Penalize players who adjust their prices too frequently

[HurtigeKarl]

Scenario 1-current market
Trader A:"My reservation price is 1000, but I'll see if the item will clear at 1500, and if it doesn't, I'll adjust it downward."
Trader B:"Hmm...someone selling at 1500...I'll undercut him by selling at 1400...LOL"
Trader A:"Ok...seems like there's competition...lets try 1300"
Trader B:"WTF! I'll meet you at 1200"
Trader A:"I'm going to sleep...gonna change to my reservation price...don't want to sell it at anything lower than 1000"
Trader B:*RAGE!!!* "WTF!!! THIS MARKET SYSTEM SUX!!! THEY SHOULD PENALIZE ADJUSTMENTS! THEY SHOULD NOT ALLOWED UNDERCUT!!! THEY NEED TO CHANGE THE MECHANICS OR THE GAME IS GOING TO DIE!!!"


Scenario 2 - price adjustment penalty implemented
Trader A:"Hmm..my reservation price is 1000, but since I can't adjust my price freely, I'll just sell at 1000 since I've bought it dirt cheap and still makes a good profit from it"
Trader B:*RAGE* "WTF???? WHY THE F ARE THESE IDIOTS SELLING AT SUCH RIDICULOUS LOW PRICE??? THIS SUX! THE MARKET IS BROKEN!! HE MUST BE A FARMER OR A BOTTER OR BOTH!!! THE MARKET NEEDS A MINIMUM PRICE MECHANISM SO THAT THESE IDIOT CANNOT SELL AT SUCH LOW PRICE!"

Try following for the cheapest prices on the market:

1 AM: 15000,15001, 15002
4 AM: 14998, 14999, 15000
7 AM: 14997, 14998, 14999

and so on.

Evidently your scenario 2 is preferable to this one. By enforcing scenario 2, you force people to reach the equilibrium price faster. Currently in many markets the equilibrium price is being reached, but it is going so slowly due to the silly 1 gil undercuts.

The ones that benefit the most currently are sellers in market where everyone is a 1-gil undercutter, because they are are slowing down the rate at which the equilibrium price is reached from "above".

This cements my belief that undercutting is in general fine, but silly undercutting like "1-gil" undercutting is not fine.

Scenario 2 would make people sell at higher prices in response to more taxation.

Not really if the current 5% loss is redesigned to be split into 2.5% loss on posting and 2.5% loss when the actual sale goes through. I.e. so that if you only posted once, you would lose the exact same amount, but if you reposted several times you would lose more.

Actually, the equilbrium price would go up due to there still being a few people that would post more than once, but the actual lowest price would go down in markets previously dominated by 1-gil-undercutters. This is because the equilibrium price would be reached faster from above.

[Zigkid3]

Try following for the cheapest prices on the market:

1 AM: 15000,15001, 15002
4 AM: 14998, 14999, 15000
7 AM: 14997, 14998, 14999

and so on.

Evidently your scenario 2 is preferable to this one. By enforcing scenario 2, you force people to reach the equilibrium price faster. Currently in many markets the equilibrium price is being reached, but it is going so slowly due to the silly 1 gil undercuts.

The ones that benefit the most currently are sellers in market where everyone is a 1-gil undercutter, because they are are slowing down the rate at which the equilibrium price is reached from "above".

This cements my belief that undercutting is in general fine, but silly undercutting like "1-gil" undercutting is not fine.

Scenario 2 would make people sell at higher prices in response to more taxation.

[dragonflyseksparade]

The best part about undercutters is when you run a little low on crafting mat A. So you put your entire remaining stock of mat A on the market using 2 retainers with different names so it looks like there's competition at the new really low price. Then you get undercut 5 minutes later, you buyout the stock that undercut you and remove your mats from the AH. #kthx #lolpriceless <-pun intended

[Ex-SOLDIER]

In the immortal–if paraphrased–words of Will McAvoy, what exactly would you like to replace Capitalism with?

In less clever terms, this is working as intended.

I couldn't have put it better myself. The whole Idea of penalizing someone because they undercut you on the AH is just a response of having it done to you. Dont get so butthurt when someone sells a little lower than you just to get an Item to sell. It is capitilism at it's most basic form.

[Osha_Sohma]

nevermind that there are enough players out there that trying to keep up with all the undercutters would require a theoretical crafter who doesn't undercut to be constantly updating their prices and getting soaked while other people can just throw their wares up for half his price and laugh, knowing he can't do anything about it without eating all his profits in AH taxes.

[RagnaBeoulve]

Create a 'fee' to post an item, and a smaller fee to 'adjust' prices already listed in the market. This would be the ideal solution.

My argument for the 'fee' suggested is to achieve a more streamline price range. Currently, there are major players who stand by the market to undercut any and everything by 1g or 10g - which doesn't create competitive pricing, however will create a sale. The 'fee' system will force players to think competitively ahead of time and price competitively to make a sale, therefore enforcing competitive prices.

For those who say "this is how free markets work" and offers no solution - 'claps' to you for your ignorance in failing to understand the root of the problem, however I've not the time to enlighten you on your narrow minds.

[Toranja]

RagnaBeoulve,

You are wrong.

[Zigkid3]

Create a 'fee' to post an item, and a smaller fee to 'adjust' prices already listed in the market. This would be the ideal solution.

My argument for the 'fee' suggested is to achieve a more streamline price range. Currently, there are major players who stand by the market to undercut any and everything by 1g or 10g - which doesn't create competitive pricing, however will create a sale. The 'fee' system will force players to think competitively ahead of time and price competitively to make a sale, therefore enforcing competitive prices.

For those who say "this is how free markets work" and offers no solution - 'claps' to you for your ignorance in failing to understand the root of the problem, however I've not the time to enlighten you on your narrow minds.

Oh please do enlighten me, I really wish to know.
(So I may pick your reasoning apart.)

[AideLee]

Undercutters suck in 2.0, pure and simple.

Get over it... it is basic economics. My suggestion is to undercut the undercutters! Good for you and good for the economy

[cearka]

which means both X and Y were selling for too much to begin with and no one was willing to buy it till it hit half price. sounds fine to me. it's only worth what someone eventually buys it for anyway.