What press told me about GW2 that I didn't already know

[Alaris]

(explains supply and demand, AGAIN)

You just won't tire of this, will you? The trader's price is a lie. You can accept the lie, or not. But his price is not initially set by supply and demand, only after several trades it is.

some item appears, no one knows much about it, everyone thinks that it's rare.

It is not a flaw, but it is also not the scenario I presented. You just said that price fluctuates with perceived rarity, which is true. But my argument was on actual rarity.

1) As for transparency solving everything: Yeah, no, not quite.
2) This is an entirely new way of looking at things such as prices.

You haven't said anything here to support either argument. These two systems are the same, except (1) AI vs human intelligence, and (2) immediacy.

The auction houses are a large draw to the game for me. People should determine what something is worth not some damn algorithm. Take the crappy numbers out and let us be human.

This.

I'm happy with transparency etc... but people should be able to increase their income by not being idiotic when trading. There should be a decent option for those not interested in it, but plenty of people (me included) are interested in it, and there should be a reason to do this.

Btw, I consider "delay of gratification" as a good reason to make more profit. If I can post something with a higher price and am willing to wait for it to sell, I should be able to reap a greater reward than those who want their cash now and cannot control their urges to buy that new armor.

[raspberry jam]

If they take the human element out, and just went the way you want jam, I would scream bloody murder and possibly rage quit. The auction houses are a large draw to the game for me. People should determine what something is worth not some damn algorithm. Take the crappy numbers out and let us be human. I hate games that just turn into number crunching. Lets just have fun and enjoin the game rather than being told you are not doing this or that right, because the numbers say you are wrong/inefficient/idiotic.

Numbers already run our lives enough.

But people will determine what the stuff is worth. The items that Alaris are talking about is are things that maybe 1% of GW2 players will ever see. If you're buying a sword or whatever, the price is 100% set by others who have bought it before you.
I mean seriously (and I really am interesting in what you have to say about this) are you complaining that the GW1 merchant NPC sells lockpicks for 1500 gold?

Also, most of the items you probably haul home in GW1 are sold to the merchant, and those prices are set by "some damn algorithm". Do you think that takes the fun out of the game?

You just won't tire of this, will you? The trader's price is a lie. You can accept the lie, or not. But his price is not initially set by supply and demand, only after several trades it is.



It is not a flaw, but it is also not the scenario I presented. You just said that price fluctuates with perceived rarity, which is true. But my argument was on actual rarity.



You haven't said anything here to support either argument. These two systems are the same, except (1) AI vs human intelligence, and (2) immediacy.



This.

I'm happy with transparency etc... but people should be able to increase their income by not being idiotic when trading. There should be a decent option for those not interested in it, but plenty of people (me included) are interested in it, and there should be a reason to do this.

Btw, I consider "delay of gratification" as a good reason to make more profit. If I can post something with a higher price and am willing to wait for it to sell, I should be able to reap a greater reward than those who want their cash now and cannot control their urges to buy that new armor.

No, the trader's price is not a lie. Why? Because it's the price. What is the price of something, if not what you are willing to pay for it? And someone is willing to pay that price. At worst, you'll end up with all 25 items sold off and no one will want to buy them. Though, if 100% of the supply turns up in the trader house, the price probably drops so low that someone will find it palatable.

As for perceived rarity vs. actual rarity. If those differ, the actual rarity is always lower. Thus you can set a too low price, but never a too high one. In other words the system would cause less of what you think is a problem.

But I have said things to support it. It's just one point, by the way, not two, as you would realize if you actually read the post. There is no merchant to go to. In player-to-player trading systems, you still have a merchant NPC to offload junk drops at. Here, you'd offload those to the trader house (it would still look like a merchant NPC, of course).

[Khanisaurus]

jam, I think merchants should only buy the common items, and those should just have a set price. Merchants should never even buy anything more rare than that. They also shouldn't sell any rare items. Now rewards vendors, ie those that you take your reward points to in order to get your reward from will have to offer rare skins and stuff like that. Anything that is not common, should have its value determined by the players by what they are willing to pay at the auction house.

Also crafting supplies should never be purchasable like they are in GW1. Only those willing to do the work to collect them should be able to sell them, then they can determine what their time is worth to them. If you want to craft something and don't have the supplies, then you go to the auction house and determine if the price is better than the cost of time it would take you to go collect the supplies.

I really never liked when they added vendors of crafting items and dye vendors to GW1, I prefer the open market sets the price on those things, not some algorithm determining what the bottom and top price should be.

