it would require active input, and that players could do so while in missions.

That in itself isn't a good idea, why? It could easily increase leechers and afks. Look at how many "Bounty and leechers in plains / orb" threads pop up. If people can benefit while doing other things during a mission, they likely will.

20 hours ago, SordidDreams said:
21 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

So lets say they decide to listen to your idea, so trading per day is limited. Now, the question is, are listing limited? and does AH replaces current trading chat or simply adds on to it

 

If you think those are the only questions, you haven't given this much thought.

Neither did you. I only pointed out the a few things to consider next as you never stated what you think is the correct direction. Rather than answering them, you would rather say that I didn't put out all the questions out in 1 go. Very good for entertainment, not very helpful.

20 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

Why on earth would it do that? There are far more newbies than veterans. Even under an extreme restriction such as only being allowed to list one single item for sale at a time, you'd still have plenty of low-tier items for sale because of the large number of people who simply don't have anything better to sell. What it would do is prevent the main thing AH opponents are afraid of, a price crash resulting from everyone immediately putting up everything they have for sale.

If everyone are only allowed to list one single item for sale at a time, I could guarantee that prices would go straight out the roof for quite a lot of items.

Look at energy siphon, before nightwave was a thing, the prices of one roughly sits between 10-20. Now, we have nightwave that largely limits the amount of aura mods going into player's hand, what happens? The lowest in warframe market is currently 30, it was 35-40 in different times during the last 2 weekends.

Why was that the case? Supply dropped significantly as players now have to spend their small amount of wolf creds for aura mods, and for the past few weeks, they can't even obtain the mod in any means.

Supply and demand works in both ways and demand isn't going to change much in this case. Put too strict of a restriction on item listing, and supply goes down significantly, resulting in prices to skyrocket, putting too lenient of a restriction on item listing, and we have the massive price crash. The fact that higher price items having a significantly higher preference of being listed makes the scenario a lot more polarized. 

20 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

What about them? They're an item like any other, I see no reason why they should be treated in any kind of special way. Do you?

to those not reading the previous sections "they" refers to rivens and I am not bothered to recopy.

Rivens are unique. If item listing is limited, ie what you are suggesting, then finding a specific riven would be practically impossible if the riven you seek are not a "meta" one. In addition, most rivens tend to have prices that are far higher than normal items, which also has an influence on how they are given a significantly higher preference for those who lists their item.

20 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

And you think that based on what, exactly? Is it a case of "I have no clue how to do this, therefore it must be impossible" or do you have any kind of evidence or argument to support that viewpoint?

 

Given that I don't have access to DE's internal stats on trade volumes and prices and on the contents of other players' inventories, I can't do that. I can only speak in generalities.

  • Currently AH does not exist
  • A good AH design also has not been suggested
  • Many people has attempted and failed to provide one
  • You suggested that a good AH does exist, in which one core issue we have to address is controlling the market such that supply does not change
    • However you did not give even a vague idea of how. If you want to proof that there exists a way, you could proof it with arbitrary numbers, showing perhaps an equation or a procedure such that when given the statistics, one can work out the "magical number"
    • Given that rather than actually trying to give a valid method, all you have been doing in AH posts is trying to "solve" the issues that appear, sadly with conflicting solutions. This further suggests that a working AH may simply not exist.

Speaking in generalities with effectively no thought or procedure is effectively useless and is no different from shouting slogans for the sake of shouting.

For example, saying something like "We should reduce COemissions to combat climate change" is rather useless on its own, if you do not provide any idea on how to solve the energy problem, the increasing demand for electricity, the weakness of renewable... etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

What you are basing on is that it is "a fact" that buying and selling items is inconvenient, which is exactly what I have explained from the second line on to be not the case 

No, you specifically said "difficult", as shown in your own quote of yourself. In my opinion the inability to distinguish beween "difficult", "inconvenient", and "tedious" is one of DE's greatest problems as a game dev studio, and I'm dismayed to find the problem extends into the player base.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

That in itself isn't a good idea, why? It could easily increase leechers and afks. Look at how many "Bounty and leechers in plains / orb" threads pop up. If people can benefit while doing other things during a mission, they likely will. 

