Another_Fan

Nobody except the devs, have a very good handle on what the drop rate is, or if it is even a consistent rate.

For all we know they could be keying the rate to the total available at wentworths on any given day.

I saw this on your build, is this meant for exemplaring to low levels ? If so just what level are the botz sets you slotted ?

If you wanted this to go to pms you could have started with the above post your actions refute your statements.

As for the rest I am still waiting for you to say where external changes in the game stop being changes in the status quo of the market.

Please dissect the above word by word making the claim of lack of reading comprehension after each one again

If that's true it shows why the game has balance problems and QA issues

Have you tried paying for mid level items ? I have no trouble obtaining them in reasonable time I just pay more than the last 5 which is almost always less than what the same item at 50 is going for. Usually I can fill in a week or less

If you expect people to sell you desirable items on the cheap I'd say thats not a market problem.

And by your logic if someone went around continuously buying ios and removing them from the game it would constitute a change in players relationship to the market. Just to take the lack of thought in the above further you could "change" the market by finding a few third worlders paying them peanuts to farm for purples or pvp ios and dump them on the market.

If you can't understand this think back to the initial AE mania. All the behaviors that arose from lack of information were still there

I wonder if there's anything A_F *would* consider a change, other than a complete overhaul of the bid/sell system mechanic, since anything else is "extrinsic" and therefore obviously (and conveniently) doesn't count. Because it seems to me that the devs, potentially tasked with actually having to code a market merger, would certainly consider that a change. It's not going to write itself.

What is clear is that to make your point you are willing to consider any change in the game a change in the nature of the market.

Or perhaps you could explain what you consider an insignificant change ? You mention Purple drop rates ? Well anyone reading this has the potential to affect the rate at which purples enter the game or exit it and most likely frequently have. In the time I have been playing I have seen the price points for purples ranged over a full order of magnitude, there has however been 0 change in the way they are traded. If you don't think the amount of purples a farmer can produce in a session or the amount produced per player hasn't changed significantly you are just demonstrating ignorance or a willful disregard for anything that disputes your position.


As to wicked curmudgeons willing to pick on people

There is this fun thread

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=213244

But I am sure you have some rationale about how that isn't what it appears to be.

Yes very good catch. But you want to change

to

That's why changes in market psychology weren't considered.

You mean in the context of changing how things work, I listed the changes that would certainly occur none of which was a change in nature but all were changes in quantity ?

Or going back to the original topic with a simplified example. If you had a commissary that only served blueberry pie, and some people wanted apple would you call it a change in the status quo if they increased their stock of blueberry ?


Or back to your gist Selina_H's argument is the marketeering community is open to change they are arguing for more of whats currently there. As I said way back, its really no surprise the devs don't want to listen to the "People that know how things work"

I wouldn't want purples to flow like honey. It would be nice if we had something like a task force/ trial that actually could be considered a challenge awarding purples at the end.

This would satisfy people that wanted to build out their characters but didn't care for farming or the market. The difficulty and expected time could be based on how long an average farmer would have to work to make a purple drop.

vs
Seeing as it was the first 4 words in my post and the first 2 sentences, the tone seemed called for. Its a pretty hard goalpost to move.

Seeing as you missed this and I must have done a horrible job of communicating the fact that I was talking about a change in the nature of the market. Let me help you out.

,

Now just in case its still not clear. Lets say we have a container of water. Theres a certain number of collisions between water molecules per unit time, the water has a certain weight per unit volume, and other properties dependent on the fact it is water.

If you double the amount of water in the container you get twice as many collisions between water molecules, the container weighs twice as much, it can take twice as much solute into solution. This is because there is now twice as much.

Do you get that ? Having more of something does not change its nature. Just want to make certain you actually are having your gotcha moment here.

Just to put things into a little clearer light for you. If all of a sudden everyone that played heroes switched to playing villains without a market meger would it change how transactions happened on the red market ? Or would there just be more transactions happening more often because there were more people ??


If you didn't understand before I took the trouble to lay it out for you I hope this helps. If you did understand these concepts why did you fail to apply them ?

More of the same. A red blue market merge is what we have now but bigger. Bigger is indeed better. Its especially true if you are on Redside have made a couple billion inf and found out you can't buy what you want with it because it just inst available. It isn't a change though. Its the same market, its a little more stable because there would be more participants, and orders would likely fill faster.

As a counterpoint an open outcry market by itself would help Redside out by providing a better environment for buyers and sellers to trade. Just how much is your time worth to you ? How much inf is it worth to be able walk into the market and see what people are willing to pay for your items now or how much it will cost for you to buy things now ?

Son NOBODY needs stamina to enjoy the game that is just entitlement talk.

You may be correct. The bracketed section of the thread could be simply interpreted as internet bullies piling on a weak target. Generally though that doesn't happen unless they are in an environment where they feel they can get away with it.

But that's all a bit loose without further context and examples.

Lets take the premise: The market community is protective of the status quo, and really does not argue in good faith concerning any ideas that might upset the status quo.

