Topic

Pushing Auction Prices Up

Bottomline:  Sell your stuff for a currant or 2 more than the lowest price (instead of less).  You won't be the first one bought, but you will be the second and if enough people do this, we can drive the auction prices back up.

I get a lot of Music blocks and end up throwing them out on auction.  I've noticed a tendency of prices to be driven down by people offering a slightly lower price than the last.

This has the effect of driving the price down slowly over time.

People do this for natural reasons:  They got their goods for no money and any amount of money earned by it is profit.  By making their stuff the cheapest in the auction, it's guaranteed to sell first.

I take a different approach however and want to encourage others to do the same.

So take the pledge today to stop auction deflation!

Posted 14 months ago by Mister Master Mixer Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

Previous 1 2
  • It's a complicated issue.  Artificially low auction prices hurt new would-be auctioneers by destroying their profit margins.  However, you will see, Glitch is not really that kind of game.  The more the playerbase matures, the less they will have much interest in money.  There will be occasional mad rushes, depending perhaps upon what content TS pushes out here and there.  However, most players will simply sell things on auction without paying much attention.  The attention required for making profit usually gets in the way of having fun (yeah sometimes it's a fun minigame but...).
    Posted 14 months ago by FlirtyvonSexenhaven Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The economist in me is cheering you on but the game theorist is slowly shaking his head.  It may be a good idea but it will only work if everyone does it and I doubt you're going to get that even from those of us who get frustrated with the low bidding at times.
    Posted 14 months ago by Mithax Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I actually avoid buying auctions from people who are intentionally pricing just under (999 as opposed to 1000) in order to pop up first on the list. This sort of driving down prices, a currant at a time, is killing the market for certain things. When I got to buy on auction, I first scan the list to see if anyone I know is selling, and if not, I try to support people who are trying to keep the prices at a profit point and not those looking to undercut their competition in minuscule increments. 

    Which is to say that I, for one, am with you.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joan of Dark Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You know, with the new releases, this really isn't necessary - with the icons, people aiming for them will soon realise that the Giants aren't picky. They'll bulk buy the most under-priced of any items, and the prices will go up by themselves :D
    Posted 14 months ago by Saro Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's not killing the market. The market is already dead or dying when this happens. It means that there is more supply than demand. The correct way to deal with it, economically speaking, is not artifically fixing prices (in real life this would be illegal btw.), but either increasing demand or limiting supply. 

    That said the market in this game is very one-dimensional, there's about two handful of items that account for 90% or so of all trades. This is probably caused by a) the game rewarding you for making stuff yourself and b) energy that goes into crafting items being virtually free, and there is no easy fix like "charge higher prices than the market can sustain".
    Posted 14 months ago by Snokatt Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I sell only a few items, preferring to donate to the Giants or distribute other items to friends and random players. When I put something on auction I make sure there isn't a glut on the market at a price at or below the price points at which I generally sell the item(s). 

    Since there is a cost to putting things on auction - even for items that do not sell - I have no desire to jack up the prices I set. Aside from that, who would determine a "reasonable" cost? I want a free market economy rather than one designated by individual or committee. 

    Supply and demand will balance out over time as will the prices. 

    I also believe that the market is being adversely impacted by the lack of street construction. When streets are being built, the goods are being consumed more rapidly. There is less of a glut on the market when streets are being built.

     
    Posted 14 months ago by g33kgurrl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i am actively involved in pushing auction prices DOWN.

    i like it that way.

    if i wanted to sell at profit, i would sell at the vendor i'm standing next to.

    you are free o buy my goods cheap and re-sell them dear. i am still selling cheap and in bulk.
    Posted 14 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd echo what g33kgurrl has said above. I'd also add that, as well as street construction, Rook attacks also consume resources at a rather rapid rate.

    Once more people have acquired MI and Piety, I'm sure these attacks will become more widespread and happen at a more frequent rate, becoming more of a valid resource sink and lessening the glut on the market.
    Posted 14 months ago by Papa Vodou Subscriber! | Permalink
  • g33kgurrl - the Glitch market is pretty much a pure free market. Anyone can offer sto sell at any price they want. If there is enough demand for a product, even the higher priced items will sell. If the price is driven up enough, more producers will shift toward the higher priced item. If there are more producers than buyers, the price will fall as producers will be chasing the few buyers.

