Offline Selling... - Page 3

ladeni · 03-29-2005, 11:16 AM

agree with vurin , put in a bazaar or something like it please.

Dolf Goodchee · 03-29-2005, 10:35 PM

Kroder wrote:

You do understand, I hope, that these players are not coming out of thin air.

They are trying to sell their goods already. They just have not been able to reach the prime time market without sacrificing their own play time.

The players trying to sell their goods already would not be the ones to cause the maket flood. The players that would be "coming out of thin air", or, haven't been interested / bothered with selling before, are the ones that will cause great problems.

And you're right with "The marketplace isn't going to burn down, if this happens." .............. it will be flooded.

Kroder · 03-29-2005, 11:28 PM

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:

The players trying to sell their goods already would not be the ones to cause the maket flood. The players that would be "coming out of thin air", or, haven't been interested / bothered with selling before, are the ones that will cause great problems.

And you're right with "The marketplace isn't going to burn down, if this happens." .............. it will be flooded.

That is terrible to hear someone say. You would imply that these players have no right to sell their goods, because they chose to adventure, or tradeskill.

They did not give up their right to sell goods, just because they would not use the AFK online model for being a merchant. Indeed, these players have been long overdue an opportunity to have a chance to sell the goods they have managed to earn, through efforts every bit as legitimate as anyone already selling.

You might as well call the market flooded now, simply because you don't like to see so many people selling a few items. The nature of this economy relies on competition, to buy OR sell. Calling it flooding is a highly missleading action.

So long as the overnight sales cannot meet the prime time demand, the economy is a joke of circumstance.

And no, it is highly unlikely they will allow more than one character to sell at a time on an account. Parallel sales like that could be used by everyone, and would be nearly pointless to enable. You would simply see sales mules appear to fill up slots as they were needed, and would be a coding effort exponentially more complicated.

Multiple account sales is already in existance, and is already a significant advantage to both Sony, (extra account fees), and the players who use it, (dedicated sales mules let them play any character, and still keep selling). Neither would benefit.

Dolf Goodchee · 03-30-2005, 03:27 AM

Kroder wrote:

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:

The players trying to sell their goods already would not be the ones to cause the maket flood. The players that would be "coming out of thin air", or, haven't been interested / bothered with selling before, are the ones that will cause great problems.

And you're right with "The marketplace isn't going to burn down, if this happens." .............. it will be flooded.

That is terrible to hear someone say. You would imply that these players have no right to sell their goods, because they chose to adventure, or tradeskill.

.................

Take off the blinders, please................

Most people that "only" quest/adventure, by their choice, do use the market to sell what they loot, and they must be doing it when they are online.

Now, give those people the option to sell 40-56 items at any time, 24/7, whether they are playing or not, and guess what? They will be selling as much as often as they can......................... when they normally wouldn't have been, by choice. Fixing it for those on dialup and such, would, in a way be creating a huge problem of a deflated market, unless it is done in a limited way.

I hope you can understand that, as I can not explain it in any easier terms.

Camenwolf · 03-30-2005, 08:08 AM

It seems to me that if the reason for on-line selling is simply to limit the number of items on the market that the answer would be to limit the amount of time items could be sold whether online or offline.

In other words, list your items for sell, you have two hours (hypothetically) to sell them, pick your time slot, set your price, then forget about it. Your goods are marketed during that time slot whether you are online or offline. A system could be put in place to show which time slots had the least amount of sellers of your type of good. As an additional money sink, a system could be put in place whereby a certain baseline amount of market time is free. If you want more market time, you have to pay for it. Or possibly the broker charges a higher percentage to the buyer if the seller is using excessive market time and/or a higher percentage to seller and/or buyer depending on the amount of players online at any give time (in order to keep the market from swaying to far into the seller's or buyer's corner)

It just seems to me that it shouldn't be that difficult to come up with a system to limit the market supply without making a half million subscribers leave their freaking computers turned on all day. I'm surprised the EPA hasn't gotten involved in this. They sell computers and monitors which are decked out with power saving features so that hard drives, CRTs, processors, etc. are all shut down automatically when not in use, and a video game is causing people to leave them turned on specifically while the players are *not* playing in order to balance a game dynamic?! Come on! SOE, I have a lot of respect for your talent. I *know* that you can come up with a better system than this.

Best Regards

Camenwolf · 03-30-2005, 08:09 AM

Double posted... sorry. Tried to delete.

Message Edited by Camenwolf on 03-29-2005 07:12 PM

Dolf Goodchee · 03-30-2005, 10:06 PM

Limited selling time is an interesting idea. Although it should only apply to when a player is not in his/her room or offline. They could increase the number of items for sale, say to 20, then limit the time to around 2 hours, useable once per 24 hours. SOE would still have to have an item limit, or there would be market flood at certain times of the day.

Nainitsuj · 03-31-2005, 02:48 AM

I don't get it, SWG got it to work, why can't EQ2 copy the same system (just the bazaar) for ease.

It adds a new money sink, stabalizes(sp?) the economy and makes it possible for people to sell items for money while offline/adventuring.

On a side note, why can't I have a record of what was sold. I hate trying to guess what items I've sold through the night (I check after server reset, when I get home from work)

Message Edited by Nainitsuj on 03-30-2005 01:50 PM

Kroder · 03-31-2005, 03:50 AM

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:
Take off the blinders, please................

Most people that "only" quest/adventure, by their choice, do use the market to sell what they loot, and they must be doing it when they are online.

Now, give those people the option to sell 40-56 items at any time, 24/7, whether they are playing or not, and guess what? They will be selling as much as often as they can......................... when they normally wouldn't have been, by choice. Fixing it for those on dialup and such, would, in a way be creating a huge problem of a deflated market, unless it is done in a limited way.

I hope you can understand that, as I can not explain it in any easier terms.

The market is an aspect of fair play considerations. Like it or not, people who want to sell, and people who are able to sell, are not the same groups. Where they overlap is the current merchant base.

