Topic

Change auction pricing for powders to reflect remaining uses

With the change to per-unit priceing of auctioned tools based on wear, how about adding a similar mechanism for things like Extreamly Hallowed Shrine Powder (and other powders with multiple uses), based on remaining uses? While there aren't currently any examples up for sale, earlier today, I spotted a 1/5 Extreamly Hallowed Shrine Powder that was listed in order with other 5/5 items by price-per-item, not price-per-remaining-use. It's really kind of a scam (causing the victim to essentially pay 5 times the going rate for an item, if they don't notice the "1/5").

Posted 14 months ago by Morgan Blair Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • I would like to second this. It seems a few people are doing this, I fell for this scam today. A guy put at least three 1/5 EHSP up at a good market price and I fell for buying two of them. This really needs to be addressed urgently, I think.
    Posted 14 months ago by Keymo Machine Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't see it as "urgent.".  Powders have always shown remaining uses very clearly in auctions.  It would be better to have them on a system like the tools though.
    Posted 14 months ago by Lucille Ball Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yes that is very bad that you can sell a powder with 1/5 uses...that should be forbiden, this selling of used powders is messed up.

    It lets people do really mean unfriendly and completely rob unsuspecting glitches
    Posted 14 months ago by Crispa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @crispa -- It'd be fine to allow selling used powders if they were sorted, as the OP suggest, by price-per-use -- so a single sprinkle of EHSP would show up at the top of the listings only if it were priced at or below 1/5 of the price of the full jars on auction.  One sprinkle of a powder is still a potentially useful item.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Fnibbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It is not a scam at all in my opinion. It is clearly stated what you are buying. That's like buying a car, and then bringing it back 3 days later saying that you never realized that this model did not have GPS. I mean, whose fault is that? It is 100% the buyer.

    Along the same lines, maybe the auctions should state what kind of cubimal is in the box? Cause that's even more unfair! I mean, at least when it says 1/5 you know that you are getting 1/5.... with the box, you have to buy it, and THEN find out.... Right??

    I'm not looking to start a fight here, I'm just saying that it is clearly listed. Now, if people want to submit and idea to change the structure towards the tool usage, then no problem. It's the whole calling it a scam that bothers me, when the usage is very clearly listed. That's my two cents :) Good day Glitchens!
    Posted 14 months ago by Hoodjack Saken Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's not clearly listed.  I just sold a 1/5 to a high-level glitchen at an unfair price.

    Thankfully, the high-leveler didn't block or reported me so I could send her a pm, informing her that I would send her a refund.  After explaining to her that I was trying to help out newbies, she told me to keep the currants, (which I intend to use for the greater good - lol).

    Btw, to the people thinking this is a fair way to make currants - please keep in mind that who we buy from and sell to is recorded on our profiles.  Though it has been many many days, I still remember the name of the glitchen who scammed me.  So, you have to wonder if making currants in this manner is worth having a baaaaaad reputation.

    Have a nice day.
    Posted 14 months ago by Caveat Emptor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "It's not clearly listed."

    It says "Extremely Hallowed Shrine Powder (1/5)" right there.
    www.glitch.com/auctions/ite...

    If that's not clear, you're not making any effort to read what you're buying.
    Posted 14 months ago by juv3nal Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hoodjack, the problem is that the current auction system lists the cheapest powder first, regardless of the condition of said powder.  When a glitchen is listing multiple 1/5 powders at once at a price around the same as the other 5/5 powders, that glitchen is intentionally scamming people. Is that really any different than selling a 1/5 used tool for the same price as a new tool before the change to tool auctions? In my opinion, no. The only difference here is that the amount left is listed but the database still erroneously treats it the same.

    Should the AH be buyer beware or in the spirit of glitch should we protect new players from being taken advantage of?  I am going to continue my push for more regulation.
    Posted 14 months ago by Keymo Machine Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Most things are priced in terms of number of uses remaining, whether it's discrete items [number of items in the meta-item: the stack] or the recent change to tools [per unit wear]. It seems like an inconsistency to have tools be priced according usage remaining and powders be at full price with a label.