    Pricing lower than the current low price does not hurt other sellers if there is sufficient demand for an item. If the price is good, the cheap items will be snapped up and the next buyer will have to buy at a higher price. If there is more product on the market than buyers want, the highest price items will not sell.

    No one seller can dictate market price unless they can produce enough to meet ALL demand and I do not think even the most industrious Glitchen can produce enough Awesome Stew to keep all of those miners working.
    Posted 14 months ago by Kookaburra Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Who cares about money?! Do mining and feel the power of the Giants! 
    Posted 14 months ago by zizila Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Who cares about money? Pet the piggies and feel the love of the Giants! :)
    Posted 14 months ago by Kookaburra Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Kookaburra -- It is, but the OP seems to imply we should control the market. My point was that I don't want this to change. I don't think the current situation hurts anyone.
    Posted 14 months ago by g33kgurrl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • OOPS g33kgurrl - I just reviewed your post and I clearly read it wrong the first time! Yay free markets!
    Posted 14 months ago by Kookaburra Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yeah free market - I always auction my stuff for at least 50c below lowest...

    Yah!
    Posted 14 months ago by MeherMan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • All of this assumes the one thing that is a flaw in most economists thinking: people who buy and sell are doing so in an economically rational fashion. Plainly, this is not always the case in real life and even less so in Glitch.

    Sometimes I am just looking for a quick way to get rid of excess cherries and don't care about the market.
    Posted 14 months ago by BarryW Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just because you don't NEED a good auction economy in glitch doesn't mean that its not fun to have one. I think it would be better if there was some kind of limit on the auctions where the lowest you could advertise is 1 or two over the asking price of vendors.
    Posted 14 months ago by Nytician Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Fun for you may not be fun for me. I see no reason to change the way things are.
    Posted 14 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • personally, i think of the auctions as a lovely place to get good bargains below the vendors prices.

    i don't buy there; i just sell. and below rates, so that people who like bargains can have them.

    if you want the items to sell OVER the rate for your entertainment, please feel free to buy all of my underpriced goods and resell them at a rate that suits you. then everybody wins.

    i happen to think a fun economy is one in which bargains can be gotten on cheap or free goods.

    the system isn't broken. it's just fine.

    side note: today i went around groddle offering items for trade. i took whatever anybody offered, no haggling. that was my amusement this morning.

    i also wandered the streets leaving free foods that i made.

    sorry if that interferes with your economy. that's what's fun for me. creating realistic ecomonies, not so much. you're free to play that way though. glitch is more a platform for games than it is any one game. some people are playing the economy game. i'm playing a different game.
    Posted 14 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I always try to sell the items that vendors don't sell anymore, and I always try to sell them at their street value were you to buy them from a vendor. Also I don't sell unless there's not many on the market. Just my methodology.
    Posted 14 months ago by Jhennauchan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think some of you are being greedy lol. I put stuff on the auction and anything I put on there will ALWAYS be under what most people sell it for. Why? Simply because I feel some of you are greedy and charge way too much. You can't do anything special with money from glitch except buy stuff on and for the game. With that being said...what does it matter? If you don't like it too bad. Asking people to charge the same price as you and higher makes no business sense at all. The object is to make money and if it comes with a profit and I'm not selling as high as the rest than I've done my job! Stop complaining...if you want lots of money..well start mining then.
    Posted 14 months ago by Addix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • just want to point out: one more difference between real world economy and glitch economy is that there is no such thing as goods' quality in glitch. a particular food for example won't have any difference whether it's person A or B or C who cooked it. it's the same identical food. such is not the case in the real world. thus one more layer of complexity gone from glitch economy for better or for worse.
    Posted 14 months ago by gamecharacter Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What Addix said.  :)
    Posted 14 months ago by MeherMan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I auction my meat at the exact same price as a vendor gives me? Why? I hope that it might help someone else out there in the community.
    Posted 14 months ago by Gwyn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • For everyone who's mad at stuff going under vendor prices, there's a simple solution, buy it yourself and resell it to the vendors, selling your own stuff 1c above vendor. Tada.
    Posted 14 months ago by Bluigi Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I like to sell surplus music blocks cheap - I get them for free and in abundance. I'm not a natural capitalist, I want people to have the chance to buy things that aren't gonna take all their currants. But that's just me.
    Posted 14 months ago by Slippy (Throb) Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I tried selling a few things once at a set price but ended up with the items not selling.

