Comicsluvr

Firstly, I love the rebalanced prices. Now my SG and I have what we always wanted: A HUGE raidless base we can fill with useless trinkets and the necessary teleporters to our greedy heart's content. Win/Win!

However, the reducing of the Rent costs for most has resulted in the increase for those to not paying any. While I don't object to paying the 1200 Pres every so often this means that if the SG leaders who are able to pay are off-line for too long the lights go out and everyone is angry with us.

IMHO the only change that the system needs (in addition to lots of new editor options) is an Autopay feature. Let me SG leader go into the Settings, click an Autopay button and the Pres gets removed every month without me having to fuss. If my Pres total drops below the Rent needed THEN they cut my power or whatever.

I'm kinda shocked that this wasn't added already but with so much coming out of the last two Issues I can see how they just haven't had time yet.

I love the concept of the level pacts but the implementation needs a bit of work IMHO.

1) Since you don't see your exps before zoning you cannot 'level-rez' if you die within sight of the next level. This was one of my fave features of the leveling bonus and if you're pacted you can't use it.

2) Restricting the level pacts to lvl 5 and under is a bit Draconian IMHO. I can see abuses if PLers were to dip into it but as long as you can EITHER level pact at level 5 or under OR level pact with someone of the same level then I see few problems.

3) Not sure how long it would take to code but I'd be willing to give up 1% of my exp for every person over two in the level pact. This way 3 or more friends can play and if one has to bow out for RL reasons then he will level with the rest of his team. The small percentage of exps lost will deter the speedfreaks from abusing the system and those that are mostly concerned about staying with friends won't care anyway.

I think it should be situational. Sure, Mob Snipers run away to get a better shot. I get that. Many foes run away in the face of obvious overwhelming force. I get THAT.

But when the Ghost Lord flees in terror from taking less than half damage? I mean come on...

If the goal of I13 was to simplify ANYTHING then it suffers from Fail.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also concerned about the cost of several of the rewards and pricing of them. Do you honestly want to say that defeating 20 AVs isn't even worth one single origin enhancement, through two runs at least 24 hours apart of the Katie Hannon TF? Also, a couple of developers that aren't on the rewards team have stated that they had slightly lower estimates for how much effort should go into a random recipe roll, both listing times of around 60-75 minutes. This would put the cost of a random roll at 12-15 merits, which is honestly where I see the average completion time settling into once speed runs are done more frequently on the higher-value.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is also my primary concern. If I run a TF now, does not matter which one, I can always choose an Enhancement at the end rather than a random drop. If the typical or even speed TF won't drop enough Merits to purchase even a common IO I'm going to feel slighted somewhere. I can understand that the Devs don't want this to become open season on the rarest recipes but for those of use who do not always goob to the last decimal point some reward should be in order.

[ QUOTE ]
To counteract this, why not - while in a Task Force - award a merit to everyone in the group for, say, every 250-300 enemies defeated? That way, when "SpeedQ" is inevitably nerfed because "it can be done in an average of an hour and a half," those who slog through are getting more of a reward, instead of being *dis*couraged to use their time on this TF? Sure, the speedsters (no offense ) might get more merits in the end - but for each run, the "regular" players are getting more per TF.

[/ QUOTE ]


I REALLY like this idea though not sure about the number of defeats per Merit. If the Devs want to reward players who are willing to play the content and slog through ALL of the bad guys in every TF then merits awarded by defeats is the way to go IMHO. The 'speed freaks' can play more TF/SFs a day and get more reward for the completion but normal players can enjoy almost the same amount of reward over the same period of time because they dig through all of the baddies.

I can't see the coding being tough either...the counter that tracks defeats for Badges already does this.

Ok, gotta mention this while the memory is fresh in my scarred mind. Just finished a grinder of a mish vs Crey. The one where you destroy some cryo tubes and Arachnoid Spitters come out of them.

The Crey mobs, ALL of them, were absolutely nuts! Even the Minions were nigh impossible to Immob or Hold with stacked effects. Mobs would fight, get injured, run away and return...all at insane speeds. Not quite SS speed but like a character on Sprint with Swift...through Tar patch, Immobs, Holds, all of it.

This is the worst example of the Run Away portion of the AI I've seen. Worse than the big boss Av in the new ITF. Worse than Nosferatu running laps for 10 minutes. Just crazy.

This is particularly annoying for any toon with the Traps secondary. I once laid out the Poison Gas Trap and lots of Mines for a Freakshow Boss. He strolls through, survives, and then while I'm trying to finish him off he bolts and runs from the room. I lay out a fresh set of traps but he refuses to hold still for even a moment.

So how does this works now...if you don't have stackable Immobs or Holds you just have to deal with it or what?

[ QUOTE ]
Whats worse is if you get a mission where the target is supposed to run. You know, the one where if you fail to stop them from escaping its automatic failed mission?

Those guys are usually (at least to me) able to resist any holds and disorients you can throw at them (well disorient doesn't matter since NPCs for the most part run at great speed even when disoriented....often without moving their legs.

One thing about running NPCs I've always wanted to ask...have you ever stopped a purse snatching and the guy that was fighting for the bag runs saying "I got it! its mine!"? Ever actually stop him and then defeat his partner? How come the victim doesn't say anything? you just saved them and stopped the guy that *had her purse*. Even if you don't get any influence or a drop it'd be nice to her say "Thanks MegaSuperUltra Man, my kids pictures were in there." or something.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, there are some foes redside that you KNOW you've either got to have a whole team of Doms to stack the Immobs/Holds or they're just gone. Dr Aeon is one of the worst IMHO. Punk is like an Nrg Blaster with FF Defender fields and then he bolts when he hits half health as often as not.

I personally feel that all Stuns to NPCs should have a built-in Slow component that lasts exactly as long as the Stun. This will enable the enemy to stagger around like they're supposed to but not continue to advance/flee at Sprint speeds.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh but they imcreased the animation times on Stone Melee for no reason, what a great waste of time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or so they can fit the Stone melee animations in with the upcoming Shield defensive set. But dont take BaBs word for it at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you calling Back Alley Brawler a liar? He said in a post and he told me that SM was changed for shields in a PM. He said if they were going to change any Damage Per Animation powers they'd start with Energy Transfer first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. I said those power animations got looked at because we are working on shields. That's what lead us to discover the minor bug.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, through all of the clutter I see the hard confirmation that they're working on Shields RIGHT NOW.

And Stalkers are better.

Works for me...