While this is advantageous for those able to currently sell, they do not own exclusive rights to this ability. Sooner or later, their competition will be given the ability to fairly compete in the market.

Make everyone who wants to sell, able to sell, and that will be more in line with absolute fairness.

Natural limitations on item availability will still keep sales in check. People do not spontaneously create goods for sale.

They require raw materials, and effort, (for crafting), or time and patience in adventuring. Neither of these is simple for worthwhile goods to sell.

Having satisfied these requirements, we do not have the right to deny them fair opportunity to sell their goods.

Dolf Goodchee · 03-31-2005, 11:57 PM

Kroder wrote:

The market is an aspect of fair play considerations. Like it or not, people who want to sell, and people who are able to sell, are not the same groups. Where they overlap is the current merchant base.

While this is advantageous for those able to currently sell, they do not own exclusive rights to this ability. Sooner or later, their competition will be given the ability to fairly compete in the market.

Make everyone who wants to sell, able to sell, and that will be more in line with absolute fairness.

Natural limitations on item availability will still keep sales in check. People do not spontaneously create goods for sale.

They require raw materials, and effort, (for crafting), or time and patience in adventuring. Neither of these is simple for worthwhile goods to sell.

Having satisfied these requirements, we do not have the right to deny them fair opportunity to sell their goods.

"Like it or not, people who want to sell, and people who are able to sell, are not the same groups. "

^^ Add to that "people that voluntarily don't sell" and "people that voluntarily only sell loot" currently, then that statement would be correct.

There are a lot of players that just don't sell now, by choice. Dangle a gold nugget in front of their heads, and they are going to stampede to chase it, just because it's there. Not just initially either.

As for your "absolute fairness", that is never going to happen....... ever. That is, unless everyone that plays EQ2 is forced to only use dial-up internet service, have 1 phone line, have the same living conditions, and have only 1 EQ2 account. Personally, I'm going to argue with anyone that says someone with 1 phone line and dial-up service (costing $20-$40/month) with limited connection time should have the same advantages as someone with highspeed service (costing $50-$80/month) that has a connection that is always on. The same goes for someone who only has 1 account to play/sell shouldn't have the same advantage as someone who pays for 2 accounts to sell more.

Therefore, SOE allowing players to sell while outside their houses and maybe offline, but in limited quantities, and leaving the others to sell normally while online and in their houses, will help those players out that are stuck with dial-up, but won't deflate/ruin the market for everyone else.

Kroder · 04-01-2005, 05:25 AM

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:
"Like it or not, people who want to sell, and people who are able to sell, are not the same groups. "

^^ Add to that "people that voluntarily don't sell" and "people that voluntarily only sell loot" currently, then that statement would be correct.

For whatever reasons they choose not to sell, they are still able to sell. I referred to people having both the ability and the desire together as being our merchant base.

The expectation that the current system does not make selling worth their time and effort, is a valid opinion. If an improved means of selling becomes available to them, it is only natural that they would attempt to try it.

There are a lot of players that just don't sell now, by choice. Dangle a gold nugget in front of their heads, and they are going to stampede to chase it, just because it's there. Not just initially either.

As for your "absolute fairness", that is never going to happen....... ever. That is, unless everyone that plays EQ2 is forced to only use dial-up internet service, have 1 phone line, have the same living conditions, and have only 1 EQ2 account. Personally, I'm going to argue with anyone that says someone with 1 phone line and dial-up service (costing $20-$40/month) with limited connection time should have the same advantages as someone with highspeed service (costing $50-$80/month) that has a connection that is always on. The same goes for someone who only has 1 account to play/sell shouldn't have the same advantage as someone who pays for 2 accounts to sell more.

Now you're being funny. The pursuit of an ideal is done because the effort improves the situation. Noone actually expects to achieve absolute fairness, even though it is a pleasing idea.

As for the rest of that paragraph, (detailing how people who can afford better hardware and ISP service deserve a better EQ2 play experience), you seem to feel advantages in EQ2 should be for sale.

If I am not misstaken, it is the players effort that defines their play experience. Noone should have an advantage because they have a cable modem instead of a dial-up connection.

Therefore, SOE allowing players to sell while outside their houses and maybe offline, but in limited quantities, and leaving the others to sell normally while online and in their houses, will help those players out that are stuck with dial-up, but won't deflate/ruin the market for everyone else.

See.. there is that troubling assumption you are making. The idea that if they let people sell their goods during prime time, that it will have a negative effect on the game economy in general.

Depriving a segment of the merchant base the ability to sell on equal ability, because they could not afford a second account, or they happen to play when the best time to sell exists, is wrong. It is depriving the players, who want to buy goods at non-gouging prices, from being able to do so reliably.

Whenever you reduce the competition for goods, the remaining goods on the market are freed from any need to maintain a fair pricing structure for the purpose of competition.

Put another way, if item A can be made, and sold, for less than it normally appears now, you say that such sales should be blocked. Players should not have the ability to make the extra effort to succeed in the market, because their very presence will make the current merchants actually have to charge a more fair price for goods.

The arguments you put forth seem to favor those who would inflate prices when given the opportunity. You seem to want to protect those opportunities.

Yellow = other poster's comments I found noteworthy

Green = my replies to these

Homesli · 04-01-2005, 05:52 AM

Nainitsuj wrote:
I don't get it, SWG got it to work, why can't EQ2 copy the same system (just the bazaar) for ease.

It adds a new money sink, stabalizes(sp?) the economy and makes it possible for people to sell items for money while offline/adventuring.

On a side note, why can't I have a record of what was sold. I hate trying to guess what items I've sold through the night (I check after server reset, when I get home from work)

Message Edited by Nainitsuj on 03-30-2005 01:50 PM

Look for your sales log in your eq2 folder. It doesn't do you any good in game but it exists SMILEY

Hopefully with the new changes it will be better, they did say that you would get a sales log when you log in if you were selling while you were offline.And not sure if someone responded to the guy that made the statement about each character selling offline, you can only have one character selling offline at one time.

