Not being able to buy single items from a stack on the marketward.

[Wazabi]

[

People are so passionate about preserving a market that doesn't allow sellers to sell in the quantities they want or buyers to buy what they want.

It's not about being passionate...it's about being logical if you know what I know. I'm sharing knowledge which I've gained through years of education in a particular field, build upon the knowledge and observations of thousands of brilliant scholars before me, sharing my insights on why certain things works, and why certain things doesn't. I welcome a challenge to my explaination as ZigKid did, and more often than not, it steers both of us towards the same path.

Market facilitates trade, and the current market is not ideal I'll give you that. Can you blame the market for making it difficult for buyer wanting to buy things that no one wants to sell? Its like me blaming the current market for not able to buy a single piece of toothpick.

Like I've said in many of my post, most people think that proposing certain changes will address their problem, but the fact is that it often don't. Lets look at the proposed change of allowing players to buy singles from stack first.

Slower moving items will clog up at a certain price...and whoever that post it there late won't be able to sell their goods. Think about some of the raw gemstones where the demand is so little. It could take days before a single stack clears off the market...and those who post later won't be able to sell theirs. Then people will start undercutting down till the price = vendor price. It's good for the buyer...but not so good for the seller. If you need to buy single pieces, then chances are that you are leveling your crafters...what do you think is gonna happen to the price of your final goods that you craft while you level? First, the price of your final goods will fall because it's now cheaper to craft a certain goods since singles are widely available and dirt cheap. Then you have many other crafters trying to sell that in the market...and now, you're a seller suffering the consequences of this market change. No you won't be able to sell in volume because the demand will still remain the same...and no you won't be able to make more moeny. Then we'll probably have many other posters complaining about a different thing. So in effect, your proposal solves one of your problem, but raises another one for you.

Now lets look at what we have now. Sellers will sell what is profitable. If you're willing to pay high price for singles of an item, they will sell it to you...but then...you're probably not willing to pay 300g for single piece when a full stack sells at 10g...who's problem is that?

Both system has their pros and cons. Buying singles benefits the buyers, but will soon hurt them as they becomes the seller, so it doesn't really make a huge difference. It doesn't matter for non-crafters because the item that they ever need only comes in singles (except for pots&food). Not able to buy singles however allows different pricing strategy to take place, so savvy sellers can still sell their goods with good pricing strategy.

Buying singles have a single important perk in that it drives prices down very fast, which is overall good for the market. It makes pricing all the more competitive. I'm just not sure if those that proposes this change have what it takes to still make money of from it.

Also, minimum price is price protection, not this. Also, market size is determined mainly by the number of participants, not by weather you can buy singles or not. People who micromanages "intellegently" deserves the extra profit than those who don't...I don't see anything wrong with that.

Or could Simply give people the option to chose if they want their stack to be able to purchase entirely (bundle) or single items sale

Again, think about the implementation just as your previous suggestion. How will the interface handles the information without making it too complicated?

The simple notion of usign the label of bid/ask instead of buy/sell creates a lot of problem and confusion during the early days of EVE. Thus the interface needs to be as simple and intuitive as possible.

[Xerius]

Need 1 item? Buy the stack use the 1 you need put the rest back on the market. It's an extra step but you gotta do what you gotta do. It's not the sellers fault that you only need 1 item and they shouldn't be penalized for it.

[cherieann]

Keep it the way it is. People sell on the stacks they want to sell at, not chip it off piece by piece, what would be the point of not putting everything at 99 stacks then?

[Allyra]

Again, think about the implementation just as your previous suggestion. How will the interface handles the information without making it too complicated?

Actually, 1.0's market ward system did exactly what haru suggested (there was a symbol for stacks you had to buy in full). So the coding already exists, they just took it out.

[Wazabi]

Thanks for the info, was only playaing 1.0 for 1 days. How useful was it?

[Allyra]

Thanks for the info, was only playaing 1.0 for 1 days. How useful was it?

It wasn't too bad. The AH system went through a lot of changes (some good some bad). That was one of the better ones imo. At the time I sold arrows, so I would kinda do a bit of both (if I had a full stack or not). I think the issue would be largely fixed though by making stack sizes smaller. 99 is just too much when you only need 1 to begin with.

[Wazabi]

Well...I still like the extra dimensions of the current system. If I can't compete on the price, then I can still compete on the qty...if were were working on the 1.0 system, I would lose the dimension of competing with qty as its kinda in effect everyone selling for 1pc at a time where mine will appear at the top of the list before yours...so if you are coming in later, you would undercut me and so on...to the point that the price of selling 1pc from stack is similar to the price of selling a full stack...at least that's what I think would happen.

[Zigkid3]

I welcome a challenge to my explaination as ZigKid did, and more often than not, it steers both of us towards the same path.

(I normally don't look in this thread since it's so many pages.)

What's funny is that Economics is the one subject where two economists can have all of the same data, and yet reach two different conclusions. That's why a lot of times for nobel prizes, for economics its split between a couple or a few people. Which is apparent in that you're indifferent to a tax on posting, while I say it should be when sold (though at least i think we agree that there shouldn't be limits on price adjustments?). I remember we had another difference back in the guildwars2 forums, i forget the exact conversation we had but our differences pretty much boiled down to how elastic vs. inelastic we thought something was.

The reason why I argue with most people on this forum isn't because they have different conclusions. I can see you might have some different thoughts but at least they're sound. The problem is though that the conclusions other people have here are derived from a complete lack of understanding or logic, and the arguments aren't sound at all.

[Wazabi]

The reason why I argue with most people on this forum isn't because they have different conclusions. I can see you might have some different thoughts but at least they're sound. The problem is though that the conclusions other people have here are derived from a complete lack of understanding or logic, and the arguments aren't sound at all.

You got that right...

[MentalPoison]

So very thrilled to see more people explaining this seemingly simple flaw in this thread's idea. Thanks everyone for the good work!