0 gil undercutting

[Nicobo]

When listing an item for the same price as the first row, sometimes it will be put on the top and somtimes it will not.

I think if same price listing can maintain the listing sequence would be more fair to those players who intended to not undercutting.

[HEC]

I was wondering about that too - first I've though it's sorting alphabetically based on the retainet's name but that was not the case, next idea was that it might be based on the time the item was posted but need more time to prove that ...

[ImDingDing]

I was wondering about that too - first I've though it's sorting alphabetically based on the retainet's name but that was not the case, next idea was that it might be based on the time the item was posted but need more time to prove that ...

I am glad it's not the case otherwise all retainers will be named AAAAAA

[Lyrinn]

There's pretty much no fair way to do it. If you set it by alphabet, everyone names their retainers A; if you set it by listing order, people refresh by pulling their item and putting it back up quickly.

[Peptaru]

Take the tax when items are listed, not when they're sold. It won't solve everything, but it'll stop the relist-relist-relist-relist-relist-relist bullcrap.

[Lyrinn]

Take the tax when items are listed, not when they're sold. It won't solve everything, but it'll stop the relist-relist-relist-relist-relist-relist bullcrap.

I've actually played games that had this sort of tax, and believe it or not, it makes things worse. One of two things typically happened in those games: it became a rich player's market, as the rich could afford to relist over and over while the poorer players couldn't keep up the undercutting, or prices tanked as people undercut in larger intervals to incur less tax. The second can be avoided by assigning a value to every item and taxing based off of item value rather than listed value, but it still suffers from the first problem.

[Peptaru]

How many games? I'm assuming it's a large sample, because I've played 2 games that had this very same listing tax and the markets were as steady as could be expected in a real market. Supply spikes on weekends dropped prices, they'd rise again during the week.

Ffxiv as it is now can't have more problems with undercutting by large amounts than it already does. On several occasions I find markets that have a consistent price of (random) 6k. I list at 6k, 7 other people list at 6k; 12 sell per day. I come back in four hours and the price is 25%, 1500, of it's original 6k value; it stays there for two weeks.

I believe a listing tax can't possibly lead to worse undercutting, and to the comment about it being a rich person's market... yeahhhhhhhhh look around, it already is. Almost all video game markets are a rich person's market.

[Jinko]

Listing tax is a great idea, but if you don't sell the item within a certain period you should get that fee back IMO.

Mainly because new listers will normally try to undercut the existing price, meaning old listings will end up not selling.

It won't solve undercutting but it will make relisters less likely to break the market.

I really hope they flesh out the retainer system with buy orders at some point, it will make the economy much more stable.

[Mandudez]

The item that was listed (or re-listed) for the same price and quantity most recently is placed on the top of the list.

[Nicobo]

The item that was listed (or re-listed) for the same price and quantity most recently is placed on the top of the list.

I have tested it again after 2.2 and confirmed it is not always placed on the top for same price and quantity.