Drop Rates Weighted by Supply/Demand...Possible?
By
Aura_Familia,
Posted on: 2008-04-08 07:51 in The Market and Inventions
A system like this would make market gaming harder which according to official NCSoft representatives makes the markets less "dynamic". So, no. Also the blueside market is already good at suppling needed recipes and that covers the only player base that matters. Right?
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].
Thrid, 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 ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean like skewing the number of Snipe and Melee drops relative to each other to better reflect the relative amount of Snipe and Melee powers in play?
I'm not so sure about that. Inevitably, the rate never can get pinned right where people want it, so everyone just keeps asking for it to be tweaked. (aka, create an endless string of "I'm not getting what i want, the problem MUST be the drop rates! We must tweak them further!")
My favorite idea is to let demand directly affect drop rates. Instead of dropping a random recipe, pick 2 at random and give someone a choice. Then supply will eventually favor demand with less randomness.
That works for pools C+D, is there a way it could work for pool A?
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.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
[ 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 ]
I don't think that is the right question. The right question to my mind is, as a programmer/analyst, how would I ever identify if it wasn't working correctly and debug it?
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
[ 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.
"Comics, you're not a Mastermind...you're an Overlord!"
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.
Global is @honcho
On Champion
Living Coal LV 50 Fire/Fire Tank
Nature Boy LV 41 Earth/Kin Cont
Great Wacko LV 34 Robot/FF MM
plus many alts
somebody out there is huffing paint to sticky this thread.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
[ 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 ]
QR
This is too griefable (is that a word?).
Ex. I am planning to run a TF. The day before, I log in all my existing alts (and alts on multiple accounts, if applicable), and with each character, use every available market auction slot to bid on 10 Miracle +rec at 1 inf each.
Might as well just give players a menu choice of what recipe they want from the drop pool.
[ 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.
"Comics, you're not a Mastermind...you're an Overlord!"
[ QUOTE ]
Part of the problem is the lack of 'critical mass' numbers of players redside. Check
[/ QUOTE ]
I've begun to suspect that the problem redside is less about population and more about people's desire to participate in the BM.
[ 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.
President of the Arbiter Sands fan club. We will never forget.
An Etruscan Snood will nevermore be free
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Part of the problem is the lack of 'critical mass' numbers of players redside. Check
[/ QUOTE ]
I've begun to suspect that the problem redside is less about population and more about people's desire to participate in the BM.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think if you chase that you will eventually come to the lower population factor.
It may go something like this:
Bob won't use the BM. We ask Bob why he won't use the BM.
Possibly "What I have sells for less than what the QM will give me and what I want is priced out of my current means to afford."
Then we would need to examine why that is the case in the BM but not WWs.
We basically need to know why people aren't using it first. If it simply is that not enough people use the BM because not enough people are using the BM, I am not sure how you solve it other than bribing people to use the BM.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
I'm not saying its completely out of the question, but it still ahs its faults. Its entirely possible to manipulate a system like this. Spammers anyone? They have new accounts, post up bids for what they want, spam to hell, get lots of drops on their mains, and when their accounts are banned, the market drops pummel, while they have a supply of this nice product. Leaving everyone else left to pick up the tab.
Manipulation is a problem here. Sure that can be altered with value changes, so the actual drop rate alteration isn't game-breaking, but its not quite the best option either. Lower values would mean the market would be less affected by any changes. So its back to square one.
It can be possible, even with limits on min/max values similar to the calculations for chances to hit, but even then... I'm not sure. It may work, it may break it. But the temptation of an idea like this working...
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
Every programmed system can be exploited once people know what it uses as a criteria.
Count keystrokes for entry productivity? 'jhlfhasdhsldgh...' followed by many backspaces.
Once you know the system, you can manipulate the system.
People hate random but random works.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
[ QUOTE ]
somebody out there is huffing paint to sticky this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
whew, they sobered up.
I was worried for a minute there.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
[ 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.
"Comics, you're not a Mastermind...you're an Overlord!"
[ QUOTE ]
Under your system, no one would use anything but the best sets, and that would be pretty much all that would drop.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me. 
Only the stuff we want is dropping? Cool!
[ 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 ]
"Comics, you're not a Mastermind...you're an Overlord!"
