PDA

View Full Version : Bid / Ask system for commons and uncommons would be nice



LNQ
07-09-2015, 01:43 AM
A bid / ask system for commons and uncommons would be really nice, as these are bulk items that nearly all players would like to either buy or sell.

What it means is essentially similar to a 'buyout only' marketplace, where you can additionally put in a bid price if you want to buy a card for cheaper than it's available now. If you're selling a card, you can either sell for the highest bid price, or you can put an ask price that is higher, hoping that the card's price will increase to that in the future.

This could be integrated into the card manager with buy and sell buttons for each card, so you could easily buy and sell cards in the market at any time without the hassle of putting up an auction. Same could apply for other high volume items such as low tier equipment.

Selling commons and uncommons as it is now is really tedious, since you have to put them up for auction for max 48 hours and then have to relist them all over again if no one buys them. The bid/ask system doesn't need time limits at all to function properly.

Rare and legendary cards could still use the auction house.

poizonous
07-09-2015, 04:35 AM
As much as I appreciate all the AH suggestions, I would personally love them to stop focusing on AH improvements and actually implement the Trading

EntropyBall
07-09-2015, 06:30 AM
As much as I appreciate all the AH suggestions, I would personally love them to stop focusing on AH improvements and actually implement the Trading

Trading is so much worse than an auction house. A functional, efficient AH will be far simpler than trying to meet all the conditions necessary to make a trade in game. It just doesn't make any sense. Sell your extras for plat/gold, buy what you need. There, you just made an elaborate multi-party trade using the existing game interface. I would argue the current AH is functional, but not efficient, due to many of the things the OP listed.

OP, the bid/ask system has been discussed on these forums countless times, and I'm pretty sure Yoss's signature has multiple links to the longer discussions. The multi-listing that is coming the next patch should make it easier to list C/UCs, but will also drive their prices so low that it probably won't be worth doing.

Svenn
07-09-2015, 07:08 AM
As much as I appreciate all the AH suggestions, I would personally love them to stop focusing on AH improvements and actually implement the Trading

TCGBrowser trading works great for trading. I don't see trading as a high priority when we've got the AH and stuff like the TCG Browser trading post that makes it so easy.

Yoss
07-09-2015, 01:26 PM
I don't see why we can't just make a global addition to the existing AH to allow Bid (AKA "Sell Now") listings when the current prices (or lack of supply) do not appeal to the bidder. Why limit it to only certain rarities?

Also, for things that will never have double-back stats (packs, chests, equipment, etc.) why not have a purely Bid/Ask system?

@barter/trading: I totally disagree that it needs priority. The current COD system is plenty good enough for now.

TOOT
07-09-2015, 02:16 PM
Trading is so archaic compared to an AH. A bid/ask system makes trading even more obsolete and a waste of time thumbing through people's collections. Trading only works in a B&M environment because of the availability of players and physically swapping cards.

It also is a breeding ground for noobs to get taken advantage of. It's pretty hard to rip yourself off with an AH, especially one with Bid/Ask.

I truly hope it never gets implemented.

thegreybetween
07-09-2015, 02:50 PM
Trading is so archaic ... I truly hope it never gets implemented.

I just had to call this out for the incredible irony it represents for a Trading Card Game. Not discounting your argument, just got a kick out of the sentiment.

For my part, bring on real trading. I like the good ol' barter system for gaming, and no amount of good economic sense is going to deter me :p

Yoss
07-09-2015, 04:24 PM
Perhaps "barter" is the more correct word for the "trading" poiz and TOOT were talking about.

Niedar
07-09-2015, 04:26 PM
I just had to call this out for the incredible irony it represents for a Trading Card Game. Not discounting your argument, just got a kick out of the sentiment.

For my part, bring on real trading. I like the good ol' barter system for gaming, and no amount of good economic sense is going to deter me :p

Stock trading.

purehybrid
07-09-2015, 06:18 PM
EVERYTHING should be Bid/Ask on the AH... it has soooooo many benefits :)

LNQ
07-10-2015, 01:21 AM
Didnt think about the double back issue. Thats definitely a hurdle in the way of bid/ask.

I still like the idea of just leveling each card on an account basis and not each single copy of a card uniquely.

Gwaer
07-10-2015, 01:38 AM
Didnt think about the double back issue. Thats definitely a hurdle in the way of bid/ask.

I still like the idea of just leveling each card on an account basis and not each single copy of a card uniquely.



I like the idea of each card having a history. Being able to look at everyone who ever owned a card before you and their greatest achievements. It just sounds amazing. It is something I've often thought about with particularly damaged and worn physical cards

I still don't think bid/ask is appropriate for any card. Chests, packs, mercs are fine with bid/ask. Cards less so.

LNQ
07-10-2015, 02:34 AM
I can't deny that that system has it's benefits, too. I just feel like I would like the bid/ask system more.

I'm also a bit concerned how risky and novel the double back idea is. It's so untested it could just turn out not to be fun or coherent at all if each single copy of a card is unique. There's so many world firsts going on with Hex I feel we could live without this one in favor of a more efficient and user friendly experience.

Then again, the double back system is something that can always be discontinued if turns out not to be as good as hoped. Retroactively implementing it on the other hand would be more difficult, so maybe it's better to give it a go right away.

Yoss
07-10-2015, 11:55 AM
Didnt think about the double back issue. Thats definitely a hurdle in the way of bid/ask.

I still like the idea of just leveling each card on an account basis and not each single copy of a card uniquely.

The "double back issue" is the same trouble for auctions as for bid/ask and is solved using similar systems (good sorting/filtering/searching). It is therefore a moot point for choosing auctions versus bid/ask as the market system. (This has all been discussed at length before, but I suppose we could do it again.)