Ydiss · 04-01-2005, 03:01 PM

I can only agree with Kroder on this. I have lost count of the times I've needed a particular item when I've been playing and it's not on the market because it's not US prime time. Living in the UK, overnight selling has always been very profitable for me. However, as a buyer, I miss out quite a lot and can often be forced to pay higher prices simply because there's no competition when I'm playing.

More items for sale at all times does not necessarily equal a market flood. The extra items will get bought, the items that don't will come down in price and in turn will be bought. Remember, we still have a finite economy here - very few items can be sold, used and then resold. So the actual amount of items that can be sold, potentially, will not necessarily go up because of vault selling.

Personally, I'd have been happy with online selling only (ie, vault sells to broker but only when you're online). Or, adversely, with offline vault selling only (so that you cannot sell while adventuring). SOE have chosen to impliment the ability to do both, shortly after introducing big changes to limit item flooding (attunable items and quest items no drop).

It's a positive move and saying it'll have a direly negative impact on the market is just doom-saying without any basis or evidence. Speculation is nothing, if the market does start to reach dangerously flooded levels do you seriously think SOE will sit back and say, 'Oh well, we messed that up - nothing we can do now!'

Of course they won't. They'll fix it, if needs be.

Remember, just because more items are for sale at one point does not mean the market is flooded. More availability equals more items being bought as well, you know? And seeing as, like I said above, vault selling doesn't actually increase the amount of items being made or being looted, this can only be a positive thing for the economy. More items being bought, more players spending money on items that are expendible, more items being taken out of the game.

You can't predict a change will be disasterous without even taking a moment to explore the positive affects of the change.

Dolf Goodchee · 04-02-2005, 01:15 AM

Kroder wrote:

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:
............

As for your "absolute fairness", that is never going to happen....... ever. That is, unless everyone that plays EQ2 is forced to only use dial-up internet service, have 1 phone line, have the same living conditions, and have only 1 EQ2 account. Personally, I'm going to argue with anyone that says someone with 1 phone line and dial-up service (costing $20-$40/month) with limited connection time should have the same advantages as someone with highspeed service (costing $50-$80/month) that has a connection that is always on. The same goes for someone who only has 1 account to play/sell shouldn't have the same advantage as someone who pays for 2 accounts to sell more.

Now you're being funny. The pursuit of an ideal is done because the effort improves the situation. Noone actually expects to achieve absolute fairness, even though it is a pleasing idea.

^^ I'm glad you understand that.

As for the rest of that paragraph, (detailing how people who can afford better hardware and ISP service deserve a better EQ2 play experience), you seem to feel advantages in EQ2 should be for sale.

^^ Your words are trying to put an evil twist to mine. The simple and correct interpretation of what I wrote is basically this, that the more effort a person puts into the game, the more he or she should be rewarded. Effort, which includes looting/harvesting/crafting, also includes players running more two accounts (one to adventure/craft and the other to be selling), and yes, even having a cable modem / dsl instead of dial up to be able to be online all the time.  Some players actually work for a living, and spend more money than the minimum, to have highspeed service and/or a second account.

If I am not misstaken, it is the players effort that defines their play experience. Noone should have an advantage because they have a cable modem instead of a dial-up connection.

So you'd have everyone required to use only the lowest common denominator, dial up with one phone line? Yes, I'm being funny there, sort of, but that is what you seem to portray in that statement.

Therefore, SOE allowing players to sell while outside their houses and maybe offline, but in limited quantities, and leaving the others to sell normally while online and in their houses, will help those players out that are stuck with dial-up, but won't deflate/ruin the market for everyone else.

See.. there is that troubling assumption you are making. The idea that if they let people sell their goods during prime time, that it will have a negative effect on the game economy in general.

It will have a negative effect. Not just some people selling some goods during prime time, like I'm referring to, that would be fine. The problem would be a lot of people selling a lot of goods 24/7.

Depriving a segment of the merchant base the ability to sell on equal ability, because they could not afford a second account, or they happen to play when the best time to sell exists, is wrong. It is depriving the players, who want to buy goods at non-gouging prices, from being able to do so reliably.

Whenever you reduce the competition for goods, the remaining goods on the market are freed from any need to maintain a fair pricing structure for the purpose of competition.

Of course monopolies on goods in the market would not be healthy (really can't happen now), but I'm betting that a Marxist economy is not wanted by too many others.

Put another way, if item A can be made, and sold, for less than it normally appears now, you say that such sales should be blocked.

No, I never said that. Look, using your example, if item A can be made and sold for less than the same item is selling for currently, then fine. Here's is where the trouble comes in though.  Expanding on your example: Now, if 10 players make the same type of bed and try to sell them, they will likely compete in price somewhat and the price might be between 60sp - 50sp.  Should SOE implement out-of-house or offline selling that is essentially unlimited (up to 56+ items 24/7), suddenly there is 200 players making / selling the same type of bed and because of too much competition in pricing, the average cost ends up around 25sp, just a couple of silver or copper over the cost of supplies needed. And as a result, in a short period of time, a lot of the players give up crafting because it's not worth their time.  Apply that scenario, in a greater or lesser degree, across the board to anything crafted or harvested, and there's a huge problem with the economy.

Players should not have the ability to make the extra effort to succeed in the market, because their very presence will make the current merchants actually have to charge a more fair price for goods.

And I never said that. I said just the opposite above "the more effort a person puts into the game, the more he or she should be rewarded".

The arguments you put forth seem to favor those who would inflate prices when given the opportunity. You seem to want to protect those opportunities.

I'm looking at the big picture. I enjoy crafting, I enjoy selling, and I enjoy surfing/buying from the market. There are many many others that also enjoy those aspects of the game, and like myself, see them as breaks from just adventuring. I don't want to see any of of those aspects (all dependant on the market/economy) nerfed to pointlessness.

Ydiss wrote:

........................