    So while I don't increase the price now, I don't decrease it either. I try to just equal the lowest price, that way I figure I'm not driving the price down and am still able to sell :) It is quite annoying though when I put a price, and several people decrease it afterwards which sometimes means my item won't sell. I kinda feel that this is a bit like pushing in line, thinking that your item has to sell first so you'll lower the price slightly, meaning previous auctions with less time left have to wait longer to sell and potentially end up going back to the buyer as some of my items have.
    Posted 14 months ago by Sunburst Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Sunburst..I don't think it's pushing in line as I don't put lower prices to sell first. I put lower prices so any and everyone can afford my stuff easily.

    For the new people on glitch 2,000c for some things is a lot..I know because I've been there recently and I'm naturally not a greedy person. Most of the stuff I sell I get very easily or for free, therefore I see no problem with placing it on an auction at a lower price. If I paid nothing for it and make something off of it...I think that's called a profit. There are tons of ways to make money on glitch besides ripping people off. So as for me placing stuff on there for a lower price I see no problem in it. Unfortunately I don't care how anyone elses auction goes, the things I put on there are simply things I don't need or want and just want to get rid of to give me more inventory space. For me auctioning stuff really isn't about making money because I aquire money in other ways. I could probably easily make 50k in a day doing other things which I would never do just by auctioning things alone. I actually hate buying stuff from the auctions because generally they are priced higher than the vendors so I usually either make my own stuff or buy from a vendor. The other thing I always find on the auction is everyone sells the same amount of everything generally. It isn't economical to need 100 of something but have to pay 2000-3000c for 250 of an item when I didn't need it all. But hey that's just me lol.
    Posted 14 months ago by Addix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • And I don't think it's ripping people off to sell something at street value. So there. I don't even think above street value is ripping anyone off. Part of why I buy things on auction is also the convenience factor of not having to run to the nearest vendor, but instead being able to continue what I do until my items arrive.
    This argument is going to be the new gas vs spice, I can tell.
    Posted 14 months ago by Jhennauchan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "I put lower prices so any and everyone can afford my stuff easily. "

    There are a number of people who cluster around the tool vendors in and beneath IX who run auction snipers and sell to the tool vendors, making the difference in profit.   Pricing your stuff low doesn't really help anyone but them - the sniping bots remove low priced stuff from the auctions within a minute or so.  

    Frankly, I would go crazy seeing the frog that much. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I rather dislike someone popping in and telling me or anyone else how to sell things at auction. I put my stuff on auction about 5 currents lower than the first on the list. Why drive up prices? That is greedy.
    Posted 14 months ago by Casombra Amberrose Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Both sides of this argument have valid play styles; unfortunately, the market UI allows the philanthropist like flask to warp the economy so that the capitalist Glitchen have nothing in this game to enjoy.  

    In the last thread where this came up, I opened by admitting that I sell items for less than what I could get a tool vendor, placing myself on the side of those not worried about my profit at least by my behaviors.  I then went on to think critically about the economy, about the problems created by the UI and/or by having vendors that buy items, and the problems that could create as the scaffolding is removed and the game shifts to a player-driven economy.  I believe a blind buy/sell order system would do a lot to fix the issues, allowing players like flask to be generous without affecting the game style of those attempting to get value for their time.  Such a system absorbs deals without permanently lowering the value of an item and makes offering deals more likely to go to someone searching for a discount and less likely to be resold to a tool vendor for profit.  