Personally I'd LIKE the mob AI to be improved but if that happens I want it to be deliberate, not a bug the devs decide to keep. This is because players are used to the maps, the spawn points and mobs behaving a certain way. If this changes drastically then tactics will also have to change.

I think the last guy in the spawn SHOULD run like nuts. Makes it a good idea to finish off bosses and Lts earlier to keep them from fleeing. But after the guy runs a certain distance I want him counted as defeated so I don't spend 30 minutes in a kill-all hunting his [censored] down.

However, EBs and AVs should NOT run beyond the room they're encountered in! I've had missions where I spent 10 minutes chasing an EB around a Council map because the little brat wouldn't hold still and I had not Immobs/Holds to stack. Yet recently I had a great Boss fight with a Rikti Boss who was very elusive. He hopped around the room but never left the room he was in.

Spawns that said running man passes SHOULD be aggroed and head for the team. It only makes sense. However if this is the case I think the spawns should be far enough apart that this will only affect ONE additional spawn. On some maps the spawns are close together and this could lead to teams being swamped just because they got a bad draw on the map randomizer.

Foes shouldn't stand idly by as they're friends are blasted all over the place. There should be a 25-30' radius reaction from one member of a spawn and the next. If one gets ganked, the rest respond. Hide would counter part of this (make it 15' or something) so Hidden characters would see some minor benefit.

However, if the mobs begin to act smarter then the exp gains should go up or (what I would prefer) the Inf reward and drops improved. I have no problem with the baseline of the game getting harder if the rewards improve.

[ QUOTE ]
They are programmed to run away after X amount of time of not landing a hit on their opponent. There are probably other triggers too.

[/ QUOTE ]


This part seems patently unfair to me. Defense-heavy characters have to chase their opponents while Resist-heavy ones don't? I call shenanigans on this one...

I liked the preview you gave us in Beta and I like it now. I'm sure this will be VERY helpful to those just beginning to explore VEATs.

I can attest from LOTS of VEAT testing (made the closed beta yay!) that Widows just plain rock IMHO. However, I wish to make a few comments:

I tried to get a 'pure melee' build to work well without Stamina and had trouble making it work to my satisfaction. The recharges and End costs on many of the attacks above Swipe are a tad high to go all-melee for me.

All that being said I DID get a mixed-range Widow to work without Stamina well into the 20s (I got to 28 IIRC). The play style was not the ferret on crack speed that so many prefer but I could solo with it on Viscious Diff with little trouble. Teamed would have been even better.

I do not understand the problem so many have with taking even one ranged attack in their melee-centric builds. Even the Blood Widows we fight in the game have Dart for heaven's sake. The recharge is good, the damage good, the End cost light, it has the full 80' range and it does Toxic damage. I use it in melee all the time, I simply discount the fact that it's a ranged attack and trigger it along with the rest. However when that one wounded runner takes off I'm usually damn glad I have it (I hate runners...).

Spin from Hide is wonderful! If you intend to play as more of a Stalker then take BU instead of Follow Up (they're mutually exclusive now) and the two tear spawns up.

If you like to play FAST this is the AT for you IMHO. I've played Stalkers, Scrappers and Buzzsaw Brutes and nothing feels as fast as my Widow past lvl 27 (lvl 30 SOs and IOs make an otherwise good set really sing!). Even before that if you're willing to take the faster early Powers (like Dart) and you're not ashamed to have the Thrown Knife and even Brawl on the attack chain you'll never be bored after about lvl 8 or so.

I also go with the Temp Travel Powers early on (I have a large SG with teleporters and I take Swift even if I'm not getting Stamina). One of the joys of this set is the way the Devs laid out the order the Powers come up. You get attacks early on but if you like fighting defensive you CAN take CT: Defense right away. The early attacks are single-target but the AoEs open up fairly early compared to some if you team a lot or if you adjust the Diff for the odd setting for bigger spawns. Unlike some Powersets on some ATs where you often feel like you HAVE to take a certain Power or go to the Pool Powers VEATs give you LOTS of options.

[ QUOTE ]
one thing to remember about the healing nictus. it gets aoe power from all nearby units including your team. the closer more people are to it, the more heals will go off. this makes having everyone pull out their pets tough if the healing nictus isnt taken down first.

[/ QUOTE ]


This clarifies something I've been curious about.

I've done the ITF 4 times on 4 different toons, all successful though all were a slog at the end. Some have reported being unable to defeat the Nicti no matter what they did. Many have claimed to be multi-year vets with more of the same on their team and STILL are unable to win the final round.

So what if their problem is popping out every temp pet they have (a perfectly sound strategy in most AV battles) which increases the Nictus healing rate? Now I have yet another thing to test lol...

Ok...free slots up front, plus slots based on Vet time, plus purchasable slots for a one-time fee that are less than $10.00 each?

Ok...who are you guys and what have you done with our Devs? lol!

I thought I12 was full of win before...


WOOT!

[ QUOTE ]
I think until you know what it causing the supply to be low, you can't propose an effective solution.

[/ QUOTE ]


A perfectly valid point. This data will likely only come from datamining on the dev's part.

However they have to think that such a thing is worth the effort to even do it. They won't think of doing it if most of the posters here smile and nod and say the Market is working fine. They have limited man-hours and I don't see them chasing down data for something that most of the players don't see as broken.

Defiance didn't get fixed because players asked for it. It got fixed because players begged for a change and the devs devoted resources to confirming that it was indeed broken. If their datamining had revealed that Blasters were performing just fine and it was all player perception they would have said so and moved on.

But the people who can best tell IF there is a problem and WHAT the problem might be won't even look for problems unless the players, and more than a few, ask them to. This is what all of these posts are for. We can't change anything...we have to convince them to look and agree that change is needed.

If more than half of the playerbase posted on a regular basis that they wanted more/better PvP then I bet a stack of cash that the devs would try to move it up the priority list. On that same note if most of the posters here agreed the Market is fine then it must be fine.

They don't though...thus IMHO the devs need to devote time and energy to looking at it. If they say it's all good here in a public forum then I'll shut up. If not...I'll continue my campaign to make them see that their Market system is at least bent of not broken.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok let me clarify. By majority rules I mean that when enough ppl vote with our feet, changes we feel strongly about will get implemented. As it is most of the gamers are unwilling to vote with their feet hence the situation abt ED etc.

As a profit-driven company, they have to produce what is wanted by the players. This 'want' is measured via our playing or leaving the game. Just discussing on the forum while continue playing the game does not constitute action.