............. Speculation is nothing, if the market does start to reach dangerously flooded levels do you seriously think SOE will sit back and say, 'Oh well, we messed that up - nothing we can do now!'

Of course they won't. They'll fix it, if needs be.

Yes of course they would. Adding to what I wrote before though, dangle a gold nugget in front of the crowd and you'll get a stampede; pull it away, and you got an angry stampeded crowd. I'm guessing SOE doesn't like doing that to the community. It's would seem in SOE's best interest to implement something like this, starting on a limited basis.

Remember, just because more items are for sale at one point does not mean the market is flooded.

*best Clinton impersonation* That depends, on what the meaning of the word ........"more", is.

2, 5, 10, 20, probably not flooded, but 40, 50, 100+ of the same item for sale? I would call that a flood.

blue text = what I just wrote

Message Edited by Dolf Goodcheese on 04-01-2005 02:17 PM

Ydiss · 04-02-2005, 06:31 AM

Dolf Goodcheese wrote:

Remember, just because more items are for sale at one point does not mean the market is flooded.

*best Clinton impersonation* That depends, on what the meaning of the word ........"more", is.

2, 5, 10, 20, probably not flooded, but 40, 50, 100+ of the same item for sale? I would call that a flood.

I'm still not convinced this will ruin the economy. People have been saying x patch and y fix will ruin the economy since day one, since beta even. If I still can't find items on the broker that I want to buy on a regular basis then the economy, at least on my server, is far from ruined. This change, coupled with the no-trade and attuned changes, gives me absolutely no fear that the market might saturate.

It gives me no fear because I do not bother myself about things I cannot possibly predict. And anyone who thinks they can predict that a patch will ruin an aspect of the game before it's even happened, with 100% accuracy, is deluding themselves. And wasting their efforts worrying about it.

The devs have their plan. They think it will work. If it doesn't work as intended it'll be changed. Such is the way of the MMO game and, in my humble opinion, not something worth getting all worked up over. Even more so because it won't ruin the game anyway... : )

Namil · 04-02-2005, 10:29 AM

Woohoo offline selling is finaly here. But at what cost?

SOE gave us the ability to share houses and have multiple merchants depending on the size of them. Many couples and friends share these houses/apartments. Many sellers wanted the ability to sell offline. But the current system makes the above house sharing an inconvienence or just plain annoying. (yes I know the work arounds to it) Why give us the ability to share houses and apartments to then go and make a great thing like offline selling turn it into an agravation.

This has a second effect and ends up penalizing the buyers not the sellers by forcing the buyer to only be able to purchasey from the NPC broker. This will automatically charge the buyer %20 over the price of the item. Why make the buyer suffer for giving the sellers something they wanted.

Solutions: Here is a possible solution to both problems - Purchasable Merchants that charge a weekly upkeep. The more expensive the upkeep the more vendor slots that merchant will have. Allow all House/Apartment owners and whoever they set to Trustee the ability to access this vendor/merchant. This way you are still controlling the amount of storage slots in any given house/apartment. Make it so the owner can set the amount of slots a person can use and do not allow other characters to remove these items as to prevent No Trade items exchanging hands. Also allow the items placed on the vendor to not be sold if the character does not want to sell that item.

1) Offline selling will now be of cost to the seller not the buyer.

2) Continued limited storage in a house/apartment.

3) Still a money sink for the weekly cost of the merchant/vendor.

4) Owners and Trustees can still continue to share their Home/Apartments.

5) Owners and Trustees can both sell offline.

Just an idea!

Namilla

Spartic · 04-04-2005, 05:43 PM

It's funny when you read tradeskillers who complain about offline selling when you know full well they'll be living it up when people start putting more harvesting materials for sale.

Message Edited by Sparticis on 04-04-2005 09:46 AM

Kroder · 04-04-2005, 08:54 PM

Namilla wrote:

Woohoo offline selling is finaly here. But at what cost?

SOE gave us the ability to share houses and have multiple merchants depending on the size of them. Many couples and friends share these houses/apartments. Many sellers wanted the ability to sell offline. But the current system makes the above house sharing an inconvienence or just plain annoying. (yes I know the work arounds to it) Why give us the ability to share houses and apartments to then go and make a great thing like offline selling turn it into an agravation.

This has a second effect and ends up penalizing the buyers not the sellers by forcing the buyer to only be able to purchasey from the NPC broker. This will automatically charge the buyer %20 over the price of the item. Why make the buyer suffer for giving the sellers something they wanted.

Solutions: Here is a possible solution to both problems - Purchasable Merchants that charge a weekly upkeep. The more expensive the upkeep the more vendor slots that merchant will have. Allow all House/Apartment owners and whoever they set to Trustee the ability to access this vendor/merchant. This way you are still controlling the amount of storage slots in any given house/apartment. Make it so the owner can set the amount of slots a person can use and do not allow other characters to remove these items as to prevent No Trade items exchanging hands. Also allow the items placed on the vendor to not be sold if the character does not want to sell that item.

1) Offline selling will now be of cost to the seller not the buyer.

2) Continued limited storage in a house/apartment.

3) Still a money sink for the weekly cost of the merchant/vendor.

4) Owners and Trustees can still continue to share their Home/Apartments.

5) Owners and Trustees can both sell offline.

Just an idea!

Namilla

The original people able to sell during these times can still do so, with the original pricing options. The new merchants using this method must match pricing by that 20% margin in order to compete.

It is an extra option, not a replacement.

03-29-2005, 10:35 PM	#62
Dolf Goodchee Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 48	Kroder wrote: You do understand, I hope, that these players are not coming out of thin air. They are trying to sell their goods already. They just have not been able to reach the prime time market without sacrificing their own play time. The players trying to sell their goods already would not be the ones to cause the maket flood. The players that would be "coming out of thin air", or, haven't been interested / bothered with selling before, are the ones that will cause great problems. And you're right with "The marketplace isn't going to burn down, if this happens." .............. it will be flooded. __________________ _________________________________________ Level 27 Bruiser, Dark Elf (friendly, but tries to look mean) Level 26 Alchemist (Bah, who needs facial hair!)