    This suggestion was met with anger from some.  I'm not sure why exactly -- one glitch defended discounted pricing as being whimsical and more glitch-like and attacked me for being greedy and playing wrong, yet it was shown that he had an item on the auction at a 60% markup and my items were up at around a 20% discount, low enough that I could get more money at a tool vendor (due to fees), but high enough that purchasing and reselling to a tool vendor would result in a small loss.   By behaviors alone, I had shown I had less interest in maximizing profit, but apparently, just being willing to talk critically about the system was unacceptable.  This system does need some critical attention, however, because though I am not worried at all about my ability to maximize profits, I am concerned that the game does not create any incentive to market to other players but instead makes it more worthwhile to just dump things at a vendor.  That's sort of taking the MMO out of the MMO, and it leaves game play that requires no one else in the game to function.  In other words, if I"m going to gather items and sell them to a vendor all alone, I could do so in an environment that wasn't massively multiplayer or online.  As an online gamer in the age of FTP, and a gamer who prefers deals over trends, I'm left wondering why I should pay for this game.  So I can buy virtual clothing to show off to virtual strangers?   Don't get me wrong, this game is amazing, and I would probably play a bit if it was a single player game -- but I wouldn't pay for it.  As the newness wears off, and players realize that the three thousandth time harvesting a fruit tree is exactly like the first, the game will begin losing players.  It's the common patter of all online persistent worlds: huge surge of population at launch that then fades down to a core, committed population.  Allowing economic goals to be just as valid as other goals via a system that does not eliminate philanthropy or whimsical pricing but at the same time does not punish those who wish to play the economy is absolutely better for retention than the current system.  

    I also mentioned in a yet older thread that there is indeed a glut of supply and minimal demand and believe that could be fixed by expanding the skill tree, adding skills with long real time training requirements that force specialization, if not permanently than for a significant amount of time.  I have seen players express annoyance with skills that take over a week to train, but unfortunately, if there is to be a functioning sandbox economy, every player can't know every skill.  I've been playing since the day after launch, and I'm now well over 40 skills, and aside from tools (which are one time only purchases), I can now make everything I've ever purchased from the market for myself, from awesome stew to seasoned beans and eggs to no-no powder.  I place absolutely no demand on the market, and I contribute to the glut of supply.  

    However, if extensions of current skill sets were added in there would be a significant period of time where even us glitchen that have been around for awhile would not have all the skills that there is a demand for on the market.  I imagine skills such as Tinkering VI (or would it need to be VII?), Engineering II, Cocktail Crafting III, Master Chef III, etc, with two to four times the training period of their prerequisite skills.  Such would go a long way to increasing demand and would require much more than a few months before older glitchen are completely self-sufficient again.  

    Also, cross-component requirements.  My theoretical Cocktail Crafting III skill should have a recipe requiring materials from a Master Chef III and several other of these possible higher-tier skills.  Then even the act of crafting products for which there is a demand will send Glitch to the market to purchase from fellow players, forming economic interdependence, and bringing the market to life.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • since when does "whimsical" mean not at a profit or at a  "reasonable" profit or whatever you think my pricing scheme should be?  Whimsical is a playful term that means your logic is not always straightforward nor are your decisions predictable. 

    If being whimsical requires that I follow some conventional wisdom about selling, then you need to revisit your dictionary.

    I also think you have conflated my posts with other posts.  I don't have any comments anywhere about people being greedy or philanthropic or otherwise commenting about their economic behavior. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You have a really odd tendency to completely ret-con your words.  Yes, indeed, you are right about the definition of whimsical.  However, in the context of your post, you went on from whimsical to say things along the lines of "if throwing away money is fun for players, expect people to throw away money" -- you were using whimsical in the way I did above.  

    Nice try though.  Thank you, come again.   
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Saucelah - Spot on!

    I think it's rather clear that there's a general economic malaise to a lot of players that are interested in looking at that sort of thing. This is from a wide number of factors (that Saucelah has laid out), not because philanthropists and casual sellers are doing anything wrong. Ultimately I agree that it's the glut of supply and lack of demand that's causing the problems... it's just the lower prices are the most obvious symptom here. I don't even think that it's possible for enough players to change their behavior to 'fix' everything (even if that change was totally desirable, which it's not - it's great having people with vastly different outlooks!), though it's good to discuss options and get feedback from all sorts of different players.

