These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Market Orders a zombie horse, and more.

Author
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#41 - 2012-04-16 13:37:12 UTC
I meant the location acts like a monopole, which was fairly clear from the context.

You keep returning to the argument that Jita and current hubs are natural. They are so only in part because there is no alternative. There are plenty of other locations around the universe that could develop into interesting markets, but they can not develop without support. This support is about logistics and markets. Every type of work has value that can be profitable to many other types of activity, the problem is if it can not be reflected in market it becomes an pocketed and unable to integrate into the rest of the economy.

You can support and even like the barriers all you want, but it remains a fact that removing it would change a lot of the current distribution and activities, and it would be more in line with the sandbox philosophy.



Jan VanRijkdom
House VanRijkdom Trading Conglomerate
#42 - 2012-04-16 14:08:50 UTC
Bifordus Maximus wrote:
I just wanted to say that the .01 game is used in real business practices. It is annoying but accepted. Check just about any item on Amazon or Ebay, even Google Shopping for that matter. Now back to your regular discussion... Smile



True. I sell items on Amazon and have/have been '.01-isked' my orders/undercut on my orders. As in, seriously, one cent. So, it definitely does have 'RL' precedent.

The auction analogy isn't quite correct, trading is more like retail selling, not auctions, (as far as small incremental upbids), same rules don't apply.

Anyway, I'm not really for a limit on trade changes/day. Not that I'd hit it regularly, but I don't like the idea of being limited in a sandbox game in that type of way.

.

Johnny Frecko
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-04-16 14:45:43 UTC
Caleb Ayrania wrote:
I meant the location acts like a monopole, which was fairly clear from the context.

You keep returning to the argument that Jita and current hubs are natural. They are so only in part because there is no alternative. There are plenty of other locations around the universe that could develop into interesting markets, but they can not develop without support. This support is about logistics and markets. Every type of work has value that can be profitable to many other types of activity, the problem is if it can not be reflected in market it becomes an pocketed and unable to integrate into the rest of the economy.

You can support and even like the barriers all you want, but it remains a fact that removing it would change a lot of the current distribution and activities, and it would be more in line with the sandbox philosophy.





We can agree to disagree on the naturality of Jita(or any other hub).
CCP didn't say "Look, jita is the hub, everyone move there", like it did with yulai(And the highways).

There are MANY MANY discussions on "Why jita", And that's your major issue.
So again, your point is breaking jita down, I'm thinking that jita isn't broken. and that's pretty much it.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#44 - 2012-04-16 15:44:31 UTC
I think we differ in defining Jita..

I see it more as a comodities trading hub, where some might see it as a retail hub.. I would like the retail out into the rest of the universe and only keep the stock / commodities exchange in Jita. Hence why I believe there is a need for a market liberating action.

We did expand the talks ingame, and some good points came up, that I had not considered.

The limit swap from outstanding orders to changes per day is really just going to kick the bucket down the road.

So I would say something along either a solution using price impact on changes like in RL market, or a Voucher based option would be preferable.

So brokers fees should be increased in impact, according to location and activities like office prices, and percentage fees decrease. This would make stacks bigger and reduce the number of changes(bids). Compare to RL (broker)

The voucher would basically be a consumable where the brokers worked like Agents, and you would get RP to buy vouchers for orders and contracts. This would then become a product that would be tradable much like starbase charters. This system would really serve everyone best, since there would still be a limiting factor, and skills would decide how many agants you could have printing vouchers. Thus it would use already well known mechanics from the research agents.

Adunh Slavy
#45 - 2012-04-16 16:54:25 UTC
It seems to me Jita is partly such a big hub because anyone can get there in about an hour if they really wanted to get there. As Eve has become smaller, in terms of travel time, the convenience of Jita, and hubs in general, has increased.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Samroski
Middle-Earth
#46 - 2012-04-17 05:22:52 UTC
I am against OP's suggestion. I am afraid to present any arguments, as OP is likely to respond with a wall of text and browbeat me down!

As a trader who manages up to 3000 market orders, I like the following suggestion:

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Perhaps a simpler fix to 0.01 ISK wars is a one million ISK minimum fee on order changes for anyone who has injected the Retail skill. Soon as you inject Retail, you get hit with the minimum one million ISK fee. This allows new traders and smaller traders a path into trade while gimping the possible abuses.


This will sort out the the market better than any of OP's fantastic suggestions. Further suggestions on this line:
Retail: 100 k per modify order
Wholesale: 500k per change
Tycoon: 1m per change

Having said that, I am perfectly happy with the market. I have no nostalgia and do not remember OP's wonderful days of the market, as I started playing only 4 years ago.

Any colour you like.

Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#47 - 2012-04-17 08:38:45 UTC
Samroski wrote:
I am against OP's suggestion. I am afraid to present any arguments, as OP is likely to respond with a wall of text and browbeat me down

As a trader who manages up to 3000 market orders, I like the following suggestion

[quote=Adunh Slavy]Perhaps a simpler fix to 0.01 ISK wars is a one million ISK minimum fee on order changes for anyone who has injected the Retail skill. Soon as you inject Retail, you get hit with the minimum one million ISK fee. This allows new traders and smaller traders a path into trade while gimping the possible abuses.[/quote

This will sort out the the market better than any of OP's fantastic suggestions. Further suggestions on this line
Retail: 100 k per modify orde
Wholesale: 500k per chang
Tycoon: 1m per chang

Having said that, I am perfectly happy with the market. I have no nostalgia and do not remember OP's wonderful days of the market, as I started playing only 4 years ago.


No need for a wall of text. Just the fact that I dont like that you yourself is forced by gamemechanics to use around 10 character slots to do what you do. That should be a choice, not a need. The support on altoholicism seems wrong

I think I just have to accept that player base likes 0.01 isk bid wars and use of alts to workaround limitations. I was merely pointing out ideas for something less restricitve.
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#48 - 2012-04-17 10:54:20 UTC
Followed this for a while.

I do kinda like the OP's grand vision - the scenario he describes has many attractions (and a couple of potential worries as mentioned earlier).

Personally however I feel that the OP has failed to show that the grand vision is achievable through the removal of the market cap and the change of order update mechanics. The main evidence proposed for the link appears to be that in the olden days there were no market order caps and "insert tales of green fields and joyously skipping traders here".

I see two thorns in proposing this link - firstly the nostalgia effect. Like the placebo effect, *everyone* is susceptible to this even when completely aware of the effect - when seen through our rose tinted monacles everything looked so much better in the "good old days". Secondly that correlation does not equal cause and effect. Many many things have changed in Eve over the years and suggesting that instigation of market order caps has caused hub domination, dormant stockpiles and unnatural regional pricing and margins is a dangerously unfounded (whilst not necessarily untrue) cause and effect statement. I'm aware that one of the counters to this is that of the many other things that have changed is the vast increase of goods types, further straining market order caps; one immediate counter to this counter is that there has also been a vast increase of players, bringing with them an increase in potential market orders.


Those points aside, when looking at the suggestion of a market order cap we have yet to really ascertain whether the current cap of 305 per char is actually limiting the economy at present. In order to do this we first need to ascertain how many chars have tycoon V and how many of those are routinely hitting their order cap. Only CCP can really know this, as players we're only really left with personal anecdotes and gut feeling. My personal anecdote being I have 65 order slots and very rarely do I come close to using all those. My personal gut feeling is that the number of people regularly hitting the tycoon V cap is actually fairly small - and further, as dangerously communistic as this may sound, these people are likely amongst the very richest in Eve and probably don't need any further advantages.

As has been noted, the market order cap can be bypassed with alt chars, and as has been rightly countered, clumsy game mechanics requiring of multiple alts are no way to run an MMO. However what we need to know is whether those players who are hitting the 305 order cap right now are limited by those game mechanics - are they thinking "sure I could roll an alt but I really can't be bothered, it's too much hassle, I'll stick with 305?". Because if the current pool of players hitting the order cap is reasonably small, and if the majority of those players are currently content (if rightly grumbling about game limitations and workarounds) to roll alt chars then regardless of whether a change is right or wrong - it will actually have no effect on the game as it stands.

People do invention in their droves. Invention is undoubtedly one of the most clumsy UI designs and processes out there and has been for years. Yet people still do it. As such, whilst I'm not advocating the continuation of poor and clumsy game design, it can be shown that people are remarkably resilient to it and will continue to put up with it if there is a benefit. Extrapolating inventers to traders feeds my gut feeling that traders hitting the order cap currently will grumble about it but will work around the mechanics by rolling alts - so a removal of market order caps will undoubtedly make the lives of a handful of the richest players in the Eve universe easier but have no actual effect on the number of orders put out in the economy because those minded to run thousands of orders are currently running thousands of orders through alts.



Finally, quick point to say I love these sort of discussions and this one has bought up many interesting points on all sides. This is exactly what makes MD interesting and is a welcome break from the usual stream of "sky limit < waffles", "yay candles", "lol candles", "scam (a)", "bond (b)".
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#49 - 2012-04-17 12:45:40 UTC
@Tekota : First of, thanks for a very well written post

I know I am prone to nostalgia, and I might be over stating the expected effect from removal of the cap because of this. I might also be prone to what was earlier called high browed text. That aside I will try and refrain from the jargon, and give a short reply

The main areas of items that need better pricing are those that are consumables in a direct way. So I am not so focused on retailing modules or ships. Its the faster and higher volumed items I am mainly talking about. Back in the days, as I will call it, there was 15 types of ORE and 7 minerals. Just in this with the variants we now have 5 times that for each ORE plus one new mineral. So just to setup order for these we have increased the time and orders strain A LOT. The thing is to consider how orders are spread out universally, not just from an individual point of view. Yes we have gotten a lot of new players and thus many of the markets are kinda seeded. They just arent able to reflect moving changes in time and player activity very well, because there are to few able to cover the prices. With more orders players would make more smaller orders instead of managing big ones. This would mean the changes in prices would be more gradual and result in smother graphs to reflect the different effects on markets. The main effect boils down to manhours and population density, adjusted for destruction and patches etc

