[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, as mentioned, I seem to recall you being part of the conversation where "Putting something on the market cheaply hurts supply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Putting something on the market too cheaply does not "hurt supply". Putting something on the market too cheaply may cause a "Shortage." A "Shortage" is a price where more people are willing and able to purchase than willing and able to sell. In a shortage there is low availability. There is low availability because there are people willing and able to pay the prevailing price but unable to obtain the item.
I consider shortages "bad".
[/ QUOTE ]
More "Red means blue."
[/ QUOTE ]
No it is not.
You thought I said this. That is a picture of decreased Supply. Note how P(t), the new price is higher than P(0), the original price. Listing items cheaply does not cause that.
I said this. Note how the word "Shortage" is below where the lines meet. Notice how the "Y" axis, the one that goes up and down, is designated "P". That means "Price." Notice how listing items "too cheaply" or in other words "below Equilibrium price" or in other words "below where the lines meet" means "SHORTAGE."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honest question to you Smurphy-
Why do you think the Devs have NOT merged the markets yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
Merging the market requires doing something. Not merging the market requires nothing. Also, a long time ago in a post long eaten by the forum monster Ex Libris stated that she enjoyed a "dynamic" market. I believe those were her words.
That is a rational and logical opinion. A dynamic market where the prices change frequently can be more fun and more game like. A merged market would be more stable and less dynamic. A merged market would function more like a store than an flea market where bargains can be found. Perhaps the dev team has the "we like dynamic environment" attitude towards the markets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanx for the answer.
As usual, my answer to this suggestion is INCREASE the earning capability on redside to compete with blueside then merge the markets....
We might be "almost" there with AE.
Time will tell.
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honest question to you Smurphy-
Why do you think the Devs have NOT merged the markets yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
Merging the market requires doing something. Not merging the market requires nothing. Also, a long time ago in a post long eaten by the forum monster Ex Libris stated that she enjoyed a "dynamic" market. I believe those were her words.
That is a rational and logical opinion. A dynamic market where the prices change frequently can be more fun and more game like. A merged market would be more stable and less dynamic. A merged market would function more like a store than an flea market where bargains can be found. Perhaps the dev team has the "we like dynamic environment" attitude towards the markets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanx for the answer.
As usual, my answer to this suggestion is INCREASE the earning capability on redside to compete with blueside then merge the markets....
We might be "almost" there with AE.
Time will tell.
[/ QUOTE ]
From all signs I have seen the earning capacity is roughly the same in a merit per time or inf per time comparison from redside to blueside. Synapse has stated the Merits per 1-50 is higher blueside. That doesn't necessarily mean Merits per hour though.
Redside farmers are similarly capable as blueside farmers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honest question to you Smurphy-
Why do you think the Devs have NOT merged the markets yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
Merging the market requires doing something. Not merging the market requires nothing. Also, a long time ago in a post long eaten by the forum monster Ex Libris stated that she enjoyed a "dynamic" market. I believe those were her words.
That is a rational and logical opinion. A dynamic market where the prices change frequently can be more fun and more game like. A merged market would be more stable and less dynamic. A merged market would function more like a store than an flea market where bargains can be found. Perhaps the dev team has the "we like dynamic environment" attitude towards the markets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanx for the answer.
As usual, my answer to this suggestion is INCREASE the earning capability on redside to compete with blueside then merge the markets....
We might be "almost" there with AE.
Time will tell.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think earning potential is lower redside?
The only reason I believe that the devs haven't merged the markets is what Smurphy (and I said earlier) said. The devs like the game. Interestingly enough, I wouldn't get so exasperated in these arguments if it were flippers I was arguing against.
What's so silly to me is that the people who understand the least about the market and thus would benefit the most from a more stable market oppose this most vociferously.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
Well at least no one listed any retarded RPing reasons to no merge the market this time.
[/ QUOTE ]Yes, because Roleplay reasons for anything in a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game are automatically stupid. *eyerolls*
Also, Smurphy, the JoJo comment was a joke.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, as mentioned, I seem to recall you being part of the conversation where "Putting something on the market cheaply hurts supply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Putting something on the market too cheaply does not "hurt supply". Putting something on the market too cheaply may cause a "Shortage." A "Shortage" is a price where more people are willing and able to purchase than willing and able to sell. In a shortage there is low availability. There is low availability because there are people willing and able to pay the prevailing price but unable to obtain the item.
