Topic

Why are you throwing away money? Auction smart!

Disclaimer: There are many ways to play the game, and one may be to provide things to the community as a whole at a discount. That's admirable, though annoying to me insofar as it limits the emergence of an interesting market. But I wouldn't tell people not to do so or that they're bad for doing so.

However: I don't think that the majority of people are that altruistic. Yet when looking on the auctions, it's frankly surprising the vast amount of items sold at a pure loss. The purpose of this topic is to provide information so that if you don't want to give away profit, you can avoid the same mistake!

The often overlooked downside to the auctions is the listing and commission fees. Altogether those cost a total of 9.5% of the listing price if the item sells (Let's hope!). But what this means is when you see that your items are going for a nice 200currents each, you're not actually getting 200currents each!

Now the main alternative to selling to players through the auction house is selling to in-game vendors. Unfortunately this means the items poof away - but don't fret! You're actually helping the economy by sinking some of the vast amount of resources that people produce! It's good for everyone! When selling to vendors, the only real choice is whether you hike to a Tool Vendor or not - these guys, one in Cebarkul in Uralia and one all the way in the Ilmenskie mines, buy items for 80% of their listed value. Good deal!

So, if you know that no matter what, you can get 80% of the listed value, what does that mean to you in terms of auctions? First thought would be hey - if I'm selling for over 80% that's a good deal. But no! Remember those fees we talked about! In fact, if you're selling for anything under about 88.4% you are getting less money than if you had just sold it to Mr. Tooly.

(Math break! Finding the breakeven point, let's assume a 100c item:
90.5% * aucprice = 80% * 100
aucprice = 88.39779 currents - sell above that and make money, sell below and lose)

Now look at the auction house. Look at awesome stew. There are over 200 stews priced under the 176.8 breakeven point! Some way way under! There's >50 Earthshakers under the breakeven point! >150 no-no powders under! I bring all of these up because they're some items that are bought and sold a lot. Please note that it's not worth buying and trying to resell these yourself, but you don't want to fall into the trap of undercutting them further!

So next time you go to sell something, this is all you have to remember:
Value * .884 = Minimum Auction Price

If people are already selling under that price in large numbers... Take a hike to Mr. Tool Vendor. :)

Posted 14 months ago by Abby Smalls Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

1 2 Next
  • @CTP, I just wanted to clarify, I'm not saying, "I've slaved in the kitchen making all this gumbo and no one wants to buy it.  I want to be compensated!"  I was more or less speaking generally.  Anything you harvest or create has an intrinsic value of at least the amount of energy you spent creating or harvesting it.  Supply and demand will determine the markup.  My argument is against the very simplistic view that because you didn't spend currants to purchase the raw materials, then selling the finished product for even 1 currant equates to no loss on your end.  This view fails to account for energy, which as I've said, is a currency.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think one solution here is to band together and find ways to sell directly to other players.  If we do so, we bypass the auction fee structure and are able to price items closer to the vendor buy-back price and still make (some) fair profit. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • WalruZ, I attempted to do a sort of bartering group for crop/herb growers (shameless plug after the break):
    www.glitch.com/groups/RNVR0...
    The idea was to trade what you had for what you were in need of, without the use of currants.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I said I would not post here again.  But I want to comment that I am very disappointed at how my words are being misrepresented.  Have fun everybody.  However you wish to do so.  Parrow out.
    Posted 14 months ago by Parrow Gnolle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Your argument is invalid since I spend 100% of my time in AB.
    Posted 14 months ago by Bashere Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ugh, flask, you're missing my point.  I do snipe your products for profit.  But I can't snipe them all.  Actions like yours break the economy.  It's not about min/maxing profit -- if you had actually read both of my posts in this thread, you would see that I clearly drop things at less than 80% value -- you would have seen that because I directly stated it.  

    My concern is that when your auctions go up, auctions that get posted afterwards go in below that chopped price, permanently lowering the economy, removing the INCENTIVE to sell to other players.  Which, like it or not, is a big part of this game.  Right now, for example, anyone with animal husbandry is better off selling to a vendor.  It's fine that you give things away -- I have a friend that I practically support in the game and I give things away to new players when they ask me questions just to be nice -- but it is not fine, from a game mechanics standpoint, that a supposed MMO creates more incentive to essentially destroy items and sell them to an NPC rather than sell them to players.  Given that this is the exact opposite of what the developers appear to be aiming for, I'd say that's a problem.  

