Forums › English Language Forums › General › Suggestions

Search

How to fix the current market issues (Buyers Market)

40 replies [Last post]
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:13
Evesest
Legacy Username

Currently, it's a buyers market. It's a nightmare for sellers to find buyers for their wares, and it will only go downhill from here. I see alot of threads complaining about the market, but never pinpointing the problem, or offering a fix.

I'll take a stab at it.

Why is this happening to the market?
The reason why this is happening, is because

1. There are more and more items being gained and created every day, and almost none lost. This causes inflation.
2. There's absolutely no reason to make new characters besides color/name. Why gear more than one when you can switch weapons?
3. There is no way to lose an item besides human error.

Example: You have the only Avenger on the server, what does this mean? It costs much more, and more people want it.
Now what if you have one of a thousand Avengers on the server, and everyone that wants one has one as well.. or the chance to make it themselves? Yours is much less desirable.

Now, think about how people are farming and farming items, creating more. Every time someone adds to the pile of items, they drop the value of it and the buyers become in charge. Sellers are competing to undercut eachother so their item is more desirable to the less common buyers.. and it becomes a buyers market.

How do we fix it?
You must create a way for players to LOSE items. It's really that simple... if we keep gaining and gaining and never losing, the market will plummet until everything is almost worthless. Who wants a server full of Gran Faus and Divine Avengers? Noone, really. Let's take a look at some options.

1. Add a PvP mode or dueling, where people can stake items.. or have the possibility to DROP their items completely and looted by the killer.

2. Create more difficult, HIGH RISK gates with very worthwhile loot that when they fail or bail.. they lose their items. Alternatively, just make EVERY gate like this past a certain depth. What I'm trying to say is; you MUST succeed and finish to a safe area or else your items (or at least some) will be at risk. This will cause players to choose wisely as to what items they take into the gate, as they don't want to lose their most valuable ones.. and if they do, that's their fault. A new one will need to be purchased. Seller incentive.

Note: An auctionhouse, although very convenient, would only support a buyer's market.. as it will be easier for the seller to choose the best deal possible, and the sellers will be working even harder to undercut eachother in a clearly stated market.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:31
#1
MrKnesh
Legacy Username
I don't like your solutions

I don't think the ability to lose items would help much. I would like to be able to destroy a few of the items that I don't use anymore, but it's a minor annoyance that I carry around all of these lower level non-trade-able items.

I think the solution lies more in making a place in the game where players can search a large open market of items being sold by other players in their own shops that they wouldn't have to be logged in to Spiral Knights in order to sell.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:35
#2
Evesest
Legacy Username
I don't like your face

So, I'm going to try to understand your post.

You're saying, you want to make it more of a sellers market... by making it easier for buyers to search for the best possible price... and more necessary for sellers to undercut eachothers prices in an area that lists items even when they're offline, so as the items are even more abundant and less valuable.

I'm trying to understand.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:44
#3
kakelgis
Legacy Username
Nobody would even care about

Nobody would even care about those features if they were implemented, to be honest. It's too much of a penalty for minor mistakes that can very well be lag-induced. And considering how lag is so common, no one would even want to risk it, no matter how good the rewards might be.

I have played MMOs with those kind of PvP/PK/item-risking zones. Barely anyone would really go to those, the high risk of losing your high end gear is simply not worth whatever rewards there might be.

The solution isn't LOSING items. The solution is USING items. Currently the only way to use materials is through crafting. That's where the whole problem sits.

@MrKnesh - You're silly.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:15
#4
Evesest
Legacy Username
WTB: Logic

@kakelgis, I have to question your post.

You obviously have not played those kind of "PvP/PK/item-risking zones" games, because they also drop players items when killed by mobs. This creates lost items and the need to replace them; thus creating demand.

also lmao @ "Barely anyone would really go to those, the high risk of losing your high end gear is simply not worth whatever rewards there might be."

Let us examine the above statement. Considering you said PK, I am assuming you're talking about the game RuneScape, which would actually be a good example of this. It's one of the most successful economy games, as the prices are constantly fluctuating up and down as time goes on. I will login to an old account I have to check what population the STRICTLY PK worlds have. (THIS MEANS WORLD PVP. There is nowhere to hide)

There are 4 servers, the populations are:
1604
1379
1029
1112

^ Barely any? Okay. 5,124 people don't know what you're talking about and would like an explanation. For reference, I've included a photograph of what approximately 5,000 people would look like.
http://hostthenpost.com/uploads/30e24fd13e7fb7b0fcc17534e889090a.jpg
(BTW: Out of fairness to you; to even offer a slight chance of argument, I didn't even try to average how many people are in the wilderness on non PK servers. That would be just plain unfair.)

