Meldi wrote:
That pretty much sums up my sentiment of your so-called improvement to the AH. You claim to not be greedy, but your whole idea stems from the fact that you don't think the market as it is gives you as much profit on your goods as it should, so it should be manipulated in such a way to become more profitable for you.
Not at all. I get my stuff sold. As I stated, I play the market better than you. As long as I'm constantly selling items, I easily make up the percentage cut that I sell my stuff at. The issue isn't about how much gil that I'm making. The issue is the current way that the AH is set up is stupid. I care more about the fact that people have to constantly resell their items more than the actual money lost by undercutting. My proposition will reduce the probability of a seller having to resell their item. That is completely independent on the amount of gil earned.
Meldi wrote:
No it doesn't. It does not add competition. It just moves competition from one place to another. You know what adds competition? Introducing another seller into the market. Buying middle goods out so other sellers have to pay higher costs for those goods and thus want to charge more for their final products. The precise reason I like the FFXI AH is because it is completely unregulated and stable. Sure we had inflation during certain points in time, but those inflationary periods are completely due to issues of money supply and not due to lack of regulation on the AH. In the great inflation of 2004-2005, once the exploits and RMT were dealt with, prices stabilized within a matter of about a month. I have no problem with competition.
It is 100% competition and that's why you don't like it. It doesn't simply shift the competition to one side, it evens it out. Even if it did that, why would you complain? That's exactly how it is now! So, you obviously see the problem, but don't care because it's in your favor.
There are primarily four different groups that deal with AH. You have the sellers who list at or around the listing price, sellers who sell at an undercut price, buyers who bid at or around the listing price and buyers who bid at an undercut price.
Currently, the sellers who list at an undercut price are more likely to win BOTH types of buyers. With my proposition, the sellers who list at an undercut price will more than likely win the buyers who bid at an undercut price. Likewise, the sellers who list at or around listing price will primarily win the buyers who bid at or around the list price. If you want to win more customers, then you have to adjust your prices accordingly. It's no longer a freebie. THAT IS COMPETITION. Just simply adding another seller does not create competition, especially when the result is primarily one way. Someone's taco stand isn't considered competition with a high class sit in restaurant.
You said that you don't have a problem with competition, then give me a scenario, where my proposition causes chaos, explain to me the problem and how the current system counters it. Meldi wrote:
No it doesn't, and more to the point just because I used my tactic for selling items for < 1000 gil AS AN EXAMPLE (it may not reflect my actual process) does not mean that that is my exact tactic for selling more expensive items.
You bring up a good point though. The process of bidding in increments is probably a major result of the 3rd party app that will auto-increment bids for an item (don't want to name it for forum rules), and truthfully that is probably what you have an issue with. Before said bot became widely used, it was much easier to make a profit, because you didn't have to worry about it auto-incrementing incredibly small amounts over and over again until it found the exact price you listed at. When I am bidding on an item, I follow more or less the same procedure that you do. The bot does too, but it has infinite patience, so it has no problem going from 300k to 400k in 1000 gil increments or some such nonsense.
I realize that was just an example for <1000 gil, but the concept should remain the same. I would still sell my item at a much more random number. Any increment close to a number ending in zero is well known. With that being said, I never had an issue with said bot. My stuff always sell at nice round numbers. Further proof that it's not about greed.
Meldi wrote:
This is what I am talking about. You are so completely wrong in this one statement that it is just rediculous. The FFXI is one of the most realistic virtual economies out there. You do buy food (red curry buns anyone....). You do have rent in the form of entry fees for dynamis (granted, its become housing project inexpensive in recent years), salvage, limbus, etc....
You do realize that none of that is necessary for survival? You have to be joking.. Food? Are you serious right now? In game food does not posses the same value as real life food. I sincerely feel sorry for you if you feel otherwise. Your character doesn't forever die if you don't feed it or become hospitalized. Furthermore, I've never done Salvage. I did Limbus once and I never paid for a Dynamis entry. I would argue, pre update, most people did not pay for Dynamis.
Meldi wrote:
You have currency exchange where people spend real money at a predetermined exchange rate, regardless of how you feel about gil buyers/sellers it exists. And you have a virtually free market auction house that is incredibly stable and "poor" friendly in that you can start out with nothing and amass vast wealth if you are observant and smart about it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to reference here, but between this and the previous statement, it appears that you're trolling. I took you seriously up until this point. I'll admit, you got me, but I'll continue to play along.
Meldi wrote:
The irony is that you don't seem to see the impossibility of selling at the highest cost and buying at the lowest. If sellers are getting the highest price for the items that they are selling, then the buy cannot possibly get it at the lowest price and vice versa.
Says the person who claims to understand Economics.
Almalieque wrote:
The intent shouldn't be "lower prices", but it should be a cross between the highest selling cost and the lowest buying cost.
Let me break this down for you.
If you have an item for sell, there's practically no ceiling limit that you wouldn't sell the item for, but you do have a floor limit. As a buyer, there's practically no floor limit that you wouldn't buy the item for, but you have ceiling limit. The intent is for the sales to be a cross between the sellers floor limit and the buyers ceiling limit. That's Economics 101.