03-29-2005, 11:28 PM	#63
Kroder Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 94	Dolf Goodcheese wrote: The players trying to sell their goods already would not be the ones to cause the maket flood. The players that would be "coming out of thin air", or, haven't been interested / bothered with selling before, are the ones that will cause great problems. And you're right with "The marketplace isn't going to burn down, if this happens." .............. it will be flooded. That is terrible to hear someone say. You would imply that these players have no right to sell their goods, because they chose to adventure, or tradeskill. They did not give up their right to sell goods, just because they would not use the AFK online model for being a merchant. Indeed, these players have been long overdue an opportunity to have a chance to sell the goods they have managed to earn, through efforts every bit as legitimate as anyone already selling. You might as well call the market flooded now, simply because you don't like to see so many people selling a few items. The nature of this economy relies on competition, to buy OR sell. Calling it flooding is a highly missleading action. So long as the overnight sales cannot meet the prime time demand, the economy is a joke of circumstance. And no, it is highly unlikely they will allow more than one character to sell at a time on an account. Parallel sales like that could be used by everyone, and would be nearly pointless to enable. You would simply see sales mules appear to fill up slots as they were needed, and would be a coding effort exponentially more complicated. Multiple account sales is already in existance, and is already a significant advantage to both Sony, (extra account fees), and the players who use it, (dedicated sales mules let them play any character, and still keep selling). Neither would benefit. __________________ Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? --------Nelson Mandela (orig. quote Marianne Williamson)

03-30-2005, 03:27 AM	#64
Dolf Goodchee Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 48	Kroder wrote: Dolf Goodcheese wrote: The players trying to sell their goods already would not be the ones to cause the maket flood. The players that would be "coming out of thin air", or, haven't been interested / bothered with selling before, are the ones that will cause great problems. And you're right with "The marketplace isn't going to burn down, if this happens." .............. it will be flooded. That is terrible to hear someone say. You would imply that these players have no right to sell their goods, because they chose to adventure, or tradeskill. ................. Take off the blinders, please................ Most people that "only" quest/adventure, by their choice, do use the market to sell what they loot, and they must be doing it when they are online. Now, give those people the option to sell 40-56 items at any time, 24/7, whether they are playing or not, and guess what? They will be selling as much as often as they can......................... when they normally wouldn't have been, by choice. Fixing it for those on dialup and such, would, in a way be creating a huge problem of a deflated market, unless it is done in a limited way. I hope you can understand that, as I can not explain it in any easier terms. __________________ _________________________________________ Level 27 Bruiser, Dark Elf (friendly, but tries to look mean) Level 26 Alchemist (Bah, who needs facial hair!)

03-30-2005, 10:06 PM	#67
Dolf Goodchee Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 48	Limited selling time is an interesting idea. Although it should only apply to when a player is not in his/her room or offline. They could increase the number of items for sale, say to 20, then limit the time to around 2 hours, useable once per 24 hours. SOE would still have to have an item limit, or there would be market flood at certain times of the day. __________________ _________________________________________ Level 27 Bruiser, Dark Elf (friendly, but tries to look mean) Level 26 Alchemist (Bah, who needs facial hair!)

03-31-2005, 03:50 AM	#69
Kroder Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 94	Dolf Goodcheese wrote: Take off the blinders, please................ Most people that "only" quest/adventure, by their choice, do use the market to sell what they loot, and they must be doing it when they are online. Now, give those people the option to sell 40-56 items at any time, 24/7, whether they are playing or not, and guess what? They will be selling as much as often as they can......................... when they normally wouldn't have been, by choice. Fixing it for those on dialup and such, would, in a way be creating a huge problem of a deflated market, unless it is done in a limited way. I hope you can understand that, as I can not explain it in any easier terms. The market is an aspect of fair play considerations. Like it or not, people who want to sell, and people who are able to sell, are not the same groups. Where they overlap is the current merchant base. While this is advantageous for those able to currently sell, they do not own exclusive rights to this ability. Sooner or later, their competition will be given the ability to fairly compete in the market. Make everyone who wants to sell, able to sell, and that will be more in line with absolute fairness. Natural limitations on item availability will still keep sales in check. People do not spontaneously create goods for sale. They require raw materials, and effort, (for crafting), or time and patience in adventuring. Neither of these is simple for worthwhile goods to sell. Having satisfied these requirements, we do not have the right to deny them fair opportunity to sell their goods. __________________ Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? --------Nelson Mandela (orig. quote Marianne Williamson)

03-29-2005, 11:16 AM	#61
ladeni Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 12	agree with vurin , put in a bazaar or something like it please.

03-30-2005, 08:08 AM	#65
Camenwolf Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3	It seems to me that if the reason for on-line selling is simply to limit the number of items on the market that the answer would be to limit the amount of time items could be sold whether online or offline. In other words, list your items for sell, you have two hours (hypothetically) to sell them, pick your time slot, set your price, then forget about it. Your goods are marketed during that time slot whether you are online or offline. A system could be put in place to show which time slots had the least amount of sellers of your type of good. As an additional money sink, a system could be put in place whereby a certain baseline amount of market time is free. If you want more market time, you have to pay for it. Or possibly the broker charges a higher percentage to the buyer if the seller is using excessive market time and/or a higher percentage to seller and/or buyer depending on the amount of players online at any give time (in order to keep the market from swaying to far into the seller's or buyer's corner) It just seems to me that it shouldn't be that difficult to come up with a system to limit the market supply without making a half million subscribers leave their freaking computers turned on all day. I'm surprised the EPA hasn't gotten involved in this. They sell computers and monitors which are decked out with power saving features so that hard drives, CRTs, processors, etc. are all shut down automatically when not in use, and a video game is causing people to leave them turned on specifically while the players are not playing in order to balance a game dynamic?! Come on! SOE, I have a lot of respect for your talent. I know that you can come up with a better system than this. Best Regards

