These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Fix the market order matching engine.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1 - 2016-09-18 00:19:22 UTC
Problem:

Suppose there is a buy order for Widget at 100 isk.

Someone places a sell order of a Widget at 90 isk.

What happens in EVE is the order matching engine matches this 100 isk buy and the 90 isk sell and runs it at 90 isk.

What happens in any other trading platform I have ever encountered is it matches the two and runs it at 100 isk.

The way EVE has it currently is counter intuitive, literally backwards, and prone to mistakes.


On a final note, from what I know from designing and building trade platforms, this should be easy code to change.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#2 - 2016-09-18 05:53:58 UTC
Why is it counter intuitive? The BO is the maximum price you are willing to buy things for, while the SO price is the minimum price you want to sell your item for. It is only logical that you want to buy cheaper than your maximum buy price and thus gladly take an item from someone for 90 ISK instead of your 100 ISK. I find this to be very intuitive.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2016-09-18 19:24:59 UTC
The guy willing to sell for 90 sold for 90. I see no problem here.
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4 - 2016-09-18 20:37:09 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Why is it counter intuitive? The BO is the maximum price you are willing to buy things for, while the SO price is the minimum price you want to sell your item for. It is only logical that you want to buy cheaper than your maximum buy price and thus gladly take an item from someone for 90 ISK instead of your 100 ISK. I find this to be very intuitive.

So when the roles are reversed and there is a standing sell order for 90 isk, minimum that you want it to sell for, and someone places a buy order for 100 isk, why doesn't it go thru at 90?
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2016-09-18 20:41:09 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
The guy willing to sell for 90 sold for 90. I see no problem here.

The problem is that the engine is choosing the worst of all possible outcomes when there are better and more consistent ways to do it.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#6 - 2016-09-18 21:17:59 UTC
So either set up your orders properly or deal?

I honestly don't see the problem here and I have a fairly decent trade volume I'm managing.
Cristl
#7 - 2016-09-18 22:20:51 UTC
The only weird thing about Eve's brokered market is that I'm sure the broker would pocket the extra cash and hit up hookers and coke dealers. The excess cash should just leave the system.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2016-09-19 06:10:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Lucius Regni wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Why is it counter intuitive? The BO is the maximum price you are willing to buy things for, while the SO price is the minimum price you want to sell your item for. It is only logical that you want to buy cheaper than your maximum buy price and thus gladly take an item from someone for 90 ISK instead of your 100 ISK. I find this to be very intuitive.

So when the roles are reversed and there is a standing sell order for 90 isk, minimum that you want it to sell for, and someone places a buy order for 100 isk, why doesn't it go thru at 90?

Because the SO price is your minimum price and you naturally want to sell at a higher price if you can. If someone is willing to buy for 100, you gladly take the 100 ISK. I assume it comes down to which order was there first: If your BO was active before any SO, your BO sets the max price and you buy cheaper if you can. If the SO was there first, the SO sells to whatever new BO comes out that pays more ISK.

What it also comes down to is a voluntary decision assumption: Selling an SO at 90 to a BO at 100 is a voluntary decision. Same goes for Buying from an SO at 90 with a BO at 100. In both cases, you know what is already there and you voluntarily (or erroneously, but that's player failure) and you sell/buy regardless instead of exploiting individual orders deviating from your target value.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#9 - 2016-09-19 15:01:56 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
So either set up your orders properly or deal?

I honestly don't see the problem here and I have a fairly decent trade volume I'm managing.

Have you ever tried to buy more than what the lowest seller is selling?

if the sell orders are like:

100 @ 5
200 @ 6
300 @ 7

and you want to buy 500, but don't want to pay 7 for all of them, right now, this takes 3 buy orders. If the trade engine worked the traditional way, it would take one.

(I say traditional way, because this is the way it works "IRL" as well as any fantasy market I've come across other than EVE)

I'm sure sure you can understand how this is a simple example and someone with a fairly decent trade volume to manage would encounter this quite often, in larger steps, and would quite like to have this tedium removed.
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2016-09-19 15:03:53 UTC
Cristl wrote:
The only weird thing about Eve's brokered market is that I'm sure the broker would pocket the extra cash and hit up hookers and coke dealers. The excess cash should just leave the system.

Well, there should be a more robust market for hookers and coke dealers.
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#11 - 2016-09-19 15:07:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucius Regni
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Lucius Regni wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Why is it counter intuitive? The BO is the maximum price you are willing to buy things for, while the SO price is the minimum price you want to sell your item for. It is only logical that you want to buy cheaper than your maximum buy price and thus gladly take an item from someone for 90 ISK instead of your 100 ISK. I find this to be very intuitive.

So when the roles are reversed and there is a standing sell order for 90 isk, minimum that you want it to sell for, and someone places a buy order for 100 isk, why doesn't it go thru at 90?