Unfortunately majority still drives the trend even if it doesnt work.

[/ QUOTE ]



Very true. Statesman said that their data showed no significant player changes after the big nerfs (ED, GDN, there may have been others) so obviously even though players objected strongly they were still playing. By still playing they were giving their silent consent to the nerfs even as they were complaining about them.

Now based on this, how many players logged in to redside the day before I9 went live?

How many logged in the day after?

A month after?

Last month?

I don't know these numbers but I bet the Devs do which is why once they had their new hires up to speed they sat them down, chained them to their comps and said [big booming voice] FINISH THE VEATS! [/big booming voice]. So now we're soon going to have the VEATS we've been promised for two+ years.

The point is that the game should be a positive sum. Players should have more fun than they experience frustraton and boredom in order to encourage them to play. Once that scale tips into the negative players leave.

Players have already left redside due to a lagging Market. They LIKE Inventions and the Market and so they want to go and play with the side that has a healthy one. They haven't left the game, simply the villainous side of it. This may be one reason why the Devs have not seen mass cancellations of accounts...players frustrated with the redside Market simply went to blueside. The recent merging of the games, making both sides available without buying them both was probably yet another attempt to bring the player numbers up by making it free for hero players to explore villains.

All this boils down to players getting what they want but in a reasonable fashion. Nethergoat complained that the increase of the costume piece drop rate ruined that portion of the Market because they fall so often that those that want one get the drops and those that have a surplus sell them, driving the prices down. 'Might as well have made them all available as costume pieces at the Tailor' I believe he said.

Ok...good. I for one never liked the idea that something as simple as the way my character looked had to be a lottery. Many players rave that one of the advantages of CoX is that the character's appearance has no bearing on their performance. They can be wearing a bikini and a veil and be an Invul Tank that can sustain hideous damage with relative ease.

Ok, if this is the case then why is it important that the really cool costume pieces should be restricted to the few? Some posters seem to think that everyone will leave if there isn't some sort of tangible carrot hanging just past their nose every minute...something to keep or collect. Sure, there are lots of badgers and others who fill all their costume slots and to them that's fun.

How about just playing the game? Isn't that a good motivation to...you know...play the game? I for one don't need badges and l33t costume stuff in order to keep playing and all the shiney junk in the world will not make me continue to pay my money for something I don't really own anyway.

But all of this is WAY off topic.

My initial point (yes, I had one of those remember?) is that if the Markets worked so damned well then players wouldn't grouse about them. Sure, some would because there is always someone who can complain about the color of the sky. But many of the complaints are not simple 'I WANT IT ALL NOW!!!!!!' rants but honest, sincere, rational requests for changes to be made.

I do not believe that the devs are always right. Yes, they designed the game. Engineers designed the Pinto too but the damned thing STILL blew up when rear-ended. Designers are fallible too.

I do not believe that most players would use an 'I Win' button even if it were given to them. Yes, portions of the playerbase have proven themselves to be a bit dim at times, but wanting something to work better is not the same as wanting it handed out for free. I want the redside Market (indeed, both Markets) to work better. This does NOT mean that I want it all for free.

The devs have posted that there is a disparity between the Markets and because of this and other factors there will be no merger in the immediate future. Ok, so why not fix them and keep them seperate?

As for all of the players complaining, they may not have left the game but many have left the redside of it. Not smart for the devs to wait until the players are already on their way out the door to try and bring them back is it? Wouldn't it be smarter to encourage to never start to leave in the first place?

By the way just because a small portion of the players are savvy enough to game the Market and get whatever they want does NOT mean that it's working well. It means that there are a few players savvy enough to take a bent system and make it work for them.

In essense they can take the car on the lot that almost never starts and make it start every time. This does not mean that the car is working well, it just means they understand HOW it's broken and can work around it.

Is this REALLY how we want to judge how successful a feature is?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Settle in kids...we're gonna be here a while...


[ QUOTE ]
Nothing logically follows from the fact that people complain. The only thing that can be concluded is that they have a complaint.

[/ QUOTE ]


So in your eyes how many people have to have a complaint before it becomes a valid point? Pick a number, post it here and then count the number of different posters that say they want the Markets merged or changed in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]

The number of complainers has 0 relationship to the validity of a complaint.

Go have children and get back to us.

[/ QUOTE ]


Got 2, one married and one in college.

Any USEFUL comments?

I feel that the number of complainers has a LOT to do with the validity of the complaint because these complainers happen to be the people who play the game and pay for everything.

As I mentioned before, the PLAYERS groused about the costume recipe drop rate and the devs adjusted it. There was no data that I know of to show that the drop rate was not EXACTLY where the devs wanted it. But the players complained and the rate got changed.

You STILL think that the number of complaints has nothing to do with validity? 1% of the player base griping about something can be written off as just plain griping. 10% of the player base griping about something starts to get noticed because it's tough to believe that 1000 people can be wrong about the same thing at the same time.

The complainers that you are so willing to dismiss are the people who help pay for this game. Not ALL of them can be wrong...

Settle in kids...we're gonna be here a while...


[ QUOTE ]
Nothing logically follows from the fact that people complain. The only thing that can be concluded is that they have a complaint.

[/ QUOTE ]


So in your eyes how many people have to have a complaint before it becomes a valid point? Pick a number, post it here and then count the number of different posters that say they want the Markets merged or changed in some way.

While it is true that 1000 complainers need not all be right, if there are THAT many how is it possible that ALL of them are wrong? Doesn't the topic of their complaint at least need to be considered?


[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, nothing logically follows from you thinking the devs made a mistake in the designing of the market if you don't flesh out why you think it was a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here I agree with you. My earlier post was made in the rush of the moment and more than a bit disjointed. So I will try to elaborate:

IMHO the basic idea for Inventions and the Market were good ones however the implementation leaves something to be desired. Since I don't have access to datamining the following is speculation but since I don't any players with access to datamining their rebuttals are largely speculation as well.


[ QUOTE ]
As shown by the devs when they rolled out the system, a market was implemented as a compliment to the invention (loot/crafting) system. A game has to have both. As a design constraint, the two systems had to fit into what is seen as a more casual MMO and had to not be necessary to play the game. This critical design spec (which the players were told repeatedly) was met. In addition, a market that collects fees is a needed influence sink. Market is therefore working as designed.