    Either change the label on tools to reflect wear on the title and default it to full price or change the pricing on powders to reflect the wear on them. While either restores consistency, the latter is a far friendlier system.
    Posted 14 months ago by Aoi Subscriber! | Permalink
  • An update.  Another player has bought a 1/5 from me.  Player has been refunded.  Player is also a high-level.

    I have good news; however, I was scolded by another player for trying to scam people.  After reassuring this concerned glitchen that my intentions are honorable, he informed me that he had been scammed as well.  He's also not a low-level player.

    Thus, I'm beginning to think that as many high-level players as low-level players have been scammed by this exploit.  Yes, more food for thought for glitchens tempted to make currants this way.  It's one thing to have low-level players mad at you.  Quite another thing to have most likely well-connected high-level players angry at you.

    Edit:  So far, it's been 4 buyers - all at least level 30.
    Posted 14 months ago by Caveat Emptor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Caveat contacted me and offered me a refund before I even realized it was a 1/5 powder.  I agree with him completely - this should be using the 'price per charge' model, same as the tools.  I didn't even notice it was a 1/5 auction - the charges label just isn't obvious, it blends right into the text, and I only buy powder when I'm in a rush - when I'm most likely to _not_ pay adequate attention.  Devs, fix it!
    Posted 14 months ago by Ifni Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Another update - the five 1/5's I posted today were sold in 5-6 hours.  Only one of the buyers was in the 20's, the rest were 30's up.

    I think one of the buyers blocked me - had to ask another player to IM him for me.  A second buyer was about to block me - thankfully he read my profile and generously informed me to keep his currants.

    Refunds have been sent to the last two buyers.  I haven't been able to catch them online yet.

    Edit:  Of the five buyers today, one wanted to block me, two probably did block me.

    Also, I think it's safe to assume that a good percentage of the people who saw my 1/5 auctions did or wanted to block me. Taking this into consideration, I should properly change my name to Caveat Venditor.
    Posted 14 months ago by Caveat Emptor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It is very easy to see how many uses are left in a powder. When you hover over the item when selecting it to auction, it clearly says x/5.
    Posted 14 months ago by MaryLiLamb Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The logic behind why such postings are unethical is based on the fact that as a result, a player is spending more credits on an item than the item is worth. However, the worth of any auction on this system is entirely RELATIVE and based on supply and demand.

    As of right now, sniping scripts allow players to auto buy anything on the broker below a certain price so that they can sell it to the vendor for a profit. While I agree that doing so is logical, ethical, and pretty much a good idea, my personal opinion is that allowing that process to be automated is completely unfair. Allowing this pretty much ensures that EVERY item on the auction will always and instantly have a minimum price and items lower than that price will rarely exist and even then only for a few seconds before a sniping script buys it up. By that logic, these snipers are (most likely) artifically inflating market values and essentially forcing other auction users to buy for a greater amount than they could have. Thus an auto-sniped market causes a player to spend more credits on an item than the item is worth - which the same reasoning people offer against listing 1/5 powders. I would further argue that the current auto-sniped market is responsible for more currant loss because of players paying an inflated price than currants lost to a few players not paying attention to the number of charges clearly indicated on a powder listing.

    I would argue that the very reasoning that would make listing used powders unethical would make auto-sniping unethical as well. But if one is allowed, the other should be as well.

    Either way, a development team judgement on the appropriateness of listing used powders (or an ammending of how used powders are listed at auction) seems necessary at this point.
    Posted 14 months ago by Onath Subscriber! | Permalink
  • An update.  I currently have 10 1/5's in stock.  Deciding whether to proceed or wait til I have enough to occupy the first page entirely.

    Unfortunately, I have a ratio of seeing a 1/5 being auctioned every three visits to the EHS page.  I've started to screencap these "smart" sellers' 1/5 EHS auctions.  IMPORTANT - I am NOT going to post these screencaps.  Just keeping them as a record.  If for whatever reason, I decide to release these screencaps - the sellers' names will definitely be censored.

