|
|
AH mechanics
 Cerberus.Boogs
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 233
By Cerberus.Boogs 2017-11-03 14:41:34
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »It's not gaming the system, it's working with small increments.
If you want to sell something at 100M, but you want it to sell first and you consider 100k irrelevant. Ok, so you list it at 99,900,000. But wait, what if someone went lower? Ok, let's list it at 99,800,000. Maybe that 100k doesn't matter so much, if you'd theoretically be willing to lower your price again just to get the first sale.
If you need your item to sell first and it's that important to you, make a deep undercut. It's that simple. It's not broken, nobody is gaming it, they're just making larger potential sacrifices than you are. You won't ever know what they listed it for unless the bidder hit their actual increment, just that it was lower than you.. so stop worrying about it.
This is how it should be (in bold above). I completely agree! But this is not actually how it plays out. The issue here is that you can get your sales out first without deep undercuts. You need to look at it locally (i.e. near the buying price, whatever it may be) and not globally (i.e. among all sellers).
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6052
By Leviathan.Comeatmebro 2017-11-03 14:42:43
This is how it should be (in bold above). I completely agree! But this is not actually how it plays out. The issue here is that you can get your sales out first without deep undercuts. You need to look at it locally (i.e. near the buying price, whatever it may be) and not globally (i.e. among all sellers). If you get your sale out first without a deep undercut, the other person clearly wasn't in much of a rush to sell their item because they didn't make a meaningful undercut themselves.
This is some autistic ***.
[+]
Cerberus.Boogs
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 233
By Cerberus.Boogs 2017-11-03 14:45:55
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »If you were really concerned about the 'insignificant' undercutting, look at lowest priced item's price. Any item within 1% of it's price is thrown into a list, and the one with the longest duration on AH is the one sold. Boom, fixed.
...It really doesn't matter, though. The way it is now encourages meaningful undercuts already. Next you'd just be complaining about someone listing a 100,000g item for 98,999 and getting the first sale.
I have absolutely no issue with someone listing at 98,999 and getting 99,500 because that was what the buyer was willing to pay, and all other sale prices are higher than 99,500. But you contradict yourself when you suggest that the current system encourages meaningful undercuts. Look above where you wrote: 'insignificant' undercutting. That you even mention it means the current system doesn't really encourage meaningful undercuts. In fact, I would argue that this system ONLY encourages meaningless undercuts rather than significant ones.
By fonewear 2017-11-03 14:46:27
Look if you don't like the AH don't use it is it really that difficult to understand...
[+]
Cerberus.Boogs
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 233
By Cerberus.Boogs 2017-11-03 14:52:35
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »This is how it should be (in bold above). I completely agree! But this is not actually how it plays out. The issue here is that you can get your sales out first without deep undercuts. You need to look at it locally (i.e. near the buying price, whatever it may be) and not globally (i.e. among all sellers). If you get your sale out first without a deep undercut, the other person clearly wasn't in much of a rush to sell their item because they didn't make a meaningful undercut themselves.
This is some autistic ***.
Indeed autistic. Until you finally recognize that undercutting itself is not the issue, as I have stated many times, this discussion does seem very autistic.
As for your actual response, who's to say that we both weren't already making deep undercuts? For all you know we both already made huge undercuts.
EDIT: After already making deep undercuts, it then becomes a stupid game of who can make the most insignificant additional undercut to get their sale first.
 Leviathan.Andret
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1000
By Leviathan.Andret 2017-11-03 14:53:53
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »It's not gaming the system, it's working with small increments.
If you want to sell something at 100M, but you want it to sell first and you consider 100k irrelevant. Ok, so you list it at 99,900,000. But wait, what if someone went lower? Ok, let's list it at 99,800,000. Maybe that 100k doesn't matter so much, if you'd theoretically be willing to lower your price again just to get the first sale.
If you need your item to sell first and it's that important to you, make a deep undercut. It's that simple. It's not broken, nobody is gaming it, they're just making larger potential sacrifices than you are. You won't ever know what they listed it for unless the bidder hit their actual increment, just that it was lower than you.. so stop worrying about it.
This is how it should be (in bold above). I completely agree! But this is not actually how it plays out. The issue here is that you can get your sales out first without deep undercuts. You need to look at it locally (i.e. near the buying price, whatever it may be) and not globally (i.e. among all sellers).
Actually this works out quite well in actual market conditions. They simply use the classic game theory to present it to the players and watch them beat themselves up over it.
Supposed that you have 2 stores selling coke on 2 different sidewalks. Store A was there 1dt and he was buying the cokes at $1 and selling for $5. Store B comes in later and put on the price of $4.99. he is in direct competition with store A.
Theory dictates that everyone on the store B side will buy from store B and some stingy people will go from store A to buy from store B.
Store A would loose (a bit) and wanted to get that back. He would sell his cokes for $4.98.
The sequence repeats itself until they both selling it at $1.01 and nobody can go lower.