Yes, which is just one of the reasons why I said I would prefer an AH that didn't require player participation to conduct a trade. Again, you're the one who insisted on player participation, which you're not arguing against. I simply stated that yes, it would be possible to build an AH that requires it, and I named an upside of that that I could see. As indicated by my use of the phrases "I suppose" and "at least", I don't consider that upside to be worth the downsides.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

f everyone are only allowed to list one single item for sale at a time, I could guarantee that prices would go straight out the roof for quite a lot of items.

That would be why I specifically said such a restriction would be extreme, indicating that I don't think making it that severe is a good idea.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

Rivens are unique. If item listing is limited, ie what you are suggesting, then finding a specific riven would be practically impossible if the riven you seek are not a "meta" one. In addition, most rivens tend to have prices that are far higher than normal items, which also has an influence on how they are given a significantly higher preference for those who lists their item.

Fair point, your first. I suppose riven listings should be unlimited, then.

See? This is how we arrive at a good design, not by insisting that long-debunked non-issues are an ironclad reason why an AH can't happen, but rather by raising valid objections and addressing them.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

Speaking in generalities with effectively no thought or procedure is effectively useless and is no different from shouting slogans for the sake of shouting.

Hey, I'll come up with a detailed design when I'm paid for it. It's very disingenuous to demand math from me and not from the people I'm answering. When someone says "prices would crash because supply would increase", that's considered a valid objection to an AH. But when I refute that by saying "no, because you could throttle supply via artificial limitations", that's not considered rigorous enough without numbers and formulas? Please.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

For example, saying something like "We should reduce COemissions to combat climate change" is rather useless on its own, if you do not provide any idea on how to solve the energy problem, the increasing demand for electricity, the weakness of renewable... etc 

Oh yeah, all those climate demonstrations are totally worthless and people should spend their time doing something more productive... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

No, you specifically said "difficult", as shown in your own quote of yourself. In my opinion the inability to distinguish beween "difficult", "inconvenient", and "tedious" is one of DE's greatest problems as a game dev studio, and I'm dismayed to find the problem extends into the player base.

Yes, which is just one of the reasons why I said I would prefer an AH that didn't require player participation to conduct a trade. Again, you're the one who insisted on player participation, which you're not arguing against. I simply stated that yes, it would be possible to build an AH that requires it, and I named an upside of that that I could see. As indicated by my use of the phrases "I suppose" and "at least", I don't consider that upside to be worth the downsides.

Hey, I'll come up with a detailed design when I'm paid for it. It's very disingenuous to demand math from me and not from the people I'm answering. When someone says "prices would crash because supply would increase", that's considered a valid objection to an AH. But when I refute that by saying "no, because you could throttle supply via artificial limitations", that's not considered rigorous enough without numbers and formulas? Please.

I am not asking for the formula of those who are saying  "prices would crash because supply would increase" (in the case of unlimited listing / trading) because it is a really trivial task. Anyone with a bit of statistics background would be capable of giving out a method that can give an approximation of the magnitude of the increase in demand. Similarly, I would not ask for someone to do a proof if they make a conclusion of A->C when given the premises of A->B and B->C, however I would definitely ask them to show a reasonable proof if they claim that they have solved the Riemann Hypothesis.

Back to the problem of approximating the magnitude of the increase in demand, one can do an estimation with the following:

DE has the number of players logging in daily, as well as the mastery rank distribution of these players. Pull both graphs out, and one could work out what the active player base looks like.  Then, they can group these players into different categories with MR (yes, this would be flawed, due to how MR does not necessarily reflect player inventory), and using a random sampling method, pick perhaps something like 50 players from each category. Next they can check how many of different items they have in their inventory, they could put items into different groups differentiated by price and rarity, then pick a few items within each group to sample.

Then by chebyshev's inequality (LLN / CLT works as well), as sample size increases, variance decreases, so with a large enough sample size (30 could already be enough and 50 is very likely enough, if it still isn't, we can consider pushing it up to 100), we would be able to give a really good approximation of the population distribution of these items and thus calculate the magnitude of the increase in supply. 

