DeletedUser
how so? the money is refunded when you're outbidded.
DeletedUser
Yes, but you have to make a higher bid the next time you bid, I always wait to 5 sek. before the deadline to place a bet, that way I can get an item without fear of being outbid, and I haven't been helping to push the price up.
DeletedUser30834
Lets me ask you something, Is $6 not more then $5? Is 10001 not more then 10000?
Because to me, $1 more then the current bid is the most someone wants to pay for something until someone overbids them and they change their mind. The seller is not entitled to the most money possible, they are entitled to the most money someone is willing to pay and if at any time, that is $1 more then the current bid, it's their prerogative to do so.
This concept will lock people out of the bid because they do not have enough time to work a job to gain the minimum bid amount for something they want before the auction is over. Sure, not at the start, but in the last couple of hours.
This minimum bid increase concept does nothing but put sellers at an unfair advantage beyond the minimum bid or buy now pricing does itself and puts buyers at a sever disadvantage. It's not good for the game, things are already over priced on the market and anything that makes it worse is bad for the game.
DeletedUser
the devs want to take money out of the game. if you're going to whine about being poor, then don't do it on the forums, that's a personal problem, just deal with it.....
DeletedUser30834
I do not think anyone is whining about being poor. We are whining about all the greed some players are suffering from.
If the devs wanted to take money out of the game, they could simply raise the costs of products by 10% while lowering payout from jobs by 10-15 percent.
I would much rather see them implement a scheme like that then implement one where money is favored to a select few players.
BTW, I do not think you are in a position to tell anyone where to or not to whine. That withstanding, this idea is still bad for the game. It does nothing to promote its playability other then benefit a few people who think overly priced auctions are ok.
If the devs wanted to take money out of the game, they could simply raise the costs of products by 10% while lowering payout from jobs by 10-15 percent.
I would much rather see them implement a scheme like that then implement one where money is favored to a select few players.
BTW, I do not think you are in a position to tell anyone where to or not to whine. That withstanding, this idea is still bad for the game. It does nothing to promote its playability other then benefit a few people who think overly priced auctions are ok.
DeletedUser22493
Raising the bid beyond what your opponents can afford. That is what an auction is all about. So, if you can't afford to give a proper raise, you will have to earn more money and come back later.
The way the system works now, the minimum raise might as well be 0.0001$. In terms of profit, 1$ is nothing.
Putting an item out for auction instead of instant buy makes no difference.
It's like saying; "This is what I expect to get for the item, but I’ll let you 1$ raise-fight over who really gets it".
DeletedUser30834
So if the bid reaches $10,000, and I only have $10,020, I should be locked out of the biding process because although I have enough to bid higher, you some how magically deserve a bid higher then I can afford? And even though I might have been willing to pay more then the winning bid, but not the minimum increase increment that you are somehow entitled to, that's how an auction is supposed to work.
Yep, in this scenario, the only person that benefits is the seller who already has the advantage because he has what others want. BTW, a proper raise is whatever it takes to beat the other guy. Other then an annoyance over receiving reports about 1 dollar raises, everyone has failed to show where this is not detrimental to the game.
Who cares. You are not entitled to any amount of money for any product. Anything that limits what the buyer is able to bid does nothing but diminish the experience in the game for the buyers. And there has not been a good reason explained for it other then you get anoyed waiting for the last bid to come in. Well, just like you said earlier, "That is what an auction is all about."
DeletedUser22493
Let's say we're talking about a Drakes Muzzle Loader here. Estimated value 15.000$.
I put the item out for 10.000$, with a minimum raise on 500$, and no instant buy price.
The item reaches 13.500$, and to bid over that, you will have to add 500$, making the bid 14.000$.
But you don't have 500$ more. You only have 400$
Then to answer your question; YES. You should be locked out of biding process untill you get more money.
It was I, the seller that set the minimum bid, and its I who will "suffer" from not getting a lower raise then 500$, even tho you might have wanted to bid 400$ more.
The minimum bid is optional. If you want people to bid 1$, simply don't add a minimum bid.
DeletedUser30834
Then you potentially locked out most of the players in the game. if I see something in the market that I want and do not have enough money for it, I have to do jobs to get the money. I'm not sure that isn't the same for the majority of players out there. If you can take the auction with $1 more then the highest bid, then that is how an auction works.
i still have yet to see a valid argument to why someone is entitled to more money for a bid then someone is willing to pay. Please explain what entitles people to this? And no, getting lots of $1 reports is annoying isn't a valid argument.