    And again, a functioning economy will not interfere with your play style and will actually make it easier for you to get things that you want.  A non-functioning economy interferes with the economic/crafter play style -- so if the economy functions properly, everybody wins.  

     
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Joojoo, re:  your most recent point: Totally agree.
    Energy SHOULD be a currency.
    But it is not.
    Efficacy is actually the currency.
    This goes back to NEED.
    Wood trees, ****ed hard to find; wood beans? Sustainable value.
    Herb buffs! No one wants to live in the swamps (I'm considering moving, too.) but that's where herbs ARE. So, limited supply, and sustainable price.
    Piggies! Who wants to grow them, when you can pignap and post?
    Sustainable again!
    Oh, and gems.
    And high energy food.
    What matters is what the market wants.
    And you can see that with historical pricing.
    Glitchen want buffs, energy, high-value donatables, and love.
    But no one can put a price on love.
    So, it's the first three.
    Posted 14 months ago by CrashTestPilot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • **removed because this is why I hate getting involved in these kinds of discussions.
    Posted 14 months ago by MaryLiLamb Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Parrow: You said you see these threads as people being upset about being underpriced, and you accused me of wanting to min/max and not "playing right" in the thread where you brought up Ferengis.  

    If I'm misrepresenting your words, I wish you'd come back and explain how.  All I see is you assuming the motivations of others.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • One thing that I have not seen calculated into any of this discussion is the cost of failed auctions either in currants or in time.  For me, this makes the entire auction process not worth using for selling.  It also pretty much demands that you place your selling price below the current low.  I haven't shopped for any items in huge lots, so I've never considered buying anything at above the lowest price.

    If I sell to a vendor, the item is sold, and I have my money right away.  I have put items on auction at the lowest price, paid the fee, and then watched the next several sellers undercut the price on my sales.  I can't edit my selling price, only cancel and pay another fee to re-post it.  If I don't decide to cancel the auction, I then I wait a day or so, and get the item back.  And probably sell it to a vendor anyway.  I generally prefer to skip all of those preceding steps, and just sell stuff to the vendors.  I make sure to sell to the tool vendors when mining or traveling nearby, but my teleportation level is low, so I generally just sell to the nearest vendor. 

    I suppose, if so much stuff is going at such low prices I should perhaps check the auctions out for buying more often, but I'd generally rather mine, crush elements, and stir powders than just buy them off a market.  The crafting is most of the fun of the game for me in the first place.  I usually only buy what I don't have the skill to make yet.
    Posted 14 months ago by KhaKhonsu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Those are good points, Mereret.

    Also, Saucelah -- such a good point about the snipers. While flask is doing newbies (or whomever) a favor at heart... the snipers come in, buy all the cheap loot and sell for profit.
    Posted 14 months ago by emdot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Mereret just laid it all out there -- there's no reason to sell to players.  

    I do, and sometimes under what I'd get from a vendor, but I'm slowly losing my will to care -- and that will likely end with me no longer playing the game.  I can sell items to vendors in any single player game.  

    So far, things like Ghost Tours and helping out friends have kept me around while waiting to see where they go with the game, but I don't find those things worth giving the developers my money.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Though I don't think there's anything against it in the TOS since auctions are not in-game, I suspect some people have worked out an app that checks the value of an auction against what it can be sold for at a tool vendor.  When I sell certain items that I know are underpriced, they tend to get snatched up all by one player quickly.  And I know one person isn't out looking for 3 or more of the same common musicblock.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actions like yours break the economy. 
    Please do your research before listing an item and you and the economy will be better off.
    What matters is what the market wants.
    This view fails to account for energy, which as I've said, is a currency.

    You folks are playing a very different game from many of us.  Personally, I don't care about taking care of the economy or the economy being better off, or what the market wants.  The time i spend in the game is an amusement for me, which means that the energy I use or the currants that I gain, lose, or fail to gain are worth exactly zero to me, as long as I am amused during the time I am here. 