Now that we've addressed that, and you know people would love to take part in risky gameplay (It's exciting. Something a pure co-op/safe game can't offer) we can move on.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:25
#5
kakelgis
Legacy Username
oh boy

I'd try arguing with you, but your post screams "I'm right, you're wrong" all over it. Sadly, there's no hope for changing the mind of people like you! The only thing I can really say would be:

I think anyone with common sense would know that by saying "nobody", I meant "minority of the population".

It doens't even matter if a lot of players would like to take part in this - For the general outcome, most players would not want to risk this, or would simply use worthless items that can be easily replaced. The amount of players that would actually participate in this using their actual gear and accepting the risky game play would not be big enough to make an actual difference in the economy.

I have never played Runescape and I don't know the average population - But I know it is a pretty popular game, and I dunno - I'd guess way more people play on normal servers than those PK servers. 5124 really doens't seem much for such a popular game! (note: even if majority of the population somehow plays on the PK servers, note that this is just one game in the middle of several others - The ones I have played myself never took a liking for PK servers or item-risking zones/PvP)

Now, I ask: If you're going to continue to be so arrogant and one-sided then you shouldn't even reply to my post. It'd just be repeating of what you posted on #4. I get your point already, you feel your arguments are too weak so you have to get all aggressive and arrogant to make your point, yeah? No, not really.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:59
#6
Evesest
Legacy Username
Who's thread is this? Take your shoes off.

@kakelgis

Look bro, I'm being kind and this is my conversationalist side. I am not disrespecting nor am I saying you're "wrong". I'm saying that it would appear that you are vastly incorrect or uninformed; that is all.

You think in a game like RuneScape, the people that die and lose their items LIKE that they lost their items? No. Would they choose YES if a menu popped up and said "Do you want to drop all items?"? No. I never insinuated that people would enjoy the addition of this feature; I said that it's required if you want this MMO to last past a couple years economy-wise.

I'm sure some kids would love to get rid of the ENERGY cost of everything as well. Do we give them that easy way out because it's more convenient and less taxing? No.

Please abandon this thread if you're looking for what the divas of SK would enjoy. If you're looking for what's good for the community.. and overall supportive of competitive nature, continue to discuss with me why a game where a 100% win/0% lose policy is necessary for players to stick around. Considering the history of video games, this has never been the case. Spiral Knights is no different.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:29
#7
MrKnesh
Legacy Username
@kakelgis My idea is inspired

@kakelgis My idea is inspired by many of the MMO's that I have played that had the same system set up. Where players can browse shops that were setup by other players. This created a huge marketplace and STABILIZED prices.

The problem I have with selling equipment at the moment is that I don't know what the hell to charge for it. If there was an open market like the one I had described the mystery of what to charge would be eliminated. I could simply search for the item in the other shops, and charge similarly.

I don't see how this would cause sellers to attempt to undercut other sellers. Maybe by a few CE, or crown deviation between shops. The crafters of these items woud be wary of how much it actually cost them to create these items, so why would you turn around and sell a 2k CE item for 1k? It wouldn't make sense.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 12:57
#8
Evesest
Legacy Username
Ah, now don't start that again!

@MrKnesh

Ever seen a sign at a store stating "We accept all competitors coupons!"? Why do you think that is?

That's because sellers must compete with the next in order to make the sale. If you ignore what everyone else is selling at, you get no business.

Now imagine you're shopping online in comparison to shopping in a store. Instead of only seeing K-Mart's price of the item.. which let's say is $5; you see Wal-Mart's price as well.. which is $3.

Which one do you buy?

Now say K-Mart goes online and sees that Wal-Mart is selling it for $3, and that's the reason their sales have plummeted in the item... what's the only solution to keep selling? Drop their price to one that is competitive with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart sees this, does the same. Rinse and repeat.