That took... roughly 30 seconds for me to thought out, in fact, it took me far more time to type it all out in simpler terms. I could easily think of other ways to give an approximation and perhaps a few ways we can improve our approximation. Likely within just 1 working day, any statistician would be able to generate several approximations (with different methods) of the magnitude of increase in supply when given the basic data. Therefore, back to my point, it is so trivial of a task that one does not have to ask them for the mathematics to work it out as anyone with a math / stats related degree should be able to do it.

-------------

Now, what you are asking for, is vastly different. You want to basically find a threshold (assuming it exists), where with the implementation of AH, the supply of everything would remain roughly the same. As I mentioned in previous sections, both a large increase in supply and large decrease in supply would cause severe impacts, so the solution would have to be limiting the supply on both sides. To do that, there is a lot more variables you would have to consider. For example, the preference of listing high price items. Do keep in mind that when listing is limited, higher price items will be a lot more preferred by players to pick for listing. With the "non limited listing" scenario, one could base their approximation on the "they will sell everything in excess of their first copy" assumption to make an estimate, you won't be able to do so in this scenario. 

Since you are incapable / unwilling to give any suggestion on how to work out these number, I could give out my current thought process.

In this case, lets say we use the assumption of "people will sell items in order of price from highest to lowest", we won't be able to use a similar method of selecting several items per price range to estimate, instead you would basically have to group items in order of price ranges. Perhaps <10, 10-30, 30-50, 50-150, 150-300, 300-500, 500+, for simplicity, lets call them Group A, B, C...G where group A is for 500+ items and Group G is for <10p items. Our goal remains to keep supply roughly the same for items in all price ranges, so in order to do so, DE could view the number of trades per item within a set amount of time, and use that to expand it to a general case (similarly, by CLT we can do that)

Now, when sampling each individual account, you would have to sort their items into these price ranges, under our assumption, we would have to fill in the "available listing slots" with items starting from the last group (ie 500p+ items), followed by the next highest (300-500)... etc. It is also likely that you would have to test different listing limit.

For example, one of your random sample could end on up on some hardcore long time player's inventory, say player X which lets say... have 2A, 4B, 14C, 20D, 37E, 250F, 10000G ... etc
another could be on a newer player, player Y, and so their inventory probably looks like 1E, 2F, 15G
another could be on a casual farming player, player Z, so it looks like  2B, 3C, 5D, 10E, 15F, 100G

To make it easier to visualize the issue, we can just look at a 3 sample scenario.

Lets say we start with a listing limit of 20, only items in groups A-C would be counted for our first player, while for our newbie, they would only use up 8 of the slots and filling it with E to G, our casual farming player would have it filled with A-E items.

The probability that this starting listing limit is one that would make it so that in every group, the supply would be roughly the same is effectively 0. At this point, you would obviously want to get a better number. Now there comes the first problem, what if the supply of items in a particular group increased or decreased too much? Do keep in mind that the only thing we can control is the listing limit.

1) If the supply of a higher group (let's say A and B) increased by too much:

The only move would be to reduce the listing limit, but what happens when say... you reduce it from 20 to 15? For player X, they will list less group C items, for player Y, they would list less group G items, for player Z, they would be listing less group E items. 3 different group has seen a decreased supply, but not the one we are looking for.

2) If the supply of a higher group decreased by too much

The only move would be to increase the limit. Lets say you increase it from 20 to 25. What happens? player X lists more group D items, player Y lists more of ... nothing because they are out of stock and player Z lists more of group F

3) If the supply of a lower group (lets say F and G) increased by too much:

Similar scenario as the first one, the only thing we could do is reduce the listing limit. What happens? You get to be lucky with group G being reduced as player Y lists less of it, however what also gets affected are also group C and group E, neither of which are what we are trying to change.

4) if the supply of a lower group decreased by too much.

Similar scenario with the second case, while F does get affected but so does group D, which could also creating another issue on its own.

My point from this easy example is that the likelihood of a "magical number" of listing limit existing is really minimal as no matter what number we start off with, any increase and / or decrease on said number is almost guarantee to have an impact on supply of several other groups, and we have more or less, a looping problem.