[Alaris]

@jam: About traders setting the price: you can repeat something as much as you want, it doesn't make it true. You often do that by the way... I consider it to be a character flaw of yours, otherwise you're quite stimulating to talk to.

Perceived rarity can be lower than actual rarity if an item is introduced at a given drop rate and then for some reason that drop rate is decreased. This happens for example when the XTH failed, some farming build is nerfed, or the MPB only appears during wintersday rather than be an ongoing drop as some thought. Not that it destroys your argument or anything, just a comment.

My preference though would be to have trader & auction side-by-side, with auction house having transparency and the ability to set prices for wanted items. The two would be linked, both in prices (so you can see the trader price at auction, and sales at auction influence trader price) and in availability (so that stuff you sell at trader shows as available if you ask for it at auction, for example). This way, players can pick whatever system they want.

The trader would set a trading price (both for buying and selling) after a few trades go through (via auction house), and maintain an inventory. He would take a small fee for immediacy. You could still trade normally, with speculation and powertrading (although powertrading would be harder to pull off right with transparency, it would still be feasible if you're good at it).

[raspberry jam]

jam, I think merchants should only by the common items, and those should just have a set price. Merchants should never even by anything more rare than that. They also shouldn't sell any rare items. Now rewards vendors, ie those that you take your reward points to in order to get your reward from will have to offer rare skins and stuff like that. Anything that is not common, should have its value determined by the players by what they are willing to pay at the auction house.

Also crafting supplies should never be purchasable like they are in GW1. Only those willing to do the work to collect them should be able to sell them, then they can determine what their time is worth to them. If you want to craft something and don't have the supplies, then you go to the auction house and determine if the price is better than the cost of time it would take you to go collect the supplies.

I really never liked when they added vendors of crafting items and dye vendors to GW1, I prefer the open market sets the price on those things, not some algorithm determining what the bottom and top price should be.

Ok, I see. Well, I definitely agree that the traders in GW1 is not a good example, what with everything costing 100g and so on. That happens because the economy is as it is, and touches on a deeper problem - which is that you get cash and items from just about anything in the game. Go out and kill something, and you just upset the economy due to all the new stuff that entered it. "The algorithms", as you put it, are not entirely at fault here. I mean, yes, they are bad, but the reason they look like they do is because the natural price of a vial of dye - if it was truly guided by supply and demand - would be something like 5 gold, not 100.

When they added the traders, it was different. ANet knew that the prices should be much lower than they were, but due to lack of transparency, they were being kept high. That's why prices of so many things took a nose dive when traders were introduced - buyers and sellers were finally put on equal terms with each other.

What I'm saying is (and Alaris will think I repeat myself now, I suppose) that the prices in a trader house are determined by what people are willing to pay. Mathematically speaking, the result is that the prices are very close to those generated by Vickrey auctions (which can simply be described as a sort of auction where you bid as much as you're prepared to pay, but only pay as much as you have to). Basically, the only difference is that you'll get your gold when you list (sell) your items, not when someone else buys them - and that you'll see only one listing per item, not multiple ones.

@jam: About traders setting the price: you can repeat something as much as you want, it doesn't make it true. You often do that by the way... I consider it to be a character flaw of yours, otherwise you're quite stimulating to talk to.

Perceived rarity can be lower than actual rarity if an item is introduced at a given drop rate and then for some reason that drop rate is decreased. This happens for example when the XTH failed, some farming build is nerfed, or the MPB only appears during wintersday rather than be an ongoing drop as some thought. Not that it destroys your argument or anything, just a comment.

My preference though would be to have trader & auction side-by-side, with auction house having transparency and the ability to set prices for wanted items. The two would be linked, both in prices (so you can see the trader price at auction, and sales at auction influence trader price) and in availability (so that stuff you sell at trader shows as available if you ask for it at auction, for example). This way, players can pick whatever system they want.

The trader would set a trading price (both for buying and selling) after a few trades go through (via auction house), and maintain an inventory. He would take a small fee for immediacy. You could still trade normally, with speculation and powertrading (although powertrading would be harder to pull off right with transparency, it would still be feasible if you're good at it).

Yeah, the auction house + trader house setup was my first reaction to this when I first heard about it. Possibly a good idea, for rare items; most other things would go to the trader house. It's just that much more simple to deal with when you're offloading stuff. The danger is that the prices would split off too much; you'd have a trader house with normal prices for normal items, and an auction house with very high prices for rare items.
If it's speculation and powertrading you want, that will happen with a trader house too. The same price rules that avoids exploits and manipulation also allow for speculation. It's probably a natural feature of markets or something.