Soon things are borderline worthless, and almost not worth the work put into fabrication. Making things easier on the buyer is not the answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHwYX_j3zuc

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 13:16
#9
adrian783
Legacy Username
some way for the items to be

some way for the items to be lost might be able to be done in a reasonable manner. but personally, i would never do anything with the risk of losing items without VERY substantial rewards, such as limited armor set/thousands in CE/etc

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 14:36
#10
Ninhursag
Legacy Username
@Evesest I think it's a good

@Evesest
I think it's a good idea to somehow force people to have to get more copies of their items to get the market going but, personally, getting my 4* set took me over a month and i would never want to lose it because of a lag ( seeing how I'm practically lagging non stop except for when I'm solo ), and that was because of the ce getting so damn high. I'd just suggest that currently market prices are dropping because only people that are broke really need anything, since they can't afford a lot they don't buy, and sellers end up cutting their own prices down ( did you see how the monster bone went from 1k500 down to 200 eventhough so many new players wanted the wolver line ? ). My point is, to be able to get the mats going up you have to get the ce down since you can't craft anything without ce, but then again that either isn't good since people selling the ce would end up stopping to sell them ... New players quit SK really quick because no one looks for a F2P where they can't play as long as they want, and when you just started you can't afford to pay over 4k for a run where you only get about 3k.
Taking World of KungFu as and example, the gold ( equivalent for the ce except most essential items can only be bought with gold ) were at 500 000 each where you need 300 gold to buy one of the essential things when you want to play after the lvl 50 ( which equals 2 weeks of average playing, about 3 hours a day during vacations ), the GMs had to lower the price to 400k at most because of the greedy high end players which bought every single gold that was cheaper than theirs and reselling them. I think something in those lines needs do be done for the ce right now, and I think that is even more true after having read many threads complaining about the ce price, where high end players were saying "with a t2 run you can get at least 6k so why bother selling ce cheaper that that ?", well yeah, why bother playing a game where you go farm money to be able to ... farm more money and farm some more without ever saving anything up ? Sure SK is meant to be a long term developpement of your gear but i don't think years of farming are acceptable.
P.S : sorry for the long post xD

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 14:58
#11
Aznguy
Why not just increase the

Why not just increase the cost of making the items? Increase the amount of materials and crowns needed to craft the item. Of course there will still be people that will farm and sell but the cost and time to craft will be higher. Cutting the price won't be as bad as you still need to offset costs and make a profit.

The only other way is to decrease the drop rates of materials

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 15:22
#12
Pawn's picture
Pawn
New 'old equipment'

Do reskins of old equipment. Different colors. Or make new equip with same stats. It would be great if there was 2-3-4 star alternatives to wolver/demo armor that had the same stats but looked different. People that already have the sword/bomb gear would be remaking armors. (i don't use guns, but i'm guessing it would work there too).

Anyhow, i think people would jump at the chance to differentiate their appearance--it would almost be like a vanity tax, lol.

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 15:33
#13
PeterS
Legacy Username
A buyer's market

What's wrong with a buyer's market, anyway? What are you going to spend the crowns and CE you make selling equipment on, if not on buying either equipment (easier in a buyer's market), crafting (less necessary in a buyer's market) or on playing more floors of the game?

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 21:56
#14
Pawn's picture
Pawn
@ PeterS

nothings wrong with a market favoring buyers, but when the market is favors it to the overwhelming point that it is almost charity it gets a bit ridiculous.

Also, sellers count on selling stuff to make crowns to spend on equipment, crafting, dungeoning, etc. Basically all the things you say a buyers market helps, are the things that a seller sells so that they can do.

Tue, 05/10/2011 - 08:51
#15
PeterS
Legacy Username
@ Jeburk

Correct. But in a buyer's market - especially one so extreme that it borders on charity - a seller doesn't need to sell to get equipment or go dungeoning. They can simply buy equipment at extremely low prices instead of crafting, which allows them to save ludicrous amounts of energy. (I'm guessing all the trade happens at T3 and above, so let's say they're saving 100+E apiece) They can then spend the energy on more playtime.

The price that they can make selling has indeed dropped, but their cost of living has also dropped.

I'm sure that in earlier days of the game there was a dream where you could increase your playtime by selling, but right now the pendulum has swung the other way - you can rapidly accelerate your gearing by buying. It's important to take advantage of that instead of thinking of yourself as a "seller" or a "buyer". We're all playing the same game and are equally capable of both depending on what benefits us.

And hey, there's nothing wrong with playing ten floors a day plus whatever you can buy with crowns.

Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:52
#16
Little-Endian
It's not easy to make items.