I consider shortages "bad".
[/ QUOTE ]
More "Red means blue."
[/ QUOTE ]
No it is not.
You thought I said this. That is a picture of decreased Supply. Note how P(t), the new price is higher than P(0), the original price. Listing items cheaply does not cause that.
I said this. Note how the word "Shortage" is below where the lines meet. Notice how the "Y" axis, the one that goes up and down, is designated "P". That means "Price." Notice how listing items "too cheaply" or in other words "below Equilibrium price" or in other words "below where the lines meet" means "SHORTAGE."
[/ QUOTE ]
See also "Try the English instead of the Mathematical/Economics definition." As in, "We don't have enough of this."
If I say "I'm five bucks short," that means I do not have the last five dollars. If I'm trying to fill an order in a store for ten widgets, and I have seven, to me, that's a "shortage" of three Widgets.
My putting widgets on the shelf for five bucks doesn't mean there's a shortage, to me, unless I have 75 and 100 people want to buy them. If those widgets sit there for three months unsold, I'm *certainly* not experiencing what I, in plain old everyday non-mathematical English, would call a "shortage."
So, yes, more "Red means blue." Red means "Red under my definition" to you, but it damn sure means "blue" to anyone not sitting with an economics book attached to them.
Here. Dictionary.com:
short⋅age
   /ˈʃɔrtɪd&#6 58;/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [shawr-tij]
noun
1. a deficiency in quantity: a shortage of cash.
2. the amount of such deficiency.
Origin:
186570; short + -age
Synonyms:
1. lack, want, scarcity.
So my recipes sitting on the market for weeks at 6 inf is not, by *English usage,* a Shortage. It is, frankly, excess. Which I'm sure you're going to tell me means it's actually less than the number people want, or some such.
While we're at it, Supply - Noun definition only. Verb has multiple means of "To fill or furnish."
noun
6. the act of supplying, furnishing, providing, satisfying, etc.: to begin the supply of household help.
7. something that is supplied: The storm cut off our water supply.
8. a quantity of something on hand or available, as for use; a stock or store: Did you see our new supply of shirts?
9. Usually, supplies. a provision, stock, or store of food or other things necessary for maintenance: to lay in supplies for the winter.
10. Economics. the quantity of a commodity that is in the market and available for purchase or that is available for purchase at a particular price.
11. supplies, Military.
a. all items necessary for the equipment, maintenance, and operation of a military command, including food, clothing, arms, ammunition, fuel, materials, and machinery.
b. procurement, distribution, maintenance, and salvage of supplies.
12. a person who fills a vacancy or takes the place of another, esp. temporarily.
13. supplies. Obsolete. reinforcements.
14. Obsolete. aid.
Note 7, 8, and 9. Even half the *economics* definition, here, before the "or" which commonly refers to an alternative as presented, doesn't even deal with price - "the quantity of a commodity that is in the market and available for purchase."
So, yes, "Red means blue," Smurphy. You're jargoning and telling me, who's using *plain English understanding and definition," that what *I* am saying is wrong, that supply really isnt' supply, that a shortage is really not a shortage but something *counterintuitive,* when what I'm saying, with that far more commonly taken definition, is *not.*
I'm not talking about a math formula. Not a graph, not a spreadsheet.
You're lost in Jargon.
What I said is this:
Supply
Demand.
Simple enough?
I am sorry that refuse to understand the rational and logical reasons provided that demonstrate that there is no inflation due to a merged market because of "jargon."
Hmm.
Let's see. Price on heroside, price on villainside.
Heroside price is higher. Historically and currently.
Merge the two.
Villains end up having to pay higher prices because the people used to listing items at the higher prices didn't follow some mathematical formula, but said "I want X INF for it."
mmkay. yeah. Nobody redside's going to see higher prices. Certainly nobody would raise them *farther* because of more people wanting the same stuff... No, that must simply be imagination. Everyone will be given a slide rule and graph paper to determine what lower price they "should" be pricing things at, instead of "I got this much before, I'll set it so I get this much again."