There simply is not a need for this in game outside of some players greed.
i still have yet to see a valid argument to why someone is entitled to more money for a bid then someone is willing to pay. Please explain what entitles people to this? And no, getting lots of $1 reports is annoying isn't a valid argument.
There simply is not a need for this in game outside of some players greed.
DeletedUser
The seller gets to call the shots because whatever they're selling belongs to them. If you don't like it, move on.
DeletedUser30834
Isn't that close to a push then? Arranging a market transaction to benefit someone in particular?
I mean if there are push rules and they are stated as clearly as they are, then wouldn't it only be legit to put it in the market and take what someone offers within the system already built into the game?
I mean if there are push rules and they are stated as clearly as they are, then wouldn't it only be legit to put it in the market and take what someone offers within the system already built into the game?
DeletedUser22493
I value your agreements, but I think we only agree that we disagree.
Getting 1$ reports has never been an annoyance. It's getting so much less selling an item that is.
I don't care about the potential 1$ raisers. They offer me nothing when im selling an item. They are just (ab)using a hole in the bidding system that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
The bidding function should serve as a help when the seller doesn't know the market value of an item. He should be able to put the item out for any price, and let the buyers drive the price up to a respectable value.
Not the way its being abused now, on the expense of the sellers.
I still fail to understand why you call it greed to ask for more money for an item.
If an item is overpriced, either at bidding price, instant purchase or minimum bid, that is the sellers problem. Not the buyers. The buyer simply doesn't buy the item, and that forces the seller to lower the price.
Getting 1$ reports has never been an annoyance. It's getting so much less selling an item that is.
I don't care about the potential 1$ raisers. They offer me nothing when im selling an item. They are just (ab)using a hole in the bidding system that shouldn't have been there in the first place.
The bidding function should serve as a help when the seller doesn't know the market value of an item. He should be able to put the item out for any price, and let the buyers drive the price up to a respectable value.
Not the way its being abused now, on the expense of the sellers.
I still fail to understand why you call it greed to ask for more money for an item.
If an item is overpriced, either at bidding price, instant purchase or minimum bid, that is the sellers problem. Not the buyers. The buyer simply doesn't buy the item, and that forces the seller to lower the price.
DeletedUser30834
There is no abusing anything. Let's not even suggest that. The purpose of a market auction is to get the most someone is willing to pay for something. As a buyer, I am willing to pay $1 more then whoever else to get the item until the bid is higher then I think the item could be worth to me.
Here is the problem with that line of reasoning. The market value of an item is what anyone is willing to pay for it in the market at any certain period of time. If I bid 10 times the value of something yesterday, it doesn't automatically mean that the market value jump 10000% over night. It means you found a buyer willing to pay more then last time. If the same item comes up tomorrow, and I bid only 5% of that, then the correct market value at that time is less then we started with. The buyers are who set a market value when somehting is auctioned, not the seller. The seller can post a minimum bid that they are willing to let it go for and let others pay more for it, but in the end, it's all about the buyer, not the seller.
It's greed because the concept here is not to allow market forces to accelerate the bid to determine the market value but to set limits primarily meant to benefit the seller. And with those limits in place, you are limiting the amount of participation from the majority of players who are not collectors of money and play the game in other ways like dueling or fort fighting. If you are going to start the bid lower then what you are willing to take for the item, then it's pretty obvious that setting a minimum raise level is only there because you want more money then the smallest amounts of increases a player is willing to give. To me, that equates to greed. I'm not sure how it can be seen otherwise.
DeletedUser
It's not just about greed, it protects bidders as well. If there's a minimum bid and you bid early, you aren't quite as likely to be outbid at the last second if it costs a sniper more than an extra $1.
Edit: It also requires a little more thought. Too high of a minimum increment and you could actually wind up making less money because some people will be less likely to bid that increment. They may not bid a $1k increment from $19k to $20k but be willing to bid a $100 increment from $19.9k to $20k for the same item.
Still, I prefer the original suggestion where the increment is based on the prices set and not set directly by the seller.
Edit: It also requires a little more thought. Too high of a minimum increment and you could actually wind up making less money because some people will be less likely to bid that increment. They may not bid a $1k increment from $19k to $20k but be willing to bid a $100 increment from $19.9k to $20k for the same item.
Still, I prefer the original suggestion where the increment is based on the prices set and not set directly by the seller.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
There is something called supply and demand.....other than sharing amongst alliance members, most of market items are sold because there is a big demand for them, thus the seller can boost the price. and this is the wild west, mind you, so anything goes. Just look at prices for products used for crafting.
DeletedUser
I see no real reason why any changes are necessary. If, it would have to be 1%. Anything for sale under $100 has an increase of $1. Anything put out for 500 an increase of $5 and so on.
