Weirdes thing about this Thread is that people who play the market against their competion complain now, that they have to adapt strategies and tactics. I am very happy with the change, since according to all this complaining here, i will have a bigger edge over those who apparently think that change means the death of the game.
1 Like
CCP donât get that honest paying costumers will suffer for this. If bots are removed it would be better for honest traders but will this really remove bots? They can just adjust their margins and update their bot algorithm, the rest of us have to calculate our margins for every change we make.
Bots win again. Bots will not only dominate over the rest of us honest traders after the change but eventually fully control the market. They will set the price, they will control the volume and decide a standard profit margin for the entire market. The rest of us will follow them and try to keep up.
It seems that those that oppose the change, seen by CCP, are bot operators or traders donât get how good this will be for them.
I think the answers to this unfortunately are:
âYes, CCP DO get that this is what will happenâ.
&
âThatâs the whole point of doing itâ.
2 Likes
Exactly this
How will it be be bad for them?
Higher price rigidity is bad for trade. It leads to higher âmenu costsâ, which means the marketâs efficiency falls (it takes longer or never reaches an optimal price for the market conditions), which leads to more price rigidity. It becomes more difficult for the market to reach a price equilibrium.
4 Likes
Pass.
Ill give it a go and see what happens
Thatâs BS.
There is no intrinsic equilibrium to pricing as it is now, since the prices vary daily.
What you see is not impacted by a pseudo-equilibrium. Itâs impacted by margin cuts.
Your are painting an image of the present market that does not make any sense.
If by âto reach a price equilibriumâ you mean that traders stop making cuts, then THAT equilibrium will be reached faster.
The only valid issue I noticed here is that this means producers will need to put less items on the market; so there will be less items available on the market.
Wow it took you days to notice one of the drawbacks. Itâs a miracle.
Letâs put aside this is going to kill a big part of the trader profession. Do you know what that means for industrialists (because Im an industrialist too)? Inflation. Prices will increase. As I mentioned before, the market is not a ISK faucet, itâs a SINK. If you look at the economy report, which are the top 5 ISK sinks? Guess.
People are going to start trading directly among themselves and not use the market, because placing your items in the market and having to mark them down will make you lose money when you are forced compete with several other people who will be marking down their manufactured stuff too. Not many people are willing to sit on their goods for days or weeks allowing other people to drive the price up or down, till the price is ideal for them to dump the stock.
So⌠smaller market trading volumes implies more inflation (because market supply will be shrink) and a diminished ISK sink, which will lead to less ISK leaving the game, which in turns creates more inflation, etc. Vicious circle.
As I said before, I believe this âage of scarcityâ along with the resource re-distribution changes is aimed at forcing people to look inside into their corps and alliances for the resources they need, rather than just having absolutely everything available a few jumps away at every trade hub.
If resources are dynamically geo allocated, and they are no longer available on the market (at least not in a volume that can cover the full demand weâve got now), groups of people will be forced to fight for them.
CCP is obviously not telling us the whole story here, because itâs impossible they have not noticed any of this and that they are just doing this to deal with such a small percentage of âbot ordersâ - which, according to their numbers is close to 1%. In a profession that is not an ISK FAUCET. Just lol.
2 Likes
What makes you feel like I did not agree with that from the beginning ?
Itâs strange, how you are so intellectually disabled that you canât accept the refutal of a stupid argument can still accept some parts of it.
Itâs literally like saying that if I donât accept that all cats are purple, then there is no cat at all.
BS.
Nobody cares.
Then thatâs their issue. Good riddance.
You need to learn what inflation is.
itâs not an increase in the price of some items
Thatâs just your opinion.
Yet I think that would be a good thing.
Thatâs a strong assumption.
Again, itâs possible to evolve towards this, just as it was possible before. This patch does not change anything, there have been huge shortage for over months now. source : my activity is to fill those shortage, because thatâs where the best margin are.
Itâs not obvious. Itâs your opinion.
I think thatâs what people mean by equilibrium, basically when spreads have approached zero after transaction costs. But Iâm not sure why it would be reached faster now that a fee is required to change prices.
Thatâs not what equilibrium means. What you are describing, is a stale situation for traders. This stale situation will change over time, so there is nothing that makes this stale distribution fixed.
However, producers can still have a margin, just as consumers can purchase lots of items and thus increase the spread.
Itâs an equilibirum in the sens that nothing moves, but itâs not âthe equilibriumâ of prices since as soon as any part moves, it will go another way. So if you want itâs an unstable temporary equilibrium, but it has no intrinsic value by itself.
Because it increases the cost of trading, so the spread. Which means that people selling their stuff will more quickly make the prices reach that stale spread.
Just FYI the 0.01 isk did not produce the margin cuts. Traders did stick to 0.01 ISK because there was no point in ruining their own margin. Producers on the other hand were the one who could afford to reduce the SO under tradersâ.
The 0.01 isk did not add anything to the trade. It did not increase the quantity of materials available, it did not increase the volume per day.
This.
2 Likes
It did exactly doing that (by being possible at no cost). Because people could just dump any volume they want at any time without worrying about the price initially, and come back whenever they feel checking and adjusting the orders.
EDIT: I donât believe the BS of people claiming they NEVER change their order after the initial dump. All people I know who talk about update their orders once or twice a day or at least once per week. Thatâs why I also call BS on CCP statistics.
6 Likes
So what ? They just put the order at a high price, since if nobody else was cutting them they could reduce it.
So no, it did not do that.
What youâre saying is literally that it did not. - that 0.01 iskers were not the one reducing the spread.
Are they changing ALL their orders at least twice a day ? Or are they changing at least one of their 300 orders twice a day ?
Itâs very unlikely that, when you place your order, you are the unicorn with the only competitive price to sell/buy nobody ever wants to outbid. The chances that someone else puts an order just below/above yours is much higher. And the moment this happens you will trade nothing for an undefined time.
You then wait maybe forever or adjust the price paying the fee. The other guy on top doesnât need to pay the relist fee. So you see what the optimal strategy then is?
All orders, which need an update to get on top of course.
2 Likes
Stop the BS already.
The 0.01 iskers were not cutting their margin, on the opposite.
Their modus operandi was to always cut the highest order by 0.01 . This means that they never were the one making significant cuts.
By DEFINITION they were not participating in the reduction of the market prices. So the noticeable cuts came from something else - typically from producers, or from gankers, or from people in need of liquid money.
They were not increasing the volume either. Because they were not producing stuff. On the opposite, they were preventing people who produce stuff from making money.
so how it is âat least one orderâ, not âall ordersâ.
1 Like
Good to see you are out of arguments.
The fact that your argument is BS is an argument in itself. It also explained you why itâs BS.
Your claim, that 0.01 iskers were reducing their margin on purpose is complete BS. They only followed other peopleâs reduction.
anyone know how i can block people, so i dont see their posts?
2 Likes
alt F4 should do the trick.
I mean, itâs not like you are making any constructive criticism.
1 Like