Like I said, excuse *me* for actually using English. I didn't realize I'd moved to the country of Mathematica where "too much of something put up cheaply that people won't buy" is a "shortage," we walk on the "sky" and turn off the calendar to read a book... er, wait, not read a book, what's the mathematica phrase... oh yeah, drive a telephone.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, as mentioned, I seem to recall you being part of the conversation where "Putting something on the market cheaply hurts supply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Putting something on the market too cheaply does not "hurt supply". Putting something on the market too cheaply may cause a "Shortage." A "Shortage" is a price where more people are willing and able to purchase than willing and able to sell. In a shortage there is low availability. There is low availability because there are people willing and able to pay the prevailing price but unable to obtain the item.
I consider shortages "bad".
[/ QUOTE ]
More "Red means blue."
[/ QUOTE ]
Then let's try it again.
A retail store has trucks that arrive once a week with stuff to sell. That is "Supply." A retail store has items on the shelves. That is "availability."
Listing items for low prices does not affect the trucks arriving with items to sell. Thus, listing items for low prices does not affect "Supply." Listing items for low prices does affect the number of items on the shelves. If you list TVs for $5 there won't be any on the shelves. TVs will still show up in the trucks if you list them for $5. Supply is unaffected. Availability is affected.
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm.
Let's see. Price on heroside, price on villainside.
Heroside price is higher. Historically and currently.
Merge the two.
Villains end up having to pay higher prices because the people used to listing items at the higher prices didn't follow some mathematical formula, but said "I want X INF for it."
mmkay. yeah. Nobody redside's going to see higher prices. Certainly nobody would raise them *farther* because of more people wanting the same stuff... No, that must simply be imagination. Everyone will be given a slide rule and graph paper to determine what lower price they "should" be pricing things at, instead of "I got this much before, I'll set it so I get this much again."
Like I said, excuse *me* for actually using English. I didn't realize I'd moved to the country of Mathematica where "too much of something put up cheaply that people won't buy" is a "shortage," we walk on the "sky" and turn off the calendar to read a book... er, wait, not read a book, what's the mathematica phrase... oh yeah, drive a telephone.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what you said. I will tell you what I think you said. This is my understanding of what you said:
"Prices on heroside are different than prices of villainside. Prices on heroside are higher than prices on villainside. If the markets are merged the price will be between the prices of villainside and heroside or at the heroside price. Thus villains will have to pay more in a merged market than they have to pay in an unmerged market."
If this is your view, than I agree. Prices will go between current Hero and Villain prices.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, as mentioned, I seem to recall you being part of the conversation where "Putting something on the market cheaply hurts supply.
[/ QUOTE ]
Putting something on the market too cheaply does not "hurt supply". Putting something on the market too cheaply may cause a "Shortage." A "Shortage" is a price where more people are willing and able to purchase than willing and able to sell. In a shortage there is low availability. There is low availability because there are people willing and able to pay the prevailing price but unable to obtain the item.
I consider shortages "bad".
[/ QUOTE ]
More "Red means blue."
[/ QUOTE ]
Then let's try it again.
A retail store has trucks that arrive once a week with stuff to sell. That is "Supply." A retail store has items on the shelves. That is "availability."
Listing items for low prices does not affect the trucks arriving with items to sell. Thus, listing items for low prices does not affect "Supply." Listing items for low prices does affect the number of items on the shelves. If you list TVs for $5 there won't be any on the shelves.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing ONE VITAL STEP here. Or perhaps assuming is a better word.
People actually *buying* them. The *very thing* I keep mentioning with the recipes - or, rather, the very thing I keep mentioning *not happening,* which you keep calling a shortage.
They don't magically disappear because I put them at $5. I don't watch them go "poof" because I violated some blasted formula.
*That step* is part of the disconnect. If I went to a strict vegan community and opened up a butcher shop, pricing prime beef at $1... guess what, it doesn't go "poof." It doesn't magically disappear. *My putting it at that price does not cause a shortage.* It might if I did it in the middle of a steak cookoff.