    I'm a little worried about the game now. More (hard to get, worthwhile) skills and the specialization that provides would go a huge way towards making this game sustainable in the long run. It'll always be a good game, but it's tough to make a game that's still worth playing 3 months, 6 months, 1 year down the line, and I don't know that right now this game has that.

    Note: I don't know what the devs are doing and how quickly. I genuinely hope a million skills or fixes or whatever happen and goes great.

    Note 2: The game is not just economy and skills and achievements and in-game goals. But to me, the majority of the draw is. And completely disregarding that and trusting in the social aspects to be the long-term plan does not seem like it will retain large numbers of players - a highly fervent core population, yes, but not the masses.
    Posted 14 months ago by Abby Smalls Subscriber! | Permalink
  • And you've still contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion, a discussion you claim is meaningless to you and that you don't care about, but here you are again.  

    Oy.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually I claimed the discussion was important and needed to be kept full of various points of view.  Not just the viewpoints of those who thought the economic system in Glitch was broken.  Many of us don't think that. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm on the side of seeing a thriving economy, which does mean one where auction dumping doesn't dominate.  But that's not going to ever happen without serious changes to the Auction system.  

    I'm getting to the point where every new feature announcement that isn't "buy orders" makes me angry.  Cubimals, parties, icons: one more novelty that will entertain for a week and then pall.  And I learn, with each new one, that this new thing is like all the rest, so that, e.g. not having fooled with Party Packs, I'm already bored of them.  Because I'm bored of cubimals.

    But a real market would be the *easiest* way to make interacting with the rest of Ur meaningful.  It's not the be all and end all, but it would be a step.  Every session I could check in and compare the last-sell numbers for things I can make, and go make what makes most sense.  And that would change over time, especially as street projects or rook attacks change demand.

    In the meantime, I log in and make a few Super Scrapers and donate them, because that's the best time/favor ratio for me at the moment.  And that's not going to change, except at the direct whim of the devs.
    Posted 14 months ago by Yarrow Subscriber! | Permalink
  • cross-post
    There are threads going back for over a year saying "auction is broken, and it should be fixed or else this game is Fail" 

    I had trouble finding threads that say "we want party rooms"; they certainly aren't as long or as frequent as the "auction is broken" threads. 

    I found no threads that asked for donations to giants to give us icons, although stoot has said since the beginning (Feb, 2010 interview) that religious factions would be part of the game. " "Rather than you and me fighting each other with swords," Butterfield explained, "it could be you and me having rival religious factions battling each other for converts."   

    So what have we gotten since launch?  Party rooms, Giant Icons, and the ability to see the second page of auction offerings.  Oh, and  a handful of high-end food, seasoned beans & eggs, and some high end tools off. 

    However you read the tea leaves and dissect the interviews and press releases, it seems clear that fixing the broken auction is not as high on the to-do-list as parties and donations to giants. 

    Someone said, "stuffing them into a shrine donation bin is a problem from a social point of view".  If so, TS has just made the problem worse, not better.  Somehow, I think they're smarter than that.
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • WindBorn, that's exactly why I'm worried.

    I actually like the idea of Icons a lot and am working towards that as a goal. But so far it seems like the devs have been so (understandably) busy getting the game running and keeping it running that actual big things like major skill lines/specializations seem far enough away that by that time any dedicated player is going to have every skill in the game and have been stuck there for some time. Making the economy a mess. Making it less fun for people who are running out of badges/quests/other goals.

    And it's been said a bazillion times that currants aren't important, but if it continues this way, the huge disparity between the hardcore player and the casual builds. If players have hundreds of thousands of currants, when updates come, who is it balanced for? Is it going to take a ton of resources and suck for the guy who just plays every now and again? Or will it not take much at all, and thus prepared players will completely exhaust the content in hours?
    Posted 14 months ago by Abby Smalls Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i can only think that this discussion is feeding the frenzy of the people who sit at the tool vendor to sell whatever i put on auction.

    i'm having a MARVELOUS time wandering the landscape and chatting with people and playing games and harvesting as i go, and all i notice is that since this discussion has started, i'm making more money than usual.

