Entire Market Front End Rewritten


Adeon Hawkwood

 

Posted

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showp...&postcount=309

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poysyb
The entire AH front-end was re-written
Great news


I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.

Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.

So sad to be ending ):

 

Posted

Yeah. I wonder what they've done.

I think it's going to be pretty interesting, because even if it doesn't include any changes to the information displayed, just how they display it could have impacts on people's buying and selling habits.

For example, today prices are often highly siloed, where prices of the same item at even adjacent (and non-maximum) levels will have distinct and often very different price trends. I presume this is because you have to somewhat laboriously expand items in each level to compare their prices, so people just look at the item they're selling or buying and list or bid based on the history for that specific item and level without comparing it to nearby levels. Changing how that's laid out could change the cross-level pricing structure.


Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA

 

Posted

This is one of those rare cases where ANYTHING would be an improvement.

Whatever they do will change buying and selling habits, should be interesting to see how it shakes out.


The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.

My City Was Gone

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethergoat View Post
This is one of those rare cases where ANYTHING would be an improvement.

Whatever they do will change buying and selling habits, should be interesting to see how it shakes out.
Not true, they could replace it with the market interface from STO which would most emphatically NOT be an improvement.


 

Posted

It could also mean things like a longer sales history, which would change market habits a lot.

The level range of stuff may make a difference, but people seem sooo locked into the idea that you must buy IOs at 5o.


I don't suffer from altitis, I enjoy every minute of it.

Thank you Devs & Community people for a great game.

So sad to be ending ):

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanstaafl View Post
The level range of stuff may make a difference, but people seem sooo locked into the idea that you must buy IOs at 5o.
It's less you must buy IOs at 50 and more the largest supply of IOs is at 50 so most of the demand is there.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas View Post
I hope we can rescale the interface with these changes.
God yes--I can't read any of the numbers. Is that a five? A six? An eight?


There are no words for what this community, and the friends I have made here mean to me. Please know that I care for all of you, yes, even you. If you Twitter, I'm MrThan. If you're Unleashed, I'm dumps. I'll try and get registered on the Titan Forums as well. Peace, and thanks for the best nine years anyone could ever ask for.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood View Post
Not true, they could replace it with the market interface from STO which would most emphatically NOT be an improvement.
Or Aion. Ugh.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood View Post
It's less you must buy IOs at 50 and more the largest supply of IOs is at 50 so most of the demand is there.
That is not how demand works.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "The largest supply of IOs is there so most of the transactions are there."


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriffer View Post
That is not how demand works.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "The largest supply of IOs is there so most of the transactions are there."
No, I'm pretty sure he meant what he said.

I think the market behavior can be interpreted as showing that the supply distribution does, in fact, affect the demand distribution in this game. Over time, I believe more and more people have progressively given up seeking IOs at earlier levels partially because the supply there is too low. Low supply rates lead to longer bid fulfillment waits and greater need to cast "nets" across multiple levels. In contrast there is plentiful supply at 50, meaning bid fulfillment waits are shorter, and some of that net casting money can be spent on the spot on a larger single bid rather than spreading it out over more levels.

Concentrating the demand like this simultaneously serves to raise the price at 50 (because there is increased competition for that specific level's supply) and lowers prices at all other levels, because demand tends to vacate those levels and focus on level 50s. This is then self-reinforcing; because sale prices are lower for non-50s, people tend exhibit a tendancy to hold off using merits and tickets to generate random rolls until they're level 50.

Now, in my opinion, this focus on level 50s surely can't be the only force at work driving things to level 50 (or other max levels). But I do believe it's a factor, based on comments I see in game and here in the forums.


Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA

 

Posted

No. Supply and Demand do not work that way.

What you are saying is that "When Supply goes up Demand goes up."
From economics: "When Demand goes up prices goes up."
From economics: "When prices goes up Supply goes up."

One of those three statements cannot be true. These three statements, together, don't work. Price, Supply and Demand don't all rise together indefinitely.

If you believe that when Supply goes up Demand goes up you need to throw away every law, every facet, and every concept of economics.


 

Posted

Technically, what they're saying isn't "demand is going up", but "demand is moving from one item to another, because the one people want isn't there".