If I sell those TVs in the middle of, oh, some religious community that doesn't believe in electricity, I'm going to have a lot of $5 TVs.
Do you see the disconnect? You're sitting there in theory pointing at graphs saying "Don't do that, it's bad, this will happen!" while *I* am sitting here, looking at my TVs (or recipes) gathering dust at single digit prices and going "Uh... yeah. Riiiiiight."
You're busy telling me that supply isn't the English definition of supply I've used for decades, but this mathematical quantity blah blah blah.
You're busy telling me that people used to making X amount on salvage are just suddenly going to relist to a Y price that's much lower because of a formula... when I just plain don't see it happening.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the disconnect? You're sitting there in theory pointing at graphs saying "Don't do that, it's bad, this will happen!" while *I* am sitting here, looking at my TVs (or recipes) gathering dust at single digit prices and going "Uh... yeah. Riiiiiight."
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see the disconnect. Why don't you give me some in game examples of such recipes where people list items low, don't sell them, and I call that item "in a shortage"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hmm.
Let's see. Price on heroside, price on villainside.
Heroside price is higher. Historically and currently.
Merge the two.
Villains end up having to pay higher prices because the people used to listing items at the higher prices didn't follow some mathematical formula, but said "I want X INF for it."
mmkay. yeah. Nobody redside's going to see higher prices. Certainly nobody would raise them *farther* because of more people wanting the same stuff... No, that must simply be imagination. Everyone will be given a slide rule and graph paper to determine what lower price they "should" be pricing things at, instead of "I got this much before, I'll set it so I get this much again."
Like I said, excuse *me* for actually using English. I didn't realize I'd moved to the country of Mathematica where "too much of something put up cheaply that people won't buy" is a "shortage," we walk on the "sky" and turn off the calendar to read a book... er, wait, not read a book, what's the mathematica phrase... oh yeah, drive a telephone.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what you said. I will tell you what I think you said. This is my understanding of what you said:
"Prices on heroside are different than prices of villainside. Prices on heroside are higher than prices on villainside. If the markets are merged the price will be between the prices of villainside and heroside or at the heroside price. Thus villains will have to pay more in a merged market than they have to pay in an unmerged market."
If this is your view, than I agree. Prices will go between current Hero and Villain prices.
[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that highly.
Put away the economics book and follow this, all right?
Making up some prices - Salvage X at 20k Heroside, 15K Villainside on average.
Villains are used to paying 15k for it. While some people may list it cheaply, generally people dont' want to feel they've been ripped off by putting it on the market, so 15k is typical.
Same is true heroside... at 20k.
There are 10 pieces villainside, 30 heroside.
The markets merge.
The 10 pieces from villainside, that people didn't want to bid 15k on, now sell for 15-20k. There's your average... a temporary dip, a flash in the pan.
Now they're left with the hero market - that's used to paying 20k for it. Villains can no longer *get* the salvage on the combined market for 15k, so they start creeping upward in price.
There's still the 30 heroside pieces at 20k sitting there. To get them... you have to pay 20k. Eventually, they sell for that or higher - they're not going to be taken off the market to relist lower, people want them, and don't want to lose the fee.
Villain comes along with a new piece of that salvage. They see the last few sales at 20k. What are they going to assume they should make on it, and price accordingly?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the disconnect? You're sitting there in theory pointing at graphs saying "Don't do that, it's bad, this will happen!" while *I* am sitting here, looking at my TVs (or recipes) gathering dust at single digit prices and going "Uh... yeah. Riiiiiight."
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see the disconnect. Why don't you give me some in game examples of such recipes where people list items low, don't sell them, and I call that item "in a shortage"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Look, I said that was what I was doing. YOU came along and said that would cause a shortage. No examples of specific recipes were given, I said *flat out* what I was doing and you went off on this "causing a shortage" nonsense. While, in the meantime, the recipe at under 10 inf *sat.*
Hell, to me, listing an in *demand* recipe and having it sell isn't causing a shortage, it's lessening it, as someone who wanted it now *has* it. But that's *not* what I got from you.
