Vendor Sales Cap

Is there a reason why the limit on vendors for an item is still 175 mill?

It seems this is a relic of when we were still using gold checks.  It even still states those without the extra storage for the 125M may not be able to buy it.

It seems like we should increase this cap.  This would also potentially increase the gold sink and rely less on using a ton of auction safes.

You’re right that it’s arbitrary. However, the exchanging of gold from one player to another is not a gold sink because the gold does not leave the economy. It just changes hands.

Increasing the cap would probably be worse from a sustainability perspective. People would be more items up on VS for even more absurd prices.

Vendor too full to accept more gold is also pretty annoying.

loop said:

You’re right that it’s arbitrary. However, the exchanging of gold from one player to another is not a gold sink because the gold does not leave the economy. It just changes hands.

Increasing the cap would probably be worse from a sustainability perspective. People would be more items up on VS for even more absurd prices.

I forgot about commission eating up a certain percentage - 10% I think?

loop said:

You’re right that it’s arbitrary. However, the exchanging of gold from one player to another is not a gold sink because the gold does not leave the economy. It just changes hands.

Increasing the cap would probably be worse from a sustainability perspective. People would be more items up on VS for even more absurd prices.

Pawain said:

Vendor too full to accept more gold is also pretty annoying.

Oreogl said:

loop said:

You’re right that it’s arbitrary. However, the exchanging of gold from one player to another is not a gold sink because the gold does not leave the economy. It just changes hands.

Increasing the cap would probably be worse from a sustainability perspective. People would be more items up on VS for even more absurd prices.

No, that’s true but vendors still charge fees.  Which would be the gold sink.

edit I looked, it’s 5.25% on a commission vendor.

So if you sold something for 350M, gold sink is 18m.

Thanks - I forgot about this bit 

Completely agree - Vendors need to go up to at least 500m.   No good reason for a limit. If you are worried about high level scams then make people double confirm a buy over 100m.  

and make it a red color warning

they're call auction safes

when i came back i was like you they should raise the maximum price on vendor. but when you understand how market in manipulate in that game by some players you will see a crazy inflation on many tiems they will all go to new max price very fast.

Archangel said:

they're call auction safes

It seems like it would be more practical to implement this on a vendor vs the amount of auction safes needed.

Why buy a 60m auction safe vs a few k for a vendor deed?  

creampie said:

when i came back i was like you they should raise the maximum price on vendor. but when you understand how market in manipulate in that game by some players you will see a crazy inflation on many tiems they will all go to new max price very fast.

Sure I’m sure there are those who would try to manipulate this somehow, but overall I think the impact would be beneficial.

Oreogl said:

Archangel said:

they're call auction safes

It seems like it would be more practical to implement this on a vendor vs the amount of auction safes needed.

Why buy a 60m auction safe vs a few k for a vendor deed?  

To tame a bit the unhinged inflation. Fewer items being priced above 175m, what's not to like?

Archangel said:

Oreogl said:

Archangel said:

they're call auction safes

It seems like it would be more practical to implement this on a vendor vs the amount of auction safes needed.

Why buy a 60m auction safe vs a few k for a vendor deed?  

To tame a bit the unhinged inflation. Fewer items being priced above 175m, what's not to like?

Arguably, auction safes are counterproductive in inflation since they don’t appear to provide a good sink from lack of fees and a good deal of the items are priced egregiously because of the span.  

Just wondering, why do people put items on auction safes for less than 175 mil ? I see a lot of items on safe for like 60mil on Alt. And why can’t price on items show up in VS ? 

Skett said:

Just wondering, why do people put items on auction safes for less than 175 mil ? I see a lot of items on safe for like 60mil on Alt. And why can’t price on items show up in VS ? 

I don’t believe there’s a commission for auction safes, so if someone buys something for 50m, you get the full 50m.

And the buy now price would be nice to see on VS.  I assume if there’s any bids on items these days it’s the sellers alt account jacking up the price.

Auction safes charge 5% commission. 

RonFellows said:

Auction safes charge 5% commission. 

This is only the “buy now” option though correct?

Archangel said:

they're call auction safes

Keep the auction safes for auctions but for people that want to sell for a set price then up the limit on vendors.  Do away with the daily costs and make everything a flat % fee.

Skett said:

Just wondering, why do people put items on auction safes for less than 175 mil ? I see a lot of items on safe for like 60mil on Alt. And why can’t price on items show up in VS ? 

Because they are hoping that people will bid it up over the 175 mark.  I have never seen a buy now bid under 175.

because we have auction safes.  that was the answer to the 175 gold limit.   because its a vet reward, i highly doubt we ever see an increase in vendor price cap. 