Even in the really off chance that there actually exists a listing number such that supply across all groups does not change too much, there are more problems you would have to deal with. For example, price fluctuations of items (especially during vaulting / baro rotations), the cyclical manner of warframe's playerbase (especially with the "no interaction AH" that you are proposing).

In addition, when supply changes, prices of items would also change as a result, we could easily add in the potential existence of recurrent equations, which makes all considerations even worse than it currently is.

------------

Spoiler

Here is a story

-> humans can't fly by flapping their arms

-> people have tried and failed in the past

-> an idiot (who would be referred as Mr. S strongly believes that it is possible to do so, and claims that "you would be able to fly if you stick feathers onto your arm and swing your arms quick enough"

-> people pointed out several problems with such idea

-> Mr.S tries to "solve" all problems, but with solutions that are often flawed and in some cases, even inherently conflicting with each other

-> Mr. S is also upset when people disagrees with him for not believing that people can't fly by flapping their arms, claiming that they only believe that it isn't doable because they themselves can't fly by swinging their arms

-> people asks Mr.S "fine, how about you show us how you do it"

-> Mr.S replies "Why should I waste time showing that it is possible to fly by flapping your arms? Its not like you would ask people to show that airplanes can fly in the air"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

Do keep in mind that the only thing we can control is the listing limit.

Says who? Up to that point right there, your post is very informative and constructive, but that right there is where you again commit the sin I reprimanded you for once already, i.e. postulate a terrible implementation of an AH, show that it's terrible, and conclude that a good one is therefore impossible.

In reality you can control literally anything and everything about how and when AH transactions happen. You can limit the number of listings, how often players are able to make new listings or edit existing ones, as well as if and when their listing show up in other people's search results, and you can do that for each item category or even each individual item separately if you want to. You can impose such limits based on whatever criteria you want, including item price, allowing you to directly affect supply within individual price brackets. If you'd prefer a more subtle tool, you can levy a plat tax from transactions that you can tweak depending on any number of criteria you want, including price, item type, how many other transactions the seller has concluded recently (discouraging people from trading too much and exploding the supply by increasing the tax with each recent transaction), even set it to whatever you want for particular individual items. When you can control literally every single aspect of if and when and how transactions happen, as well as the acquisition rates of the items that are traded, there's no reason why you couldn't shape the economy into whatever you wanted.

So to conclude, you seem to suffer from a serious lack of imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

You can limit the number of listings, how often players are able to make new listings or edit existing ones, as well as if and when their listing show up in other people's search results, and you can do that for each item category or even each individual item separately if you want to. You can impose such limits based on whatever criteria you want, including item price, allowing you to directly affect supply within individual price brackets.

Let us ignore how much work has to be done if you want to make the listing limit on a per item / category basis, as it is already a massive annoyance just for the extremely simplified example that I used for the purpose of illustrating the problematic nature of the method you are suggesting,do take in mind that if you really want to implement it in such way, the price bracket would have to be sliced much more such that each group does not have an arguably different range within itself.  Affecting how listing show up in other people's search results would not change the core problem of the issue, and if you implement it such that there is a different listing limit for different price brackets, then you are favoring longer time players significantly at the cost of our newbie player, which is definitely not something we want. In addition, your solution doesn't even attempt to address the other problems, for example, massive price fluctuation due to different rotation mechanics. If the system has to continuously calculate prices, whether manually by a full team of staffs or with a computer, DE would have to invest A LOT of money, to the point that this plan is economically not feasible.

I won't even consider writing this solution in my post because of how stupidly bad it is, and if I have to list every bad solution I can think of online, my respond would easily be the second longest "essay" I ever typed (I highly doubt I can top my own record of 22k typing a whole bunch of stupid ideas) and we achieved nothing but waste each other's time, mine for having to type a whole bunch of bullsh*t, and yours assuming you actually bother to read it.

 

3 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

If you'd prefer a more subtle tool, you can levy a plat tax from transactions that you can tweak depending on any number of criteria you want, including price, item type, how many other transactions the seller has concluded recently (discouraging people from trading too much and exploding the supply by increasing the tax with each recent transaction), even set it to whatever you want for particular individual items.

 

A plat tax? 🤣

Did you honestly think that is a good suggestion? I seriously question your sanity and/or motive if that is the case.