DeletedUser
Dont know if was already told but in other games with this kind of market ( using Bids )
What we could do is:
Item for sale -> ?????
Sales price - 5000$
Bid Sale - 2500$
Lets suppose those are the prices the seller put
Well , 1st player Bid for 2600$
Well in the market would mark 2501, that means someone set a bid but we cant see amount
2nd PLayer Bid for 2550 $, the market would tell him that the bid its not enough soo it keeps the 2501 $
3rd Player Bid for 2700$, he won the Auction soo the bid will mark now 2601 ( 1 dollar more that the last bid he just improve
And this all time
What will happen? well since people dont know the exact bid they just cant bid + 1 dollar because they dont know the exact bid, soo they will have to push harder soo they can win it, once they make it next player wants to bid will see only the bid from first player that bid soo he as to push even harder soo he can put more cash for the item
My english is prety bad and even worse to explain this
Item - Bid of 2500
1st player - bid for 2600
Item bid will show 2501 ( Means someone bid )
2nd player - bid for 2550 ( he lose since bid its on 2600 )
Item bid will keep 2501
3rd player - bid 2700 ( He won )
Item will show 2601 ( means someone bid more that the fist player )
4th player - bid 3000 ( He won )
Item will show 2701 ( means someone bid more that the 3rd player )
Soo next player must bid +3000 but he cant see that numbers soo push with 1 dollar its useless soo he have to push litle harder
What we could do is:
Item for sale -> ?????
Sales price - 5000$
Bid Sale - 2500$
Lets suppose those are the prices the seller put
Well , 1st player Bid for 2600$
Well in the market would mark 2501, that means someone set a bid but we cant see amount
2nd PLayer Bid for 2550 $, the market would tell him that the bid its not enough soo it keeps the 2501 $
3rd Player Bid for 2700$, he won the Auction soo the bid will mark now 2601 ( 1 dollar more that the last bid he just improve
And this all time
What will happen? well since people dont know the exact bid they just cant bid + 1 dollar because they dont know the exact bid, soo they will have to push harder soo they can win it, once they make it next player wants to bid will see only the bid from first player that bid soo he as to push even harder soo he can put more cash for the item
My english is prety bad and even worse to explain this
Item - Bid of 2500
1st player - bid for 2600
Item bid will show 2501 ( Means someone bid )
2nd player - bid for 2550 ( he lose since bid its on 2600 )
Item bid will keep 2501
3rd player - bid 2700 ( He won )
Item will show 2601 ( means someone bid more that the fist player )
4th player - bid 3000 ( He won )
Item will show 2701 ( means someone bid more that the 3rd player )
Soo next player must bid +3000 but he cant see that numbers soo push with 1 dollar its useless soo he have to push litle harder
DeletedUser9470
meh just make increments proportionate to the total amount.
DeletedUser
-NEO- this is prety simple to do, many my way to explain can sound hard but not
I use Bid sistem 1 time and no more, I sold a Nats some while ago and put a Bid of 50.000, and after 7 days i sold it for 50,078 $ what i can think is people was more worries in put 1 dollar damn move up the bid to git it and well i dont see it well done
any case i just put above somethig i saw in other game that for me was prety good
I use Bid sistem 1 time and no more, I sold a Nats some while ago and put a Bid of 50.000, and after 7 days i sold it for 50,078 $ what i can think is people was more worries in put 1 dollar damn move up the bid to git it and well i dont see it well done
any case i just put above somethig i saw in other game that for me was prety good
DeletedUser9470
making increments proportionate or selected by seller is just as easy and a lot easier to understand.
if for example increments were 5% of current price to bid higher on 50k a player would have to bid (50000+50000x5/100)= $52500, and the next: (52500+52500x5/100)= $55125...
at least its clear what the current bid is and what the next bid will be...
but i still think best is to let the seller select the increment he wants.
on $50k item i would be choosing increments of $3500 for example...
not knowing how much you have to bid to make a bid isnt an option, peeps save up ages for things, not knowing how much you haveto save up isnt logical, so i think your system would put people off even trying to bid.
if for example increments were 5% of current price to bid higher on 50k a player would have to bid (50000+50000x5/100)= $52500, and the next: (52500+52500x5/100)= $55125...
at least its clear what the current bid is and what the next bid will be...
but i still think best is to let the seller select the increment he wants.
on $50k item i would be choosing increments of $3500 for example...
not knowing how much you have to bid to make a bid isnt an option, peeps save up ages for things, not knowing how much you haveto save up isnt logical, so i think your system would put people off even trying to bid.