CS improvements

[Fusionstrike]

The consignment shop is the center of the PL economy. Players use it to buy and sell and also to help value items, look for purchasing trends, and some even use it as the primary way they "play the game". It's a decent tool, and definitely services some needs of the PL economy, but it could be better. Specifically, it doesn't allow the market to find the "right" price for an item very efficiently right now. There are two major reasons for this. First, the listing fee is charged up front and the listing price cannot be changed once listed. Second, there are no restrictions on what price an item can be listed for relative to other equivalent items already listed. These two properties make it difficult for the market to arrive at the "right" price for an item.

Here's an example for a rare item:
1. Player A lists "Magic Donut" item for sale for 500k. He pays a listing fee of 5500 for a 23 hour listing.
2. Player B later comes along and lists the same "Magic Donut" for 499,999. He also pays a listing fee of 5500 for 23 hours.

Player A is now screwed. He was undercut by a meaningless amount, but his item won't sell now unless Player B's item sells first. Or he can relist his item and undercut Player B, but he has to pay the listing fee all over again. The listing fee creates a disincentive to lower his price. It also gives the advantage to later listers, who can undercut early listers to the disadvantage of the early listers (due to the fee).

An ideal system would help the market find the "right price" for any item. That is, make it easy for sellers to discover the highest price at which buyers will buy (or buyers discover the lowest price at which sellers will sell, whichever way you want to look at it). But this doesn't happen because a) sellers are faced with fees every time they want to reevaluate their listing price, and b) sellers are encouraged to "list last" because early listings are subject to the "one coin undercut" by another seller. So it's generally better for sellers to keep their item off the market and "list last", and sellers are also punished for relisting at a lower price, both of which slow down the market's ability to find the right price for an item.

Why is this bad? First, it means rare items stay overvalued for longer. Items that have thousands of sellers will still find the right price quickly despite the disadvantages just through sheer volume of sellers listing against one another. But rare items, with a small number of sellers, have these disadvantages I mentioned greatly slowing down the process of bidding the item to its "right price". Why should we care? Because the current situation gives wealthy players a huge advantage. As buyers, they can afford to waste money buying at inflated prices before prices can come down to a "natural" level, which slows the whole process down. And as sellers, rich players can afford to waste money relisting an item many times to explore what the "top price" is. Taken together, this makes the market, and especially the rare item market, artificially much more expensive than it should be. This locks out the "middle class" (i.e. new and/or casual players without huge bankrolls) from participating, which generally makes the game less accessible and therefore less fun for a large majority of the player base.

So what could be done to change this? There are several things, all easy to implement, that STS could do to radically free the market to find the "right" prices for items quickly and efficiently.

• Charge fee when item sells, not when listed. This would allow relisting with no penalty, so sellers could do something about the "one coin undercut" and much more quickly and easily "bid down" to a price the buyers will accept.
• Allow adjustment of price without fee on listed items. A variation of the above, this would work for the same reason.
• Enforce a "minimum price increment" on new listings of the same item. This would force sellers who undercut existing listings to do so by a meaningful increment, e.g. 5%. So for my example above, Player B would have to list for 475k or below (500k - (500k*.05) = 475k).

Any of these changes would allow sellers to find the lowest price they're willing to sell at and that buyers are willing to buy at. It would no longer be just those who can afford to overpay who will buy or those who can afford to relist who will sell. The market will find the "right" price quickly, and anyone with enough money to pay that price can be a buyer, and anyone with a valuable item can be a seller at the market-established price. The result would be a fairer, more inclusive and more efficient market, as well as a more accessible game for the player base at large. In other words, the PL economy would just plain work better. All this by making any one of these simple and straightforward changes to the CS.

[Dragonrider023]

ok and...

[XghostzX]

The consignment shop is the center of the PL economy. Players use it to buy and sell and also to help value items, look for purchasing trends, and some even use it as the primary way they "play the game". It's a decent tool, and definitely services some needs of the PL economy, but it could be better. Specifically, it doesn't allow the market to find the "right" price for an item very efficiently right now. There are two major reasons for this. First, the listing fee is charged up front and the listing price cannot be changed once listed. Second, there are no restrictions on what price an item can be listed for relative to other equivalent items already listed. These two properties make it difficult for the market to arrive at the "right" price for an item.