    I'm also going to warn here, in the General Forum (perhaps), on the General Chat and Live Help before I post 1/5's en masse.  I'm curious to see if the 1/5's will still sell despite the glaring scam attempt.
    Posted 14 months ago by Caveat Emptor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Why aren't you using up the last dose of your EHSP? You obviously used the first four doses. Finish off the bottle instead of auctioning them. Problem solved.
    Posted 14 months ago by MaryLiLamb Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Another update!

    I have enough for a full page.  Will do the full page sometime this week.  Probably on the weekend when I can stay long online so I can message buyers before sending refunds.

    There is something I have noticed - the details page of a particular EHS auction does not state the number of charges.  It just says "Auction for one Extremely Hallowed Shrine Powder".

    Also, on the "confirm purchase" page, it only says "Really purchase 1 Extremely Hallowed Shrine Powder for ???? currants?"  Once again, the number of charges is not stated.  

    Needless to say, I believe both these pages (especially the "confirm purchase" page) should state the number of charges.
    Posted 14 months ago by Caveat Emptor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I definitely agree that the confirm page needs to list that info! +1 !
    Posted 14 months ago by RM Subscriber! | Permalink
  • YES!! Totally agree Caveat Emptor. +1
    Posted 14 months ago by Piece of Serenity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I also agree. It's to easy to pick the wrong one and no way to verify before finalizing the purchase.
    Posted 14 months ago by Ruby Specklebottom Subscriber! | Permalink
  • agreed. +1
    Posted 14 months ago by bored no more Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have decided to post a separate thread, namely because I want a thread with the specific suggestion in the title.

    www.glitch.com/forum/ideas/...

    If the charges detail is added to the "confirm purchase" page, I probably won't proceed with the full page plan.  Just seeing 1/5 clearly on the confirm purchase page should be enough, imo.
    Posted 14 months ago by Caveat Emptor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Are you honestly so intent on forcing Tiny Speck to do YOUR pet programming project that you will anger as many players as it takes to get there?  Sheesh.
    Posted 14 months ago by Lucille Ball Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I have "fully" refunded everyone who purchased a 1/5 from me.  (Please scroll up thread to see my updates.)

    I'm doing this mainly to help highlight how easy it is to "accidentally" buy 1/5's, 2/5's, 3/5's at 5/5 prices.

    Btw, I don't even try to hide my auctions as I've seen "smart" sellers do.  Some actually scatter their 1/5's so it's not (even more) obvious.
    Posted 14 months ago by Caveat Emptor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This is, among other things, a usability issue. I commend Caveat for demonstrating the problem clearly and ethically.
    Posted 14 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Caveat
    I am in agreement that we need changes to be made to the auction system so that mistakes like these are more difficult to make.  And thanks Caveat for the refund :D
    Posted 14 months ago by Sasca Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I got burned by this, too, and I am pretty careful about my auctions.

    And yeah, I blocked the person I bought it from, too.

    Additional clarity in the transaction process would help a great deal, so thanks for this thread!
    Posted 14 months ago by Wellsie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Question - what happens if you donate a 1/5 power?  Do the gods give you the same amount of favor as with 5/5?
    Posted 14 months ago by Leites Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Leites - you should only get 40 favor from a 1/5.  I think I tested this before, but I can't remember exactly.

    Haven't done the full page since I (think) the charges will be placed in confirm purchase page, hopefully soon.

    Probably last update from me since I've just been dragged back to play World of Warcraft.
    Posted 14 months ago by Caveat Emptor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I just made a purchase of 1/5 for way too many currants myself. There really has to be some pricing unit clue on charges.

    And SHAME on you unscrupulous types cashing in on this easily made error.
    Posted 13 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just wanted to thank TS for making this change!
    Posted 13 months ago by Kinkajou Subscriber! | Permalink