    Kinda like watching a movie:  it's all light, shadows, and pixels.   It distracts me from real-world concerns for a while.  I feel refreshed when I step away from the computer.  It is FUN. 

    Energy isn't a currency in the game I play.  Pricing is a whimsical decision, which makes the game fun for me. 

    It's unfortunate that the arguments in this thread have devolved into yet another set of instructions on how everyone else should play a game so that the game conforms to your style of playing and expectations of how things are supposed to be.  If throwing away money makes the game more fun, then you should expect to see a lot of people doing it. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Mereret, you hit the nail on the head for why the current "marketplace" (this is not a true auction) is so flawed:  You must set a sale price that cannot be amended and you are exposed to undercutting with no tools to combat it.  I believe there are those who share the sentiments of some of the posters on this thread and sell low simply to be helpful (though I think they'd be more helpful if they just handed the goodies to newbies instead), but I also think there are quite a bit of players who sell low simply because they don't know any better and instinctively go lower than the cheapest price just to be at the top of the list.  I suspect that if they knew they could take their items to a Tool Vendor and instantly cash in more for their items, they wouldn't be using the marketplace.

    What we need is a true auction system.  Let the system set a starting bid (for the lazy) and a reserve price (optional) and let the free market determine the final bid.  I don't see how this impairs anyone's experience.  Philanthropic Glitches can choose to not set a reserve price.  Those who are more concerned about market price can set their own reserve price.  Win/Win for all me thinks.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @WindBorn: I didn't read this as instructions (tho want to acknowledge that I do see that you read it that way). And to be honest, I've learned a lot about the auctions and how others approach it (making me second guess myself: am i a mean glitchy?). Plus, some of the points brought up I hadn't considered -- such as Mereret's points. All very interesting.
    Posted 14 months ago by emdot Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Fair enough, WindBorn.  We are playing a different game.  But please don't mistake a discussion about markets in a game that the developers have said themselves should have a player-driven economy for a dictatorial treatise on how you should adapt and conform.  No one has said as much.  I believe you are misconstruing this discussion because you either have not fully read the thread or you came into it with your mind made up already (incidentally, why are people with no interest in markets posting on a thread discussing markets?)

    You say energy isn't a currency in the game you play.  I beg to differ.  You may have placed no value on energy, but it is very much a currency.  It has a limited supply, and it is used for actions you perform in the game.  That is a currency.

    ETA: If currants aren't important and you play the game for the fun factor, why are you selling 3x Cabbage seeds for 125c?  The vendor sells them for 26c each, so that's a whole 60% markup.  That doesn't sound very whimsical.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • One of those quotes is actually not supporting the other three, if you read the context.  

    I don't think I'm playing a different game from you at all.  I don't pay a lot of attention to a few currents here and there, and despite knowing I could make more at a vendor, I prefer to sell to players.  Because selling to players is fun for me.  

    However, when I see a game that bills itself as an MMO with a backbone of crafting and plans to have a player driven economy by "removing the scaffolding" over time and then look at the state of the economy now, I see trouble coming.  I see a game that desperately needs to create incentive to sell to players rather than vendors.  I'd be happy if they just killed the vendors.  Or dropped the payoff significantly like it is for flaps of no-no powder.  As it stands now, whimsical pricing decisions do break the economy because they remove incentive to participate.  

    I'm not trying to change your behavior.  With a greater margin between auctions and vendor prices, whimsical pricing decisions will be absorbed.  It just doesn't work that way with the current UI or with the vendor buyback system.  Those problems can be fixed, and then both play types can coexist.  I would argue that I am being inclusive and you are issuing me instructions about how to play.  

    And while I don't think about it much myself, whether you think about it or not, energy is a currency for everyone in this game.  It's a basic mechanic that cannot be escaped.  

      
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • .
    Posted 14 months ago by MaryLiLamb Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It's unfortunate that the arguments in this thread have devolved into yet another set of instructions on how everyone else should play a game so that the game conforms to your style of playing and expectations of how things are supposed to be.

