Jump to content
LeMoog

Trading suggestion to prevent resale of items and abuse of alt accounts

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, George_PPS said:

Yes, only if one can and chooses to be the philanthropist, but you cant force everyone to be a philanthropist. You do not have the power. You do not interfere others businesses and trading. And if you do and force fixed pricing or how others can trade, you are a dictator. That's EVIL despite how moral you try to be and show others. 

You seem confused I never forced anyone to be a philanthropist the poster's here insisted they needed a path for their existing philanthropy as a reason why my proposal was untentable

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LeMoog said:

I am not in the US and you clearly understood the point I was making even if you felt you had to translate 

I know exactly what you mean and you are opposing free market. It's not translation either. It's the definition of monopolist. And there are no monopolists in the game for 99.9% items players trade and sell regularly. 
You have NOT convinced even single one player here why we should not be able to trade freely in the free market. You can keep going but your argument is illogical and damaging to trading. 

  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LeMoog said:

there is no "ripping off" the philanthropist gets bonus karma and the item receiver get what they were unable to obtain via playing/trading themselves, everyone happy, the current trade price of the item was never an issue for the philanthropist as the act of giving is the only reward they seek

Yes but I wouldn't buy say a 5p mod and then gift it for 20p since it's no longer tradable after I bought it but my friend is offline and can't grab the trade. Meaning I'm not paying 5 times what it's worth just to be a good friend. Don't get me wrong I've spent at least a thousand dollars on Warframe but that's just bad business practice even if it's for a gift trading at a loss isn't something I believe in but I also believe there should be a way that any and all players can see a fair value of what's traded throughout the world and be able to put their own value to it and decide if it's worth more than that to them and purchase high or maybe wait for a slightly lower but still fair price later.

  • Applause 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LeMoog said:

You seem confused I never forced anyone to be a philanthropist the poster's here insisted they needed a path for their existing philanthropy as a reason why my proposal was untentable

 Just don't beat around the bush. You are the one who is confused here. Everyone is opposing your ideas that will destroy the free market trading system and also the game

  • Applause 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically kill the trade system.  This topic is aimed at resellers more than alt accounts.  TC has no idea how supply/demand and free market works.  Really just sounds salty because people are able to make platinum by reselling.  Some of the defenses seem like a kid who wants to make the world a better place.  Stop feeding it and move on.  I'll never have to worry about any more of their posts now.

  • Applause 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love debating with someone who doesn’t  even accept that they are wrong, much less someone who doesn’t consider other people’s ideas.

  • Applause 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, (PS4)Ryfore2 said:

Yes but I wouldn't buy say a 5p mod and then gift it for 20p since it's no longer tradable after I bought it but my friend is offline and can't grab the trade. Meaning I'm not paying 5 times what it's worth just to be a good friend. Don't get me wrong I've spent at least a thousand dollars on Warframe but that's just bad business practice even if it's for a gift trading at a loss isn't something I believe in but I also believe there should be a way that any and all players can see a fair value of what's traded throughout the world and be able to put their own value to it and decide if it's worth more than that to them and purchase high or maybe wait for a slightly lower but still fair price later.

perhaps you might instead trade the item for 5p so you would not feel forced into philanthropy against your will, as I said trades would be unchanged other than the person you supply the item to being unable to resell it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, George_PPS said:

 Just don't beat around the bush. You are the one who is confused here. Everyone is opposing your ideas that will destroy the free market trading system and also the game

I do not believe everyone is aware of this thread however you are welcome to you own beliefs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, SebGamez said:

I love debating with someone who doesn’t  even accept that they are wrong, much less someone who doesn’t consider other people’s ideas.

Y you guys should make a clan  together, well since the concept has been thoroughly explained to even the TD:LR crowd we can call it a day, thank you everyone for you commenting

Edited by LeMoog
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, LeMoog said:

DR:TL works both ways but simple put the existing gifting system is extended to allow the passing of inventory item between players to address the issue when players are not online at the same time. Since the item is transferred rather than sold then it would not be subject to trade limitations.