Here's an example for a rare item:
1. Player A lists "Magic Donut" item for sale for 500k. He pays a listing fee of 5500 for a 23 hour listing.
2. Player B later comes along and lists the same "Magic Donut" for 499,999. He also pays a listing fee of 5500 for 23 hours.

Player A is now screwed. He was undercut by a meaningless amount, but his item won't sell now unless Player B's item sells first. Or he can relist his item and undercut Player B, but he has to pay the listing fee all over again. The listing fee creates a disincentive to lower his price. It also gives the advantage to later listers, who can undercut early listers to the disadvantage of the early listers (due to the fee).

An ideal system would help the market find the "right price" for any item. That is, make it easy for sellers to discover the highest price at which buyers will buy (or buyers discover the lowest price at which sellers will sell, whichever way you want to look at it). But this doesn't happen because a) sellers are faced with fees every time they want to reevaluate their listing price, and b) sellers are encouraged to "list last" because early listings are subject to the "one coin undercut" by another seller. So it's generally better for sellers to keep their item off the market and "list last", and sellers are also punished for relisting at a lower price, both of which slow down the market's ability to find the right price for an item.

Why is this bad? First, it means rare items stay overvalued for longer. Items that have thousands of sellers will still find the right price quickly despite the disadvantages just through sheer volume of sellers listing against one another. But rare items, with a small number of sellers, have these disadvantages I mentioned greatly slowing down the process of bidding the item to its "right price". Why should we care? Because the current situation gives wealthy players a huge advantage. As buyers, they can afford to waste money buying at inflated prices before prices can come down to a "natural" level, which slows the whole process down. And as sellers, rich players can afford to waste money relisting an item many times to explore what the "top price" is. Taken together, this makes the market, and especially the rare item market, artificially much more expensive than it should be. This locks out the "middle class" (i.e. new and/or casual players without huge bankrolls) from participating, which generally makes the game less accessible and therefore less fun for a large majority of the player base.

So what could be done to change this? There are several things, all easy to implement, that STS could do to radically free the market to find the "right" prices for items quickly and efficiently.

• Charge fee when item sells, not when listed. This would allow relisting with no penalty, so sellers could do something about the "one coin undercut" and much more quickly and easily "bid down" to a price the buyers will accept.
• Allow adjustment of price without fee on listed items. A variation of the above, this would work for the same reason.
• Enforce a "minimum price increment" on new listings of the same item. This would force sellers who undercut existing listings to do so by a meaningful increment, e.g. 5%. So for my example above, Player B would have to list for 475k or below (500k - (500k*.05) = 475k).

Any of these changes would allow sellers to find the lowest price they're willing to sell at and that buyers are willing to buy at. It would no longer be just those who can afford to overpay who will buy or those who can afford to relist who will sell. The market will find the "right" price quickly, and anyone with enough money to pay that price can be a buyer, and anyone with a valuable item can be a seller at the market-established price. The result would be a fairer, more inclusive and more efficient market, as well as a more accessible game for the player base at large. In other words, the PL economy would just plain work better. All this by making any one of these simple and straightforward changes to the CS.

Put a lot of thought into it, nice work

The CS does need improvement... pretty much enough said.

[edx]

I agree, the CS should put the price to the items.

[Fallen_Chisk_Angels]

Great job!

[Extreme]

The consignment shop is the center of the PL economy. Players use it to buy and sell and also to help value items, look for purchasing trends, and some even use it as the primary way they "play the game". It's a decent tool, and definitely services some needs of the PL economy, but it could be better. Specifically, it doesn't allow the market to find the "right" price for an item very efficiently right now. There are two major reasons for this. First, the listing fee is charged up front and the listing price cannot be changed once listed. Second, there are no restrictions on what price an item can be listed for relative to other equivalent items already listed. These two properties make it difficult for the market to arrive at the "right" price for an item.