On the status quo side here you have people that go from not understanding the mechanic being talked about , to being experts on how wow's auction house works. You have to enjoy the parts where they talk about how auctions with a buyout price don't work.

Take a look at this thread though from suggestions and ideas.

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...2&postcount=28

When someone tells Smurphy he should read the market forums so he can learn more about supply and demand. Well you might infer that they are arguing to protect the status quo and aren't interested in a system more enjoyable for most people.

Here is the post

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...2&postcount=28

I got an enormous chuckle out of it.

The whole thread has names that are regulars shooting down what is a pretty reasonable idea and in pretty much the same consistent manner we see in this thread. The only variable that in the other thread the target is much more able to express themselves.


Yep been down this road on that PvP I/O thread. Similar situation similar actions. I'll just note they would have been much better served by taking lessons from real world markets which are the ultimate PvP games.

Edit: And I see while I was writing this another one has started.

Its so nice to have other people conclusively prove my points for me

and

Not the greatest presentation but lets see whats there.

1. The markets are poorly designed
2. The CoX markets have a structural tendency towards overpayment
3. They are not particularly easy to use or understand.
4. They can be manipulated.
5. The market provides insufficient information and is unnecessarily opaque.
6. The seller is in a dominant position in the market.

Overall gist: There are better ways to organize a game market

1. Oh yes the market does suck and its almost certainly deliberate on the part of the developers that it does. I have no idea how you could come up with a less usable system.

Lets see how real life would work if it functioned under wentworths rules

A: go into the supermarket you want to buy a steak, the butcher would tell you guess the price, if you didn't guess high enough the butcher would tell you try again. If someone walked by and happened to hear your bid they could snipe your steak away from you while you were trying to figure out how much you should pay.

Oh for all the people who will chime in that's a store, not a market. No A store is a market. When you chide someone for not understanding it only makes you look stupid if you don't understand yourself.

B: The financial markets. You would like to buy bonds/stocks/a reit etc. You are told well you can't see what people are willing to sell for, you can't see what people are willing to pay and you get to guess.

This can go on endlessly. What our "market" was meant to be is a guessing game not a market. It rewards people that want to play a guessing game and get good at the guessing game.

2. The CoX markets have structural bias towards overpayments. Well lets see.

It is possible to always pay the exact minimum amount for any item on the market. All you have to do is bid creep by 1 inf increments until you hit that number. What isn't considered here is that there is a cost for doing so. It takes time, is prone to error, and in general nobody wants to actually do this. So yes there is a structural bias towards overpayment in the CoX markets.

3. Not easy to use or understand. Ymmv. Easy for some not so easy for others.

4. They can be manipulated. Oh yes indeed they can, and in lots of ways. This argument has been rehashed endlessly. The counter argument is that you can't raise prices profitably above the equilibrium price. Again a question of repetition over understanding. There is no guaranty that our market converges to equilibrium or at any given time it is heading in the direction of equilibrium.

5. The market provides insufficient information. This goes back to what the purpose of the market is. If the purpose is to provide a guessing game where a small minority wins big, then it is fine. If the purpose is to provide for the efficient exchange of goods amongst the players, then it clearly provides to little information.

6. The seller is in the dominant position in the market. It depends on the time and the commodity. It all depends on how long the sellers are willing to wait for a particular sale to clear, and how much competition there is in the commodity. The sellers for kinetic weapons are currently not in the dominant position, prophecies are another matter entirely.


Overall gist: There are better ways to organize a game market. Once again it depends. If you want it to be some kind of PVP that promotes winning and losing then this one works.

If you wanted a market that made it easy to exchange your goods that wasn't particularly onerous or rubbed losses in the losers faces, then this one didn't succeed in the aim.

Barney fife tried hail of bullets once, that's why Andy only let him have one bullet after that and made him keep it in his shirt pocket

I'm not a fan of warcraft but I can easily see where their style of auction house could satisfy more of the player base than our current one. The COH market is setup to reward speculators much more so than any real world bourse. If the system were made more transparent it would function much more as a market than it currently does. Just the ability to see the several lowest offers and the highest bids would likely do wonders for peoples satisfaction with the market and reducing its volatility.

This would give the system the equivalent of a buy it now button and a sell it now button where neither side would feel cheated. If you want to sell now you hit the bid. If you want to buy now you hit the offer. If you want better pricing you put in your price and hope it fills. No playing a guessing game

It may certainly be justified. The question is why ?

Old Americanism, "I don't know much about art but I know what I like". Well the people complaining may not know much about the economy but they know what they don't like.

You can cut the defensiveness with a knife.

If you have the equivalent of 6 SOs of global recharge do you really care ?

People that are looking high global recharge are often looking to get key powers always on. Hasten , Accelerate metabolism, Phantom Army are good examples. Or, they are looking to have an optimum attack chain, where the recharge of a particular power might not be so important as long as the chain flows smoothly. The famous follow up->slash->focus chain is an example.

You are right about the exemplar unfriendly nature of the builds, the reverse though is that the greatest potential earning power in the game is at 50. 50s tend to be the most popular to play by a wide margin.