Clearly if the suggested change to trading was put in place then those that want to resell could abuse the system so as to continue as they have and hence it might require a tax to be applied to gifting items to prevent this. Given that those who insist they do this out of altrusim and care for other players then I am sure they would not mind paying a premium to do it,  especially in the hope that it would be returned in the future, either way it's abuse would act as a tax on reselling and move the market back to those that do the work getting the reward. ditto for the alt resellers

Yes, this system accounts for a basic "nab good deals" scenario and cuts off resellers (albeit in a heavy handed way). Now push your idea further:

  • Player A and Player B are friends.
  • Player B wants [Prime Frame]. Player B owns 3/4 parts of [Prime Frame], missing only [Prime Part]
  • Player A knows Player B wants [Prime Frame]
  • Player B is offline
  • Player C is selling [Prime Frame] set for cheap

What happens in this situation?

Player A can buy the whole set. Player A can try to buy just [Prime Part] from Player C. Player A can opt not to buy anything.

If Player A buys the whole set, Player A is eating a loss because 3/4 of the set become "worthless" after the trade. Under the present trade system, Player A can still resell the unnecessary parts to someone else who might need them.

If Player A wants to buy just [Prime Part], Player A has to convince Player C to sell just that part. Player C might not want to split up the set because there's less transaction costs associated with selling the full set. Moreover, under a single-trade system, Player C has to actually farm up the missing [Prime Part] to recomplete the set. Under the present trade system, Player C could just buy a replacement.

If Player A does nothing, sucks for Player B, but nobody is worse off (depending on how you look at it). 

So essentially your system says that Player A can still be a "philanthropist" but has to do so at a much higher (personal) cost than under the present system. This cost is probably going to cut down on the number of "philanthropists," which is going to be a social cost of changing to a single-trade. We also lose "legitimate" re-sale situations (if you even believe those exist). I would also note that this also takes the 3 prime parts that make up the set out of the market. Given that Player A has no incentive to find Player D, we can probably assume these parts are just dead (or ducats). This gives the "monopolists" more ammunition to jack up prices, since there will be less supply overall. 

The gain is that people cannot "exploit" other players with certain re-sale transactions. Unclear if the "exploitation" bar moves upwards, though, since lower supply means more justification for higher prices.

To me, it would seem the costs you are imposing with the single-trade system seem to far outweigh the benefits. You obviously seem to disagree, so I'd be interested to hear why, in addition to any other gains I might not have pointed out.

 

 

 

Edited by Ascarith
  • Applause 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all hilarious.  Anybody is using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny to gain an advantage in trading absolutely deserves to be hit for TOS violations.

It's predatory behavior.  It's preying on the good will a trader might afford a lower level account to gain a financial advantage for a primary account.  That is exactly an abuse of the TOS and the community.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Ascarith said:

Yes, this system accounts for a basic "nab good deals" scenario and cuts off resellers (albeit in a heavy handed way). Now push your idea further:

  • Player A and Player B are friends.
  • Player B wants [Prime Frame]. Player B owns 3/4 parts of [Prime Frame], missing only [Prime Part]
  • Player A knows Player B wants [Prime Frame]
  • Player B is offline
  • Player C is selling [Prime Frame] set for cheap

What happens in this situation?

Player A can buy the whole set. Player A can try to buy just [Prime Part] from Player C. Player A can opt not to buy anything.

If Player A buys the whole set, Player A is eating a loss because 3/4 of the set become "worthless" after the trade. Under the present trade system, Player A can still resell the unnecessary parts to someone else who might need them.

If Player A wants to buy just [Prime Part], Player A has to convince Player C to sell just that part. Player C might not want to split up the set because there's less transaction costs associated with selling the full set. Moreover, under a single-trade system, Player C has to actually farm up the missing [Prime Part] to recomplete the set. Under the present trade system, Player C could just buy a replacement.

If Player A does nothing, sucks for Player B, but nobody is worse off (depending on how you look at it). 

So essentially your system says that Player A can still be a "philanthropist" but has to do so at a much higher (personal) cost than under the present system. This cost is probably going to cut down on the number of "philanthropists," which is going to be a social cost of changing to a single-trade. We also lose "legitimate" re-sale situations (if you even believe those exist). I would also note that this also takes the 3 prime parts that make up the set out of the market. Given that Player A has no incentive to find Player D, we can probably assume these parts are just dead (or ducats). This gives the "monopolists" more ammunition to jack up prices, since there will be less supply overall. 

The gain is that people cannot "exploit" other players with certain re-sale transactions. Unclear if the "exploitation" bar moves upwards, though, since lower supply means more justification for higher prices.

To me, it would seem the costs you are imposing with the single-trade system seem to far outweigh the benefits. You obviously seem to disagree, so I'd be interested to hear why, in addition to any other gains I might not have pointed out.