As I have mentioned the 3 ideas are very linked, and belong together. They are all focused on solutions to create more player to player take over of the game mechanics. They are simple enough to not strain ccp devs to much, and not biased towards any player type. Some might say its biased towards traders, because of the market order cap removal, but that is not what I am expecting if the other changes are brought in also. The contracts cap would benefit people selling fitted ships, people selling bulk deals, and to a high degree people interested in shipping. The removal or serious reduction in npc research and production slots, and rental public of player POS slots would really be something almost all producers would benefit from, and thus everyone else

There is a small detail I have to touch upon. Right now you might not get data showing to many reaching the cap on orders and contracts, but that is mainly because the player style and choices would change a lot with its removal. Right now you have to be catious about the caps and consider how important using a slot is, that changes behaviour a lot. You dont shift assets from passive (on the hangar floor) to a contract or market ad hoc and often, because you have the limitation. This means assets that could be in the active markets and publicly available isnt, only when people are actively online

With a removal more markets would have more stuff and thus more opportunities for players to explore markets and contracts. My suspicion is that more "entertainment" and variation would result, and it would also make it possible for ccp to bring in more variation and creative ideas for the RP side.


Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#50 - 2012-04-17 13:34:07 UTC
At the risk of this turning into what I believe is delightfully termed a "circle jerk" I find little to disagree with in the last post, or at least little that hasn't been covered already and we can never really move beyond differing interpretations of the same (limited) data.

In the search for some nugget to latch upon to continue the discussion (because I'm an argumentative barsteward):

Caleb Ayrania wrote:
There is a small detail I have to touch upon. Right now you might not get data showing to many reaching the cap on orders and contracts, but that is mainly because the player style and choices would change a lot with its removal. Right now you have to be catious about the caps and consider how important using a slot is, that changes behaviour a lot. You dont shift assets from passive (on the hangar floor) to a contract or market ad hoc and often, because you have the limitation. This means assets that could be in the active markets and publicly available isnt, only when people are actively online


I'll certainly concede that we can't necessarily infer players actions in an unlimited scenario from their current actions in an alt-and-hassle limited game. The second half of this paragraph though I feel I can take issue with, if only by extrapolating personal motivations and actions to the player base as a whole (undeniably a weak position but one I take with some justifcation on account of the fact that I'm human and I play Eve - two qualities I share with every other Eve player).

I have the mountains of crap you describe scattered in hangars across the universe. I'm also not currently limited by orders. I have Retail V, giving 65 order slots and I rarely reach that limit. The prereqs for Wholesale skill are already met but I can't even justify picking that up. The main reason I went to Retail V rather than stopping at Retail IV was because I wanted the shiny "Business Mogul Elite" certificate! The reason I haven't put my mountains of crap into the market rather than allowing it to fester on hangar floors is not because I'm limited by orders but because I'm fundamentally lazy. I've only recently sold at a small loss about 800m worth of PI goods I picked up months and months ago and have (irrationally) been hanging on to in the hope of a market rise; finally common sense realisation of opportunity costs has led me to overcome my irrational nature on this particular good.

If I am in any way representative of Eve players, we're lazy, irrational, and easily distracted by shinies. But not necessarily limited by order slots.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#51 - 2012-04-17 17:40:30 UTC
I will give a little example of why this proposition is so interesting, especially on more long term effects.

You mentioned all your scattered assets. You are just one person, my claim is when you start stacking potentially all the EVE players you would see some new and interesting markets. Especially low sec and far away pockets.

These would slowly amass a lot of stuff and with unlimited orders players would be able to just put them up on markets for sale at rather "bad" prices and sometime maybe even at a loss. Right now this happens ofc, BUT and here is the important part such small and wide spread ones that no real effect comes from it.

If this got time to build you would see very interesting piles grow that would make these locations worth the trip for haulers, or buying by traders and creating higher valued high risk couriers. As you mentioned right now players dont bother and just leave things on hangar floors. This would change, and bring novel markets and game experiences. This is merely a small aspect of what I believe would develop.

There is an important aspect that I havent fully covered and that is how order ranges and order time limits would really bring some interesting dynamics much more then we have already. Regional ranged orders would become market "floors" so to speak, and all other orders would be spread and piled on top of that. The "patty cake" as I call the jita queue-cutting would move out to spread into rings of different valued orders and on ALL items in the game. You would thus always be able to go somewhere close and unload your item, the question is when did you buy them and at what price. Markets would encourage more shifting tides. I am especially interested in future analysis option, to see how and where different RL regions and TZ influenced the markets. This would really be brain teasing if out of game market historics got available.

Things like this is just not possible with a limitation to activity, and the current fear players have that a change like this would cause problems, I believe is unwarrented. Still my only fear is how the servers would do, and if they would strain to much, in which case my whole suggestion is moot.

Previous page123