[/ QUOTE ]


The Market As An Inf Sink: I have not seen the devs state this in print but the fees imposed on the Market seem to bear this out. The devs saw the piles of Inf on some toons as a bad thing and decided to find a better way to siphon them off than costume pieces. All well and good in theory.

Like many players I used to have trouble getting a toon tricked out with SOs by level 22. It was difficult to earn enough Inf even in I saved everything I earned and didn't buy any intermediate DOs. Now under Inventions my heroes will typically have close to a million Inf by the low teens and my villians the same soon after. Now since I don't believe that I'm a Market Master I believe that such early wealth is possible for nearly everyone.

So most of the toons go from not having a few hundred thousand Inf by lvl 22 to having more than a million 5 levels below that. How is this an Inf sink again? How many posters here explain in detail that they can earn millions in an hour of play? How many could have earned that much simply through missions and sweeping before?

To me, all of this indicates that if the Market was designed as an Inf sink then it has failed.


[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, it was seen as a long-term objective to have CoX be more competitive in the MMO market, and that market features competitors with varying degrees of marketing and crafting. The jury is out as to whether it was a smart business decision (the last round of subscriber figures suggest that it was not a smart decision, but we need a couple more quarters of subscriber info to really draw a definitive conclusion as to which way our subscriber base is trending).

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, so based on recent numbers you're willing to admit that the Inventions and Market systems, as implemented, may have been a mistake. This is all I'm asking here.


[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing: If the problem you are trying to suggest a fix for is not well defined, you can't fix it. So far, as you've defined it, is that you think the market is a mistake and that people complain. Your solution (tie all drops to an exceptionally gameable system) would not appear to fix either problem.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, no and...by the way...no. I have said, repeatedly, that I LIKE the Invention system. However, that does not change the fact that I think that it was improperly implemented.


[ QUOTE ]
If the problem you're trying to fix is something else, perhaps that product availability villain-side is a pain, or that recipe drops need to be tuned up, or that population issues villain-side need to be addressed, gameable drop systems won't help any of those. Right now a random system (if it is in fact random 100% of the time) can not be gamed.

[/ QUOTE ]


A random system cannot be gamed. So the system we have right now (which is supposed to be random) cannot be gamed? Wow, big surprise to those who do it every day then.

There is another thread here about a group of players who make a concerted effort to bring the price of Luck Charms down. They all collect as many as they can and sell them for lower prices. Ok, but what if they'd decided to just hold them to drive the prices up and then sell them for outrageous profit? Even though they paid a bundle for the last few they would have made so much more than they lost selling them back at a trickle. Meanwhile the casual player who needs one to craft something is out of luck because Luck Charms are suddenly selling for a million Inf each.

There are lots of threads here about how players game the system all the time. I have trouble understanding how you cannot see this.


[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how you end up defining the problem you are trying to fix, I certainly don't want to see the devs willy-nilly throwing a fix in there. The last time they did that--the costume fiasco--they explicitly abandoned their stated design spec (that costume drops should be rare and valuable), and instead of tuning them to a value somewhere under 1 million (rare arcane salvage goes for over a million; it's not a bad target--at the very least somewhere in the 300-500K range), they're pretty much worthless (most of them that I list sell for 50, occasionally a couple thousand).

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, I'm failing to see the problem there. Costumes have no effect in-game other than looking pretty. They do not in any way affect a character's Regen rate, Recovery, Defense or anything else. This being the case why is the fact that they are no longer rare and selling for millions each a problem? Of course this comes from the advocate of all costume pieces available to everyone so we have a difference of opinion there.

By the way, this latest example covers both my assertations that the devs are not always right (as in their idea of how Inventions and the Market was implemented may not have been right) and the fact that enough players complaining CAN sway the devs from whatever their original vision is. So, they saw costume pieces as being very rare and therefore expensive. A BUNCH of players howled and the devs adjusted the drop rates.

So...a simple case of the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Now we come back to how many posters want Inventions and/or the Market changed again? The wheel is sounding pretty squeaky to me...The fact thet Ex Libris posted Posi's thoughts on the matter tells me it's sounding squeaky to them too.

Now let me get back to the fact that you feel that my original complaint lacked definition and let me define it as I see it:

When Inventions was launched redside already had fewer players than blueside because of the simple fact that blueside had a head start. No disputes here.

The fact that blueside had a headstart likely told the devs that blueside had more accumulated Inf as well. Ok, no problems there either.

The devs then perceived this disparity in liquid Inf as being too big an advantage for blueside over red. Items hitting the Market would be snapped up by wealthier heroes who had an unfair advantage over villains and as a result the Markets were created as seperate entities. Here is where it all falls apart for me.

When the devs created the Invention system they should have realized that the advantage of blueside over red was not simply in population. Many heroes had huge piles of liquid Inf which they cheerfully dropped on what they desired most. Heroes had the KH TF which got farmed and to death by many players. This dropped a disproportionate number of recipes in the blueside Market. The playerbase for heroes was more experienced and as a result they could run trials faster and earn more drops per hour. They also knew their toons better, having had more time to tweak them and learn what worked and what didn't. All of this adds up to the fact that the blueside Market soon became a thriving enterprise.

Now since I9 did not create any players (IIRC the account numbers were about balanced at this time) This means that there are a finite number of player hours in a day. Blueside has a thriving Market for all the reasons listed above and more. Since this is a zero-sum problem a thriving Market heroside costs the villainside.

The number of players redside, already lower then blueside, began to drop. Players LIKED Inventions and more players blueside meant easier times gathering PUGs to run the TFs with the sought-after recipes. Also the KH TF and others made farming for such treasures easier than redside. All of this means that players who wanted to participate in a healthy, thriving Market leaned toward the blue side. This cost the redside player numbers which started a downward slide. An anemic market (relatively speaking) meant fewer players played thair villains. This made the Market even MORE anemic which drove even more players away. So far new content has affected both sides more or less equally so no big increase there.

Man players want the Markets merged...but why? Many feel that it woud be more fair. Or that it would be the fastest, best way to even out the economies. The devs have stated flat-out NO for now so the player desires are a moot point.

Now if the redside Market could be improved without merging the Markets wouldn't that be a good thing? You can't show favoritism to one side or the other will cry foul so whatever happens to one will happen to the other.

So what are the redside Market complaints about? High prices? Yeah, players gripe about those. Lack of stuff to buy? yeah, redside has that too. Sluggish...as in even the relatively tasty thing I just listed to sell takes a week to sell of where it might have gone in an hour blueside? Yep, players dislike that too.