 

 

 

Agree completely since the people against grinding constantly for what they want will still opt out of the grind whereas the ones that do grind will hit that grind even less since they know less parts in the market more profit or maybe they'll grind more just to be that one person holding 20 sets to make a killing at that point prices will be over the base frames total value when purchased making it nearly double what it is now for the average prime frame. Plus most people that are re-selling frames are still generally selling them cheaper than the plat prices for their non prime counterparts if a prime came out tomorrow most people would be selling them around 300plat and the base frames when released go for 325plat so you basically get a discount for a better option.

Edited by (PS4)Ryfore2
Added to idea
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, this system accounts for a basic "nab good deals" scenario and cuts off resellers (albeit in a heavy handed way). Now push your idea further:

  • Player A and Player B are friends.
  • Player B wants [Prime Frame]. Player B owns 3/4 parts of [Prime Frame], missing only [Prime Part]
  • Player A knows Player B wants [Prime Frame]
  • Player B is offline
  • Player C is selling [Prime Frame] set for cheap

What happens in this situation?

Player A can buy the whole set. Player A can try to buy just [Prime Part] from Player C. Player A can opt not to buy anything.

If Player A buys the whole set, Player A is eating a loss because 3/4 of the set become "worthless" after the trade. Under the present trade system, Player A can still resell the unnecessary parts to someone else who might need them.

If Player A wants to buy just [Prime Part], Player A has to convince Player C to sell just that part. Player C might not want to split up the set because there's less transaction costs associated with selling the full set. Moreover, under a single-trade system, Player C has to actually farm up the missing [Prime Part] to recomplete the set. Under the present trade system, Player C could just buy a replacement.

If Player A does nothing, sucks for Player B, but nobody is worse off. 

So essentially your system says that Player A can still be a "philanthropist" but has to do so at a much higher (personal) cost than under the present system. This cost is probably going to cut down on the number of "philanthropists," which is going to be a social cost of changing to a single-trade. We also lose "legitimate" re-sale situations (if you even believe those exist). I would also note that this also takes the 3 prime parts that make up the set out of the market. Given that Player A has no incentive to find Player D, we can probably assume these parts are just dead (or ducats). This gives the "monopolists" more ammunition to jack up prices, since there will be less supply overall. 

The gain is that people cannot "exploit" other players with certain re-sale transactions. Unclear if the "exploitation" bar moves upwards, though, since lower supply means more justification for higher prices.

To me, it would seem the costs you are imposing with the single-trade system seem to far outweigh the benefits. You obviously seem to disagree, so I'd be interested to hear why, in addition to any other gains I might not have pointed out.

 

 

 

last one then:

trade remains the same but item becomes untradable

gifting allows for philanthropy with potential for yes more karma by removing plat form circulation

no point in creating alt for reselling as the item grifted from the ignorant is untradeable or carries a tax sufficently to make practice uneconomic

 

problem solved, I know it will be unpopular with those that enjoy conning people but quite frankly I  do not see them as much of a benefit as it is no matter the  spiel the fact remains that they feel that the newer members should be taxed for their ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, (PS4)Ryfore2 said:

Agree completely since the people against grinding constantly for what they want will still opt out of the grind whereas the ones that do grind will hit that grind even less since they know less parts in the market more profit or maybe they'll grind more just to be that one person holding 20 sets to make a killing at that point prices will be over the base frames total value when purchased making it nearly double what it is now for the average prime frame

There is a difference between excess grind and being ripped off and personally I do not believe they are linked, saying they are is somewhat disengenious.

If one player has 20 sets of something drop during play then why should they be punished for it, if they sell them to 20 other players who need them then what exactly is wrong with that?

Edited by LeMoog
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LeMoog said:

last one then:

trade remains the same but item becomes untradable

gifting allows for philanthropy with potential for yes more karma by removing plat form circulation

no point in creating alt for reselling as the item grifted from the ignorant is untradeable or carries a tax sufficently to make practice uneconomic

 

problem solved, I know it will be unpopular with those that enjoy conning people but quite frankly I  do not see them as much of a benefit as it is no matter the  spiel the fact remains that they feel that the newer members should be taxed for their ignorance.

