Minimum bid increase

[Diggled]

Please change the contract system so that if you want to place an order that already exists, you must increase the bid by a minimum percentage, say 5% for starters.

This logging in and outbidding by 1 gold stuff is ridiculous.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Diggled

[Archaos]

Personally I think placing contracts for trade goods should not be allowed. It is frustrating as a trader sailing round ports looking for trade goods to fill delivery orders only to find that most have been bought up by contracts from people who have a lot of money. Just look round at the number of ports especially the ones that produce pirate goods and the ones close by that consume pirate goods, you will usually find that there is almost a permanent buy order in the producing port and you seldom see the sell price in the consume port rise above 1. This is because people with a lot of money buy them and stockpile them to sell immediately the sell price rises. The delivery orders for the same goods are usually quite a distance away.

For manufactured and crafting goods I can agree that the increase of 1 gold in bid price is frustrating as it favors the person who has more time online or the person who can automate the process if this is possible in game.

[Cmdr RideZ]

Contracts with the same value are alphabetically ordered.  If I set a contract, but his name starts with A, his contract is "higher".

[Guest]

Damn, that means that we're gonna start seeing eco alts named "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalbert".

[Skully]

1 hour ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Contracts with the same value are alphabetically ordered.  If I set a contract, but his name starts with A, his contract is "higher".

I thought that was fixed: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14758-equal-priced-orders-should-fulfill-the-oldest-not-the-newest/

It might be visualized in alphabetical order, but it should be fullfilled oldest first.

As for everything else, welcome to the open market. If you want to win a bidding war, aim higher with larger pockets.
Similar for ship combat, sometimes you face a big ship with bigger guns and you wish you had a deflector shield mod.

 

[Diggled]

8 hours ago, Skully said:

I thought that was fixed: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14758-equal-priced-orders-should-fulfill-the-oldest-not-the-newest/

It might be visualized in alphabetical order, but it should be fullfilled oldest first.

As for everything else, welcome to the open market. If you want to win a bidding war, aim higher with larger pockets.
Similar for ship combat, sometimes you face a big ship with bigger guns and you wish you had a deflector shield mod.

 

If you do not have something useful or constructive to say then stay off these forums.

Pirates of the Burning Sea had already solved this problem with a hidden bid value, only showing the recent price history.  So you couldnt see WHO or HOW MUCH a product was currently going for.

 

 

[Skully]

2 hours ago, Diggled said:

If you do not have something useful or constructive to say then stay off these forums.

Pirates of the Burning Sea had already solved this problem with a hidden bid value, only showing the recent price history.  So you couldnt see WHO or HOW MUCH a product was currently going for.

So basically you're saying, "Shut up, I like the PotBS blind bidding system better." Which is counter to the suggestion you're actually making.

Please make up your mind before tossing up willy-nilly suggestions then. (Or play PotBS instead.)

While blind bidding is nice for auction houses because it "artificially" raises the price, it makes little sense for (what is supposed to be) a high volume commodity market. The true economic value of a commodity needs to be established quickly and efficiently. For this the commodity value on any market is always listed openly.

A bidding war over $1 is a clear indication that multiple greedy penny traders are trying to squeeze the market and simply not bidding the true economic value of the commodity.

A real trader knows the true economic value and will simply offer it.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Skully

[Diggled]

Just tired of seeing your shitposts on the forums.  If you dont agree with the suggestion then stay off the thread.

 

Did I say goto POTBS system? No, I'm saying thats what they used to solve this problem....aka IT IS A PROBLEM.

[CaptVonGunn]

16 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Contracts with the same value are alphabetically ordered.  If I set a contract, but his name starts with A, his contract is "higher".

That is beyond stupid

[Tiedemann]

I agree that the contract is a bit annoying. We should have some sort of overflow, so not all go of the goods are picked up/sold to contracts. Like the shop was 1/3 of the new arrived stuff to fill contracts, while 2/3 is placed in the shop. This would reward traders that are actively sailing around in OW and looking for stuff.

[CaptVonGunn]

They need to add more resource buildings or at least add the speical wood items sect to the mix of what we get when we empty a building... Like when you get Compass wood from a Fir forest or a bit of gold from the silver mine

[Skully]

8 hours ago, Diggled said:

Just tired of seeing your shitposts on the forums.  If you dont agree with the suggestion then stay off the thread.

 

Did I say goto POTBS system? No, I'm saying thats what they used to solve this problem....aka IT IS A PROBLEM.

The problem is proposing a mechanic that allows hiding in plain sight.

I can understand that you do not like to see that exposed. Given that you have no counter arguments to the discussion itself, but rather resort to "bugger off, I don't like to see counter arguments" goes to show you have no more arguments to offer.

As I have clearly shown, I don't like being outbid by $1. But instead of complaining on the forum, I play the game and outbid my opponent.

[Skully]

PS. I raised the price by 13% in my example. Come to think of that, you can do that without needing a mechanic. Stupid me for not spotting that earlier.