    @Windborn: Unfortunately, I agree with you, to a point... There will always be people in any gameplay discussion that don't understand that different people play for different reasons and many straw men, ad hominem attacks and much begging the question.

    At the same time, the OP was presenting a question: WHY do you do things like this, and how do we address that? I think there was some valuable discussion going on throughout, and I was hoping to get the discussion back on track, and I think Mereret had some of the same points about the current system, even if she may not have read my post.

    Can we try to keep this discussion going with the understanding that not everyone values the same interactions in the game and will be playing with the same motivations? I think the point of the OP wasn't that everyone SHOULD play a certain way, but maybe if we understand why people do or don't do things, maybe we can address the underlying causes and figure out how to keep as many playing styles interested as possible.

    Thanks!
    Posted 14 months ago by EnnuiStreet Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What would be perfect would be a system like that which is used in City of Heroes/Villains.  When you list an item, the only information you are given is what price it sold at the last 5 or six times it sold, and the date and time of those sales.  It gives a good idea of the demand and the price range.  Then you choose a price.  

    Similarly, when you buy an item, you get the same information that the sellers got.  You do not see a list of available items.  You simply enter the quantity you want to buy and the price you are willing to pay -- if your price exceeds the sellers asking price, you get as many of those items up to what you desired that fall under that price.  

    The system allows for whimsical generous pricing while not causing all prices to rapidly drop or fluctuate based on that decision.  Everybody's happy.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • the CoH system also limits how many sales go to resellers -- it's a serious time sink to bid low and incrementally increase your bid until you either go beyond what is profitable to resell or obtain the item.  It is occasionally done, but it is usually not worth the time.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Saucelah, I believe what you're suggesting is introducing a buy order system, so that buy/sell orders are matched based on quantity and price.  I would support that.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • emdot, there's a lot of good information here.  But the arguments themselves assume that everyone playing is motivated/concerned/cares about  the economic dynamics of the game. Some are on the profiteering side, some are on the philanthropic side, but they are all playing styles that are built on the economic dynamics of the game.

    The assumptions and arguments get ridiculous when people start arguing that someone can't ignore some part of the economic structure. Sure we can.  Many of us do, not out of ignorance but out of total unconcern for the assumptions and issues being argued over. 

    As long as there are people who willfully ignore the economic "rules", there will be a great deal of irrational behavior in the market.  Add to that the irrational behavior of people who don't yet understand enough to behave rationally,.   Trying to squeeze all the irrational behavior out of the market will make this far less whimsical and far more like the games where in-game currency is converted to real-world money, and thus loses its playfulness. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yeah, I don't think we should be able to peruse the items on sale, just see what they typically have sold for in the past and make a bid.  Bids that go over the asking price obtain the item instantly.  Also in CoH, sales never expire -- you can see the available quantity of an item, but not the prices those sellers have asked for, so it is only fair to not punish players for overpricing.  

    It really makes much more sense than what we have and allows for freedom to sell cabbage seeds at a 60% markup (or a 60% discount) without it having a huge impact on other people's sales and/or purchasing behaviors.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • While it's fine to not care about it, caring about the future of this game requires caring about the state of the economy.  It's built into their plans for it.  As skills expand and specialization increases, there have to be incentives for players to sell to players.  

    I think you're mistaking looking at the economy seriously with taking the economy too seriously.  What I'm seeing with the economy is not my inability to milk Glitchen for all they've got, but an inability for the economy to support the plans of the developers.  I also suspect that as the newness of the game wears off, and players aren't clamoring for invites, that there will be more players that notice there is more value in selling to vendors than players and less items for sale on auction.  While that may fix the issues of a glut of supply, that doesn't do much for playfulness either.  And as the skills expand making it harder to do everything for yourself, there needs to be incentive to sell to players or players will not be able to find the items they are looking for.  And that creates a mass exodus for everyone, not just the min/maxers, not just the philanthropists, not just the cabbage seed price gougers, but the entire playerbase.  Broken economies lead to players getting cliquey, only selling to their friends, etc.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Supply and demand, at the moment there is more supply than demand. I doubt changing the auction into a true auction rather than the current state would significantly change things, there would still be more supply than demand.  
    I also fail to see how this doesn't benefit newbies or how it makes Glitch into a single-player game. Newbies, with not much currants to their name, can buy cheap tools and materials that they craft/cook/etc. which aids in completing quests and achievements, while the savvy ones can turn a small profit selling to a tool vendor. As for the single-player game thing, either way the auction would never be a true method to encourage player interaction, not even a "Hi" passing between buyer and seller.  