Alts are already useless unless you buy plat with multiple discounts across the accounts to use on a single account which is against ToS. However the only other way to earn anything extra with alt accounts is to run quick missions with relics that wont get your alts kicked for inactivity but you'd need 2.. 3... or even 4 systems in order for that to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, (PS4)Ryfore2 said:

Alts are already useless unless you buy plat with multiple discounts across the accounts to use on a single account which is against ToS. However the only other way to earn anything extra with alt accounts is to run quick missions with relics that wont get your alts kicked for inactivity but you'd need 2.. 3... or even 4 systems in order for that to work.

You clearly have more experience with the pitfalls of running alts than I but then again I only have a single account and understand the only legitimate use is to start from scratch without loosing your original account

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, George_PPS said:

I know exactly what you mean and you are opposing free market. It's not translation either. It's the definition of monopolist. And there are no monopolists in the game for 99.9% items players trade and sell regularly. 
You have NOT convinced even single one player here why we should not be able to trade freely in the free market. You can keep going but your argument is illogical and damaging to trading. 

So say the monopolists but the fact is in RL there are laws to deal with monopolies and excessive graft along with additional factors such as taxes,costs and wages and everything else that makes your attempts to bring WF trading in line with RL nonsense especially when you forgot all that is left out of the game economy. 

Edited by LeMoog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To weigh in on this:

From what I have read, the OP is offering a solution that:

1. Tries to restrict trading to the point of "well you didn't earned it from playing, so you can't trade it again"

2. Focuses on alt accounts made for reselling items they got, one way or another

3. It assumes that it's in DE's best interests to limit their playerbase's freedoms to do anything they want with the items they have in their possession, regardless of where they got it

4. It assumes that players who are "gifted items" are indebted to the giver and as such, should act regarding these items on the basis of such

I have problems with how the topic is approached (point 2) and discussed (from further replies of the OP). By only focusing on only one segment of the playerbase, any suggestions to restrict it is just wishing ill on the other segments who have other motives that might be more legitimate that what is being discussed.

If a lower MR player (which I won't assume if alt or not, it's not our business to know) gets an item, it's theirs. They can do whatever they want with it, charity be damned. Although I myself would personally respect such actions (was gifted a primed set before, and have built-rushed the same items out of respect) and want those I give to use it well, I can't assume that everyone would behave in the same way. All that we could do is to hope that they benefit from it, in which, if selling it for plat is beneficial, then so be it.

Here's a different perspective, instead of focusing on "stopping alt accounts", why not just promote "legitimate trading with all accounts, with no assumptions if main or not"?

Here's an alternative solution:

1. Instead of outright restricting trades of a particular item once traded, put them on a "temporary timer", minimum of a week, maximum of a month (should depend on the type of item, and the MR of the receiving account). This would not immediately deter unwanted trade behavior, but it ensures that such actors are barred from quickly performing their plans at the soonest.

2. To address "sharing items between friends", why not implement a "clan stash box" that allows clanmates (who are usually friends) to leave items for specific members so that they could share items without waiting for each to be both online. To prevent abuse, have it so that shared items cannot be put up for trades by anyone except the primary owner of the item.

3. Any plat earned from trading will be put into a "temporary timer" as well (should be based on the MR of both accounts, as well as the amount earned), restricting usage to the market until such time expires. This also doesn't deter unwanted behavior, but can delay such.

4. Implement a "premium trading license" probably 500 plat for a duration of 30 days, where the restrictions of points 1 and 3 are severely reduced, a "verified check" is shown on the player name at the trading screen, and taxes are slightly reduced for both parties. This legitimizes "flippers", but also allows DE to focus their efforts in monitoring trading behavior on those who aren't.

Share this post


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

To weigh in on this:

From what I have read, the OP is offering a solution that:

1. Tries to restrict trading to the point of "well you didn't earned it from playing, so you can't trade it again"

2. Focuses on alt accounts made for reselling items they got, one way or another

3. It assumes that it's in DE's best interests to limit their playerbase's freedoms to do anything they want with the items they have in their possession, regardless of where they got it

4. It assumes that players who are "gifted items" are indebted to the giver and as such, should act regarding these items on the basis of such

I have problems with how the topic is approached (point 2) and discussed (from further replies of the OP). By only focusing on only one segment of the playerbase, any suggestions to restrict it is just wishing ill on the other segments who have other motives that might be more legitimate that what is being discussed.