[Simply Kedde]

Someone tell me what's wrong with letting an item which is the first off its kind on a market as described by rasp, be priced through auction. If the first item of every kind is priced purely through the actual supply and demand on the market, then all the following ones can go through the system without any issues. The initial auction doesn't even have to have the traders known to each other, since that seems to be a goal.

[BladeDVD]

Also crafting supplies should never be purchasable like they are in GW1. Only those willing to do the work to collect them should be able to sell them, then they can determine what their time is worth to them. If you want to craft something and don't have the supplies, then you go to the auction house and determine if the price is better than the cost of time it would take you to go collect the supplies.

I really never liked when they added vendors of crafting items and dye vendors to GW1, I prefer the open market sets the price on those things, not some algorithm determining what the bottom and top price should be.

I personally prefer not having to worry about finding a seller for whatever odd item I happen to be looking for at whatever time I may want it. Or having to worry about and research what a decent price is for something.

I totally get people enjoying being able to craft but it provides in game benefits and locking people out of it if they don't craft or can't find a seller is just wrong. And the price demand sensitive material traders in GW1 also served as an easy way to know what the average price of an item was too. I wish they would put more traders in the (original) game myself, specifically for inscriptions and weapon mods.

Someone tell me what's wrong with letting an item which is the first off its kind on a market as described by rasp, be priced through auction. If the first item of every kind is priced purely through the actual supply and demand on the market, then all the following ones can go through the system without any issues. The initial auction doesn't even have to have the traders known to each other, since that seems to be a goal.

I'm not really reading everything they write, but there seems to be some confusion over whether the player or the AI sets the original price. I think it's the latter situation people are objecting to.

[Alaris]

(and Alaris will think I repeat myself now, I suppose)

As long as you know it ;)

The danger is that the prices would split off too much; you'd have a trader house with normal prices for normal items, and an auction house with very high prices for rare items.

Not if the two are linked.

Easiest would be to have traders look at auction house prices and adjust accordingly. Another option would be for traders to actually be able to buy & sell at the auction house.

[raspberry jam]

Someone tell me what's wrong with letting an item which is the first off its kind on a market as described by rasp, be priced through auction. If the first item of every kind is priced purely through the actual supply and demand on the market, then all the following ones can go through the system without any issues. The initial auction doesn't even have to have the traders known to each other, since that seems to be a goal.

It could be done, but the problem is that there is no merchant. So at release, until the first auction have finished, players can't sell any item of that type.
Another problem is that in a vanity driven market, there is no initial demand. Example. In the 70s, the price of black pearls multiplied by 50 during the course of a four days due to a single commercial campaign. The mid-to-high-end jewellery market even driven by what looks good (that is usually left to the low and very highest ends of said market), but what is perceived as luxurious. That means that prices can be set very very wrong at start.

Not that initial price matters that much. Even if ectos started off at 100g each, they'd be around 9k or whatever they are now, by now. I mean, if this was something that lasted 2 weeks, then yes. It would be a problem. But a successful MMO lasts for years and years.

Not if the two are linked.

Easiest would be to have traders look at auction house prices and adjust accordingly. Another option would be for traders to actually be able to buy & sell at the auction house.

One point of having trader house is that what you sell is actually destroyed. Each individual item isn't tracked, just the total count of such items in supply.

But I meant rare skins etc., like you'd have X types of skins at the trader for low prices, and Y types of other skins at the auction house. The supply of these other skins doesn't need to be that much different from those in the trader house, but they'll end up on auction anyway because the expected price is higher - that'd apparently lead to inflation regardless, plus a decrease in actor mobility.

[Simply Kedde]

While that might be my opinion, I honestly don't see a problem with the issues you bring up. Since any sellable item will be for vanity purely, why does it matter that it takes a while for them to hit the market? Why does it matter that they might initially be expensive due to droprate probability not evening out over a small samplesize.

The initial price is still determined purely by supply and demand in its purest form. Since all of these first item cases will be happening early in the game, there won't be all that much money flowing through the game regardless. Prices if sales are applicable can't be artificially higher than the accrued wealth of the richest person so far if he/she chose to buy that item. Sure, some people might speculate and hold onto previously unknown to the public items to keep them from going on the market until people have more wealth on average. That same person might risk someone else getting the same item though, and that he isn't made of the same so instead puts it up for sale and is willing to take a lower price.

You can basically call it a fact that any item that has a droprate will eventually hit the market, thus the price will eventually lower itself. And then items that the public doesn't know about won't hurt them. Can't want what's not available.