|
1 |
|
|---|---|
| Posted by | Base Average GB Price on Actual Sales |
 Msasi (#21461) Special Snowflake View Forum Posts  Posted on 2017-03-03 10:22:57 |
Hello! First, I just want to make it clear that this isn't my idea. It was something I saw mentioned in chat and talked about and it seemed like other people planned to make the suggestion, but.... it never got made? It's been a good couple weeks, and this sounded like such a good idea that I figured it should get made! So props to all the people who discussed this at some point, this one's for you!  In GB Sales, it lists a Current Average GB Price. However, this price is based on current LISTED prices. Why is this an issue? It means that huge over pricing or under pricing can affect the average price, and since most people try to undercut the average listed price by only a little bit, it means the average price can be artificially inflated. So, I could go in an list 1 GB for 10000 SB if I wanted, and it would boost the Current Average GB Price just because of my high outlier price and might make people think that the boosted average price is what people are actually buying at. Here's some image examples of what I mean. So, here are the current average prices, before I messed around. You can see the current average, the lowest price and the highest price (sorry for the two images; I didn't want to have to include a shot of ALL the current trades, but just know they fall between the highest and lowest in price per GB):   Now, what happens to the average if I put up 1 GB for 1200 SB?  It went down! Just a little because I only undercut the previous low price by a bit, but you can see how it works. So, what if I wanted to be crazy and put 1 GB up at 10000 SB?   Look at that average jump! And since most people try to price by undercutting the average price... you might see why this is a problem. It makes it seem like GB is worth more, when GB may not necessarily be selling at the higher prices at all, yet they are factored into the current average! So, the suggestion is to have the Current Average GB Price be based instead on recent SALES. This would mean that even if I decided I wanted to list 1 GB for 10000 SB, the Current Average GB Price would not be affected unless someone actually bought it for that price, in which case it would factor it into the average of sales and would help against an artificial inflation of price. I really hope this makes sense! I am writing it on a whim because I realized I hadn't heard about the suggestion getting posted and it had seemed like a really good idea! I apologize if it is wordy or unclear; I - or wise commenters - can clear up any confusion if you have any questions!  |
Report
Lex 🦋 (#56485)
Divine View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-03-03 10:24:59 |
|
Laila 💰 (Gryffindor!) (#96222) 
Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-03-09 01:33:36 |
I like that because people buy the cheap stuff and then the average raises, causing people to price the GB higher and higher.  0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Shrike (#99492)
Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-03-16 02:46:29 |
|
ToxicShock (#5243)
Scourge of Lions View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-03-23 03:46:45 |
|
Axel (#6627)
Pervert View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-28 05:01:09 |
Edit: At first I have supported it but now I am withdrawing it because of loopholes. It would not solve the problem. People could easily just set up gigantic GB prices, then buy it out with their side accounts (or with trustworthy partners), going back and forth until you have big, artificially inflated average GB prices again. I do agree that something has to be done to the blatant manipulation of average prices. Imho, the best way to fight it would be the total removal of GB average prices from the GB sales. 0 players like this post! Like?Edited on 12/07/17 @ 10:10:47 by Axel (#6627) |
|
Raikalu (#112933)
Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-07-25 13:46:59 |
Supported, but in regards to what Axel (#6627) has said... I don't know if mods or admins can track that sort of thing, but if they can, wouldn't that raise flags anyways? And if that's the case, and people bounce GB between each other purposely to raise the average, shouldn't that be a punishable offense? I mean, I don't know what rules there would or wouldn't be in regards to that, but I feel like such blatant manipulation of prices isn't something that should be allowed. Not to mention, there's no reason to buy GB with a side account, when you could just freely transfer it, unless you were raising the average. Point of what I'm trying to get at is: If mods and/or admins can track records of who bought GB and for how much, then this shouldn't be a problem. And if they can't, then I'd suggest that they put some system in place to track that sort of thing. I honestly really believe this could be beneficial to the site, regardless of how it gets handled. But these are just my thoughts on the situation. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Posted on 2017-07-25 15:35:10 |
Deliberate attempts to manipulate the game economy is against site rules, yes: "Any attempt to deliberately harm the game economy by any means may result in a removal of game assets and privileges, or a permanent account ban. This includes, but is not limited to, attempting to monopolise all available items of a single type and manipulating the current market price of assets (items, lions, currency) being sold by flooding the market with deliberately under- or overpriced assets." As always, if you suspect any players are breaking the rules, you are more than welcome to report them to modbox.  0 players like this post! Like? |
MOD POST
|
Raikalu (#112933)
Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-07-25 15:54:02 |
Ah, alright then. I was more meaning that in the hypothetical, of if this suggestion was added and people bounced GB between themselves to raise the average. But thank you for the clarification. I sometimes forget some of the rules that I know I'm not the type of person to break anyways, so my apologies for that one. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Posted on 2017-07-25 15:58:33 |
No worries! If people were to be suspected of bouncing GB back and forth with the intent to raise GB price if this idea was put into place, that would definitely be something that would still be reportable so that mods could look into it, as that would fall under deliberate manipulation of the economy. c: 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Raikalu (#112933)
Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-07-25 16:09:03 |
Well, that's certainly reassuring then. And if that's the case, then this is a definite support from me then. I mean, as it is, the average only shows what's trying to be sold, not what has been sold, so it doesn't really make much sense. But uh... I'll stop pestering you with this topic and things you already know. Again, thank you for the clarification. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Axel (#6627)
Pervert View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-07-26 08:31:53 |
Still not convinced that no manipulation would take place. Consider this: we all know that currently GB goes for about 1400SB a piece in general if not lower for the average. Say, if the average price rises to 1500SB a piece... would the staff investigate or claim it is not a great problem yet? Like right now... There is an open manipulation going on and the staff does nothing. Even when reported. It makes it harder that we cannot see who bought GBs for what price, so there could be something fishy going on behind our backs. Not to mention we wouldnt know who to report and when to start being suspicious. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Emerald (#87312)
Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-07-26 17:07:26 |
Axel, though I supported your suggestion, I really think that buying from multiple accounts is way too much effort for trolls who just want to inflate the market. After all, they just want to troll other players and they don't gain anything other than a moment of amusement, so they really don't have any motivation to go to such convoluted lengths such as the ones you detailed above. I'd support either suggestion, since they're both good, although I do think that using multiple accounts is highly unrealistic and that's really not a concern. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Axel (#6627)
Pervert View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-07-26 22:09:26 |
Their motivation is to raise GB prices, preventing it from going below a certain value. Many people benefit from it. Especially those, who are trying to resell the GB they bought for higher prices. There is enough motivation and in no way is it unrealistic. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Emerald (#87312)
Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-07-27 10:29:28 |
Axel, yes there is motivation but I think that the motivation once it becomes so much effort would be too much for most to bother. I'd predict that such manipulation of the market would become obselete soon enough if this was implemented (especially if the time limit was introduced) since it would become too much effort to regularly do it and therefore not enough players would do it in order to realistically up the average price. 0 players like this post! Like? |
1 |
|---|
Memory Used: 629.52 KB - Queries: 2 - Query Time: 0.00090 - Total Time: 0.00503s