Market Boards need to work like FFXI AH

[Ishmachiah]

For instance lets say Iron Sword costs 2,000 gil from the vendor. You, somehow, buy the mats and make it for a cost of 2,200. Then, of course, list it at 3,000. Anyone who knows it has a vendor version will not buy your over-priced version. You messed up and put too high of a worth on the materials.

And this is the very reason as to why my gear has come from vendors/quest rewards and not from crafters.

[Rainth]

wait till housing comes, all of this crap will end at that point as those house prices will be ridiculous, it'll give crafters something to work towards as well and i think no one will mind a little undercutting(there will always be idiots of course but even then...)when every furnishing you put up will be bought regardless of price(well almost).

i don't think it'll solve all the problems with the market but i do think people will slowly begin to understand that the chump change they make driving the markets down won't help them in the end.

[CruciasNZ]

I like your suggestion OP; however I would like to also tac on a suggestion that a percentage range be considered, so you can only sell +/- 10-20% on the average weekly sale price.

[Dudicus]

just wanted to chime in. i do not like the proposal by OP. i'm a crafter and have no problem with efficient markets. let supply and demand determine price. imo, crafters or anyone else isn't entitled to anything. if you choose to produce items which are over supplied, you should have to deal with the market consequences. if you're able to see an opportunity on the horizon and move quickly to capitalize, you should be rewarded for your efforts. if you want to spend hours modifying market orders to remain competitive, so be it. don't really see a problem as is.

[Mark-VI]

Wait.. What did I just read?

[ApolloGenX]

There is no problem except the OP's flawed premise:

People who like to craft, and spend their time gathering and crafting deserve a system which doesn't punish them. They deserve to be able to sell their goods at a fair price, without having to be worried about getting undercut by 60% and or selling at extremely low and ridiculous prices.

The OP deserves nothing but what the market will bear.

The solution? The OP wants to create market inefficiencies by reducing market transparency. By reducing the amount of information consumers have, he/she hopes to reduce their ability to make savvy buying decisions.

In other words, he/she wants to engage in predatory selling practices to capture more profit by hiding supply/demand info to artificially inflate prices. You, OP are the reason market regulation exists in the real world. You are also trying to break a functioning free market because of your greed. Do I blame you? Not necessarily, I mean it is natural to want to profit. But you would make the entire system less efficient and less transparent to do so- and since I am both a buyer AND a seller- I say NO THANKS.

[Wazabi]

There is no problem except the OP's flawed premise:
The solution? The OP wants to create market inefficiencies by reducing market transparency. By reducing the amount of information consumers have, he/she hopes to reduce their ability to make savvy buying decisions.

In other words, he/she wants to engage in predatory selling practices to capture more profit by hiding supply/demand info to artificially inflate prices. You, OP are the reason market regulation exists in the real world. You are also trying to break a functioning free market because of your greed. Do I blame you? Not necessarily, I mean it is natural to want to profit. But you would make the entire system less efficient and less transparent to do so- and since I am both a buyer AND a seller- I say NO THANKS.

Oh my god, another person that speaks my language!!!

From what I can see, most of the proposed changes in this forum will only result in a less efficient market. The only good proposal I've seen so far was a buy option.

In my opinion, the decision to defend such changes stems from a few factors:
1) lacks an understanding on how economy works
2) refuse to accept that he/she don't know how to trade
3) selfishness

Factor 1) seems to be the more prominant case as they can't seems to understand the overall economic impact or what economic efficiency means. It's not their fault as most view economics as a dry subject. 2) & 3) is what I can't stand.

[Kazamoto]

@Wazabi

I agree with you that a buyer will always want to buy for the lowest price possible. This is working as intended.

In EvE I did a huge amount of margin trading on newb level ores. A, because I could refine them to increase my profits, and B, with a buy order system, I just put up huge buy orders for 1 isk(Inter-Steller Kredit) where the typical sales price and market average was 5-8 isk. (I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of units, millions of M^3 of materials.) And the market place 'default' price was the highest paying buy order. Often, I had the only buy orders up in the stations i traded (near mining hubs). So yes, I took full advantage of newbs in EvE and made millions upon billions of Isk. EvE is a cutthroat game, and particularly enjoyable when feeling evil.

Playing the markets is all well and good. But currently, the only logic sellers use when putting items on the market is: See current price of items for sale, undercut by 1-10,000g. Is this working as intended?

A lot of people are saying how a blind bid gives sellers the advantage. But if a seller does not know if he is undercutting the competition or not, he is forced to either match current pricing conventions +/- or undercut sharply to ensure the first sale, thus lowering costs for buyers.

[ApolloGenX]

Playing the markets is all well and good. But currently, the only logic sellers use when putting items on the market is: See current price of items for sale, undercut by 1-10,000g. Is this working as intended?

Yes, it is. Sellers know how much they paid for materials, etc. They can either price to sell quickly, or price above the current selling price, if they want to hold out for some additional profit. Just because people are being lazy about pricing or pricing for quick sales is not a signal that anything is wrong.

You have heard of Wal-Mart, right? Volume selling is a market tactic.

It seems to me that the biggest gripe is that the market is a competitive market. That's not a problem that needs to be fixed. That is how efficient markets work. Sorry, you have to compete for market share, wallet share, and sales- Welcome to the real world.

Just thinking logically- You have a commodity-like market with a set number of homogenized products, you have little barrier to entry, and limitless production resources in most cases.

In this market, you should expect to make very little profit on any sale. If you do, it is likely because supply hasn't ramped up yet (newer server).. or because of some inefficiency. (Or a combination of the two).

[Kazamoto]

The quoted section above was my personal experience in EvE, but was an anecdote to the current situation rather than directly on point. I understand market competition well. I also cornered many a goldsmithing item in FFXI.

My question, which you answered with a rephrasing was: "Currently, the only logic sellers use when putting items on the market is: See current price of items for sale, undercut by 1-10,000g. Is this working as intended?


You answered yes, working as intended because "They can either price to sell quickly, or price above the current selling price."
Yes, they can do those things. But they don't.

Just because people can, and should do things, does not mean they will. That's where market controls have to step in.

Your friendly neighborhood Walmart could pay their employees a living wage. They should pay a living wage. But they don't.
Instead, they pay the bare minimum that market controls (minimum wage laws) allow.

Thank god I don't work in retail.