Here's an example for a rare item:
1. Player A lists "Magic Donut" item for sale for 500k. He pays a listing fee of 5500 for a 23 hour listing.
2. Player B later comes along and lists the same "Magic Donut" for 499,999. He also pays a listing fee of 5500 for 23 hours.

Player A is now screwed. He was undercut by a meaningless amount, but his item won't sell now unless Player B's item sells first. Or he can relist his item and undercut Player B, but he has to pay the listing fee all over again. The listing fee creates a disincentive to lower his price. It also gives the advantage to later listers, who can undercut early listers to the disadvantage of the early listers (due to the fee).

An ideal system would help the market find the "right price" for any item. That is, make it easy for sellers to discover the highest price at which buyers will buy (or buyers discover the lowest price at which sellers will sell, whichever way you want to look at it). But this doesn't happen because a) sellers are faced with fees every time they want to reevaluate their listing price, and b) sellers are encouraged to "list last" because early listings are subject to the "one coin undercut" by another seller. So it's generally better for sellers to keep their item off the market and "list last", and sellers are also punished for relisting at a lower price, both of which slow down the market's ability to find the right price for an item.

Why is this bad? First, it means rare items stay overvalued for longer. Items that have thousands of sellers will still find the right price quickly despite the disadvantages just through sheer volume of sellers listing against one another. But rare items, with a small number of sellers, have these disadvantages I mentioned greatly slowing down the process of bidding the item to its "right price". Why should we care? Because the current situation gives wealthy players a huge advantage. As buyers, they can afford to waste money buying at inflated prices before prices can come down to a "natural" level, which slows the whole process down. And as sellers, rich players can afford to waste money relisting an item many times to explore what the "top price" is. Taken together, this makes the market, and especially the rare item market, artificially much more expensive than it should be. This locks out the "middle class" (i.e. new and/or casual players without huge bankrolls) from participating, which generally makes the game less accessible and therefore less fun for a large majority of the player base.

So what could be done to change this? There are several things, all easy to implement, that STS could do to radically free the market to find the "right" prices for items quickly and efficiently.

• Charge fee when item sells, not when listed. This would allow relisting with no penalty, so sellers could do something about the "one coin undercut" and much more quickly and easily "bid down" to a price the buyers will accept.
• Allow adjustment of price without fee on listed items. A variation of the above, this would work for the same reason.
• Enforce a "minimum price increment" on new listings of the same item. This would force sellers who undercut existing listings to do so by a meaningful increment, e.g. 5%. So for my example above, Player B would have to list for 475k or below (500k - (500k*.05) = 475k).

Any of these changes would allow sellers to find the lowest price they're willing to sell at and that buyers are willing to buy at. It would no longer be just those who can afford to overpay who will buy or those who can afford to relist who will sell. The market will find the "right" price quickly, and anyone with enough money to pay that price can be a buyer, and anyone with a valuable item can be a seller at the market-established price. The result would be a fairer, more inclusive and more efficient market, as well as a more accessible game for the player base at large. In other words, the PL economy would just plain work better. All this by making any one of these simple and straightforward changes to the CS.

:thumbs up:

[Griffinfan]

great ideas. If only they would come into being

[cookiez]

Great idea! Wasted millions because someone undercut me 1g. To bad they will never be implemented

[Chickenrunnn]

I don't totally agree with those ideas

It would kill merchs : I'm not a good merch at all, but some players only play for cs buy/selling items.

If those were implemented, all the merching "fun" would be ruined.

______________

Charge fee when item sells, not when listed.

If devs put price to list items, it is to make players think of what they are doing, and to force them to get an experience in knowing items prices, so that they need to learn, with time, the average of each item price to get good deals, and sell higher

Allow adjustment of price without fee on listed items.

When you choose the time you list your item for, you need to learn if the item you listed sells fast (example : sandstone caves items) or not, if it is really not common and if players may cut price (example : lvl50 creepy doll isn't very common, so you can list it 23 hours with no fear ) etc..

Enforce a "minimum price increment" on new listings of the same item.

