Enforce Gold-Only Transactions

[Falka]

Please keep the -1s coming because it isn't like this thread is a well-intentioned attempt to identify a weak spot in cRPG and improve it.

I think that solution you proposed is wrong, that's why I downvoted your post. Pls, don't tell me you care about your infamy. And if someone really thinks that market is devil's tool I'd propose barter only deals, without additional gold on the top. Just item for item. No one would lose gold this way.

Updated OP. It is a strange coincidence that everyone who has -1'd the idea has a lot to lose from improving the interface.

I have nothing to lose cause I have already more looms than I need and basically don't trade any more

PS. Kisses and "-"s for u

PS2. Oh, one more thing.

Currently, the only way to know a Danish Greatsword is relatively poor value is to click through multiple pages of offers and requests, click through even more pages of offers and requests for whatever item is being requested in exchange, add a touch of patch history knowledge, and make an estimate.

Nah, you just need to check this one to know that danish aint worth a shit. 100 offers, 10 requests (all like: sth for danish + 200-300 k).
 

[Kafein]

I don't understand your point. In a gold only system you would open the marketplace and could just search by item and sort by price. The only way to get "decent info" in the current system is to compare the various offers of item + gold + heirloom points and make a judgment about what the offer is really worth. That may work for people with 7000 posts who have been playing for years but the system is not intuitive or easy to use.

In a system with direct trading, you only need to know the relative value of two items to create a good trade. One is slightly better ? Put a few dozen k in.

This scenario is actually incredibly infrequent. There are 46 different people trying to get rid of their 2h sword. The number of people currently wanting to trade a 2 handed sword for another 2 handed sword: only seven. Five of those seven want to trade their worthless Danish Greatswords for more valuable weapons; ie what they are really trying to do is get rid of a worthless item any way they can. Only 2 of them are trying to trade it for another. TWO PEOPLE out of FOURTY-SIX. 4.3%. Not "very frequent."

Your reasoning is innaccurate as hell. Listing standing offers is only a way to show what nobody accepts. Few people actually use gold for trading, they just want to have good items and hit people with things, and the marketplace was designed in the first place as a way to exchange heirlooms between main characters of different people. Hell, for months there was no way to trade heirloom points safely and no tax.

Examples:

Dach (downvoted the OP) adds a blanket 55k lazy tax to every item he requests in return for his 2h offers. Does Dach really think +3 Longsword and +3 Mallet are worth 55k more than their respective requests, or does he realize it is impossible to determine the value of the items he wants and just wants to be safe? I wonder why he doesn't like the proposed system. . .

Mwiw (downvoted the OP) adds a blanket 10k lazy tax in addition to his near-worthless Danish Greatsword and then makes 22 different, completely 1-sided offers. I wonder why he likes the old system? Because people are foolish enough to make these terrible trades that he knows he can get away with. Currently, the only way to know a Danish Greatsword is relatively poor value is to click through multiple pages of offers and requests, click through even more pages of offers and requests for whatever item is being requested in exchange, add a touch of patch history knowledge, and make an estimate.

Yes, people create stupid trades, is that a problem ?

I don't understand the difference between being left with an item you don't want (current) and being left with gold you can't use (proposed.) It isn't as though in the current system everyone is running around using Danish Greatsword + Crossbow thinking to themselves "I don't really like these items but I haven't traded them yet so I'll keep using them!"

Imagine you are a 2h swordsman, and say you have a +3 GGS and want a shiny +3 SoW instead. Thing is, you use that +3 GGS because it is kinda good, you just want a +3 Sow because it is better. You don't want to be unable to use an heirloomed sword for an indefinite amount of time just because you wanted to change.



The bottom line is, having to do two trades instead of one for something as basic as exchanging items is not acceptable.

[Wrangham]

In a system with direct trading, you only need to know the relative value of two items to create a good trade. One is slightly better ? Put a few dozen k in.

Nobody does this. Everyone assumes their item is relatively more valuable, e.g. Dach asking for 55k no matter what item he requests.

Your reasoning is innaccurate as hell. Listing standing offers is only a way to show what nobody accepts.

Then why do we have this system? Nobody accepts the offers because they are obviously unfair but most of the time it is too difficult to figure out how to arrange a fair trade.