Lord_Frodo said:

Archangel said:

they're call auction safes

Keep the auction safes for auctions but for people that want to sell for a set price then up the limit on vendors.  Do away with the daily costs and make everything a flat % fee.

unfortunately auction safes are terrible for auctions.  if there was ability to increase the bid increment from 1gp to an amount set by the seller.  say 10m, 50m, whatever they would be alot more viable for actual auctions.  1gp bid ups is absurd for items worth 100s of mils or multiple platinums.

ive only seen 1 actual auction using safes.  and everything went for rediculously low.  because you can be outbid for 1g.

they were nice when if someone bid the start price, it wouldnt take out the 6 percent fee, but since they eliminated auto renew i find that having a start price lower than the buyout can be counterproductive.  because it makes people more likely to wait to bid until the auctions almost over, and a couple days later they often forget and dont buy the item at all.   not many people want to wait a week just to buy something in a video game.

Smoot said:

because we have auction safes.  that was the answer to the 175 gold limit.   because its a vet reward, i highly doubt we ever see an increase in vendor price cap. 

Well, again these do not have to be mutually exclusive.  

Smoot said:

Lord_Frodo said:

Archangel said:

they're call auction safes

Keep the auction safes for auctions but for people that want to sell for a set price then up the limit on vendors.  Do away with the daily costs and make everything a flat % fee.

unfortunately auction safes are terrible for auctions.  if there was ability to increase the bid increment from 1gp to an amount set by the seller.  say 10m, 50m, whatever they would be alot more viable for actual auctions.  1gp bid ups is absurd for items worth 100s of mils or multiple platinums.

ive only seen 1 actual auction using safes.  and everything went for rediculously low.  because you can be outbid for 1g.

they were nice when if someone bid the start price, it wouldnt take out the 6 percent fee, but since they eliminated auto renew i find that having a start price lower than the buyout can be counterproductive.  because it makes people more likely to wait to bid until the auctions almost over, and a couple days later they often forget and dont buy the item at all.   not many people want to wait a week just to buy something in a video game.

I thought you could set  a starting bid as well as a buy now bid.

As another said,  I feel an increase in the cap would immediately make things that were 175M increase to the new cap.

Keep as is is my vote.

Pawain said:

As another said,  I feel an increase in the cap would immediately make things that were 175M increase to the new cap.

Keep as is is my vote.

That’s now how it works but ok.

Oreogl said:

Pawain said:

As another said,  I feel an increase in the cap would immediately make things that were 175M increase to the new cap.

Keep as is is my vote.

That’s now how it works but ok.

Tell me that while seeing hundreds of single resources marked at 175M on vendors.  Uh huh.

Pawain said:

Oreogl said:

Pawain said:

As another said,  I feel an increase in the cap would immediately make things that were 175M increase to the new cap.

Keep as is is my vote.

That’s now how it works but ok.

Tell me that while seeing hundreds of single resources marked at 175M on vendors.  Uh huh.

People do that so people won't buy the display...

Pawain said:

Oreogl said:

Pawain said:

As another said,  I feel an increase in the cap would immediately make things that were 175M increase to the new cap.

Keep as is is my vote.

That’s now how it works but ok.

Tell me that while seeing hundreds of single resources marked at 175M on vendors.  Uh huh.

Uh that seems wildly inaccurate, rather I’d ask you to prove this.

it’s the same economic principle of supply and demand, which is why you don’t see every single item in game marked to 175m.  

Grimbeard said:

Pawain said:

Oreogl said:

Pawain said:

As another said,  I feel an increase in the cap would immediately make things that were 175M increase to the new cap.

Keep as is is my vote.

That’s now how it works but ok.

Tell me that while seeing hundreds of single resources marked at 175M on vendors.  Uh huh.

People do that so people won't buy the display...

This would be my guess.

Grimbeard said:

Pawain said:

Oreogl said:

Pawain said:

As another said,  I feel an increase in the cap would immediately make things that were 175M increase to the new cap.

Keep as is is my vote.

That’s now how it works but ok.

Tell me that while seeing hundreds of single resources marked at 175M on vendors.  Uh huh.

People do that so people won't buy the display...

So you would buy a single blood moss for 10M but not 175M?  

Pawain said:

Grimbeard said:

Pawain said:

Oreogl said:

Pawain said:

As another said,  I feel an increase in the cap would immediately make things that were 175M increase to the new cap.

Keep as is is my vote.

That’s now how it works but ok.

Tell me that while seeing hundreds of single resources marked at 175M on vendors.  Uh huh.

People do that so people won't buy the display...

So you would buy a single blood moss for 10M but not 175M?  

That’s pretty much the point, no one will…making exaggerations and hypotheticals is a disservice to the discussion.  

hence the gold cap increase will benefit the things that are valued higher than 175m, most of which is probably some vet rewards and event drops.  This will not result in inflation as previously suggested.

Vet rewards are way overpriced so besides EM event prizes, the rest of stuff either gets real with their price, enabling it to go in vendors, or buy another safe for it. Now, leave things as they are, its already messed enough without rising the price cap. 

Archangel said:

Vet rewards are way overpriced so besides EM event prizes, the rest of stuff either gets real with their price, enabling it to go in vendors, or buy another safe for it. Now, leave things as they are, its already messed enough without rising the price cap. 