Because the SO price is your minimum price and you naturally want to sell at a higher price if you can. If someone is willing to buy for 100, you gladly take the 100 ISK. I assume it comes down to which order was there first: If your BO was active before any SO, your BO sets the max price and you buy cheaper if you can. If the SO was there first, the SO sells to whatever new BO comes out that pays more ISK.

What it also comes down to is a voluntary decision assumption: Selling an SO at 90 to a BO at 100 is a voluntary decision. Same goes for Buying from an SO at 90 with a BO at 100. In both cases, you know what is already there and you voluntarily (or erroneously, but that's player failure) and you sell/buy regardless instead of exploiting individual orders deviating from your target value.

EVE's marked doesn't actually go by who's order was first tho.

suppose there are 2 buy orders

100 @ 10isk
3 @ 1isk <<<< this one placed first.

someone sells 3 @ 1isk.

EVE matches with the 100 @ 10isk order even though all the details matched perfectly with the buy order which was placed first

EDITED: borked a 2 where there should've been a 1
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2016-09-19 16:00:47 UTC
Matched perfectly? But my man ... if I say I'm selling for (at least) 2 ISK I'm not selling for 1. 10 ISK is the first match as 1 ISK is ruled out.
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#13 - 2016-09-19 17:27:48 UTC
How about Eve goes the greedy middleman route ?
The buyer pays 100 isk. The seller gets 90 isk. The market broker pockets the difference.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#14 - 2016-09-19 18:13:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Hesod Adee wrote:
How about Eve goes the greedy middleman route ?
The buyer pays 100 isk. The seller gets 90 isk. The market broker pockets the difference.

In addition to taxes? This is a bit excessive, don't you think?

Lucius Regni wrote:
EVE's marked doesn't actually go by who's order was first tho.

In your example, it doesn't matter what was there first because the 3@1 does not meet the requirements for the sale.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#15 - 2016-09-19 19:12:12 UTC
Lucius Regni wrote:

EVE's marked doesn't actually go by who's order was first tho.

suppose there are 2 buy orders

100 @ 10isk
3 @ 1isk <<<< this one placed first.

someone sells 3 @ 2isk.

EVE matches with the 100 @ 10isk order even though all the details matched perfectly with the buy order which was placed first


You misunderstood what they were saying. The pricing of a transaction favors the order that was placed first.

That is, if I place my buy order at 100, and along comes a seller, who places an order at 90, when he made his order, he had access to the information that I was buying for 100. He still chose, despite that information, to ask for only 90. My order was there first, so my order gets the favorable side of the pricing error.

Similarly, if I place a sell order for 90, and someone comes along and places a buy order for 100 after that, I will get 100.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#16 - 2016-09-22 15:07:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucius Regni
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lucius Regni wrote:

EVE's marked doesn't actually go by who's order was first tho.

suppose there are 2 buy orders

100 @ 10isk
3 @ 1isk <<<< this one placed first.

someone sells 3 @ 2isk.

EVE matches with the 100 @ 10isk order even though all the details matched perfectly with the buy order which was placed first


You misunderstood what they were saying. The pricing of a transaction favors the order that was placed first.

That is, if I place my buy order at 100, and along comes a seller, who places an order at 90, when he made his order, he had access to the information that I was buying for 100. He still chose, despite that information, to ask for only 90. My order was there first, so my order gets the favorable side of the pricing error.

Similarly, if I place a sell order for 90, and someone comes along and places a buy order for 100 after that, I will get 100.


"The pricing of a transaction favors the order that was placed first" << this is demonstrably false and I tried to point this out in the text that you quoted. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying?


ah, i see i accidentally put a 2 where i meant a 1
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#17 - 2016-09-22 15:08:56 UTC
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:
Matched perfectly? But my man ... if I say I'm selling for (at least) 2 ISK I'm not selling for 1. 10 ISK is the first match as 1 ISK is ruled out.

Ah, I mistyped, I meant to have both be 1 isk
Lucius Regni
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#18 - 2016-09-22 15:11:09 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Hesod Adee wrote:
How about Eve goes the greedy middleman route ?
The buyer pays 100 isk. The seller gets 90 isk. The market broker pockets the difference.

In addition to taxes? This is a bit excessive, don't you think?

Lucius Regni wrote:
EVE's marked doesn't actually go by who's order was first tho.

In your example, it doesn't matter what was there first because the 3@1 does not meet the requirements for the sale.

I seem to have accidentally put 2 there where i meant 1 (so they would match perfectly). I've edited the correction in.
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2016-09-22 15:11:55 UTC
Lucius Regni wrote:

"The pricing of a transaction favors the order that was placed first" << this is demonstrably false and I tried to point this out in the text that you quoted. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying?

Probably so. The example I saw was wrong and me including several other people told you why. Now that we know why we reject the example (one of the orders in there does not match the criteria), perhaps you can come up with one without this flaw yet showcasing the (alleged) error?
Brokk Witgenstein
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2016-09-22 15:13:28 UTC
Ah! After edit I see what you mean. Not sure if this is the case-- I'll verify.
12Next page