Now some posters like the idea of adjusting the drop rates to match the usefulness of an item. I like this plan personally despite the opposition. It mirrors the real world so players can relate to it and the huge gluts of some items will eventually fade.

But what happens when the devs make a new Power set or a new IO set? A whole new Power set that uses several Sleep and/or Disorient sets would please many players. Now the sets for those Powers that dropped are more likely to be used and since the market is glutted with them getting some nice stuff would be fairly cheap at first. But too many of a single type of Power or IO set might confuse the Market for a while, making it ripe to be exploited.

My system, properly implemented, would save the devs time when trying to balance things in the future. The prices of the rarest items could very well stay the same (maybe a hiccup as the market settled out) if the devs set those drop rate rarities high enough. So no Numina's for 100k ever. Yeah, the price of many junk items would rise but that means that it can be sold for a profit as well as costing more buy it so to me this evens out.

So, I WANT the Markets merged. If that won't happen then IMHO the redside Market has to be altered to make it more desirable to play there. This will bring more players which, in turn will make the BM better and so on upwards until a good level is found.

Contrary to what many may think I am NOT advocating just handing stuff away. I am NOT saying that the drop rates on the ultra-rare stuff should be adjusted much if at all. These are the extreme end of the scale and as a result SHOULD be incredibly difficult to come by.

But on the other side of the coin why does there HAVE to be so much junk? Explain to me why a producer of Good X would continue making their product if 1000 cans sat on the shelf? Sure, after the glut sells off players who buy their tech commons for 25 Inf now might be dissappointed that they have to pay 300 Inf for the same junk. But if the price is that high then they can also SELL the junk they get from drops for a higher price too. Explain to me how this is a bad thing?

To me ALL of this means that players who simply play the game come out ahead.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just don't see why the game has to continue dropping Snipe sets at the same rate when there are 1000 of them for sale right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

because they keep the rare stuff rare.

the psychological effectiveness of a random drop system is in the 'random'. flatten the randomness and it's less appealing to players.

Let's take Ryu.
Ryu has run who know how many TFs in pursuit of those few lottery drops everyone wants. A few hundred? More? A lot, anyway.

He did this because he didn't get what he wanted.
If he'd gotten some sort of "balanced" drop rate he would have gotten what he wanted and stopped running TFs.

The same thing is true for any drop- the less random you make it, the more predictable the outcome is, the less appealing & addictive it will be to your players.

'balanced' drops resulting in more 'good stuff' reduce incentive to play the game.

[/ QUOTE ]


I begin to see the differences in our thinking processes.

Your thoughts: If the rare stuff becomes too common then everyone will have one and it's no longer rare (which is totally true).

If the rare stuff becomes too common then the prices will plummet and then those that don't get the drop will simply buy them. (also totally true)


But here is where the agreement ends I'm afraid.


[ QUOTE ]
because they keep the rare stuff rare.
the psychological effectiveness of a random drop system is in the 'random'. flatten the randomness and it's less appealing to players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not everyone plays the lottery because they don't see any benefit to spending their money (which for most people costs them time to earn) for a slim chance of winning something.


[ QUOTE ]
Let's take Ryu.
Ryu has run who know how many TFs in pursuit of those few lottery drops everyone wants. A few hundred? More? A lot, anyway.

He did this because he didn't get what he wanted.
If he'd gotten some sort of "balanced" drop rate he would have gotten what he wanted and stopped running TFs.

[/ QUOTE ]


Again, not everyone feels this way. I've run several trials of one kind or another. I still do, when they're in my level range and I can get exps for them. I don't exempt down for them because the few times I have I wound up spending my time, sometimes hours of it, for a Snipe recipe and some tech salvage that I deleted anyway.

I can understand your side of the arguement and it makes total sense to many. If everyone wanted a Mercedes and was willing to work their [censored] off for it then just giving them one would take away their incentive for work right?

But why should there be only ONE incentive for work? As I said I don't exempt down to do Trials because the chance for reward is too slim. It makes more sense to me to go out and play, earn exps and Inf, and then buy what I want rather than play the lottery in the hope of getting it. The only exception is respec Trials because then I can always keep the respec.

My way even if I don't earn enough to get what I want I earned exps, had fun, saw game content. By your example Ryu saw the same crap hour after hour, day after day for how long? If he had simply played the game would he have been able to buy what he wanted instead of shooting craps for it? Sounds too much like work to me.

I can work for a month and save the money for a new television or I can spend a dollar a piece on every raffle in town hoping for one. No offense but my way makes a ton more sense to me...


[ QUOTE ]
The same thing is true for any drop- the less random you make it, the more predictable the outcome is, the less appealing & addictive it will be to your players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Where I come from most forms of addiction are bad for you...

I am NOT saying give everything to everybody. I'm NOT saying take away any of the rewards for people to play as they are right now. If a Numina's Unique costs 100 million today and costs 95 million tomorrow becaues there are 5 more of them for sale tell me where the harm is in that? If the Comp Virus that sells for 10 today sells for 250 tomorrow tell me where the harm is in THAT?


[ QUOTE ]
'balanced' drops resulting in more 'good stuff' reduce incentive to play the game.

[/ QUOTE ]


And this would be true...IF everyone who played cared about the drops. Believe it or not some of us play to play...to see game content...to use our Powers to do cool stuff. I never saw the Market and Inventions as the game itself...merely an extension of it. Some ppl here talk about game content as if it was only a means to the end of having the coolest stuff. For some it is...but what about the rest of us?

This idea that only allowing the 'good stuff' to drop one time in a hundred or more is a bit of a boggle for me. But then my definition of 'good stuff' is a bit broader than some. Take for example the Thunderstrike Ranged Damage set. I LOVE this thing! With 4 of the 6 pieces I can get +Recovery, +Nrg Def and +Acc. Some pieces of these sets cost relatively little (100k or less) and the salvage to craft many of them is not bad either. I see this as 'good stuff' for a drop. Even if that toon can't use it I'm sure another on that server can so I call it a win. So if my chances of getting some of these went up would I do more Trials? Bet your butt I would!

Not EVERY player thinks that everything beneath a Numina's Unique is junk you know. Some are just fine with some of the mid-grade sets that the min/maxers disregard. Fine for me...makes them cheaper to buy them.

As for scarcity of something making the content more desireable? Sorry...ya got me there too. I'd rather do Scanners/Papers for an evening and have guarenteed reward than run a trial I loathe (looking at the Positron's here...) for a 1/50 chance for something I want. I amy be the odball player because of this but there it is.