03-30-2005, 08:09 AM	#66
Camenwolf Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3	Double posted... sorry. Tried to delete. Message Edited by Camenwolf on 03-29-2005 07:12 PM

03-31-2005, 02:48 AM	#68
Nainitsuj Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Emerald Server Posts: 525	I don't get it, SWG got it to work, why can't EQ2 copy the same system (just the bazaar) for ease. It adds a new money sink, stabalizes(sp?) the economy and makes it possible for people to sell items for money while offline/adventuring. On a side note, why can't I have a record of what was sold. I hate trying to guess what items I've sold through the night (I check after server reset, when I get home from work) Message Edited by Nainitsuj on 03-30-2005 01:50 PM

03-31-2005, 11:57 PM	#70
Dolf Goodchee Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 48	Kroder wrote: The market is an aspect of fair play considerations. Like it or not, people who want to sell, and people who are able to sell, are not the same groups. Where they overlap is the current merchant base. While this is advantageous for those able to currently sell, they do not own exclusive rights to this ability. Sooner or later, their competition will be given the ability to fairly compete in the market. Make everyone who wants to sell, able to sell, and that will be more in line with absolute fairness. Natural limitations on item availability will still keep sales in check. People do not spontaneously create goods for sale. They require raw materials, and effort, (for crafting), or time and patience in adventuring. Neither of these is simple for worthwhile goods to sell. Having satisfied these requirements, we do not have the right to deny them fair opportunity to sell their goods. "Like it or not, people who want to sell, and people who are able to sell, are not the same groups. " ^^ Add to that "people that voluntarily don't sell" and "people that voluntarily only sell loot" currently, then that statement would be correct. There are a lot of players that just don't sell now, by choice. Dangle a gold nugget in front of their heads, and they are going to stampede to chase it, just because it's there. Not just initially either. As for your "absolute fairness", that is never going to happen....... ever. That is, unless everyone that plays EQ2 is forced to only use dial-up internet service, have 1 phone line, have the same living conditions, and have only 1 EQ2 account. Personally, I'm going to argue with anyone that says someone with 1 phone line and dial-up service (costing $20-$40/month) with limited connection time should have the same advantages as someone with highspeed service (costing $50-$80/month) that has a connection that is always on. The same goes for someone who only has 1 account to play/sell shouldn't have the same advantage as someone who pays for 2 accounts to sell more. Therefore, SOE allowing players to sell while outside their houses and maybe offline, but in limited quantities, and leaving the others to sell normally while online and in their houses, will help those players out that are stuck with dial-up, but won't deflate/ruin the market for everyone else. __________________ _________________________________________ Level 27 Bruiser, Dark Elf (friendly, but tries to look mean) Level 26 Alchemist (Bah, who needs facial hair!)

04-01-2005, 05:25 AM	#71
Kroder Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 94	Dolf Goodcheese wrote: "Like it or not, people who want to sell, and people who are able to sell, are not the same groups. " ^^ Add to that "people that voluntarily don't sell" and "people that voluntarily only sell loot" currently, then that statement would be correct. For whatever reasons they choose not to sell, they are still able to sell. I referred to people having both the ability and the desire together as being our merchant base. The expectation that the current system does not make selling worth their time and effort, is a valid opinion. If an improved means of selling becomes available to them, it is only natural that they would attempt to try it. There are a lot of players that just don't sell now, by choice. Dangle a gold nugget in front of their heads, and they are going to stampede to chase it, just because it's there. Not just initially either. As for your "absolute fairness", that is never going to happen....... ever. That is, unless everyone that plays EQ2 is forced to only use dial-up internet service, have 1 phone line, have the same living conditions, and have only 1 EQ2 account. Personally, I'm going to argue with anyone that says someone with 1 phone line and dial-up service (costing $20-$40/month) with limited connection time should have the same advantages as someone with highspeed service (costing $50-$80/month) that has a connection that is always on. The same goes for someone who only has 1 account to play/sell shouldn't have the same advantage as someone who pays for 2 accounts to sell more. Now you're being funny. The pursuit of an ideal is done because the effort improves the situation. Noone actually expects to achieve absolute fairness, even though it is a pleasing idea. As for the rest of that paragraph, (detailing how people who can afford better hardware and ISP service deserve a better EQ2 play experience), you seem to feel advantages in EQ2 should be for sale. If I am not misstaken, it is the players effort that defines their play experience. Noone should have an advantage because they have a cable modem instead of a dial-up connection. Therefore, SOE allowing players to sell while outside their houses and maybe offline, but in limited quantities, and leaving the others to sell normally while online and in their houses, will help those players out that are stuck with dial-up, but won't deflate/ruin the market for everyone else. See.. there is that troubling assumption you are making. The idea that if they let people sell their goods during prime time, that it will have a negative effect on the game economy in general. Depriving a segment of the merchant base the ability to sell on equal ability, because they could not afford a second account, or they happen to play when the best time to sell exists, is wrong. It is depriving the players, who want to buy goods at non-gouging prices, from being able to do so reliably. Whenever you reduce the competition for goods, the remaining goods on the market are freed from any need to maintain a fair pricing structure for the purpose of competition. Put another way, if item A can be made, and sold, for less than it normally appears now, you say that such sales should be blocked. Players should not have the ability to make the extra effort to succeed in the market, because their very presence will make the current merchants actually have to charge a more fair price for goods. The arguments you put forth seem to favor those who would inflate prices when given the opportunity. You seem to want to protect those opportunities. Yellow = other poster's comments I found noteworthy Green = my replies to these __________________ Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? --------Nelson Mandela (orig. quote Marianne Williamson)