It's not easy to make items. If you could lose it you'd also have to make it easier to acquire. Items in this game are cool. You work hard to get them and you get attached to it.

Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:46
#17
ajericho
Legacy Username
The problem with having

The problem with having people lose items is that, in this game, losing an item means you lose all your leveling you put into the item. Other games, you don't lose your level; with SK, you would. It's not a simple matter of me buying another Khorovod from you—it takes me weeks to tune that Khorovod into a level 10 to reach its full potential. You cannot sell me that at all. It'd be different if you could.

Thus a lose-your-items feature is not really the same in SK as it is elsewhere.

Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:55
#18
Pawn's picture
Pawn
@PeterS

Good points. :)
I still have my own opinions of course, but you do make valid points from a point of view that i hadn't considered. You have nudged me a little down the continuum towards your point of view, but still retaining my original opinion lol.

Tue, 05/10/2011 - 13:03
#19
PeterS
Legacy Username
@ jeburk

Thank you very much! Have fun playing.

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 02:11
#20
sabriath
Legacy Username
this is a bad idea

Staking items is a bad idea...point blank. The best way to make it a seller market is to limit the amount of items a player can have. You then force the supply to work laterally rather than infinitely, and what I mean by that is, in order for a seller to have ample supply, it forces him to have multiple characters (whether owned by him or by guildmates/friends/corporation/etc.) -- that makes it a lateral move. Because of the cost of sending items from character-to-character, this introduces a crown sink as well.

A "bank" could also be implemented, where extra 'slots' could be rented (another sink) and allow players to stash their hauls before a run through the clock. When reaching the elevator, a menu could show up saying how many items you have to get rid if you go over the maximum (then you select it out of your inventory like you do when selling items, but "confirm" would just drop them instead).

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 05:49
#21
Raul
Currently, it's a buyers

Currently, it's a buyers market. It's a nightmare for sellers to find buyers for their wares, and it will only go downhill from here. I see alot of threads complaining about the market, but never pinpointing the problem, or offering a fix.

Actually you see ONE thread, MY thread. Which is where this should of been posted.

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 06:08
#22
Gigafreak
Legacy Username
I really, really don't like

I really, really don't like the idea of losing a 5-star weapon with a fantastic UV on it. It'd take days or weeks to build one, and only a few minutes to lose it? That's... not exactly fun for most players, especially when some of them paid real money for the Energy to build or buy those weapons with.

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 08:54
#23
PeterS
Legacy Username
@ Skype

I think people stating that any given matter should only be discussed in one thread should be also kept in one thread, and out of the others.

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 09:26
#24
Madadder's picture
Madadder
i have an idea

add the concept of "durability" to equipment! simply have a number value go down on lets say weapons only at this time and when it reaches zero make it unusable and have the option to repair it using a randomly generated materials of the same "*" level that changes between each repair and have it cost an amount of crowns and energy to have the repairs done (proportionate to the amount of durability lost)

this would create the demand needed to maintain gear through the acquisition of materials

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 12:17
#25
Splinter's picture
Splinter
The Repair function is in WoW

The Repair function is something they have in WoW. I definitely think it would make an interesting addition as a crown / ce / materials sink. Could help a bit.

I could see it as maintaining the item you created with the materials that created it like red shards and bushy tails etc...going into vog cub gear when it gets low on durability.

Durability can increase with star power and weapon lvl as well.

Weapons lose durability with use and armor loses it with damage taken.

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 13:09
#26
ajericho
Legacy Username
@sabriath, Speaking as

@sabriath,

Speaking as someone who likes to create a lot of weapons to explore the various lines and, these days, make teaching videos about them, I don't like the idea that I'd have to discard pre-made weapons to create new ones. It takes a while to level and learn how to use a weapon, and leveling affects things like charging and even the nature of special attacks and other effects. And with that in mind, I also have to set aside a full set of 2*/3* gear that I fully leveled so I can quickly level new weapons.

That would require a constant upkeep that pretty much hurts me and very few other players who happen to be hoarders; most people concentrate only on several weapons, so your proposed sink wouldn't net that much sink. Heck, most people would think I'm flipping crazy for creating the entire Troika line and actually keeping a copy of each sword instead of selling everything off but the UV Khorovod, or that I keep 2* gear around after gaining access to T3 for leveling and instructional purposes.