    I think people are forgetting another important factor into the auction's appeal: the value of time. Time = money. Selling for low prices means more space to gather even more items to sell in the time it would take you to travel to the only 2 tool vendors in Glitch. Has anyone even crunched the numbers to see if it's worth the hassle? 

    However, having said all that I do think a more robust auction system would go a long way to soothing those who are concerned with maximizing their profits. Or the simple "solution" eliminate the Tool Vendors.

    @Saucelah: If less people use the auction there will be more demand than supply resulting in higher prices. Right now it seems currants are not hard to come by so people don't mind not getting the highest possible price for their items. I honestly don't see a problem... Those who want the most currants for their items can trek to the tool vendor, those who value time and convenience can use the auction. Everyone wins.
    Posted 14 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Teleport II, one location set to home, one location set to a tool vendor, and the time is . . . INSTANT.  

    Anyway, it's often not cheaper for new glitchen to buy from the market than it is to buy the item from vendors.  Due to fees, the seller is making less than she could at a tool vendor, but the newbie is spending the same or nearly the same.  Deals do get snatched up and resold---yes, I've done it---but this system gives no incentive to sell to players.  That's all I'm arguing, not that others shouldn't mess with my profit margins.  

    I actually have two people on my friend list because they bought things I had listed and I im'd to tell them to reach me directly if they want any more.  But I wasn't actually talking about social interactions, the chat box allows for that whether the game requires it or not.  I was talking about interactions via game mechanics.  As in, if you call your game an MMO, there ought to be reasons why it is claiming to be massive, multiplayer, and online.  People gathering resources in isolation, whether or not they use the chat, then selling to NPCs, completely unaffected by the market, are not people playing a massive or multiplayer game.  And such game mechanics do not even have to happen online.  And it's not what tiny speck has claimed is its plan for the game.   
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • What I'm seeing with the economy is .... an inability for the economy to support the plans of the developers. 

    When you know what those plans are, please reveal them.  I fully trust that TS devs and investors are capable of tweaking the in-game economy to suit their purposes without some players telling other players that they are "breaking the economy" and that as players there is a rule that "requires caring about the state of the economy."

    TS is going to make tweaks that reflect their analysis of the impact of multiple playing styles on their plans for the in-game economy.  For you to claim that you know what those plans are and therefore I need to play differently is ridiculous.  It is just as important that they accommodate my playing style as yours.  In fact, depending on the full player base, I may represent a larger portion of their market. 

    It is important that there be community input around how we would like to play the game.  I'm providing input, just as you are.  Unless you are privy to their development plans (which I have no reason to think you are), defending your personal playing style by claiming it is what the developers are planning is disingenuous, to say the least.
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Actually, I will look for the link, but I have read an interview in which they stated that while the economy is highly regulated by vendors now, they plan to "remove the scaffolding" and create a "player-driven economy"  

    So I would suggest you read some gaming news before you claim to know I am making stuff up.  This information is not particular to me, it is public.  

    ETA: http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2011/10/stewart-butterfield-glitch-mmo-second-life.html   

    “As the systems of the game get more stable and we have a large enough player base, we can, for example, start to ‘remove the scaffolding’ of the game economy (the fixed-price vendor system, the system-run auctions, etc.) and let players drive the those systems. "  -- Stewart Butterfield, Tiny Speck
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • And again, I highly doubt our play styles are very different.   However, as an MMO vet and reviewer, I'm accustomed to looking at the systems closely and have experience with the pitfalls and alternatives.  And I'm accustomed to writing about those issues and discussing alternatives.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm sure your input is as valuable as mine.  I have watched as parts of that scaffolding have  been removed over the past few months, and in no instance did it require me to care about the state of the economy or become less whimsical in my behavior.