04-01-2005, 05:52 AM	#72
Homesli General Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: England Posts: 140	Nainitsuj wrote: I don't get it, SWG got it to work, why can't EQ2 copy the same system (just the bazaar) for ease. It adds a new money sink, stabalizes(sp?) the economy and makes it possible for people to sell items for money while offline/adventuring. On a side note, why can't I have a record of what was sold. I hate trying to guess what items I've sold through the night (I check after server reset, when I get home from work) Message Edited by Nainitsuj on 03-30-2005 01:50 PM Look for your sales log in your eq2 folder. It doesn't do you any good in game but it exists Hopefully with the new changes it will be better, they did say that you would get a sales log when you log in if you were selling while you were offline.And not sure if someone responded to the guy that made the statement about each character selling offline, you can only have one character selling offline at one time. __________________

04-01-2005, 03:01 PM	#73
Ydiss Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 114	I can only agree with Kroder on this. I have lost count of the times I've needed a particular item when I've been playing and it's not on the market because it's not US prime time. Living in the UK, overnight selling has always been very profitable for me. However, as a buyer, I miss out quite a lot and can often be forced to pay higher prices simply because there's no competition when I'm playing. More items for sale at all times does not necessarily equal a market flood. The extra items will get bought, the items that don't will come down in price and in turn will be bought. Remember, we still have a finite economy here - very few items can be sold, used and then resold. So the actual amount of items that can be sold, potentially, will not necessarily go up because of vault selling. Personally, I'd have been happy with online selling only (ie, vault sells to broker but only when you're online). Or, adversely, with offline vault selling only (so that you cannot sell while adventuring). SOE have chosen to impliment the ability to do both, shortly after introducing big changes to limit item flooding (attunable items and quest items no drop). It's a positive move and saying it'll have a direly negative impact on the market is just doom-saying without any basis or evidence. Speculation is nothing, if the market does start to reach dangerously flooded levels do you seriously think SOE will sit back and say, 'Oh well, we messed that up - nothing we can do now!' Of course they won't. They'll fix it, if needs be. Remember, just because more items are for sale at one point does not mean the market is flooded. More availability equals more items being bought as well, you know? And seeing as, like I said above, vault selling doesn't actually increase the amount of items being made or being looted, this can only be a positive thing for the economy. More items being bought, more players spending money on items that are expendible, more items being taken out of the game. You can't predict a change will be disasterous without even taking a moment to explore the positive affects of the change. __________________

04-02-2005, 01:15 AM	#74
Dolf Goodchee Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 48	Kroder wrote: Dolf Goodcheese wrote: ............ As for your "absolute fairness", that is never going to happen....... ever. That is, unless everyone that plays EQ2 is forced to only use dial-up internet service, have 1 phone line, have the same living conditions, and have only 1 EQ2 account. Personally, I'm going to argue with anyone that says someone with 1 phone line and dial-up service (costing $20-$40/month) with limited connection time should have the same advantages as someone with highspeed service (costing $50-$80/month) that has a connection that is always on. The same goes for someone who only has 1 account to play/sell shouldn't have the same advantage as someone who pays for 2 accounts to sell more. Now you're being funny. The pursuit of an ideal is done because the effort improves the situation. Noone actually expects to achieve absolute fairness, even though it is a pleasing idea. ^^ I'm glad you understand that. As for the rest of that paragraph, (detailing how people who can afford better hardware and ISP service deserve a better EQ2 play experience), you seem to feel advantages in EQ2 should be for sale. ^^ Your words are trying to put an evil twist to mine. The simple and correct interpretation of what I wrote is basically this, that the more effort a person puts into the game, the more he or she should be rewarded. Effort, which includes looting/harvesting/crafting, also includes players running more two accounts (one to adventure/craft and the other to be selling), and yes, even having a cable modem / dsl instead of dial up to be able to be online all the time. Some players actually work for a living, and spend more money than the minimum, to have highspeed service and/or a second account. If I am not misstaken, it is the players effort that defines their play experience. Noone should have an advantage because they have a cable modem instead of a dial-up connection. So you'd have everyone required to use only the lowest common denominator, dial up with one phone line? Yes, I'm being funny there, sort of, but that is what you seem to portray in that statement. Therefore, SOE allowing players to sell while outside their houses and maybe offline, but in limited quantities, and leaving the others to sell normally while online and in their houses, will help those players out that are stuck with dial-up, but won't deflate/ruin the market for everyone else. See.. there is that troubling assumption you are making. The idea that if they let people sell their goods during prime time, that it will have a negative effect on the game economy in general. It will have a negative effect. Not just some people selling some goods during prime time, like I'm referring to, that would be fine. The problem would be a lot of people selling a lot of goods 24/7. Depriving a segment of the merchant base the ability to sell on equal ability, because they could not afford a second account, or they happen to play when the best time to sell exists, is wrong. It is depriving the players, who want to buy goods at non-gouging prices, from being able to do so reliably. Whenever you reduce the competition for goods, the remaining goods on the market are freed from any need to maintain a fair pricing structure for the purpose of competition. Of course monopolies on goods in the market would not be healthy (really can't happen now), but I'm betting that a Marxist economy is not wanted by too many others. Put another way, if item A can be made, and sold, for less than it normally appears now, you say that such sales should be blocked. No, I never said that. Look, using your example, if item A can be made and sold for less than the same item is selling for currently, then fine. Here's is where the trouble comes in though. Expanding on your example: Now, if 10 players make the same type of bed and try to sell them, they will likely compete in price somewhat and the price might be between 60sp - 50sp. Should SOE implement out-of-house or offline selling that is essentially unlimited (up to 56+ items 24/7), suddenly there is 200 players making / selling the same type of bed and because of too much competition in pricing, the average cost ends up around 25sp, just a couple of silver or copper over the cost of supplies needed. And as a result, in a short period of time, a lot of the players give up crafting because it's not worth their time. Apply that scenario, in a greater or lesser degree, across the board to anything crafted or harvested, and there's a huge problem with the economy. Players should not have the ability to make the extra effort to succeed in the market, because their very presence will make the current merchants actually have to charge a more fair price for goods. And I never said that. I said just the opposite above "the more effort a person puts into the game, the more he or she should be rewarded". The arguments you put forth seem to favor those who would inflate prices when given the opportunity. You seem to want to protect those opportunities. I'm looking at the big picture. I enjoy crafting, I enjoy selling, and I enjoy surfing/buying from the market. There are many many others that also enjoy those aspects of the game, and like myself, see them as breaks from just adventuring. I don't want to see any of of those aspects (all dependant on the market/economy) nerfed to pointlessness. Ydiss wrote: ........................ ............. Speculation is nothing, if the market does start to reach dangerously flooded levels do you seriously think SOE will sit back and say, 'Oh well, we messed that up - nothing we can do now!' Of course they won't. They'll fix it, if needs be. Yes of course they would. Adding to what I wrote before though, dangle a gold nugget in front of the crowd and you'll get a stampede; pull it away, and you got an angry stampeded crowd. I'm guessing SOE doesn't like doing that to the community. It's would seem in SOE's best interest to implement something like this, starting on a limited basis. Remember, just because more items are for sale at one point does not mean the market is flooded. best Clinton impersonation That depends, on what the meaning of the word ........"more", is. 2, 5, 10, 20, probably not flooded, but 40, 50, 100+ of the same item for sale? I would call that a flood. blue text = what I just wrote Message Edited by Dolf Goodcheese on 04-01-2005 02:17 PM __________________ _________________________________________ Level 27 Bruiser, Dark Elf (friendly, but tries to look mean) Level 26 Alchemist (Bah, who needs facial hair!)