Imagine you are a 2h swordsman, and say you have a +3 GGS and want a shiny +3 SoW instead. Thing is, you use that +3 GGS because it is kinda good, you just want a +3 Sow because it is better. You don't want to be unable to use an heirloomed sword for an indefinite amount of time just because you wanted to change.

Current system: You see an offer of +3 SOW. He wants a +3 GGS + 100k. You think that's unfair so you post an offer of +3 GGS for +3 SOW. Nobody accepts it because like our in-house expert/troll Falka points out: "first rule of the market - to rule them all - make your own offers."  What can you do? Click through a dozen links to determine if you've just been unlucky or maybe your idea of relative value is not so accurate?

The bottom line is, having to do two trades instead of one for something as basic as exchanging items is not acceptable.

Every comment you have made has ignored any possible positive outcome from a gold-only system, despite my evidence that only 4.3% of people are trying to make the kind of offers you keep talking about. That 4.3% is not science so take it with a grain of salt, but don't act like ridiculous offers are not the norm.

Yes, my proposal negatively impacts the 0.001% of trades which involve a guy who:

A - loves his item,
B - but still wants to trade it (for some reason. . . )
C - and can't stand not having a replacement heirloom immediately.

I do not propose my system as a perfect solution., but your entire criticism of a gold-only system is premised on being unable to use an heirloom which you do not want for a few hours or days. And you ignore every possible advantage of a gold-only system.  I list several cons in the OP. I wish you would have the decency to do the same and look at both sides of the argument instead of just finding one problem and harping on it for the sake of maintaining your tax-free trading post.

[Phew]

A "better" way would be if the system tracked every marketplace transaction, threw out obvious "stones for +3 item for my clanmate" trades, converted each trade to an equivalent gold value, and displayed the current trailing average gold value for each item like a stock ticker: "+3 Danish Greatsword 800k ^20k" etc.

The algorithm would be complex, but after enough trades, the "true" value of items would be very transparent. Actually, I bet someone has already been logging the transaction history and doing just this for their own gain.

EDIT; OK, the algorithm wouldn't actually be complex. Just start by initializing every item to some arbitrary value; a +1 say 300k, a +2 600k, +3 900k for instance. Then after each trade, adjust the "value" calculation based on the gold delta for the trade. i.e. someone trades a +3 danish & 200k for a +3 Longsword? The "value" of the danish drops to 700k. And just keep a running average based on the last 3 months or whatever.

[Malaclypse]

I don't see why you'd have to get rid of Item for Item trades. Why not just get rid of the ability to add gold to them?

[Wrangham]

I don't see why you'd have to get rid of Item for Item trades. Why not just get rid of the ability to add gold to them?

Almost no one does it, the few that do are still looking to make unfair deals, and (I imagine) it would make it harder to implement the changes because you would have to make changes to the framework already in place. Instead of just removing the "requested item" column you would have to jig up some new system. Maybe it would be simple to code straight trades and a gold-only system but again I don't think it would be very useful even if it was.

That being said I agree there is no problem with allowing people to trade item for item as long as there is also a system to intuitively determine their relative values.

[Kafein]

Wrangham, you want evidence that what you propose would effectively hurt a majority of the trades that actually happen ?

Look at this : http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=marketplacestatistic&view=recent

I cba to make an exact count, but from what I can see, about 1 in 10 heirloom trades (actual trades, not gifts) are full gold/LP vs item trades and roughly 90% are the exchanges you are suggesting to make impossible, out of which about one half involve an additional small sum of gold. And that additional gold is present on both sides of the offers.

[Wrangham]

Wrangham, you want evidence that what you propose would effectively hurt a majority of the trades that actually happen ?

Look at this : http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=marketplacestatistic&view=recent

I cba to make an exact count, but from what I can see, about 1 in 10 heirloom trades (actual trades, not gifts) are full gold/LP vs item trades and roughly 90% are the exchanges you are suggesting to make impossible, out of which about one half involve an additional small sum of gold. And that additional gold is present on both sides of the offers.

What does this matter? Yes, people are making do with the current system to trade items. That does not change the fact that the system needlessly encourages over pricing and mindless clicking through two dozen trade screens.