    Nothing that Stewart has said indicates that in  the future I will be required to care about the economics or be less whimsical.  Its great to watch these debates, but just like real life, you can't force anyone to care or to become more rational. 

    Depending on their analysis of their massive amounts of data, some of which they have mentioned in these threads, their decisions will reflect not so much what has happened in the pasts with MMOs, but with how they want to shape a new game form that is not intended to necessarily attract the usual gaming crowd and their habitual playing style. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • WindBorn, please humor me and tell me why in one breath you say you don't care about the economy and in the other you are so troubled about what you perceive to be being told you're breaking the economy (although no one has actually said that, but it appears you believe this to be true)...so much so that you have spent quite a bit of time responding in a thread that discusses a topic you apparently have no interest in...
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ok.  The game has not been live for two months, and they've only taken a handful of high-end food, seasoned beans & eggs, and some high end tools off.  And I'm disingenuous.  Got it.  

    But you don't have to care. I have not said that you will be required to care.  But the game will function better if the developers care, and these developers have shown that they take ideas from the community.  

    If you look at my sales, you will find they are underpriced.  Someone else has already pointed out that at least one of your items is overpriced.  I think you need to tone down the whole "I'm so whimsical.  I don't care about the economy" routine and go be whimsical in the game, gouging newbies for basic items.  

    Let the people who do care talk about it, and you can simply benefit from the results.  
    Posted 14 months ago by Red Sauce Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Saucelah: But teleporting requires tokens which are limited in supply or costs real money. So tokens and real life money are another incentive to use the auction besides time and convenience.

    Tools and materials regularly show up cheaper on the auction than vendors.

    I also think you're kind of barking up the wrong tree about encouraging the multi-player part in a mmo through the auction. There is probably a very low percentage of people who look at a full figured auction system as a game enhancing feature or the lack of one as game breaking. Rather than indirect interaction why not ask Tiny Speck for more direct interaction through more group quests, group achievements and group activities in general. (To be fair to them they did just release a party thing :)
    Posted 14 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Saucelah :)
    Posted 14 months ago by MaryLiLamb Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Joojoo
    I am not interested in the algorithms and rules for creating a game economy.  I am interested in lively public discussion that ensures that all sides of an issue are brought into the debate.  If only one side of the community is heard from then the data available for decision making are unbalanced and do not actually reflect various interest groups. 

    If only the economists talk about the economy, then it is not a public debate.  It is a scholarly debate between economists.

    The entire thread is reminiscent of early threads on Flickr.  For years, people railed against "amateur" photographers who undercut professionals.  Failure to charge a "professional" rate for their services or even not charging at all for their time was predicted to bring about the downfall of the entire professional photographic community. 

    But, instead, people created microstock businesses and online services that provided the customer with more options and cheaper goods.  If the only way to prop up a craft is to make sure that people don't "throw away money", then it is quite likely that some other enterprise will evolve that is more adapted to the "more options and cheaper goods" model. 

    With the potlatch culture that has become so imbedded in Glitch, it will be interesting to see how the game engine evolves to accommodate these less conventional MMO playing styles. 
    Posted 14 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No, no, no. Teleporting doesn't have to use tokens. At teleport 5, you have 3 map teleports per game day and the ability to set 3 teleport points as well as teleporting other player to you and making tele script in addition to significant increase in energy efficiency. Tokens are used if you still want to map teleport but has used all your daily map teleports. You can teleport to your teleport points infinite times as long as you have the energy if I'm not mistaken.
    Posted 14 months ago by gamecharacter Subscriber! | Permalink
  • But T5 takes like 7 days to learn even with no penalty... at most you can get 50% reduction. I wonder how many people even have that skill. Players who don't, teleporting costs energy, you need to factor the cost of that too.

    So im saying there ARE incentives to use the auction maybe not to all player but enough. If those incentives decrease (like more people get T5 or there's more enticing things to spend currants on) then we'll see less supply on the auction and/or higher prices.