Gambling is just not my thing I guess.

So...all this being said. Instead of trying to coerce players to do Trials that they don't want (for whatever reason) by bribing them with a 1/100 chance for something spectacular why not try giving them a 1/10 chance for something not bad?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This would be true if there were no controls on the drop rates but as much as some players oppose direct Market intervention I see a strong need for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people oppose controls (myself for one). You see a strong need for it. Current system is 1 control (costumes moved to their own pool).

If you think a change is necessary, you have to make a case, instead of moving directly to suggesting a solution...to a problem that isn't defined.

[/ QUOTE ]



Sometimes a change is needed because something is not WAD. Sometimes a change is needed because it is WAD but it turns out that the design itself was flawed. Sometimes a change is needed simply because enough players want it that the devs make it so.

Example 1) Smoke grenades. As designed they were fine but as implemented they were clearly broken. This was detected (after how long I don't know, before my time), verified and then fixed.

Example 2) SG Bases. Some of the Devs have flat out stated that the players did not use Bases as they'd intended. Ok, I don't know HOW they intended for them to be used but if the playerbase surprised them that much doesn't that mean that their design might have been flawed?

Another case in point, the fameous scene where BAB was observing a Hami raid and a pile of player corpses were ressurected by using Howling Twilight and an Oil Slick. He was all 'You know that that's a bug right?' but then Stateman told him it was more or less WAD because the players HAD to be able to target Oil Slick in order to light it off. I use the same idea with Mayhem missions and the bystanders in the bank. I can't HURT them but I can target them for healing off of.

So the design was clearly not what BAB might have thought it should be.

Example 3) Tanker damage. Again, this was before my time so all of this is from board research but from what I've read one of the reasons that Tanker damage was increased was because lots of players were howling about how they soloed too slowly.

The recent announcements for I12 have included a revamping of the Hollows. Are they going to do that because everyone loves the Hollows and uses it all the time? Heck no, they change it because the players (me among them) carp about what a crappy place it is just starting out.

So to apply these ideas to the current Market:

1) Good design, bad implementation: The fact that so many players use the Market and Inventions tells me that their original ideas were good ones. Even with all of the problems involved many players still spend a lot of time buying selling and crafting...so big win on the idea itself. However as several of the posters here have stated the idea was perhaps better than the implementation. Didn't anyone on the Dev side count the number of Sleep sets, the number of Sleep Powers and the number of ATs that can have them and see a potential problem there?

RL example: Guy owns a car lot with 10 different kinds of cars. He sells out of red and blue cars all the time and sells the yellow and brown ones very rarely. Any idiot can see that for him to stock the same number of each car is patently foolish.

2) Flawed Design: The Market, as designed (which is to say seperately) was a mistake from the start IMHO. Yes, the idea that the heroes had piles of Inf saved and the villains had smaller piles of Inf saved was a valid one. Hovever knowing that the redside had fewer players, had less content dropping the good recipes and that a strong Market on one side might drive players away from the other side I think the Devs should have figured all of this out before I9 launched.

Even were this not the case the Devs should have watched the Market evolve and take steps to steer it IMHO. Some talk about 'Market PvP' but then PvP has always been optional in this game. There is no 'PvE only Market' so everything that affects the Market affects all of the players on it whether they like it or not.

3) The Players Simply Want it: Well we've already seen evidence of this. Remember when the trade limit was less than a million? The devs knew that this would inhibit the Market so they expanded the trade window. Players had been asking for this for years apparently and now they got their wish. The recent addition of a 'Get all Inf' button was another QoL feature that pleased many.


So after all of this do I really need to make a stronger case for some sort of Market change? A simpler (and much shorter, sorry) case can be made by simply looking at the number of posts involving the Market itself as well as the Invention system that spawned it. How long have they been around? How many posted have been made about them? How many threads begun?

Inventions and the Market are obviously hot topics or else nobody would talk about them. The fact that so many of the posts are suggestions decrying problems, making improvements or just plain ranting demonstrates to me that many are not pleased with them as they stand now.

How many posters here feel stongly that the Inventions system and the Market are perfect as they stand right now and they would make NO changes? Not very many...

How many posters feel that the Markets should be merged? Quite a few.

How many would like to see the Markets, especially the BM, improved even if they are not merged? Also quite a few.

So what kind of improvements would they like? Changes in the UI? Yeah, lots of suggestions for those. More slots, a mailing system and the ability to store recipes in the vault? Yeah, lots of requests for those too. Lower prices and things that are available within a week of trying to get it? That would be nice...

I have yet to see a good arguement against the scaled drop rate idea. The less desirable sets should drop less otherwise they become junk. If the more desirable sets drop a little more as a result is this so bad? Even if the price stayed exactly where it is would a greater supply hurt anything?

So if the scaled drop rates are a good idea then would my suggestion be even better, if tougher to implement on the front end? Sure, the Devs can adjust the drop rates of every single piece of salvage and recipe based on how many Powers and ATs use them. But then later on when they make new Powers and ATs won't they have to go back and re-do a lot of those numbers? Or if the new zones drop a lot of one kind of salvage or the other wouldn't having 'hard' drop numbers make this a potential mess?

A sliding drop rate based on supply and demand is, if done right, the perfect system IMHO. It most closely mirrors Real Life so players can understand how it works better. It frees the Devs from worrying about how future projects will affect the Market because the Market and the drop rates will be self-regulating. New Sleep Powers come on-line next year? Sweet...the Sleep recipes sell more, the salvage that goes into them sells more, the Market adjusts for it and life goes on. The trash goes away because less is prudiced until the supply more closely matches demand and the most demanded stuff might become a little more available but will never be cheap.

A perfect example is the Pet Recipes redside. They drop at the same rate as they do blueside but because of the MM AT they are in greater demand. Prices for some of the procs are in the millions which is as it should be. But the biggest problem is not the price of the items but whether or not they are available AT ALL...EVER. The sales history for some of those things has nothing for weeks or months sometimes. Price is irrelevant, there are simply none to buy at any price.

With my system the drop rates of these would go up to a point where they would be available again. Not cheap, they'll never be cheap and they shouldn't be, but when 300 bids of 3+ million Inf nets zero sales because there are none that's not supply and demand that's stagnation.

In order for a market to work it has to have to things...demand AND supply...otherwise Inf will not flow anywhere.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, from Those Who Code: How difficult would it be to code the drop rate so that it changed...like as in daily?