Merchs would be mad lol.. 2% would be largely enough.. Look.. Imagine someone listed black dragon helm 7.000.000 gold. Players will have to cut by 350 000 gold???
Sounds a bit too much isn't it ?

____________________

Just my thoughts tho

Cya

[The Flash]

I don't totally agree with those ideas

It would kill merchs : I'm not a good merch at all, but some players only play for cs buy/selling items.

If those were implemented, all the merching "fun" would be ruined.

______________

Charge fee when item sells, not when listed.

If devs put price to list items, it is to make players think of what they are doing, and to force them to get an experience in knowing items prices, so that they need to learn, with time, the average of each item price to get good deals, and sell higher

Allow adjustment of price without fee on listed items.

When you choose the time you list your item for, you need to learn if the item you listed sells fast (example : sandstone caves items) or not, if it is really not common and if players may cut price (example : lvl50 creepy doll isn't very common, so you can list it 23 hours with no fear ) etc..

Enforce a "minimum price increment" on new listings of the same item.

Merchs would be mad lol.. 2% would be largely enough.. Look.. Imagine someone listed black dragon helm 7.000.000 gold. Players will have to cut by 350 000 gold???
Sounds a bit too much isn't it ?

____________________

Just my thoughts tho

Cya

Completely agree it destroyes merching.

Simple solution to OP problem is study the market.

[Fusionstrike]

I have to disagree. This doesn't impact "merching" at all, at least not "real" merching. After all, nothing I wrote would in any way impact the ability to buy low and sell high. What it would impact is the large advantage that rich seller have over others due to listing fees, which can quickly add up as players are forced to relist items over and over. If they can just get to the "real" price without being penalized, then the playing field is leveled for all. It lowers the barrier to entry, which of course those few who benefit from it wouldn't like to see but is good for the majority overall.

I agree that the minimum price increment idea would have to be set appropriately. I used 5% just as an easy example to illustrate, but it works as well any number. In fact, it would probably make sense to cap it, e.g. 5% up to max of something like 25k or so, so that both the low and high end of the scale force meaningful increments. So small ticket items like 5k would have increments of 250 while items in the millions would change only by 25k and not 200k or more.

[Chickenrunnn]

I have to disagree. This doesn't impact "merching" at all, at least not "real" merching. After all, nothing I wrote would in any way impact the ability to buy low and sell high. What it would impact is the large advantage that rich seller have over others due to listing fees, which can quickly add up as players are forced to relist items over and over. If they can just get to the "real" price without being penalized, then the playing field is leveled for all. It lowers the barrier to entry, which of course those few who benefit from it wouldn't like to see but is good for the majority overall.

I agree that the minimum price increment idea would have to be set appropriately. I used 5% just as an easy example to illustrate, but it works as well any number. In fact, it would probably make sense to cap it, e.g. 5% up to max of something like 25k or so, so that both the low and high end of the scale force meaningful increments. So small ticket items like 5k would have increments of 250 while items in the millions would change only by 25k and not 200k or more.

It could be interesting but look, devs don't even have time to rebalance pvp or to fix some bugs ;

I don't think they will ever make that, because it would give them headshach of programming o_o

____

What it would impact is the large advantage that rich seller have over others due to listing fees, which can quickly add up as players are forced to relist items over and over.

____

Against that, you know what to do?
- Or you list it for 3 hours to be able to cut the prices,
- Or you buy 15 times the same item, and brake brake brake brake brake brake brake brake merchs sale, listing a copy of the item xD.. They'll get mad and stop bothering you cutting prices lol ..

___

To put it in a nutshell, I think nothing will be able to be done about it, because it would take them too much time of programming, and it would be a program which wouldn't be essential to the game play.

[cookiez]

^^^3 hours at gold cap is 97k... I think it's redicilous that you loose 100k for listing at gold cap. But why sts does it is to keep economy down.

[Chickenrunnn]

^^^3 hours at gold cap is 97k... I think it's redicilous that you loose 100k for listing at gold cap. But why sts does it is to keep economy down.

To avoid everyone reach gold cap and ask for increasing it?

[Puddleglumm]

hmnm a bidding part would be nice, maybe get some good deals. yum