If we're going to have to take away weapons from buyers, then I prefer the durability/degradation method. For the weapons you use, you have to pay upkeep on them (so you could have something in storage, but either it doesn't degrade or it degrades very, very slowly). And I actually think that's thematic and fun, while satisfying various material sink properties. And it can be modified to hit everyone equally instead of simply penalizing people who dungeon delve often (make it a day-to-day upkeep, rather than a run-to-run upkeep).

Wed, 05/11/2011 - 21:34
#27
Pawn's picture
Pawn
@PeterS

"I think people stating that any given matter should only be discussed in one thread should be also kept in one thread, and out of the others."

Another good point!!! It seems a bit strange to me too that someone will post in threads, just to say they think the thread is a waste of time.

Thu, 05/12/2011 - 01:58
#28
Raul
Actually no, there is a

Actually no, there is a search feature and creating more threads about the same damn thing just wastes forum and server space, knock it off. There was already a thread on the front page to deal with the market. MY thread. This is a suggestion for exactly what I created the thread for. It should HAVE been posted THERE.

Thu, 05/12/2011 - 02:04
#29
Evesest
Legacy Username
Great input! I think the

Great input! I think the repair idea is a great one as long as it utilizes materials as well as crowns/CE. Durability +1 supporter.

@GodofSkype
Your thread was horrible, that's why I didn't post in it. It was worthless and a waste of time. You said something should be done, yet offered no viable suggestions. It was a complaining thread, and I want to have nothing to do with it. Thanks for thinking you're the authority on the forum, though. Next time you make a thread in the suggestions forum, try suggesting something; thanks.

I do agree that losing the UV's and levels of items is harsh, but something does need to be done. Maybe durability is the answer? Who knows. I do think losing items would be a good idea though.. personally. I just think it would force you to reconsider what gear you wear in a certain situation.. and weigh whether or not you will be able to finish it successfully.

Thu, 05/12/2011 - 02:21
#30
Pawn's picture
Pawn
yeah but

@ Eh, people have the right to make any thread they want. Also, the title of threads is pretty important IMO. 'I would much rather post my ideas in a thread entitled 'how to fix the current market issues', than 'the market is in DANGER'.

Nothing wrong with wanting to title (topic name) i thought that you want to contribute. By posting it new, it creates more of a buzz and says click an read me. People give up on threads and quit checking, so creating a new thread is completely legitimate.

And if you disagree then...
@godofskype
You should not have started that thread, you should have posted here:
http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/6094
it's a market thread made a month before yours.

I found it using the search function you are criticizing others for not using. Just popped it right at near the top of the list. Really easy to find and all.

Thu, 05/12/2011 - 02:33
#31
Raul
Your thread was horrible,

Your thread was horrible, that's why I didn't post in it. It was worthless and a waste of time. You said something should be done, yet offered no viable suggestions. It was a complaining thread, and I want to have nothing to do with it. Thanks for thinking you're the authority on the forum, though. Next time you make a thread in the suggestions forum, try suggesting something; thanks.

I left it open to other's suggestions, yet everyone wanted to be little immature jerks and attack me rather then suggest things. I don't suggest things very often because I am not an inventor, I am a doer and a seer, if I see a problem I report on it, I leave it to other's to come up with ways to fix what I discover.

No my thread wasn't horrible, you just didn't like what I had to say because it didn't agree with you. Rather then, and this goes for the rest of you to, being a pissant you could of placed suggestions in the thread as was intended.

Thu, 05/12/2011 - 02:36
#32
Raul
Eh, people have the right to

Eh, people have the right to make any thread they want. Also, the title of threads is pretty important IMO. 'I would much rather post my ideas in a thread entitled 'how to fix the current market issues', than 'the market is in DANGER'.
Nothing wrong with wanting to title (topic name) i thought that you want to contribute. By posting it new, it creates more of a buzz and says click an read me. People give up on threads and quit checking, so creating a new thread is completely legitimate.
And if you disagree then...
@godofskype
You should not have started that thread, you should have posted here:
http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/6094
it's a market thread made a month before yours.
I found it using the search function you are criticizing others for not using. Just popped it right at near the top of the list. Really easy to find and all.

I will only agree with the fact that I should of named it better, I will not take back what I did and how I did it, only how I titled it.

As for that thread it's over 1 month old with no replies, it's invalidated.