Gwaer
07-10-2015, 12:05 PM
The "double back issue" is the same trouble for auctions as for bid/ask and is solved using similar systems (good sorting/filtering/searching). It is therefore a moot point for choosing auctions versus bid/ask as the market system. (This has all been discussed at length before, but I suppose we could do it again.)


Clearly, though you feel your arguments are universally persuasive on this topic, that's not the case. The fact that there have been multiple extensive discussions about this specifically means the point is far from moot. You're very fond of the bid/ask and feel is a panacea to all the AH woes, I disagree vehemently. No sense in having the discussion again. They'll get it into the game the way they feel is best.

Turtlewing
07-10-2015, 01:37 PM
The "double back issue" is the same trouble for auctions as for bid/ask and is solved using similar systems (good sorting/filtering/searching). It is therefore a moot point for choosing auctions versus bid/ask as the market system. (This has all been discussed at length before, but I suppose we could do it again.)

Except how it isn't and how all those previous discussion were you assert your side, fail to prove your point to those who bring up specific failure cases with your solution then declare victory.

I doubt going into it again will be helpful, as if you had actually solved the issues with your HEXBAS proposal you'd probably have bumped the old thread and edited the OP with the changes.

EntropyBall
07-10-2015, 01:43 PM
Clearly, though you feel your arguments are universally persuasive on this topic, that's not the case. The fact that there have been multiple extensive discussions about this specifically means the point is far from moot. You're very fond of the bid/ask and feel is a panacea to all the AH woes, I disagree vehemently. No sense in having the discussion again. They'll get it into the game the way they feel is best.

The fact that this keeps coming up doesn't mean it's far from moot, it just means that people are unaware of the previous discussions. Obviously the fact that you still disagree means you think it's far from moot though. Personally, I don't think there are enough compelling arguments that a traditional AH system is conceptually better than a Bid/Ask system. IMO, the biggest point in favor of our current system is that we have it already and it's probably much less dev time to expand it than replace it.

Yoss
07-10-2015, 01:51 PM
Except how it isn't and how all those previous discussion were you assert your side, fail to prove your point to those who bring up specific failure cases with your solution then declare victory.

I doubt going into it again will be helpful, as if you had actually solved the issues with your HEXBAS proposal you'd probably have bumped the old thread and edited the OP with the changes.

Are you claiming I argue in bad faith? I take great care to always do my best to argue fairly and address all relevant points. If you wish to say otherwise, please bring evidence (so that I can perhaps apologize). If you can not produce any evidence, then kindly keep your vitriol to yourself.

Yoss
07-10-2015, 01:55 PM
At this point, just adding Bid listings would go a very long way to boost the system's effectiveness. No need to remove the auction system from the seller side, just add a buyer-controlled Bid listing system to compliment the seller-controlled two-faceted (buyout + auction) listing system. Added bonus is those who think auctions offer something useful to the market can still have that something.

Turtlewing
07-10-2015, 04:45 PM
Are you claiming I argue in bad faith? I take great care to always do my best to argue fairly and address all relevant points. If you wish to say otherwise, please bring evidence (so that I can perhaps apologize). If you can not produce any evidence, then kindly keep your vitriol to yourself.

I would not say you argue in bad faith.

However I would say you often decide your solution solves a problem when the people who posed the problem remain unconvinced.

For example, a BAS that doesn't let you easily set complex priorities for your buy order (like buy 4 pack raptor, lowest price except if it has >3 trophies and is priced no more than 150% of the lowest price, or buy 1 Comet strike must ahve at least 1 constructed tournament trophy 3rd place or higher) will encourage people to disregard everting but price when buying cards. That commoditizes cards, and undermines the point of the double back (the point of the double back being to make hex cards unique entities not commodities).

I've brought that up several times in these discusions, and your responce has been (paraphrased) "a sufficiently advanced UI will take care of that" but you haven't been able to explain what that UI will look like and the plausibility of the UI is my primary objection (if there existed a UI that could handle those types of buy orders and be comprehensible to casual users i'd be convinced BAS is the way to go).

On this particular issue, I'd potentially conceded that with stardust replacing achievements as the way to unlock EA, the double back is approaching irrelevance on it's own so revisiting a BAS may make sense. But with trophies still being a thing I'm not won over yet.

Yoss
07-11-2015, 09:24 AM
I proposed the UI here:
http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=26789&p=281507&viewfull=1#post281507

Though I posted it before we had the AH in game, the look HXE chose for the current Buy view is somewhat similar to what I proposed. Basically, you have drop downs, check boxes, and text fields across the top to specify a filter and that filter is applied as criteria to your Bid Listing. The only thing missing was an EA drop down (since they changed how they're doing EA now) but that's easy to add; it would look much like the current AA drop down does.

Does that answer the mail as far as you're concerned, Turtlewing? If not, what would you propose to change?

EntropyBall
07-11-2015, 09:36 AM
I would not say you argue in bad faith.

However I would say you often decide your solution solves a problem when the people who posed the problem remain unconvinced.

For example, a BAS that doesn't let you easily set complex priorities for your buy order (like buy 4 pack raptor, lowest price except if it has >3 trophies and is priced no more than 150% of the lowest price, or buy 1 Comet strike must ahve at least 1 constructed tournament trophy 3rd place or higher) will encourage people to disregard everting but price when buying cards. That commoditizes cards, and undermines the point of the double back (the point of the double back being to make hex cards unique entities not commodities).

I think most cards will be traded as commodities, where the double back stuff is irrelevant. So running BAS alongside an AH like we have now would let people trade their special and unique snowflakes if they want to on the AH, or just trade the cards for their play value on the BAS.

Also, the scenarios you proposed would be an absolute nightmare to browse for in a normal AH without advanced filters. If you built those filters, you could also just apply them to a BAS.