-
Posts
2265 -
Joined
-
Quote:I doubt it.More often than not, that is the result of a flipper scooping up all the salvage listed for 1, 10, 11, whatever for 500 and reselling it for 50,000.
The thing is, I have never paid 50k for something that was normally selling for under 1k, UNLESS... I happened to have a 5-digit number in the window from a previous purchase.
It is, quite literally, not cost-effective for me to click in that little window and hit backspace. -
-
I sort of like the idea of the T1/T2 being themselves producers of the mez resistance/protection. Or give them, say, a stacking chance to create a break-free-like effect when used while mezzed. So you're never simply immune to mez, but if you do get mezzed, you have a way out.
-
UberGuy's post pretty much nails it.
There are several different prices for any given item. There's BUY IT NAO, which may be +inf. There's "maybe some day everyone will have bought as many as they want and someone will list one for 1", which is 1inf. And then somewhere between those, there's a sort of sliding scale of values like "how much I have to pay to get one in the next day or so", or "how much I have to pay to get one in the next few minutes", and so on.
For the most part, there's some amount I consider reasonableish for a given item, and I'll bid that much for it without even thinking about it. Maybe people can drive this price up, but it's small enough that I don't care, so whatever. An aggressive marketeer can certainly increase the Buy It Nao price to an arbitrary amount up to 2 billion by buying everything that costs less than that and listing at that price.
But in practice, if someone is trying to make money by flipping, there are two prices: The amount they're bidding and the amount they're selling for. Their sale price sets a floor on the Buy It Nao price. Their bid price sets a floor on the "buy the next one that comes in" price. However, unless those prices are pretty far apart, they're not making any money on this! Which means that there is a "get the next one that comes in" price which is substantially under their sale price.
If the sale price is too high, people will keep undercutting them. Again, the only way the marketeer can prevent this is having bids at high enough values that they're not making money. If the bid price is also high, that can set an effective floor. If "bid price + 1" is too high, though, over time people will buy Something Else, manufacture items some other way, or whatever -- and eventually they will saturate the marketeer's willingness to bid that price and have few-to-no sales.
You can probably nudge prices a bit, but if it gets too high, you end up with people doing stuff like running farm maps in order to generate stacks of alchemical silver to dump. Before the alchemical silver dumping, that stuff was consistently over 100k for a pretty long time. Months, at least, during which I could leave up bids in the 60k range and have them NEVER fill.
Dumping got it down into the teens for a while, and it's never really recovered that I've seen; I'm still seeing prices more like 30k than 100k. (And if I get around to playing a bit more, there will probably be more of that to come.) -
The big question I have is: If I want an item, how much do I have to pay to get it?
And if you're buying stuff, and I want it more than you do, the answer is "1 inf more than you're paying". Doesn't matter what you're selling at, because other people can and will sell stuff. Just matters what the bids are. If your bids are enough lower than everyone else's that a bid above yours can still be too low to get filled, then you aren't actually buying things in that niche, and you will run out of things to sell (unless you're manufacturing them some other way, in which case you're driving prices down anyway by increasing supply).
So in the long run, it is not at all obvious to me that this "manipulation" is really particularly effective. -
We never know about future sales, though I imagine they'll rotate through eventually again.
-
Quote:This isn't even wrong. OpenGL is still a live standard, graphics cards still supply drivers that support it, and the concept of "emulating" it doesn't really apply well. In theory if the spec mandated functionality they lacked they would "emulate" that (or just indicate that it wasn't supported, if it was optional), but in practice any video card will support openGL the same way it supports DirectX. It may not be as fast, but this isn't because it's "emulating" rather than "supporting", it's because Windows driver devs tend to focus on DirectX.Ok my bad, people may still use open GL...but Graphics cards themselves don't really support it anymore which would be the problem, a lot of the higher end ones have to emulate it rather than actually support it.
(MHO, the world would be a much richer and happier place if MS had just worked with the spec rather than inventing a competing spec, but that is not a new concept in talking about MS.) -
Only time I ever tried to affect the market, all I did was dump a few hundred alchemical silvers listed at 1inf.
-
I would tend to agree, but I do sort of like the idea of trying to get involved with Table Top, since there's a lot of overlap between that community and prospective CoH players.
-
This was one of the first MA arcs I played.
This contributed to my early belief that people looking for "AE teams" were RPers who wanted to do cool stories together. -
I feel obliged to point out:
Names are not copyrightable, let alone copyrighted. Characters can enjoy copyright protection in some circumstances, though the exact boundaries vary widely from one court to another. Names can in some cases be trademarked. -
-
Quote:It's more the latter for me. I will frequently go down a list of white salvage with 1,234 in the box and just click bid a bunch without looking. It isn't worth my time to care. If I had 12,345 in the box, it's not worth my time to delete the 5.I see the "painting the tape" part happening all the time. I think that some of it may simply be that people aren't even looking at the other 4 filled bids in the history and are just looking at the top bid knowing that is the last transaction that completed.
I have frequently gone looking for a bit of common salvage and see this kind of history:
10,000
10,000
9,750
11,111
10,000
and this kind of availibility:
2671 for sale
5 bidding
I put in my bid and it insta fills and the history looks like this:
300
10,000
10,000
9,750
11,111
3 or 4 seconds later the history looks like this:
10,000
300
10,000
10,000
9,750
The only conclusion I can draw is that people either don't know what common salvage prices usually are or that they earn influence so fast in such high amounts that they don't really care what they are.