The price will go between 15k and 20k. More and more items keep coming to the market. I don't particularly care about the items already listed. I care more about the rate of items appearing on the market. You need to add two more facts. How many are bought and sold on an average day villainside and how many are bought and sold on an average day heroside.
The items will keep flowing into the market. Let's say there are usually 100 sales a day Heroside and 25 villainside.
Pre-merger we have 100 willing to be bought Heroside at 20k. Pre-merger we have 25 willing to be bought villainside at 15k.
Pre-merger we have 100 willing to be sold heroside at 20k.
Pre-merger we have 25 willing to be sold villainside at 15k.
So post merger, at a price of 20k there are 125 willing to be sold: the 100 from heroside and the 25 from villainside at 15k are willing to sell at 20k.
Post merger there may NOT be 125 willing and able to buy at 20k. We have 100 from heroside willing to buy at 20k. We have 25 from villainside willing to buy at 15k. Not all of these 25 may willing to buy at 20k.
See how this works? It's a balance. 21k is "Too high". More are willing to sell than to buy. 14k is "too low." More are willing to buy than to sell. "Just right" is somewhere between 15k and 20k.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the disconnect? You're sitting there in theory pointing at graphs saying "Don't do that, it's bad, this will happen!" while *I* am sitting here, looking at my TVs (or recipes) gathering dust at single digit prices and going "Uh... yeah. Riiiiiight."
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see the disconnect. Why don't you give me some in game examples of such recipes where people list items low, don't sell them, and I call that item "in a shortage"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Look, I said that was what I was doing. YOU came along and said that would cause a shortage. No examples of specific recipes were given, I said *flat out* what I was doing and you went off on this "causing a shortage" nonsense. While, in the meantime, the recipe at under 10 inf *sat.*
Hell, to me, listing an in *demand* recipe and having it sell isn't causing a shortage, it's lessening it, as someone who wanted it now *has* it. But that's *not* what I got from you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I said there is a "Shortage" when there are transactions in the recent history yet none are available for sale.
What you are describing is a "Surplus". A surplus is the opposite of a shortage. A "surplus" is a price where more people are willing to sell than willing to buy. *EDIT* Excuse me: A surplus is a price where more items are willing to be sold than bought; not the number of people. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honest question to you Smurphy-
Why do you think the Devs have NOT merged the markets yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
Merging the market requires doing something. Not merging the market requires nothing. Also, a long time ago in a post long eaten by the forum monster Ex Libris stated that she enjoyed a "dynamic" market. I believe those were her words.
That is a rational and logical opinion. A dynamic market where the prices change frequently can be more fun and more game like. A merged market would be more stable and less dynamic. A merged market would function more like a store than an flea market where bargains can be found. Perhaps the dev team has the "we like dynamic environment" attitude towards the markets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanx for the answer.
As usual, my answer to this suggestion is INCREASE the earning capability on redside to compete with blueside then merge the markets....
We might be "almost" there with AE.
Time will tell.
[/ QUOTE ]
From all signs I have seen the earning capacity is roughly the same in a merit per time or inf per time comparison from redside to blueside. Synapse has stated the Merits per 1-50 is higher blueside. That doesn't necessarily mean Merits per hour though.
Redside farmers are similarly capable as blueside farmers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Loose definetion of roughly- I have yet to see ANY equality between the two sides. Citadel TF 1 hour and 20 minutes- 40 merits. NOTHING villian side can even compete with that. Don't even get me started on positron TF- 64 merits before villians even get access to thier first SF.
I have NO faith in synapse being in charge of this system. Especially since the latest datamining skewed towards heroes even more. It shows he doesn't know the game at all.
Whew- sorry- sidetracked into a rant there.
Either way.
LOL- thanx for your answers.
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
Treespec Trials. 45 Merits in 60 minutes. That beats both Positron and Citadel.
[ QUOTE ]
The price will go between 15k and 20k. More and more items keep coming to the market. I don't particularly care about the items already listed.
[/ QUOTE ]
...except that they will still be there at their asking price. They cannot be ignored. Nor can the existing bids.
[ QUOTE ]
I care more about the rate of items appearing on the market. You need to add two more facts. How many are bought and sold on an average day villainside and how many are bought and sold on an average day heroside.