    i am not at all concerned about number crunchers who say i'm throwing my money away; actually i'm having a great time and making lots and lots of cash AND i'm leaving free stuff out for people to take regardless of level, AND i'm enjoying a lot of skills AND i spend a lot of time helping new people complete quests.

    i am not the least bit concerned about the cries of "the game is broken!", because it isn't. and i adore antigrav parties.

    i find the game charming and each week it only gets more and more so. i'm quite counting on the people who love to grind and master and control to become bored with it and move on.

    and i LOVE this discussion because while maybe there is no causal relationship between the number of posts and the increase in my profits from what y'all say is "throwing my money away",  i sure am noticing a surge in income.
    Posted 14 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I guess I don't understand your concern.

    Are you worried that the people who have invested millions of dollars in Tiny Speck will lose all their money?
    Are you worried that the people working at Tiny Speck will lose their jobs?
    Are you worried that a flawed internet game will fail? 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The system I've proposed is accessible to more players, gives more players long-term goals, prevents a small number of players from possessing most of the wealth, prevents other players from criticizing you based on the prices you choose to place your items at, and in general, is an improvement in every way without sacrificing any of the player types that might enjoy this game.  

    The only items I know for sure are on the dev to-do list is customized housing and removing vendor sales.  And both of those would benefit from economic reform.  I see no reason to assume that Tiny Speck is smarter than that -- their staff is not heavy on vet MMO developers, and even AAA development companies have gotten their priorities mixed in such a way that was detrimental to the game.  Just take a look at CCP over the last six months, culminating just now in laying off people from future projects to refocus on the demands their community is making and bring angered players back.  

    So while it may not be high on the to-do list, it should be, and I see nothing wrong with writing about it even if it is not.  You claim you want as many points of view in this discussion as possible, but then you go on to minimize and quash any POV that disagrees with you.  And you did directly write that you don't care about the economy at all -- so why so intent on shutting down any discussion of it?  

    Regardless of how you feel, I will continue to post these ideas and fixes whenever this topic comes up.  What are you trying to accomplish by telling me not to?
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Nothing so complicated, WindBorn.

    I really like this game! I want it to be awesome and for me to enjoy playing it for a long time!

    I'm a little worried because while I see lots of places where there's fantastic potential, I don't know what the game is going to be like in a month, or a year. I'm posting and discussing and talking about it because I feel like that's how we as a community can talk about how to make the game better.

    For people like flask, it's great that you're enjoying the game so much. I have a lot of fun playing it too, that's why I'm still here and posting and playing. But I don't think you want the game to just stay in this exact state forever because it's absolutely perfect and nothing wrong, right? I think a lot of people in this topic love the game and are talking about a few places where it could maybe be improved.
    Posted 14 months ago by Abby Smalls Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Flask, it is a false assumption that anyone discussing the state of the economy simply wants to be in the game to grind, master, and control.  Most of my time in the game is not dedicated to any such thing -- putting items on auction is an afterthought that I do toward the end of a play session.  I'm thinking critically to propose ways that all those play styles could co-exist in an interdependent economy without giving any single style huge priority over another.  

    The most fun I've had so far in this game was on a player-led Ghost Tour, which meant for two and half hours I followed 30 or so other players from zone to zone, freaking out Glitchen surprised by the sudden influx of population, harvesting next to nothing for the entire tour, buying and giving away purple flowers to players who weren't familiar with them, and generally have a grand old social time.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hehe, technically Abby that means to some extent you are worried about his third point.  

    And to some extent, I know the second point is actually a concern of mine.  While it would have no significant impact on my life, I believe the developers have done something interesting here, so I want them to be successful.  At the very least, I'm not rooting for their failure.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i'm just saying the system isn't broken.

    of course i like to see improvements, and i think the improvements i've seen are delightful.

    i think it's important when people get one and complain that if things aren't changed it will be bad for the game that people who think the game is just fine and going in the right direction speak up.

    i would MUCH rather see coloring book streets than anything having to do with replicating a real economy.

    it is my hunch that TS wishes to tap an atypical game demographic, one that is less interested in economy and craft and efficiency than usual.