Okay.. I may be shooting myself in the foot with this idea, but to make this work, that cap needs to be there, and you need to keep it so the others still drop.
With clamps akin to the chance to hit, you can manipulate the falues between a min/max (not too sure how myself, but it does work) so we should be able to make it similar to this.
Currently all drops seem to be average, no changes across the board aside from pool and level restrictions.
So if we use this variable dependant on demand to alter it, we need clamps to keep it from being abusive, or to completely prevent anything from dropping. Basic idea... let the item value determine the clap in relation to the modifier.
That way commons stay common, uncommon are uncommon and you still have rares.
Just to toss numbers in the air... common could be between 95-60, uncommon 30-60 and rare between 5-30. This would then be weighted against the demand to be multiplied against the drop values. This would limit drops between a min chance and a max chance in relation to their value. It could keep it relatively in check, with the modifier only altering it a bit at best, but enough that it would at least be seen.
[ 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.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
[ 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 ]
Or if you OVER balance you kill the price on everything across the board: the uber stuff is seen as less uber cause it drops so much. And cause it drops so much there really is not incentive to use anything less uber, so the less uber stuff just deosn't drop.
Or folks just don't put stuff they know they can't make money off of on the market.
If numina's +rec/regen dropped as much as costume pieces i would love it for all my characters. But beyond outfitting all my toons I would simply delete any others i get. I most certainly would not be putting them on the market if the most I could get for them was a ridicuoulsly low price.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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.
"Comics, you're not a Mastermind...you're an Overlord!"
Yeah, I know, ANOTHER thread about this. The idea will get lost in the other thread and I wanted to hear from the forumites if this would work or not.
Firstly, from Those Who Code: How difficult would it be to code the drop rate so that it changed...like as in daily?
For all of us who like to rant, rave and speculate on the Market: Would the 'disparity' be fixed by a flexible drop rate based on supply and demand? Before grabbing the torches read it through please.
Devs won't merge the Markets because of a 'disparity' between them. Check
Merging the Markets would pretty much be irreversible. Check
Part of the problem is the lack of 'critical mass' numbers of players redside. Check
Another problem is the lack of weighted drop rates resulting in fewer of the desired sets and a glut of Snipes, Sleeps and others. Check
Another problem is the drop rates of salvage as the recent 'Lucky Charmers' thread suggests. Check
Ok, so would ALL of this not improve if the drop rates for EVERYTHING were not adjusted by the current supply and demand?
Think about it...the Market would work just like the RL Market in that things that are in high demand would be produced more and things that are not in demand are produced less.
How many people buy bread in RL? Pretty much everyone. So...how many companies make bread? Lots of them...in copious supplies too. How many people eat that one obscure flavor of Raisin/Oat Bran/No Crust/Split-Top Wheat bread? Not very many. So how many of them are produced daily? Not very many.
So...here it is folks the fix to ALL of our Market woes on BOTH sides: A flexible drop rate based on supplies on the Market and outstanding bids. If an item is sitting there unsold for weeks next to hundreds more then the drop rate FOR THAT ITEM goes way down. If the outstanding bids are higher than the current supply by a wide enough margin (there has to be a margin...) then the drop rate FOR THAT ITEM goes up.
There...fixed. The lower population for redside matters not one whit. Higher population matter not either (grammer...?). If there are ten players redside looking for a single item with outstanding bids and no supply the game engine sees it, allows for it and the next day the rate changes to make that item more likely to drop.
Over time the existing Snipe recipes would all be sold and until they were the drop rate would fall, making them less likely to appear and glut an already-glutted Market. However the items most sought-after, the things everyone wants like Melee recipes and Luck Charms and Alc Silver would fall like rain if the demand stayed high.
Here's the best part: The various Pool drops would change but the requirements for them (SF/TFs and other Trials) would not. So you'd STILL have to do the Trials just to access the best Pools but the desired items would drop more often so doing the Trials would be more likely to be worth something! No more crawling through Positron's TF for a chance at a Snipe recipe or whatever. IMHO this would make MORE players actually DO the Trials which is what the Devs wanted anyway.
Ok, the caffine jag is crashing so I need to quit. I'm sure there are about a million things wrong with this but ai just can't see them right now. I leave the topic open for discussion...
"Comics, you're not a Mastermind...you're an Overlord!"