Topic

Auction Limits

It's extremely easy for a single glitch to flood the market and essentially make it impossible(well, at least difficult) for other glitches to make a living. I was thinking an Item based limit on Auction listings, rather than overall limit on all listings per user. You can even use this to benefit subscribers, say, 5 for free, 10 for paid, per item type (such as Carrots).

Posted 14 months ago by Lord Mogra Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Why? The AH will even itself out, even after somebody's managed to put 500 of something up for sale cheap. Besides, limiting auctions would make it just as hard for the aforementioned "other glitches to make a living".
    Worst case scenario- wait a few days, keep an eye on the price, and then make hay while the sun shines.
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I completely agree, there are unlimited auctions and it's completely flooded the market to the point where its a race to the bottom.  I believe we need to have auction limits so you have to think about whether or not you want to waste it on beer, or something actually of value.  Less clutter would benefit buyers too.

    Right now its the wild west, and it needs to be regulated if they actually care about an economy.
    Posted 14 months ago by Wheeler Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Wheeler, I don't understand why a "race to the bottom" is a problem.  Are you saying that TS should make it impossible for someone to sell their items at less than a specific value?  

    Or are you asking for TS to limit the number of auctions you can create for a particular item?  Or to limit the number of items you can auction?  
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What he's asking for is just a limit on the quantity of a single item to be place on ah at one time.

    Say, for example, Fancy Picks. You make 200 Fancy picks and put them all up for auction, that's 200 new auctions for people to wade through. Now, obviously, people whose prices are higher are getting flooded out (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Then the 'standard' price is set by your 200 picks, and people will only post new ones for less. Most of yours probably don't sell, then you put them up for auction again after the auction expires, again at a lower price than the current low (which will be lower than what you'd put up the day before) and so on. The price is steadily driven down as you flood the market with too much supply and other people are forced to keep up.

    On the other hand, the proposed idea would be to say that out of those 200 picks you just made, you can only sell 5/10 of them at a time (then why did you make so many?). You can still sell 5/10 tinkertools and 5/10 Watering cans, etc. Your ability to make money isn't lessened, it just prevents one person from single-handedly destroying the economy for a given item (or items).
    Posted 14 months ago by Thaske Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't think it necessary to place a limit on the item price itself. If someone wants to sell one item at a charitable rate to be nice, that's fine. That's not the point. It's when someone floods the market, especially in easily replenish-able products. 

    An example right now that hits close to home for me is the Beer market. The thing about this is, that's not necessarily going to "even out" in a few days. The guys flooding that market only have to walk to the vendor, buy beer, and let GAS (http://gas.tsak.net) flood in small stacks for them. Suddenly, 6-8 pages are JUST THEM, and everyone else is pushed to the back of the line.

    My idea in the OP is to limit the number of listings per item, not the qty of items. This allows everyone to be visible, and even if using GAS, when your items sell, it'll just post the next batch next time it cycles, or you just post them yourself, but the idea is to give everyone on the market more of a fair chance at their item being sold instead of just a few people flooding the market with the lowest price per item.

    Reselling grocery items is an honest living as people like to buy those from the market instead of hunting down a grocer. I myself have only ever had about 6-8 listings max, tho, hardly flooding.
    Posted 14 months ago by Lord Mogra Subscriber! | Permalink
  • So you want to discourage people making "too many" picks by making it impossible to have more than a certain number on auction at any given time.  I assume that once a pick sells, I can replace it with another pick, as long as I never have more than 5 listed at a time.  
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • good grief, I'm flooding the thread.
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ....
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • But how long does it really take to empty out a particular category? People snipe entire item-lists all the time- all the time- not just with auction-snipers, but with simple point-and-click buying. I have personally bought all the Fruity Juices (roughly 25-30 each time) twice in the past week, and I know of others who spend a great deal of time looking for particular items they need in bulk.
    And like I said before, rather than penalize others for posting "too many" items, maybe the onus should be on the seller to keep an eye to the prices and sell when either the market or their currants-balance can support it. Maybe a better idea here is for sellers to become more shrewd about when and how they auction; I know that's a bit more labor-intensive and effort-requiring, but all in all, it makes more sense than adding yet more nerfs. I guess I don't see why this isn't a personal responsibility and business-sense issue rather than a game mechanics issue.
    Posted 14 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The issue with personal responsibility is that if one or two people feel they don't need to be responsible, the whole system breaks down. 
    Posted 13 months ago by Thaske Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't know that I've seen the economy-destroying evidence of that, but I'll agree to disagree.
    Posted 13 months ago by Djabriil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There is also the idea that after a certain number of listings, the listing fee increases dramatically. This would allow any number of listings, but deter flooding, or at least make it less effective.
    Posted 13 months ago by Lord Mogra Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Frankly, I haven't seen the system break down because of flooding.  

    What I do see is that I have to work smarter to keep my goods as the most desirable purchase, which doesn't always mean pricing them below the current lowest price.  This has been especially helped by giving us access to the additional auction pages.
    Posted 13 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Lord Morgan---so your issue is that someone else is automatically doing what you are?

    Or that other Grocer-->AH glitchies are taking a little less of a cut than you?

    Or is it  that 2 people post for the same price and since it is sorted by time the 2nd can flood the 1st person to page 3?

    If it is that other people are underselling you...for items taken from the vendor ...*shrug* Take less of a cut or get out of the re-selling business.
     
    @Wheeler--"Less clutter would benefit buyers too" What do you mean?

    For some items there should be added sort features, for example, powders and firefly jars which have different quantities.

    I cannot think of an example where fewer items on auctions benefits buyers....can you post an example?
     
    Posted 13 months ago by M<3tra, obviously Subscriber! | Permalink