As to tape-painting: I have occasionally had pretty large stacks of common salvage items that don't move quickly. And listed them for 1 inf. I have gotten >100k for some of those items, and the thing about this is, if I have 400 listed and come back the next day to find 30 still listed, I can be confident that there was no point in there where anyone was getting sales with a listing price over 1 inf... -
I'm having a really time understanding how one could "make" people pay any price for anything if they aren't willing to. If I think something costs too much, I do something else instead -- either get a cheaper thing, or manufacture it in some way instead of paying that much. I leave a ton of low bids up on stuff I know I'll want, come back a month later, and have stuff.
-
I am a bit confused, and skimming the thread did not unconfuse me:
Is the free item determined once and then anyone who logs in can get it, or is the free item random when you log in?
I ask because the market contains things I unwant, so I don't want to go claiming things if I can't tell what they are in advance... -
Quote:Some of the inspirationy things.What exactly are the things in the packs that you'd be able to find zero use for, and are tyring to avoid ever getting near your avatar?
Long story short: I have a slight tendency towards packrat/hoarding behavior. I find it upsetting to use consumables that are not actually supplied by the game. So if there's no way for something to come into existence except someone spending money to make it, I will never use it. Meaning it's even MORE clutter for my already badly cluttered in-game mail. Which I already can't actually unclutter, because I have this huge stack of one-time things that I can only claim for one character.
So no super packs for me as long as the consumables are irreplaceable. If they become replaceable through normal play, then I lose my objection to them, because then those are ordinary items I can use or not. -
Quote:This does not fit with how I understand statistics to work.Yes but there is a difference between the OVERALL chance you have to get different things with these Super Packs. Sure the odds for the Black Wolf in particular are relatively low. But the odds are so phenomenally in our favor to get the complete Elemental costume set within 20-30 packs that it's just about as close to being strictly deterministic as the sun rising in the East tomorrow morning. Buy 30 packs and you'll have the set.
(Of course, it doesn't matter to me, since they contain things I actively unwant, so I'm not getting any.) -
It is true, I think, that recharge would reduce the effective value of a PPM proc under the new regime, or rather, its relative value.
Say I have a power with 10 second recharge, and a proc that is tuned for 2PPM. That's about a 33% proc chance. Say the power does 100 damage and the proc does 50 damage; the net bonus of the proc is roughly a 16% damage increase, which isn't great unless I'm already at the ED cap. Now I get a bunch of recharge, reducing the power to 5 seconds. The proc chance drops to about 16% and the net bonus to about 8%. The amount of damage I do from the base power roughly doubles, proc damage stays the same, so the proc is about half as useful.
So this does mean that PPM procs are more (relatively) valuable the less recharge you have. This fails to bother me because nothing said their relative value had to be fixed, and PPM is a basically better design than flat chance-to-proc. -
Quote:Yes.IIRC Arbiter Hawk told us about the 100% chance aspect of the ppm system before the fanbase had any idea, he said that it remained true even when you added 100% recharge to it and 100% global recharge. What you call broken is how the dev team advertised it to us.
I didn't say it wasn't what they tried to do, just that it was completely obvious that it would be game-breaking if it were that way, and they'd have to fix it.
(To clarify: I mean specifically the "ignoring recharge" part. I don't see a problem with procs hitting 100% when the powers really are slow, and think the 90% cap is silly.) -
Well, that gives us a plausible upper range of about 168 trillion, assuming scrappers are at least on the high end of the total wealth count. That's... a ways to go, huh.
-
Quote:You are wrong. Long before Synapse posted, many of us were pointing out that the new PPM mechanic was obviously broken. Broken in ways that are characteristic of the sorts of oversight that the CoH devs are a little vulnerable to. If you had told me that the CoH devs were going to invent a PPM model for procs, I would have told you that they would probably do something silly with it; for instance, they might forget to consider the impact of recharge rates, which can be a factor of three or more difference in performance. And they would probably do it in a way which resulted in some well-known procs being either way overpowered or way underpowered in the new format. Because you can basically predict this stuff. I really like the CoH dev team, but they do have their fairly consistent blind spots. (Just a reminder, devs: activation time is significant when balancing powers. Thank you.)Arcanaville I have always respected you and enjoyed your posts. I will not argue with you. I'd lose if I tried, of that I am certain.
All I can say is, from observations, it seems to me that this topic simply ignored anyone who wanted things to stay as they were and slowly but surely started a "dialogue" as Synapse plied various formulas and people jumped in to be part of the "creative process" and suddenly people are "excited" about breaking something that works just fine as it is. At least that is how I see it.
The moment they went live and we had our first "pay to win" thread about Performance Shifter, it was obvious that:
1. The PPM mechanic, as implemented, was broken.
2. If fixed, it would be a superior mechanic to the existing proc mechanic.
3. The most reasonable net outcome would be that IO procs would be converted to PPM (a long-overdue change), and SBE procs would be adjusted so they were in line with the roughly-similar net power of standard IOs after the adjustment.
You know what I didn't predict, and I am still not convinced is a good idea? The 90% proc rate cap. That's it. Everything else was obviously correct and I cannot imagine looking at the history of dev fixes to balance issues and not anticipating it.
This has nothing to do with Synapse's posts; this is stuff I coulda told you a month or two back. -
Quote:Nope. This is some crazy backronym people made up. It's short for "procedure". If you have a special procedure that executes under some circumstance, that's a "proc".PROgrammed Random OCcurance is what I remember PROC standing for.
Arguably, with a 20% proc rate, the proc always happens, it's just that what always happens is a 1-in-5 chance of doing damage. :P -
I would feel so good about myself if I ensured that someone got to spend an extra day running an AE farm before being harvested for organs. More importantly, I'd be supporting the people who put him there.
-
-
I certainly didn't. I wasn't gonna spend real money on something that was obviously gonna get nerfed so it was in line with the standard IOs.