[Miwiw]

Mwiw - 22 offer on marketplace, all asking for X item in exchange for his near worthless Danish Greatsword.

?

Anyway, I dislike the idea, that's why I downvoted the OP.

[Bronto]

+1 because I've played for a long time and have had people in my clan make stupid trades before they could ask me if it was smart or not. You're right that the people with the most market "experience" (also known as shitlords) will always pull the add gold and it's a deal on you. Just be careful trading and trade with people you know and or like.

[Dach]

Players should only exchange items/loom points for an amount of gold and the 5% tax on item exchanges should be lowered to 1%.

That's stupid... removing item for item trade is the base function of the market... why remove it???

One problem with the current system is that understanding the implications of accepting any given offer requires a near encyclopedic knowledge of prior transactions and patch histories. Players are unable to sift through the labyrinthine amount of offers and requests, let alone draw a meaningful set of conclusions about item value from that data.

lol, yeah I made a 3 year degree's in C-RPG market university to start my career as a trader. 

- Some players resent change. Players who have invested hundreds of hours into figuring out how to game the market will not like this change.

lol, again hundreds of hours... Yeah I put my item in the market to make profit, You got a problem with that?! Anyway your system wouldn't prevent me from doing profit, it would just make me change the way of doing it.

- Some players think the devs are removing everything from the game and that more complexity is always good. This change will bring about simplicity.

Where will be the simple I trade my item for your item?

- This change will complicate the ability of players to gift heirlooms by trading rocks or straw hats. But there is an easy workaround. Just make a post in the marketplace declaring your intention to trade to so-and-so player and then do it quickly. It isn't like there are many players spamming refresh on the marketplace waiting to grab a deal that an admin will just revert anyways.

Now gift are bad?!? The fuck... If I want to give some of my heirloom to a clanmate, that's my choice and you got nothing to do with that.

===Reduce the Tax===

The 5% tax rate is probably too high for pure gold transfers. I suggest reducing it to 1-2%. I suspect but cannot prove that 99.99% of gold taken out of the system is done so via item repairs and not the tax on transactions so reducing the tax should not affect gameplay.

Here I could agree, fuck tax! That's actually why I charge 55k instead of 50k... Someone need to pay for the stupid tax... and it's not me. 

Overall you are just removing options, which is bad... Options are good.

[Wrangham]

Overall you are just removing options, which is bad... Options are good.

The option to sell things at ridiculously inflated values to players who don't care to study dozens of pages of items is a great addition to C-RPG! My bad, I am only just realizing this. Deleting OP now . . . Viva la options.

Also if you are going to quote something which I have clearly labelled under a section titled "===CONS===" it would be decent to leave that in the quote. You seem to have taken a huge chunk of my OP out of context so I won't respond to the rest of your post.

[Dach]

The option to sell things at ridiculously inflated values to players who don't care to study dozens of pages of items is a great addition to C-RPG! My bad, I am only just realizing this. Deleting OP now . . . Viva la options.

I'm not forcing them to accept my offer... if they don't like it than can just put their own offer for the item they want...

It's called CHOICE...

Also if you are going to quote something which I have clearly labelled under a section titled "===CONS===" it would be decent to leave that in the quote. You seem to have taken a huge chunk of my OP out of context so I won't respond to the rest of your post.

I repsonded to the specific part I wanted to... it's not like I deleted your OP... it's still there to read if someone care...

[Torost]

Only trading in gold would make the market easier for those that do not follow it closely.
And those who lack patience.
Easier to compare prices, tighter spreads etc..
5% tax is too much pricedistortion, it would have to be removed or reduced.

Today there is a group of players that play the market like its a game.. crpg-trader.
Looking for arbitrages, circletrades that gives profit. Buy low -sell high. Or just see value.
Stocking up on unpopular items today.. like +3 crossbows and +3 Danishes +3 Rusbows,knowing that they will be more popular in the future when the market has cleared out the excess.
You do not have to be very clever either. Just have some patience.

The best profits comes from the ultra-rich gen 30+ players. The old gold crowd.
That just want something INSTANTLY.

[Rumblood]

I down voted you for editing your OP with ad hominem. Next time argue the merits of your case.