[/ QUOTE ]
...except, post merge, there won't be a "side," but a unified market that has to deal with the adjustments.
[ QUOTE ]
The items will keep flowing into the market. Let's say there are usually 100 sales a day Heroside and 25 villainside.
<duplicate info snip>
Pre-merger we have 100 willing to be sold heroside at 20k.
Pre-merger we have 25 willing to be sold villainside at 15k.
[ QUOTE ]
OK. We end here, maintenance comes up, post maintenance it's merged.
[quote[
So post merger, at a price of 20k there are 125 willing to be sold: the 100 from heroside and the 25 from villainside at 15k are willing to sell at 20k.
Post merger there may NOT be 125 willing and able to buy at 20k. We have 100 from heroside willing to buy at 20k. We have 25 from villainside willing to buy at 15k. Not all of these 25 may willing to buy at 20k.
See how this works? It's a balance. 21k is "Too high". More are willing to sell than to buy. 14k is "too low." More are willing to buy than to sell. "Just right" is somewhere between 15k and 20k.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except... for what I posted previously. Call it training, price psychology, whatever, don't know or care if there's a term for it.
Luck charms used to go for, what, 15k *maybe* a year ago, as I recall. Might be a bit older than that. It's been a while. Even then, 15k was something I heard "I don't believe I'm paying this for this!" more often than not.
What would you say to 15k for one now? "Hey, I got this cheap!"
Heroside's not going to start selling their item cheaper, they're going to stay at 20k. With more people *wanting* them thanks to having the villain market, they may even attempt to raise it.
Villains, meanwhile, would see the 15k they're used to *go away.* Not only are there more people bringing items in (and placing at the expected 20k) heroside, but villains will eventually say "Hey, why am I only getting 15-16k?" and start bumping their OWN prices up to match. Alternately, the villain *buyers* will say "I can't get jack at 15k any more" and start bidding more. Which happens first, I don't know or care... but eventually they'll be "trained" to where 20k is a normal, expected price. Not the 17k you say, and it won't happen overnight, no.
If I roll a lowbie stalker and hit a streak of 5 of that salvage, and stick them on the market, it's a good bet that if I'm not sitting on 100k (pre-fees,) I'm within spitting distance... and higher than 85k (pre-fees.)
Humans are not equations, especially when they can get "more" - money, INF, whatever. Even more so when they see someone *else* getting "more" for the same thing.
So why aren't prices trading higher villainside now?
Maybe, just MAYBE, Supply and Demand work.
If you want to test the theories of Supply and Demand I will GLADLY give you a huge pile of money and you can play with some common salvage. Go buy lots of it and try to normalize the price higher. See if you purchase more than you sell or purchase as many as you can sell. For example pick an item trading for 10,000. Put in TONS of bids at 15,000 then sell the item at 15,000. Just flush MY money down the toilet. If you purchase more than you sell at 15k by definition that price is "too high." Then stop flipping, stop playing with the price and see if the price drops back to where it was before you started.
I'm willing to put MY MONEY where YOUR MOUTH is to show you that Supply and Demand work.
*EDIT* This goes for any of the "Supply and Demand" don't work crowd. If you think I'm wrong step up and prove me wrong. Fortunately, thanks to my understanding of Supply and Demand and its actual and true application to the market I've got money to burn.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the disconnect? You're sitting there in theory pointing at graphs saying "Don't do that, it's bad, this will happen!" while *I* am sitting here, looking at my TVs (or recipes) gathering dust at single digit prices and going "Uh... yeah. Riiiiiight."
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see the disconnect. Why don't you give me some in game examples of such recipes where people list items low, don't sell them, and I call that item "in a shortage"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Look, I said that was what I was doing. YOU came along and said that would cause a shortage. No examples of specific recipes were given, I said *flat out* what I was doing and you went off on this "causing a shortage" nonsense. While, in the meantime, the recipe at under 10 inf *sat.*
Hell, to me, listing an in *demand* recipe and having it sell isn't causing a shortage, it's lessening it, as someone who wanted it now *has* it. But that's *not* what I got from you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I said there is a "Shortage" when there are transactions in the recent history yet none are available for sale.