[/ QUOTE ]

First split second thought might be a good idea. The next split second thought instructed every player to fill their trays with bids of 10xPurple recipies.

[/ QUOTE ]


Already thought of that. Yeah, putting up 5000 bids of 1 Inf each for all of the rare stuff would mess up the numbers something fierce...IF the Market Engine read those as honest bids...


[ QUOTE ]
And to be honest since the Devs could set the numbers for whatever scarcity they want I don't see this as being an issue. Remember that one of the points I made about false bids was that the Market Engine would look for false bids designed to do exactly what you just suggested. Anything that was bid with a price lower than what the item sold for at a vendor would be discounted as a false bid.

Ok, so simply raise the vendor price for the uniques and some of the other items to the point that making tons of false bids would be too expensive to have an effect. I can't think of anyone who would actually sell such a thing at a vendor so the fact that someone might and make a little bit of Inf (compared to the Market rate) is meaningless.

I get a Numina's Unique which sells at a vendor for something like 5k IIRC. Going price on the Market (speculating here...I never even look because the sticker shock will kill me) is 50 million. Only a fool would sell at the vendor so what's the harm of raising the vendor price to say 1 million Inf?

Then anyone wanting to influence the drop rate would have to place bids...LOTS of bids...of at least 1 million Inf each in order to do anything. This cuts out 90% of the abuse attempts right there because how many players are willing to tie up millions of Inf in the hope that the drop rate will increase FOR THEM?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

if you want a flat pricing structure where everything is always available, you build a store not a market.

please to file 'some stuff is rare and expensive' under feature not bug.

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me explain it another way:

In the 50s American cars sold well. Gas was cheap, highways were expanding and work and wages were plentiful. Said cars generally got crappy gas mileage but nobody cared because gas was cheap, there were not as many cars on the road and the environmental impacts were not clear.

However American cars were WAD.

Then in the 70s came the gas crunch with rising prices, falling supplies and long lines at the pump. Cars still got crappy mileage but the price of gas continued to rise as American auto maker failed to change with the times. Japanese cars began to make their way into America and people bought them in droves because they were affordable, reliable and easier on gas.

But the American cars were still WAD.

Then came the falling numbers of sales of American cars as the Japanese continued to improve their products. The cars looked better than before, performed better, were competitively priced and were still better on gas. American auto makers saw their market shares fall away until the result was layoffs, cuts in production, plant closings. The American auto makers finally realized their mistake in not seeing the situation changing and adapting with it. So, through much trial and adversity, they began to adapt too.

I'm not saying that high prices at the Market are the problem. What I'm saying is that the Market as it stands is not the same one the Devs put into place when I9 launched. Every time a new recipe is introduced the Market changes. Every time a player who uses the Market joins or leaves the Market changes. Every time a new FotM is revealed to be great at farming for X type of critter the Market changes. The change is small yes but it does exist.

But the Market has NOT changed along with the game. As it is now it can't...the drop rates and other mechanics will not allow it. Do I think that some of the prices for some things are too high? Sure I do...but much of that is player-driven as you yourself have often said. If you don't like the price of something then bid what you want to spend on it. Worst that can happen is you never get it and take your Inf back.

I support a Market merger because I like the Villain side more than the hero side. This means that I want the villain side to do well, to have a player base, to have enough players that the Devs will look at it and say 'Huh...nearly a third of the players are on villian side. Better not diss them next time we decide what to devote our man-hours to.'

But this means that players have to want to play redside. We've all read posts from those who say 'yeah it's cool but the Market sucks so I'll spend most of my time hero-side.' Improving the redside Market will not cause a torrential flood of new players there...but it will help. It will be one less reason NOT to play there.

My redside toons want the Markets merged even if the prices of many things will rise. Saying that does it sound like I'm crying over the high prices of something...when I KNOW they'll go up more with a merged Market?

But at least there will be no more squabbling over the disparity in prices. Sure, my hero might be able to sell his Mu Vestment for less and as a result he's taking a loss. But then he can turn around and sell his Pet Recipes for more and make up the difference. Yes, my villains will cry when the Luck Charms cost more then they do now...but they'll cackle with glee when that Black Blood of the Earth sells for four times what they'd get on the BM now.

As the Devs have said they perceive a Market disparity and until that gets resolved there will be no Market merger. Ok, fine. But IMHO my suggestion, properly implemented, will fix the problems of BOTH sides in such a way that the Markets will never HAVE to be merged at all. Smart players will win, hurried or stupid players will pay for their mistakes and the patient will eventually get what they want...just like now.

The only difference is that the minimum value of everything will rise so that even the junk that players throw away now will be worth something and the various forms of manipulation will be less burdensome on the little guys. That's what I'm looking for. Savvy Marketeers will always make a profit, as well they should. The impatient will always pay for their impatience...as they should.

I just don't see why the game has to continue dropping Snipe sets at the same rate when there are 1000 of them for sale right now. I also don't think that encouraging players to do the Trials by making it more likely (not a sure thing, just more likely) that they might get some worthwhile for their trouble is a bad thing.

Another question for the Market savvy players: If the drop rate of Numina Uniques went up by 25% what would happen to the price? Would it drop by 25%? If the price dropped a little but the supply went up what would that mean? Another 25% of the 5% of players who can afford to even bid on the thing will now have one maybe? How many is that exactly and is this increase really a bad thing?

A price drop of 10% on something that costs 50 million will not exactly make them fly off the shelves in droves you know. A vast majority of the playerbase will still never be able to afford them.

[ QUOTE ]
One thing you are not taking into account is how gameable this would be for the players. I have dozens of alts who have slots that are not being used for anything. Under your system they would all be bidding for the best sets, so they would be more common. Enought people do this, and Numias drop more than all the other heal sets together. Right now the sets are divided into good/better/best. With the best sets being far more expensive. Under your system, no one would use anything but the best sets, and that would be pretty much all that would drop.

[/ QUOTE ]


This would be true if there were no controls on the drop rates but as much as some players oppose direct Market intervention I see a strong need for it. The ultra-rare sets would be one of these controls.

One of the things I suggested in the other Market threads was some sort of control or limit on how many bids and sale orders can be placed on something. This was not to offend or punish those who use the Market for honest ends but aimed at the manipulators who abuse it.

And to be honest since the Devs could set the numbers for whatever scarcity they want I don't see this as being an issue. Remember that one of the points I made about false bids was that the Market Engine would look for false bids designed to do exactly what you just suggested. Anything that was bid with a price lower than what the item sold for at a vendor would be discounted as a false bid.

