View Single Post
Old 11-29-2003, 12:32 AM   #7
Sorce
Rookie
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 24
But how does it differ?

As Trahern Valley said - you obviously have a better mind for business than me. It took a couple of re-reads but I think I now know what you mean (The fact that its 12:40am made it especially hard).

To be perfectly honest, I don't see any major way in which your method differs from the method on the bazaar.

Quote:
Allow me then to refine my explanation. I propose a market that allows those who offer to pay the most (highest bidder) for a good, and those who offer a good for the least (lowest asker) to get first priority. It balances against what buyers want (to pay the least), and what sellers want (to receive the most). For example, if a lot of buyers were to come onto the market, then the system would drive pricers higher (because buyers would have to constantly outbid each other). If a lot of sellers were to come onto the market, then the system would drive pricers lower (because sellers would have to constantly underask each other).
Yes, it makes sense, but this sounds either like auctions (Which are already implemented - though used sparingly) or like the system we already have, but being able to buy a varying number of x according to what the seller is selling. Honestly, I do not understand your concept of 'outbidding'. You say that people would have to outbid each other, but surely if a seller has put an item on sale for no less than y, people will continue to buy it at that price until it runs out, and then they will go up a price level. Your underasking concept makes sense, but it is no different than what we already have, but with the ability for the buyer to select how much of a certain product he wants.

Quote:
Let's say that someone--let's call him seller A--puts up 100 stimpacks for no less than 5 credits a unit. Seller B then comes on and puts up 50 stimpacks for no less than 4 credits a unit. We get a buyer A who comes on and wants to buy 75 stimpacks for no more than 3 credits a unit. Well, buyer A will not be getting seller A and seller B's items, because he is not willing to pay for them, and the sellers are not willing to give it to him at that price. Obviously, someone is going to have to budge. Let's say that a buyer B comes on and and wants 75 stimpacks for no more than 5 credits a unit. Well, he'll first get seller B's 50 stimpacks first, because they're the cheapest. So he pays 4 credits a unit for them, which adds 50 to the volume traded and puts the market price (last trade) at 4 credits a unit. Then, to get his full 75, he pays 5 credits a unit for 25 more. This adds 25 to the volume traded (for a total so far of 75 units traded) and puts the market price at 5 credits a unit. Well, seller A still has 75 stimpacks for no less than 5 cr/u left on the market. Let's say that buyer A gives up and will get them at any price. Well, he would then get his 75 stimpacks for 5 credits a unit.
It makes sense, but as I said before this sounds no different to what we already have except that you buy in varying amounts, and you can buy as much as you wish.

I say it is no different because if a person wanted to buy, say, 1780 aluminium in the current version, he would buy a set amount of Aluminium at a time. Probably he would buy 2 lots of 1000 at 3000 cr each, given that this is the amount that most sellers sell, to give him 2000 Al, and after crafting with it/whatever he will have 120 left over. A waste, yes.

Your method would be more efficient here - buyers only buying the amount they want, at a given price. However, to make this fair I'm sure you'd agree that the first person to put something on the market would get the first priority to sell, but if it were like this, the market prices likely would not change, as people would put their items up for the same price as the previous seller, knowing that eventually their item should get sold. This will mean that the market will not fluctuate.

Hm... I don't think that was a particularly persuasive argument ...

Quote:
PA shops are not the most effective way of trading, so of course to maintain their competitiveness you need some way to make the bazaar (which is very effective) less competitive. Of course any efforts to make them less competitive is very artificial and thus is bound to cause imbalances in the economy. For example, heightened demand for an item (perhaps as a result of speculation) regularly traded on the bazaar could cause the price that people are willing to sell it for (the asking price) above 3,000 cr/u, which would effectively force it off the bazaar. It being forced off the bazaar would cause the item to become more scarce--because it would be harder to find,--which would have the effect of driving the amount that people are willing to sell it for even higher. That would then spur speculative excesses, which pushes the bidding price to far above what non-speculators are willing to pay for it. So essentially once the pool of bidders goes dry, it would force sellers to start selling it at lower prices. That could spark a panic, which would cause the market price per unit to plummet. Such a plummet would wipe many a speculator out. They would then demand that the Devs to step in to save them from losing their money. That of course would cause more artificialities.
I think that you are being too presumptuous here - assuming that if an item is driven of the bazaar people will charge higher and higher for it. Remember that people aren't going to try to sell an item for so much that they know no one will buy it - that would be economic suicide. They will settle at a price and people will buy it, as it is already in the game. Also, unless all bazaar items are auctions, your method doesn't make sense - particularly here, since people won't put and item on the bazaar if it is worth more than 3k. Likewise, people won't sell items for less than the cost required to create it.

Quote:
If that example sounded too Goldbergian to you, then I agree. But I also guess that it is also where your priorities lie. I believe that the in-game economy should be made as effective as possible with little Dev interference. You think it is important that the Devs intentionally make it more difficult to obtain "uber weapons," so that those who do manage to get them would have their social standing improved and feel more like an elite player.
No, I also long for an effective economy which thrives without the devs, I am simply more enthusiastic about seeing people selling things to other people, rather than using the bazaar solely as their means of making money - it encourages player participation. Also, what would be the need for PAs if all the selling was done on the bazaar other than overcrowdedness? There wouldn't be one, which would be a disaster.

Quote:
If you really want to get the best weapons in the hands of the fewest players and accelerate the development of even better weapons, then I think you should agree with the system that I propose. My system would facilitate a process known as creative destruction. The game allows players to constantly improve on their weapons. Under the current system, when a very good item is created, it starts off scarce. However, the item stays scarce artificially, because people will not sell it on the bazaar, which keeps the price artificially high. That would provide little incentive for the manufacturer to improve on the item, because he can get good profits just off this. Under the system that I propose, as the item becomes very common, its price gets driven down. That would force the manufacturers to keep producing even better items, which of course start off scarce, but then it would go down in price at the bazaar, forcing them to make it even better again. Those who will not keep up will see their profits go down.
Again, I do not see how this differs from the system we already have: as crafters improve, the scarceness of their items increases and so they can ask more for it. However, they will not ask more than the buyer would be willing to pay given its quality, and as more crafters can make that item, its price will decrease and more people will buy it.

Quote:
This system provides great incentive for people to constantly improve on themselves, and helps to keep a wide open box for what could happen. The current system does not. It provides little incentive for people to constantly improve on themselves. In fact, it makes it even more difficult.
I don't understand what you mean

My main point would be that I am enthusiastic about player participation, I love to see people advertising their wares outside coronet starport as opposed to a multitude of people crowding around the bazaar machines. The developers have made it, and I think quite rightly so, that players should search around looking for the product they want, and then buying it when they see it advertised (By players, Bot names etc...).

Maybe you feel this way because PAs only really kicked off in the last major patch, and so there have been little advancements in that time - it will take time before players realise how good PAs can be. PAs can have shuttleports to provide easy access and hypothetically a PA could grow to enourmous size - every single square inch of land controlled by the community and not by the computers. When this happens, you may enjoy the idea of shopping as we know it in real life today.

I'm sorry if my arguments have not been as convicting as I would hope, I will try to explain again when my next round comes.

Oh, and remember: Its Just A Game.


SWG Name: Sorce Ipaigwik
Planet/Town: Usually Coronet, Corellia.
Server: Europe-FarStar
Sorce is offline   you may: quote & reply,