    Uh.. even though im playing devil's advocate right now im not against a more intricate auction system. The more options, the better in my books and will accommodate more types of players. I just don't believe the auction is full-out broken but more like a little baby auction who has lots of room to grow.
    Posted 14 months ago by Fur Subscriber! | Permalink
  • *fingers in ears*

    lalalaaaaah.

    don't care about functioning economy. bores me to death. i'm playing GAMES here, not creating economic models.

    please continue to snipe my auction prices. it supposrts me and my pay very nicely and you are welcome to do with the profit what you will.

    la la lahhhhhhhhh.

    *giggle*
    Posted 14 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I see this issue coming up over and over, and, tbh, if I hadn't played the beta, I'd be right there with the OP.  However, flask is right.  If you aren't here for the antigrav parties, I'm not saying your way of playing is wrong, but I am pointing out that it seems to me that TS has basically gone out of their way to make your version of the game boring.  If they had any real interest in an economy simulator, the auction page probably wouldn't suck so hard! ;)
    Posted 14 months ago by FlirtyvonSexenhaven Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Flirty, as someone who's played the beta, you have been around a while, and you probably should know that TS developed Glitch as a slate to be shaped and molded by the community.  They have also expressed that they wish to transition from a vendor driven economy to a player driven one.  If the auction system currently blows chunks, it's not because TS don't want a robust tool for the economy.  It's probably because they're monitoring activity and discussing tweaks.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Fair enough, joojoo.  I am a bit callous about these things at times, but I don't honestly think that TS deserve to be called out as if their handling of the auction page was irresponsible (as I may well have done with my hyperbole).  To clarify, though, I do assume it must not be a priority.  It's been a pain in the ass to auction stuff since just about forever, we script-users have a huge market advantage, and I would rather assume they've been aware of the issue, tbh.  I don't think they are magnificent fools for devising such a system, no; it's not really that terrible an auction page, but numerous issues have been pointed out at least dozens of times, and I just don't think it's a priority for them.  I truly have nothing but love for the TS staffers I have "met"! <3  I just get in my entitled gamer mode and whip those opinions out there pretty unfiltered! :/

    PS, I have to go now... if I miss your reply to my reply, would it be unfair to blame that on the mediocre forum featureset? ^^;
    Posted 14 months ago by FlirtyvonSexenhaven Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Touche Flirty, touche.  :)

    And I agree with you.  If we have a crappy auction system, it's not because TS doesn't care or are lazy, but rather because it's just not a priority right now.  If they were going to have this game at a level they'd feel comfortable with, it would never get out of Beta.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think that the fact that the game economics currently reward taking the results of your crafting and either selling them to a vendor or stuffing them into a shrine donation bin is a problem from a social point of view.   Producers should be rewarded for supplying items to other Glitchen first and foremost.  Selling to a vendor should be a temporary last resort during periods of oversupply.
      
    And no, auctioning items at a super-low price doesn't reward other Glitchen.  Those items just wind up being sold to a vendor anyway.  

    As a number of posts upward say so well, Economic activity should bring Glitchen together, not isolate them.  
    Posted 14 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 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
  • This has gone so far overboard into speculation and weird social engineering theories that it's sort of funny to one detached from the issue.  I'm going to make two brief points:

    1. The real currency of the game is "fun".

    2. One view is that the solution would be to get rid of the artificial price support provided by the vendors, and the arbitrary "this is worth that" label on the items themselves.  Without that, I expect you'd see prices drop lower than they currently are (especially for food items, which currently provide an energy and currant margin of around 100% - that's a lot of room for people to drop their price and be happy with the profit).

    I think you won't see #2 because of #1, but let's be careful what we ask for.
    Posted 14 months ago by matt Subscriber! | Permalink
  • matt, I hope you realize that you're engaging in the same activity you seem to be against when you say things like, "the real currency is fun".  I could say that "fun" is not a currency but rather a byproduct of the time you spend playing Glitch.  Are you saying I'm wrong for thinking this way?  Because you said fun was the real currency.
    Posted 14 months ago by Joojoo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ah I didn't know about Tool Vendors paying more than others. I'll probably hit those up more often as my attempts at auctioning so far haven't been at all successful.
    Posted 14 months ago by Anaglyph Subscriber! | Permalink
1 2 Next