3 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

When you can control literally every single aspect of if and when and how transactions happen, as well as the acquisition rates of the items that are traded, there's no reason why you couldn't shape the economy into whatever you wanted.

A solution that causes more issues than it solved, really isn't a solution you would want to propose, unless you are trying to be a clown and make the crowd laugh. The solution of cutting off your arm so that your finger stops bleeding from a paper cut for example isn't a valid solution to be considered.

3 hours ago, SordidDreams said:

So to conclude, you seem to suffer from a serious lack of imagination.

Imagination can only take you so far, a child can imagine that it is possible for them to fly by flapping their arms, that doesn't change the fact that they cant. To conclude, you seem to lack the capability to grasp the fundamental issues posed, nor the costs (including economically [opportunity cost] or the "cost" from sacrificing certain values, the introduction of other severe issues... etc) bound to every fluff theoretical solution you seem to be trying to suggest.

 

I am not going to feed the troll / dreamer anymore, they can fill their lives imagining that the world could be better, imagining that it is possible for humans to fly on their own, imagining that there will be a infinite amount of resources. Imagination is only really imagination if no practical / economically feasible action could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

Let us ignore how much work has to be done if you want to make the listing limit on a per item / category basis

I think that would depend on how many categories you make, and I doubt there are more than a handful of items that would require individual attention in that respect. Indeed some items already do receive special treatment with regard to trading, e.g. a few mods are not tradeable.

So by pointing out that setting trading limits for each and every item individually would be a lot of work, you are once again arguing against the absolute stupidest possible implementation of an idea rather than against anything a reasonable person would interpret it to mean. Given the number of times I've had to call you out on this, I'm really starting to think you're doing it on purpose.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

,do take in mind that if you really want to implement it in such way, the price bracket would have to be sliced much more such that each group does not have an arguably different range within itself

Um, no, it wouldn't. See? I can make a bare assertion too. Try providing some reasoning next time.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

Affecting how listing show up in other people's search results would not change the core problem of the issue

I think the "core problem of the issue" here is that you're trying too hard to sound smart. Of course screwing with listings would affect supply and demand. It doesn't matter whether you disallow people from listing their items or simply don't display them in search results, the end result is the same, those items can't be bought, i.e. supply is restricted.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

if you implement it such that there is a different listing limit for different price brackets, then you are favoring longer time players significantly at the cost of our newbie player

No, I'm not. See above regarding bare assertions.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

your solution doesn't even attempt to address the other problems, for example, massive price fluctuation due to different rotation mechanics

That's a feature, not a bug. Price fluctuations are how a significant portion of the WF player base make their plat, and in doing so they provide a valuable service to their trading partners. You don't want to take that away from either group. I find it strange that you don't seem to realize this simple fact, despite claiming that you've given this issue non-trivial amounts of thought.

3 hours ago, Leyers_of_facade said:

A plat tax? 🤣

Did you honestly think that is a good suggestion? I seriously question your sanity and/or motive if that is the case. 

Yes. And clearly you think so too, otherwise you'd have posted a refutation rather than toothless ridicule. The rest of your post continues in the same vein, so I'm just going to omit it for the sake of brevity.

The main takeaway is this: There are so many different ways of controlling an artificial economy that the idea that an AH would cause a supply and demand problem is patently absurd on its face. On the contrary, it would provide a multitude of tools to fix such problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-06-13 at 10:07 AM, (PS4)chibitonka said:

What if they did monthly plat subscriptions? 

Subscriptions are a great means of revenue for live service games after all. 

Maybe exclusive cosmetics that you can only get from subscribing and have them on recycle. Alongside plat ofc. Or make it so you can buy the tennogen stuff with the subscription alongside a set sum of plat. 

We essentially already have this in game now with Prime Access (abet quarterly).  It however lets you keep what your subscription provided even if you let it lapse down the track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Loswaith said:

We essentially already have this in game now with Prime Access (abet quarterly).  It however lets you keep what your subscription provided even if you let it lapse down the track.

minus the whole monthly gig yeah.

Just saying it's another means for them to get more into their coffers so they can't make excuses like we're understaffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...