What you are describing is a "Surplus". A surplus is the opposite of a shortage. A "surplus" is a price where more people are willing to sell than willing to buy. *EDIT* Excuse me: A surplus is a price where more items are willing to be sold than bought; not the number of people. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
[/ QUOTE ]
Y'know, at this point I'm willing to say there's been a complete and utter c/f of miscommunication.
My uneducated view is that the same reason people want redside to merge into blue is the same reason it would be eaten. Blue has more supply because of a larger active character base and a larger inf pool because of time and previous mentioned base. It would swallow redside's market and without anything other then the market to generate income it would be harder to deal with then it is now.
If they merged markets and allowed charecter pooling on account or the mailing of inf then people playing both sides would be set but anyone who was a red side only player would still be left out.
I like the idea of fixing the empty pools by creating an autoseeder. As not to mess with prices the players are controlling with active trade, it would only stock items that the market has had no supply of for a preset amount of time. Anytime an item was listed there by a player the auto supply ones would vanish. This way if no players were interested in selling/flipping an item people who still wanted to buy it could. The price of those items autostocked would have to be determined either by the previous sale average or by an increased price based on npc buy value.
[ QUOTE ]
So why aren't prices trading higher villainside now?
Maybe, just MAYBE, Supply and Demand work.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um, because they're used to paying the lower amount *now* that they have been, versus the higher heroside cost?
Why on earth would I go through and do that on what would HAVE to be a short term, to see the items sit, to say it wouldn't happen *long term* in a merged market with more people paying the higher cost?
Hell, given the comments I hear *now* I know precisely what the attitude would be. Some people would pay. Some are going to go "Someone's f'ing with the market" and wait for me to stop. And when I *do* stop, the outstanding lower bids (who weren't paying 10 k, plus the new 10k bids) will end up getting filled.
Merging them, with a higher number of people used to paying the higher cost, wouldn't have such an end point. It would be the permanent state of the market. There'd be no "wait for them to go back down" for redside, barring some Dev Ex Machina fiddling with redside drop rates.
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to test the theories of Supply and Demand I will GLADLY give you a huge pile of money and you can play with some common salvage. Go buy lots of it and try to normalize the price higher. See if you purchase more than you sell or purchase as many as you can sell. For example pick an item trading for 10,000. Put in TONS of bids at 15,000 then sell the item at 15,000. Just flush MY money down the toilet. If you purchase more than you sell at 15k by definition that price is "too high." Then stop flipping, stop playing with the price and see if the price drops back to where it was before you started.
I'm willing to put MY MONEY where YOUR MOUTH is to show you that Supply and Demand work.
*EDIT* This goes for any of the "Supply and Demand" don't work crowd. If you think I'm wrong step up and prove me wrong. Fortunately, thanks to my understanding of Supply and Demand and its actual and true application to the market I've got money to burn.
[/ QUOTE ]
And over how long? If you're looking for a week to two weeks, to see it fall again, the spike would mean nothing. If you're looking for a course of months- no, I'm not kidding - we'll see if I can train the market.
No spikes, but a steady, orchestrated crawl upward. Though personally I find screwing with every other player in the game to do this reprehensible. Yes, as much as the viewpoint is mocked in the market forums, I *do* see my fellow players as more than sources of INF.
Did we not already do the flipping experiment where someone showed they could buy and sell and control price.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honest question to you Smurphy-
Why do you think the Devs have NOT merged the markets yet?
[/ QUOTE ]
Merging the market requires doing something. Not merging the market requires nothing. Also, a long time ago in a post long eaten by the forum monster Ex Libris stated that she enjoyed a "dynamic" market. I believe those were her words.
That is a rational and logical opinion. A dynamic market where the prices change frequently can be more fun and more game like. A merged market would be more stable and less dynamic. A merged market would function more like a store than an flea market where bargains can be found. Perhaps the dev team has the "we like dynamic environment" attitude towards the markets.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd also contemplate that the "Influence to Infamy" transfer is something they would want to avoid, through past history posts and expressed desires. That can of course change, but I couldn't tell you when, how, or why they would alter that particular stance.