    i keep playing new games and keep finding them to be the same old bore of "how can i level up fastest?" and "how can i get the most stuff?" and without complaining that the game is broken, i leave. i simply think those games are for people who enjoy those sorts of games.

    i have been waiting all along for something less goal oriented and i think (but can't prove) that TS is taking a flyer and courting a demographic like me.

    i think there's room for grinders and crunchers, because goodness, without that throng  camped at the tool vendor sniping my goods, how would i finance my game playing?

    but the thing is that i keep hearing grumbling from the crunchers about how the system doesn't work, and i'm pretty sure that it's working just fine.
    Posted 14 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's working . . . ok.  It's not working just fine, and it could be better, and in being better, would not harm your play style in any way.  I say it's not working just fine because, clearly, there is more incentive to sell to vendors than players, and individual whimsical decisions in pricing can affect the market for everyone for long periods of time.

    Your hunch seems . . . weird to me.  They have built a game with basic mechanics that form a backbone of gathering, crafting, and selling.   And I actually believe this game is more goal-oriented than a theme park MMO -- in such a theme park there are only two goals: level up and get better equipment.  In a sandbox there is an infinite multitude of goals: play the market, work on achievements, meet and help new players, see all the zones, have every item, create group activities, etc.  In fact, the most common complaint about sandboxes is that there are too many goals, and new players are overwhelmed.  Which is exactly what friend of mine said when I brought her into this game.  She's smart enough that she didn't worry about being overwhelmed and just started trying things out to see what she liked, but not every player is capable of that.  Other new players, not as capable -- at least one sent me in-game mail returning items I had given her to help her get started with a message along the lines of "there is too much to do in this game, I don't have time to figure it out."  

    I don't believe you play with no goals.  I believe you've noticed that the game doesn't particularly prioritize some goals over others, so therefore your main goal is to have fun.  Within that goal, you do actually have goals -- those would be completing the activities that provide you with fun.  

    If that is what you like about the game, then having an economy that encourages economic interdependence would not harm you in any way and would expand the number of goals that are fair to follow.  

    But just because you are able to have fun despite some of the drawbacks of the economy does not mean that the economy is just fine.  

    Let me ask you this, is there any online subscription based game that you have paid a subscription to for over a year all while playing regularly?  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree with you flask.    If I wanted to play a game like that I wouldn't be on glitch lol.  Money driven games get old and boring.  I enjoy just playing and having a good time.  I mean technically after you buy a house on glitch the game is "over" because what else beside little goals are there to work towards?  By the time you have a home you generally knows lots of skills and own just about every tool, if you aren't making them by then.  So I mean it's important to realize that glitch is a game, it's fun, and it needs to stay that way.  The auction doesn't really deserve all this attention.  There is a lot of different directions TS could take glitch to improve it well beyond where it is now.  However, in the real world you can put anything up for auction for what ever price you desire, thus choosing to make a profit or not. I like the fact that glitch has few to no rules really. And I honestly think with "rules and regulations" will come a decline in players.  The saying is..don't fix it unless it's broken.  Glitch isn't broken it just needs to keep getting better.
    Posted 14 months ago by Addix Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think there is a majority here that wants to fix auctions by inserting rules and regulations.  They just want a UI that makes working with auctions easier for all types of players, and incentives that make using auctions more efficient than selling to tool vendors.  

    Once again, the assumption that anyone concerned about the state of the economy believes the game is about making money or wants it to be is just plain wrong.  Although I do like to buy cubimals, I'm in no rush to collect them all, and I need money for nothing else.  

    But the end result of that is I don't need other players for anything else either, and that feels kind of silly for an online game.  I also think interdependence helps create retention and gives long term goals that aren't easily reached in a few days to a week.  If the game did not change at all, what do you picture yourself doing in six months?  Do you believe you'll still be here, paying a subscription?

    No one is saying Glitch is broken.  We're just proposing ways to make it better.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Why do you think everything isn't over priced? Let the invisible hand drive the prices where they need to be. I'm sad, I thought this was a post about bots or something. Not about basic economics. 
    Posted 14 months ago by cynder Subscriber! | Permalink
Previous 1 2