04-02-2005, 06:31 AM	#75
Ydiss Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 114	Dolf Goodcheese wrote: Remember, just because more items are for sale at one point does not mean the market is flooded. best Clinton impersonation That depends, on what the meaning of the word ........"more", is. 2, 5, 10, 20, probably not flooded, but 40, 50, 100+ of the same item for sale? I would call that a flood. I'm still not convinced this will ruin the economy. People have been saying x patch and y fix will ruin the economy since day one, since beta even. If I still can't find items on the broker that I want to buy on a regular basis then the economy, at least on my server, is far from ruined. This change, coupled with the no-trade and attuned changes, gives me absolutely no fear that the market might saturate. It gives me no fear because I do not bother myself about things I cannot possibly predict. And anyone who thinks they can predict that a patch will ruin an aspect of the game before it's even happened, with 100% accuracy, is deluding themselves. And wasting their efforts worrying about it. The devs have their plan. They think it will work. If it doesn't work as intended it'll be changed. Such is the way of the MMO game and, in my humble opinion, not something worth getting all worked up over. Even more so because it won't ruin the game anyway... : ) __________________

04-02-2005, 10:29 AM	#76
Namil Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 73	Woohoo offline selling is finaly here. But at what cost? SOE gave us the ability to share houses and have multiple merchants depending on the size of them. Many couples and friends share these houses/apartments. Many sellers wanted the ability to sell offline. But the current system makes the above house sharing an inconvienence or just plain annoying. (yes I know the work arounds to it) Why give us the ability to share houses and apartments to then go and make a great thing like offline selling turn it into an agravation. This has a second effect and ends up penalizing the buyers not the sellers by forcing the buyer to only be able to purchasey from the NPC broker. This will automatically charge the buyer %20 over the price of the item. Why make the buyer suffer for giving the sellers something they wanted. Solutions: Here is a possible solution to both problems - Purchasable Merchants that charge a weekly upkeep. The more expensive the upkeep the more vendor slots that merchant will have. Allow all House/Apartment owners and whoever they set to Trustee the ability to access this vendor/merchant. This way you are still controlling the amount of storage slots in any given house/apartment. Make it so the owner can set the amount of slots a person can use and do not allow other characters to remove these items as to prevent No Trade items exchanging hands. Also allow the items placed on the vendor to not be sold if the character does not want to sell that item. 1) Offline selling will now be of cost to the seller not the buyer. 2) Continued limited storage in a house/apartment. 3) Still a money sink for the weekly cost of the merchant/vendor. 4) Owners and Trustees can still continue to share their Home/Apartments. 5) Owners and Trustees can both sell offline. Just an idea! Namilla

04-04-2005, 05:43 PM	#77
Spartic Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1	It's funny when you read tradeskillers who complain about offline selling when you know full well they'll be living it up when people start putting more harvesting materials for sale. Message Edited by Sparticis on 04-04-2005 09:46 AM

04-04-2005, 08:54 PM	#78
Kroder Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 94	Namilla wrote: Woohoo offline selling is finaly here. But at what cost? SOE gave us the ability to share houses and have multiple merchants depending on the size of them. Many couples and friends share these houses/apartments. Many sellers wanted the ability to sell offline. But the current system makes the above house sharing an inconvienence or just plain annoying. (yes I know the work arounds to it) Why give us the ability to share houses and apartments to then go and make a great thing like offline selling turn it into an agravation. This has a second effect and ends up penalizing the buyers not the sellers by forcing the buyer to only be able to purchasey from the NPC broker. This will automatically charge the buyer %20 over the price of the item. Why make the buyer suffer for giving the sellers something they wanted. Solutions: Here is a possible solution to both problems - Purchasable Merchants that charge a weekly upkeep. The more expensive the upkeep the more vendor slots that merchant will have. Allow all House/Apartment owners and whoever they set to Trustee the ability to access this vendor/merchant. This way you are still controlling the amount of storage slots in any given house/apartment. Make it so the owner can set the amount of slots a person can use and do not allow other characters to remove these items as to prevent No Trade items exchanging hands. Also allow the items placed on the vendor to not be sold if the character does not want to sell that item. 1) Offline selling will now be of cost to the seller not the buyer. 2) Continued limited storage in a house/apartment. 3) Still a money sink for the weekly cost of the merchant/vendor. 4) Owners and Trustees can still continue to share their Home/Apartments. 5) Owners and Trustees can both sell offline. Just an idea! Namilla The original people able to sell during these times can still do so, with the original pricing options. The new merchants using this method must match pricing by that 20% margin in order to compete. It is an extra option, not a replacement. __________________ Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? --------Nelson Mandela (orig. quote Marianne Williamson)