If a lower MR player (which I won't assume if alt or not, it's not our business to know) gets an item, it's theirs. They can do whatever they want with it, charity be damned. Although I myself would personally respect such actions (was gifted a primed set before, and have built-rushed the same items out of respect) and want those I give to use it well, I can't assume that everyone would behave in the same way. All that we could do is to hope that they benefit from it, in which, if selling it for plat is beneficial, then so be it.

Here's a different perspective, instead of focusing on "stopping alt accounts", why not just promote "legitimate trading with all accounts, with no assumptions if main or not"?

Here's an alternative solution:

1. Instead of outright restricting trades of a particular item once traded, put them on a "temporary timer", minimum of a week, maximum of a month (should depend on the type of item, and the MR of the receiving account). This would not immediately deter unwanted trade behavior, but it ensures that such actors are barred from quickly performing their plans at the soonest.

2. To address "sharing items between friends", why not implement a "clan stash box" that allows clanmates (who are usually friends) to leave items for specific members so that they could share items without waiting for each to be both online. To prevent abuse, have it so that shared items cannot be put up for trades by anyone except the primary owner of the item.

3. Any plat earned from trading will be put into a "temporary timer" as well (should be based on the MR of both accounts, as well as the amount earned), restricting usage to the market until such time expires. This also doesn't deter unwanted behavior, but can delay such.

4. Implement a "premium trading license" probably 500 plat for a duration of 30 days, where the restrictions of points 1 and 3 are severely reduced, a "verified check" is shown on the player name at the trading screen, and taxes are slightly reduced for both parties. This legitimizes "flippers", but also allows DE to focus their efforts in monitoring trading behavior on those who aren't.

well thought out but sadly equally likely to be rejected by the abusers as I wasn't kidding about the drive to rip people off however something needs to be done and I would not oppose any action towards that goal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thread cleaned a bit, moved to the correct subforum and title has been edited to reflect the discussion occurring.

Also, just as a reminder, if you see anyone using alt accounts in order to circumvent riven capacity or trading caps, please report this user (and their alt(s)) to support. The use of alternate accounts to circumvent any sort of in game limit is a violation of the Terms of Use Agreement for the game and can result in all associated accounts being banned from the game.

 

As for being on-topic, I am inclined to disagree with a lot of the suggested changes... preventing items from being traded more than once would very negatively affect the trading economy. It would drive up prices and, as a result, likely increase the amount of platinum fraud far beyond what is occurring now (i.e. when a player buys a massive amount of platinum with real money, trades the platinum away, then performs a chargeback on their credit card). Not to mention resellers, who are operating within the rules, would lose out on valuable business.

There are players in Warframe who take on roles akin to professional art and antiquity dealers--they are players who have contacts and veritable networks of information to help them find specific items and facilitate their sale and purchase. Player A (the buyer) who wants a specific items tells player B (the broker), player B uses their information network and contacts to track down player C (the seller) who has the item player A wants (but who player A does not have the contacts, time or resources to find themselves). Player B then purchases the item from player C to then sell to player A, usually with some % commission added on top of the price they paid to player C. This is not a violation of the rules, and it is not indicative of abuse of alt accounts. Preventing resale of items would effectively kill all of the efforts of player B (and those like them) in setting up and establishing such information networks... these networks are valuable resources and somewhat necessary for some of the bigger ticket items that can be sold, it's a 'reputable network' for the purchase and sale of items that go for the tens of thousands of platinum.

Edited by Letter13
  • Applause 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea however I think it's a better idea to make items tradable for plat once. You can trade it as much as you want just not for plat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Letter13 said:

Thread cleaned a bit, moved to the correct subforum and title has been edited to reflect the discussion occurring.

Also, just as a reminder, if you see anyone using alt accounts in order to circumvent riven capacity or trading caps, please report this user (and their alt(s)) to support. The use of alternate accounts to circumvent any sort of in game limit is a violation of the Terms of Use Agreement for the game and can result in all associated accounts being banned from the game.

 

As for being on-topic, I am inclined to disagree with a lot of the suggested changes... preventing items from being traded more than once would very negatively affect the trading economy. It would drive up prices and, as a result, likely increase the amount of platinum fraud far beyond what is occurring now (i.e. when a player buys a massive amount of platinum with real money, trades the platinum away, then performs a chargeback on their credit card). Not to mention resellers, who are operating within the rules, would lose out on valuable business.