The idea of AH is the same. The guy selling 1 Gil less than the other guy has the advantage of selling 1st. In a high moving market, this wouldn't matter because the guy can only put 7 items on at any one time. However, players are encouraged to depressed the prices. To 2 Gil, 3 Gil, 100gil, 200gil, 500gil, 1000gil. As much as they think is reasonable to beat the other guy.
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3753
By Leviathan.Celebrindal 2017-11-03 15:21:13
Stop being mad at Wal-Mart.
[+]
Cerberus.Boogs
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 233
By Cerberus.Boogs 2017-11-03 16:56:15
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »It's not gaming the system, it's working with small increments.
If you want to sell something at 100M, but you want it to sell first and you consider 100k irrelevant. Ok, so you list it at 99,900,000. But wait, what if someone went lower? Ok, let's list it at 99,800,000. Maybe that 100k doesn't matter so much, if you'd theoretically be willing to lower your price again just to get the first sale.
If you need your item to sell first and it's that important to you, make a deep undercut. It's that simple. It's not broken, nobody is gaming it, they're just making larger potential sacrifices than you are. You won't ever know what they listed it for unless the bidder hit their actual increment, just that it was lower than you.. so stop worrying about it.
This is how it should be (in bold above). I completely agree! But this is not actually how it plays out. The issue here is that you can get your sales out first without deep undercuts. You need to look at it locally (i.e. near the buying price, whatever it may be) and not globally (i.e. among all sellers).
Actually this works out quite well in actual market conditions. They simply use the classic game theory to present it to the players and watch them beat themselves up over it.
Supposed that you have 2 stores selling coke on 2 different sidewalks. Store A was there 1dt and he was buying the cokes at $1 and selling for $5. Store B comes in later and put on the price of $4.99. he is in direct competition with store A.
Theory dictates that everyone on the store B side will buy from store B and some stingy people will go from store A to buy from store B.
Store A would loose (a bit) and wanted to get that back. He would sell his cokes for $4.98.
The sequence repeats itself until they both selling it at $1.01 and nobody can go lower.
The idea of AH is the same. The guy selling 1 Gil less than the other guy has the advantage of selling 1st. In a high moving market, this wouldn't matter because the guy can only put 7 items on at any one time. However, players are encouraged to depressed the prices. To 2 Gil, 3 Gil, 100gil, 200gil, 500gil, 1000gil. As much as they think is reasonable to beat the other guy.
Sound game theory, but wrong game. The fact that the prices are known to the buyer makes a huge difference. Instead, the buyer has a more complicated game than just choosing the lower price and/or weighing whether the lowest price is worth the effort of crossing the street.
Instead, they must first bid for a paying price given that in the past the cokes have been selling around $5.00. So they yell on a megaphone what they are willing to pay, and at some point a coke is instantaneously delivered to them at some price point. The most stingy of buyers will start at $1.01 and work in increments of one penny to get the absolute minimum price. Less stingy ones might try $4.00, then $4.25, $4.50, $4.75, and $5.00. Most buyers will try in increments of $1.00 because it's just easier to handle, or simply just settle for $5.00 rather than waste their time to see if there is a store willing to sell at various price points under $5.00 (especially if all the other prior sales were at $5.00).
The buyer doesn't care who is selling the coke. On the other hand, you could have sellers willing to sell at say $4.75 and see plenty customers paying $4.75, without any money ever reaching said sellers because there was some rule about how if you secretly promised a lower selling price (that was completely hidden from all buyers) then your sales will automatically go through first.
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3816
By Odin.Drakenv 2017-11-03 22:20:50
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »If you were really concerned about the 'insignificant' undercutting, look at lowest priced item's price. Any item within 1% of it's price is thrown into a list, and the one with the longest duration on AH is the one sold. Boom, fixed.
...It really doesn't matter, though. The way it is now encourages meaningful undercuts already. Next you'd just be complaining about someone listing a 100,000g item for 98,999 and getting the first sale. Lol
The current AH rules still annoy me to this day as both buyer and seller. If two sellers set their sale price to exactly the same value, then whoever listed first will sell first. On the other hand, if seller A lists for, say, 20,000, and seller B lists for 19,999 then seller B will get their sale completed first EVEN IF THE BUYER PAYS 20,000 OR HIGHER!
This makes no sense to me since both sellers have met the cutoff sale price that the buyer is willing to pay. Given that all sales are blind, I do not understand why someone who lists lower gets their sale completed first. In my opinion, it should be whoever listed first that satisfies the cutoff buying price. Now, some would argue that the current system encourages deflation since sellers have an incentive to list at a lower price. In theory, this seems plausible. However, in practice, I contend that it generally does not lower the price.
Most of the time, people just end up gaming the prices, reducing their sale price enough to get a quick sale but also to maximize their gain. Usually, their discount is not low enough to encourage buyers to shop for a better bargain. Instead, the discounts generally require annoying adjustments to various digits that, for most buyers, are not worth their effort.
By having sales go to whoever listed first -- and satisfies the cutoff buying price -- we avoid this silly game of "how do I lower the price ever so slightly to get a sale completed and maximize my gil gain as well." Sellers can still undercut -- which in itself is fine -- but under my proposed system we will see much better discounts from those who truly want a quick sale.
|
|