Think of it this way:

Twenty people go to the store, all wanting the same pair of Nikes. The store only has 3 pairs of Nikes. It has dozens of pairs of generic brand shoes, however. Rather than first-come, first-served, the store hands a ticket to each person, and randomly selects who gets the shoes. As new people arrive, looking for the same shoes, they are also given tickets, and could, in fact, get the shoes before people who have been waiting longer. Eventually, people will give up, and go buy the generic shoes that they don't have to wait for. The end result: Demand has gone down for the item with low supply, and up for the item with high supply.

If there were equal supply across the board, then it wouldn't work this way, but a shortage of one item, and an excess of another WILL move the demand from the unavailable item to the available one.


@Roderick

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick View Post
Technically, what they're saying isn't "demand is going up", but "demand is moving from one item to another, because the one people want isn't there".

Think of it this way:

Twenty people go to the store, all wanting the same pair of Nikes. The store only has 3 pairs of Nikes. It has dozens of pairs of generic brand shoes, however. Rather than first-come, first-served, the store hands a ticket to each person, and randomly selects who gets the shoes. As new people arrive, looking for the same shoes, they are also given tickets, and could, in fact, get the shoes before people who have been waiting longer. Eventually, people will give up, and go buy the generic shoes that they don't have to wait for. The end result: Demand has gone down for the item with low supply, and up for the item with high supply.

If there were equal supply across the board, then it wouldn't work this way, but a shortage of one item, and an excess of another WILL move the demand from the unavailable item to the available one.
I don't even know where to begin. Do I have your permission to e-mail this statement to some economics professors? The statement you wrote contains nothing that requires City of Heroes knowledge so they should be able to readily understand what you are saying. I will post their responses as I get them. Feel free to e-mail this yourself, of course. Please share the responses.

*EDIT* The basics are the Demand is there. Demand is a curve that represents how many people are willing to pay what price. There are still however many people willing to pay that price.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriffer View Post
That is not how demand works.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "The largest supply of IOs is there so most of the transactions are there."
IMO, level 50s are "the best." A large enough amount of people aren't planning on being exempt enough to where having IOs below level 50 matter to them all that much. The poster children for this are farmers.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriffer View Post
No. Supply and Demand do not work that way.

What you are saying is that "When Supply goes up Demand goes up."
From economics: "When Demand goes up prices goes up."
From economics: "When prices goes up Supply goes up."

One of those three statements cannot be true. These three statements, together, don't work. Price, Supply and Demand don't all rise together indefinitely.

If you believe that when Supply goes up Demand goes up you need to throw away every law, every facet, and every concept of economics.
Hi, Smurphy.

No, I am not saying "when Supply goes up Demand goes up."

I am saying that when item A and B are largely substitutable for one another, and item A is in greater relative supply than item B, collective demand (which does not go up) will shift from item A to item B.

It's not about supply and demand in the sense you are describing. Given a collective market demand for the type of widget that both A and B are examples of, we have a collective supply of A and B to fulfill it. It's about market share. It just so happens that market share here and relative production rates of A and B are linked - people are both producers and consumers of items A and B. If the marketshare of B drops, people will both tend towards fulfilling their demand with item A and have a harder time selling item B, which will trend them away from producing item B (in the cases where they get to choose).

In case it's not clear, item A represents level-capped IOs, and item B non-level-capped ones.


Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriffer View Post
So don't use the word Demand!
There's demand for widgets, of which A and B are examples, and then proportion of that demand for A vs B within that. Why wouldn't we call it demand?


Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by UberGuy View Post
...It's not about supply and demand in the sense you are describing....
Please don't use the word Demand then.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by UberGuy View Post
There's demand for widgets, of which A and B are examples, and then proportion of that demand for A vs B within that. Why wouldn't we call it demand?
Make up an example like Roderick did. Use something totally unrelated to City of Heroes. Then let's e-mail it to some economics professors and see what they think. Make sure you use a phrase that is similar to "the largest supply is here so the largest demand is here".


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriffer View Post
Make up an example like Roderick did. Use something totally unrelated to City of Heroes. Then let's e-mail it to some economics professors and see what they think.
Answer my question. I am asking for your explanation, not some open-ended deferral to unnamed parties who may or may not respond.

Either you know how to answer the question or you don't. Which is it? If you don't respond, I'm going to interpret that as "you don't".


Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA

 

Posted

I apologize. I'll retract my statements. I made this paragraph bigger because it's more important. I made the following paragraph in small, fine print because it is me just trying to save face. Mostly, I just use a bunch of big words and try to explain what I was thinking to make myself sound like I know what I'm talking about. I suggest you don't read it.

My first draft of this post started off by defining "Demand" is exacting terms. Explaining how it is a curve, has different values at different points, and is a rate. I had graphs and examples and everything. Then I was going to explain about substitute goods. First, when comparing perfect substitutes price is the only consideration. Examples of how this applies to some CoH items like procs. Then I was going to go into non-perfect substitutes. Explain how Demand can shift based on price and quality. I had examples ready. There are many items on the market with sub-level 50s for sale and at prices below the level 50. My explanation would have been that the lower quality caused lower Demand. People simply demand these sub-50 items less. The demand has never moved, it's always been there, always been the same, and always been low. Then I ran into Luck of the Gamblers, and Numinas etc. Essentially, lower level is better in almost every way (minor difference for LotG). Except there are those items for sale on the market at sub-level 50s, and they are cheaper (not the superlow ones though). The substitute good, which is better in every way, quality/price etc. is better. Yet it's cheaper... and it's for sale. The Demand that should be there isn't there. Apparently yes, the Demand has shifted. As I thought about it more I remembered all the times I've heard "I didn't even know there was a 'For Sale" checkbox. Then I thought about all the times I've gone to the market and never cared to educate myself on the market situation and just bought whatever. Apparently yes, the Supply in this case is a quality factor to the item that drives up demand for substitute goods. Though, Roderick's examples does have many flaws that someone else will have to sort out.


 

Posted

Re: 1st paragraph... Heh.

Re: 2nd paragraph... It's interesting, isn't it? One way I've thought about fitting that into the supply/demand model is that fiddling with the market interface to find those low-cost items might be considered a kind of "cost". But maybe that's trying too hard - maybe it's just one of those "irrational market actor" things.


Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA

 

Posted

I think one of the biggest factors pushing demand towards the level 50 IOs is limited auction slots. I've been trying to outfit a character with mid-level IOs (nothing too fancy --Thunderstrikes, Positron's Blasts, Siroccos' Dervishes, and one set of Gaussian's). It's taken me weeks, partly because I'm cheap and put in lowish bids, but partly because the very poor supply for some pieces has forced me to place spread bids over a wide range of levels. And while those slots are tied up with bids, I can't use them for selling drops or buying salvage. At times it's been very tempting to say, sod it, I'll just buy the sets at 50.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of people have tried to buy lower-level sets, and just given up and changed to automatically waiting for 50 and slotting then. Time is money, after all :-)


Arc#314490: Zombie Ninja Pirates!
Defiant @Grouchybeast
Death is part of my attack chain.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouchybeast View Post
I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of people have tried to buy lower-level sets, and just given up and changed to automatically waiting for 50 and slotting then.
I would agree this could be a significant factor; I've sometimes ended up with mixes of lower (30ish) level sets and lvl 50 sets on a final build just because a few recipes in a few of the sets seemed to be months between sales in the mid levels. If I'm trying to put a whole build together I can't afford to tie up half my slots on one IO for a couple months if I want to finish 60+ IOs with associated salvage before the servers go dark. This is especially an issue redside, but I've seen it a few times even blueside.

This could explain what Chriffer refers to in his Small paragraph; LoTGs selling at level 37 may sell for less, because someone spreading 50M bids over 10 levels is tying up 500M capital AND 10 slots, roughly a quarter of the Inf and half the slots even on a pretty dedicated veteran marketer, both for a few weeks till they hit one. Or, they can bid 100M for a level 50 IO, buy it in a few days, and make the 50M and more back with those 10 slots.

Or, conversely, a non-marketer/farmer may barely be able to scrape together the 100M, and doesn't have enough Inf to bid spread.

I was curious about one of your points Chriffer, have you confirmed that the lower level LotGs and such are actually for sale for less then the high level ones by buying them? If its just that you are seeing lower sale prices, that may not mean the one listed is cheap, just that someone posted another and it matched a bid and was bought. I know for a few of those procs I've gotten higher prices for low level ones then level 50s, providing I left it for sale for awhile.