There are players in Warframe who take on roles akin to professional art and antiquity dealers--they are players who have contacts and veritable networks of information to help them find specific items and facilitate their sale and purchase. Player A (the buyer) who wants a specific items tells player B (the broker), player B uses their information network and contacts to track down player C (the seller) who has the item player A wants (but who player A does not have the contacts, time or resources to find themselves). Player B then purchases the item from player C to then sell to player A, usually with some % commission added on top of the price they paid to player C. This is not a violation of the rules, and it is not indicative of abuse of alt accounts. Preventing resale of items would effectively kill all of the efforts of player B (and those like them) in setting up and establishing such information networks... these networks are valuable resources and somewhat necessary for some of the bigger ticket items that can be sold, it's a 'reputable network' for the purchase and sale of items that go for the tens of thousands of platinum.

Thank you for joining the discussion, can I ask if your comments here are your own or DE's with regard to the value of resellers and their effect upon prices?

 

I ask as I cannot see how, with a single market, that a middleman would benefit anyone but themselves.

To my mind they are always going to sell for more than they  purchased an item so if they were buying at the current market price then surely their selling for more acts to increase the price rather than lower it. If on the other hand they buy for below the current price then what profit they make is at the expense of the seller making for a ephemeral drop in the current price until they sell the item assuming the demand remains. If on the gripping hand they hoard the item forcing the price up and given how much they are making off being middlemen they can keep buying low until the demand far outstrips the supply and then they can sell for less? no I am sorry I cannot see them as goodness

If they did not exist then I would suggest little change to the market price of anything. You talk about networks of contacts as being a plus, are you saying that for these contacts the price is different to the official trade thread? perhaps they all profit together? how would I get to join this elite group of individuals who all profit or is my real recourse not to be profited off is via not trading at all

I agree this is not against DE's TOS but given my experience I would suggest that a large percentage of the posts in the trade thread are made by resellers and their agents/promoters as discussed earlier in this thread and that to my mind is akin to SPAM which I believe is not allowed. Given this to be true then removal  of resellers would in actuality reduce trade "SPAM" and allow the majority non-elite group members to profit off their own wares without having to pay a levy to the self appointed trade taxers

As to the buying of plat and then fraudiently getting your money back I do not see how that relates to this discussion, unless you are referring to the general ideas of cheating others and believing you are owed something for nothing, I for one do not condone this in any form and was in  actuality the very reason for this thread, I am glad we agree on this atleast

Edited by LeMoog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, (PS4)MEINTT said:

I like the idea however I think it's a better idea to make items tradable for plat once. You can trade it as much as you want just not for plat.

that would work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, LeMoog said:

I ask as I cannot see how, with a single market, that a middleman would benefit anyone but themselves.

To my mind they are always going to sell for more than they  purchased an item so if they were buying at the current market price then surely their selling for more acts to increase the price rather than lower it. If on the other hand they buy for below the current price then what profit they make is at the expense of the seller making for a ephemeral drop in the current price until they sell the item assuming the demand remains. If on the gripping hand they hoard the item forcing the price up and given how much they are making off being middlemen they can keep buying low until the demand far outstrips the supply and then they can sell for less? no I am sorry I cannot see them as goodness

If they did not exist then I would suggest little change to the market price of anything. You talk about networks of contacts as being a plus, are you saying that for these contacts the price is different to the official trade thread? perhaps they all profit together? how would I get to join this elite group of individuals who all profit or is my real recourse not to be profited off is via not trading at all

Some people do not have time (or patience, or resources, or knowledge, or connections) to find the right buyer/seller. The broker adds value by making possible transactions that would otherwise never occur, and the commission a broker makes compensates them for the time and effort of cultivating the right resources, knowledge and/or connections to make sure that transaction goes through. 

  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to add my two cents even though I'm sure these things have been said already.

There are going to be some bad eggs that take advantage of people. That shouldn't ruin it for everyone though. 

I saw you make a point about inexperienced players being taken advantage of, but I would argue that it is part of the experience. You gotta have a few experiences like that to learn. I remember my first sale was a soon-to-be vaulted item and the buyer told me after he bought that it would be worth more later. It's not the buyers fault if you don't do your research. It's been two years since then and I still occasionally make some bad deals. You gotta be cautious, aware, and learn from your experiences. 

The people who really like the game are (generally) the kind of players that are going to engage with the game outside of it. It's near impossible to play/learn the game without doing so and that includes the trading economy. 

Your suggestion would break the trading economy just to punish a miniscule percentage of players.

  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...