Topic

Make the rare "vendored" items available by OpenIPO style auction

This auction method ensures the highest price floor, and by holding the auction open for 30 or so Ur days, would remove the need to make a mad rush at the vendors.

The way this works is folks put up a bid to buy the item, and if there are 5 items available, the top 5 bidders get the item, but the price they *all* pay is the 5th item. In other words, if the bids were:

Glitch A: 10,000
Glitch B: 8,000
Glitch C: 7,500
Glitch D: 7,000
Glitch E: 6,900
Glitch F: 6,500

... the sales price would be 6,900, and Glitches A-E would get one. Glitch F would be out of luck.

Now, if Glitch AA bid 11,000, Glitch D would then have the 5th highest bid at 7,000, so the sales price would go up to 7,000, and Glitches E and F would be out of luck.

(You can read more here:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenIPO -- but I suggest having the minimum winning bid be public during the entire auction period, and allow folks to revise their bid. This will drive the price floor to the highest possible point)

This also has the side effect of removing the "blame" for prices from TS, who are simply guessing at the market value of the items. The imported Yetis were clearly undervalued.

Posted 4 months ago by Sturminator i` Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Hm, I didn't realize there was blame about pricing.  I thought that market value of these items would be determined by the initial price, not the other way around.  

    I am totally not liking the auction idea, when there was a set price on the items before, and people were paying that thinking that's what they'd be available at until sold out.  But if you have to have an auction I think this sounds like a neat way to go.
    Posted 4 months ago by diaveborn ♥ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I am not a fan of this idea. Only the superrich benefit from this.

    I would strongly approve of having a one-per-glitch rare limit, though.
    Posted 4 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • One-per-glitch rare limit probably won't work if people just have their friends buy it for them or transfer the money to an alt who buys it.
    Posted 4 months ago by TomC Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @TomC The latter would constitute a breach of the ToS, whereby alts may not provide a game advantage.
    Posted 4 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Using an alt to work around the 1 per Glitch is not far from using a friend. There less risk, but it is a game mechanic available to anyone. I generally use friends anyway, even though I have a hoard of alts, but that is mainly because I enjoy the social aspect. Mainly my point is "one per Glitchen" is not very useful.

    Pascale, the superrich benefit more from the existing system. Once they can snap up the existing supply, they can then exert essentialy monopoly control over the market. Original Yetis are roughly 14mm now, if the imported ones truely are more rare than the originals they will then have a market value way above even that insane number. Even at 15mm your talking a 500% ROI! !!!
    Posted 4 months ago by Sturminator i` Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Pascale--Besides alts or friends etc doing the 1 rare/player ignores their investment value.

    Glitch is a land of abundance. That someone has spent their time amassing currants in no way limits my ability to do so. Or, your ability to do so. Why should those players who have saved their currants, specifically for rare items,  be penalized?

    These rares are useless other than they are a good investment. And the "I was there" moment. They have no sentimental value like the other rares do. *You* might decide to keep yours forever and ever but why do you want to limit my ability to play the market?

    Because it's not how you like to play?

    @Sturminator- That's a great fun idea! And considering TS expected to release the entire inventory over the weekend and have yet to do the 3rd inventory release. I think they have *over* estimated the value of these items. 

    An OpenIPO style auction in the same 3 batches would have likely resulted in a higher value for the 1st auction and lower values for the 2 and 3rd.
    Posted 4 months ago by M<3tra, obviously Subscriber! | Permalink