Thu, 05/12/2011 - 05:08
#33
Algol-Sixty's picture
Algol-Sixty
A suggestion doesn't become

A suggestion doesn't become invalid after only a month. The number of relies doesn't change whether an idea is good, I've had OOO implement one of my suggestions when it had zero replies. Being a "seer" is trivial, everyone sees stuff especially obvious stuff. The world is not all about you, godofgripe1.

Thu, 05/12/2011 - 05:26
#34
sl0shie
Legacy Username
Godofskype1 is an insane,

Godofskype1 is an insane, bitter, broken old man.. and I love his ridiculous, unintentionally hilarious posts. Every time I see a thread with him involved I smile, because I know it's going to be fantastic!

Keep up the good work skype, you are thoroughly entertaining.

Thu, 05/12/2011 - 16:49
#35
sabriath
Legacy Username
..

@ajericho:

You missed my point....I didn't say that people should get rid of all their crap. What I said was, that players should have an inventory limit. For example, limit the stack count to 20 on each item, and limit you to hold only 30 items at a time (so if you wanted 100 bushy tails, that would be 5 stacks, leaving you 25 empty slots for other stuff). Having items equipped wouldn't count toward the limit, and they could introduce containers to increase this limit into the game. Along with having a bank, hoarders (like yourself) can continue to hoard by having bank slots, big containers, etc. etc.

At the moment, people can have upwards of 65535 (or possibly more, I'm only guessing the stack count is a 2 byte variable, if it's 4 byte, we're looking at 4 billion), this drastically increases the supply ability of the game, which lowers the value. Having items dissolve for no reason would be unfair to the player, but forcing them to choose which items they keep because their inventory is "full," is a step that helps put a cap-like feature on the items in the game. The game currently creates items based on a loot table, and it's up to the players whether to use them, vendor them, or destroy them....why would they feel the need to vendor/destroy them when it's completely free for them to keep it all?

Fri, 05/13/2011 - 02:55
#36
Raul
Godofskype1 is an insane,

Godofskype1 is an insane, bitter, broken old man.. and I love his ridiculous, unintentionally hilarious posts. Every time I see a thread with him involved I smile, because I know it's going to be fantastic!
Keep up the good work skype, you are thoroughly entertaining.

Can't tell if serious or trolling.

Just because it's valid to the devs, doesn't mean it's valid to the player base. Look at my thread, you guys buried it on page 2.

Fri, 05/13/2011 - 11:12
#37
PeterS
Legacy Username
@ Skype

Your thread mostly consists of you screaming at people in stress caps, with a light dash of cussing and being offended by people being offended by your cussing.

Fri, 05/13/2011 - 11:35
#38
ajericho
Legacy Username
@sabriath, my apologies. I

@sabriath, my apologies. I did miss your point entirely.

At the moment, I think inventory is capped mostly through the annoyance of scrolling through the interface; even with search/filter capabilities currently present, having even just the entirety of one line (like the Brandishes) is annoying enough to want to dump excess; and considering that every single item has its own entry, even if you have multiple of one item (so 16 Haze Bombs is 16 entries), it's no wonder people start trying to give them away after hunting for UVs. I'm still not sure how much a real cap would win over, well, sheer annoyance.

I personally sell excess copies to the vendors—it's fast and, while I don't get back the full value of the item, I do get crowns to pay for the next batch of items. If there were an Auction House, I'd put them up at cost. No item is free in this game, save for the Proto and Groundbreaker sets, which I think is already a driver for dropping existing items if you don't need them anymore.

Sat, 05/14/2011 - 08:35
#39
Evesest
Legacy Username
@GodofSkype

Noone cares about your thread lmao.. stop bringing it up.

Back to the discussion

Sat, 05/14/2011 - 14:05
#40
Elegies
Legacy Username
I think the problem is more

I think the problem is more than the cost of crafting (weighted with the extreme unlikelihood of getting a desirable UV) is too high, AND that the demand for said UVs is too high.

I made 25 caliburs--UV farming for a Leviathan of my own use. Of the 25, I got 2 UVs. Both were beast--low. So, pretty much trash. It's no wonder that people are now selling 2* and 3* items below the cost of crafting--the market is flooded with them.

UVs are too rare, too random, and the playerbase places a much higher value on specific UVs (which can be interpreted as a game balance issue--high demand for gear that's good in Citadel/Jelly King, certain damage types being too rare to justify gearing against, etc).

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system