Ok, so simply raise the vendor price for the uniques and some of the other items to the point that making tons of false bids would be too expensive to have an effect. I can't think of anyone who would actually sell such a thing at a vendor so the fact that someone might and make a little bit of Inf (compared to the Market rate) is meaningless.

I get a Numina's Unique which sells at a vendor for something like 5k IIRC. Going price on the Market (speculating here...I never even look because the sticker shock will kill me) is 50 million. Only a fool would sell at the vendor so what's the harm of raising the vendor price to say 1 million Inf?

Then anyone wanting to influence the drop rate would have to place bids...LOTS of bids...of at least 1 million Inf each in order to do anything. This cuts out 90% of the abuse attempts right there because how many players are willing to tie up millions of Inf in the hope that the drop rate will increase FOR THEM? As for the players who have literally billions to spend I'm right back to putting a cap on each account of how many bids can be placed for a particular item. Such a cap can be different from item to item so that the things everyone wants (Damage IOs, Recharge IOs, the most commonly needed salvage) would have limits of 50 or 100. However nobody needs to put out 50 bids on a Numina's Unique for any reason other than to flip them or horde them to try and inflate the price.

[ QUOTE ]
I only see a few problems with this.

First off, if it is determined by demand, if there is no demand, it won't drop. I can bet a majority of people only try to bid on things that are in stock, so if its not availible, people won't bid, and it'll never drop.

Sedond is just coding of it. I'm no expert on it, but this sounds like a pain in the [censored].

Third, with the above combinations, it seems unlikely because it could help some spots like Luck Charms, but would hurt others drastically. Like the elusive sleep/snipe sets that an occasional toon would like but it would now not be availible. So it doesn't seem like the best solution.

The best I've heard so far, first from Ilr was to simply have the drops tilted towards the actual use of them. Remaining fixed like that it would allow anything to drop, but would also keep it proprtionately in balance.

But, good idea even though it has some flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]


This would be an easy fix...have a minimum drop rate for everything. I mentioned that there would have to be a margin and the minimum would be a part of this. By margin I mean that there should never be quite enough items available for everyone to get one cheap. If they wanted to do that just make a store that sold everything...obviously not gonna happen.

After hammering the idea out a little I've come up with the following pros and cons:

Pros:

1) The Markets can remain seperate. If redside has fewer players then the Market there SHOULD be slower. However slower does not mean stagnant. Snipe recipes, much like blueside, are dirt cheap because the supply far outstrips the demand. In any sane market this would tell the supplier to cut production. The game doesn't do this so we have a glut of certain things.

2) The number of participating players, the necessary 'critical mass' is much lower. If the game sees 50 bids for something with none for sale then it knows the supply is too far beneath the demand and ups the drop rate for that item. This works for as few players as the devs want to set for the minimum bids. It could be as great a ratio as 10/1 (10 times the number of bids as there are items for sale) to trigger the increase or as low as 2/1. What's more important is that such numbers could be tweaked as new content comes out that alters the supply of certain items. A huge shortage now might be a mild shortage later so the numbers could be dialed up or down without altering the system as a whole.

3) Marketeers can still play and score big but the gross profiteering would be held in check a bit. Say the devs set the 'tip ratio' (where the increase starts) at 5/1 so items will drop at the normal rate until there are five times the number of bids as there are items for sale. A player can farm or lowball bid for that item, stock it up and then temporarily flood the Market. The game sees the sudden surplus and cuts production. Then, assuming the demand stays the same, the prices rise in the short-term as the supply dries up. Said Marketeer slips his items for sale onto the Market as the prices rise, making a tidy profit. But he would have to do it slowly or the Market crashes again. Point is he could still make Inf speculating but it would be much tougher (and more risky) to try and corner the Market. Hurry-up buyers will pay anything (like now) but patient players will place reasonable bids and wait for them to come in (like now).

4) The devs would not HAVE to alter the drop rates to suit the various Powersets that exist now...the Market would do that. I think my way is better because once done (and not saying that it would be easy...) then it would work in perpetuity...for ALL of the drops for ALL of the Powers for ALL of the ATs, now and forever till Underverse come...

Hurm...*cough* yes well. My point is that if the Devs altered the drop rates now to suit the various sets (fewer Sleep sets for fewer ATs = lower drop rate for Sleep sets for example) then what happens down the road when they introduce new recipes or new Powers for existing recipes? More Melee Powersets means (possibly) more Melee players which means that the drops rates would have to be adjusted AGAIN.

With my idea the Market Engine would automatically adjust the drop rate based on availability and desire. What's more is that the prices would not change at all unless the players wished it...just the drop rates.

Example: Someone makes a new toon and goes to the Market straight away to get some cheap junk to vendor for some quick Inf. Snipe sets are cheap so they buy a ton and vendor them. The Market sees the rising demand and adjusts the drop rate...but it also sees that the typical sale price is at or below the Store price. This means that the items are being vendored (most likely) because someone is buying up tons of cheap junk. If the price actually went up and the items continued to sell then the items are genuinly desired and the drop rate increases. If the demand goes up but the bids are still very low then the Market Engine sees this as a false need and leaves the drop rate the same

This means that the prices for cheap stuff would stay cheap for a while until the current suppy was used up. But when that happened the vendors could still sell their stuff and likely for more now because the stuff would be desired because the glut would be gone.

The tl;dr version is that eventually everything would be desired at least a little bit because the huge surplus of junk like Circuit Boards would dwindle away. So players who farm Freakshow but get crappy Tech salvage could sell everything at the Market and then less of that would drop for a while.

I think it would discourage deleting items, meaning more gets sold (either at the store or on the Market).

The devs could set the rates to whatever they wanted so the ultra-rare Purples would remain so. But then stuff that players just throw away would gain in value even if only a little. Yes, this means no more Comp Virus for 10 Inf but if you have to pay 250 for it and can sell it for the same 250 then so what?

Blueside I have no trouble selling Arc Silver for the going rate (if it hasen't crashed) because I know that I can just buy it back at a pretty good price later and why carry it around? If I sell something for 10k but can buy it back for (around) 10k tomorrow then no harm no foul. Meanwhile the hurry-up bidders will still pay 100k for it (like now) and the others will wait for the sale at 8k (like now).

Cons:

I have yet to find one other than the copious coding headache. But the floor is still open for discussion.