Veteran Rewards prices skyrocketed when the decision was made to delete them at IDOCs...

This, unfortunately, reduced significantly their number in the game and, consequentially, their price went up....

I'm not a fan of auction safes - I have never bought off one, no idea how they work.

I forever see people getting it wrong and losing plats even.

Personally, I would get rid of the vendor sales cap, and for auction safes, have them as a complimentary system - that genuinely acts as an auction style sale.

Again, having the 2 systems - with an arbitrary (and obsolete) 175m cap, is just adding layers of complication. It is not needed.

Archangel said:

Vet rewards are way overpriced so besides EM event prizes, the rest of stuff either gets real with their price, enabling it to go in vendors, or buy another safe for it. Now, leave things as they are, it’s already messed enough without rising the price cap. 

I’m not sure which has do with the other, as mentioned prices for vet rewards was a product of supply reduction, due to idoc deletion.

I don’t see much if any issues increasing the cap on vendors, and haven’t seen any arguments why it shouldn’t be really.

I myself would prefer the vendor system over auction safes.  Just look on Atlantic and you can see an example why this would be beneficial.  

Oreogl said:

Archangel said:

Vet rewards are way overpriced so besides EM event prizes, the rest of stuff either gets real with their price, enabling it to go in vendors, or buy another safe for it. Now, leave things as they are, it’s already messed enough without rising the price cap. 

I’m not sure which has do with the other, as mentioned prices for vet rewards was a product of supply reduction, due to idoc deletion.

I don’t see much if any issues increasing the cap on vendors, and haven’t seen any arguments why it shouldn’t be really.

I myself would prefer the vendor system over auction safes.  Just look on Atlantic and you can see an example why this would be beneficial.  

We don’t have to remove the cap completely necessarily but definitely increase it.

because you keep your head in the sand and dont listen to people who say why. 175 mils cap is there to avoid bigger inflation. let say they raise it to 250 mils i can assure you the day after leurocian mempo of fortune in 250 mils on vendor search and the rest of the items at 175 mils. you can use safe already to sell anything over 175 mils for less fee 5% than vendor commission little over 5%. you seem to have a problem with items over 175 mils so use auction safe.

because you keep your head in the sand and dont listen to people who say why. 175 mils cap is there to avoid bigger inflation. let say they raise it to 250 mils i can assure you the day after leurocian mempo of fortune in 250 mils on vendor search and the rest of the items at 175 mils. you can use safe already to sell anything over 175 mils for less fee 5% than vendor commission little over 5%. you seem to have a problem with items over 175 mils so use auction safe.

This argument is null and void though?

Auction safes have already made this happen.

creampie said:

Oreogl said:

Archangel said:

Vet rewards are way overpriced so besides EM event prizes, the rest of stuff either gets real with their price, enabling it to go in vendors, or buy another safe for it. Now, leave things as they are, it’s already messed enough without rising the price cap. 

I’m not sure which has do with the other, as mentioned prices for vet rewards was a product of supply reduction, due to idoc deletion.

I don’t see much if any issues increasing the cap on vendors, and haven’t seen any arguments why it shouldn’t be really.

I myself would prefer the vendor system over auction safes.  Just look on Atlantic and you can see an example why this would be beneficial.  

We don’t have to remove the cap completely necessarily but definitely increase it.

because you keep your head in the sand and dont listen to people who say why. 175 mils cap is there to avoid bigger inflation. let say they raise it to 250 mils i can assure you the day after leurocian mempo of fortune in 250 mils on vendor search and the rest of the items at 175 mils. you can use safe already to sell anything over 175 mils for less fee 5% than vendor commission little over 5%. you seem to have a problem with items over 175 mils so use auction safe.

Well I think I countered this argument before, with that’s not correct.  Increasing the cap will not cause inflation.  Feel free to prove how.

assigning a value does not cause that value to go up.  It causes people not to buy it.  Basic supply and demand dictate this which is why everything isnt priced to 175m now.

Cookie said:

because you keep your head in the sand and dont listen to people who say why. 175 mils cap is there to avoid bigger inflation. let say they raise it to 250 mils i can assure you the day after leurocian mempo of fortune in 250 mils on vendor search and the rest of the items at 175 mils. you can use safe already to sell anything over 175 mils for less fee 5% than vendor commission little over 5%. you seem to have a problem with items over 175 mils so use auction safe.

This argument is null and void though?

Auction safes have already made this happen.

It’s a lack of understanding of basic economics.

some of the leurocians in ATL are priced up to 200m on the auction safes.  While the lower is 165-175 on vendors.  By his logic all of these should be valued at 200m because someone simply priced it higher.

It’s ridiculous really.

Oreogl said:

This argument is null and void though?

Auction safes have already made this happen.

It’s a lack of understanding of basic economics.

some of the leurocians in ATL are priced up to 200m on the auction safes.  While the lower is 165-175 on vendors.  By his logic all of these should be valued at 200m because someone simply priced it higher.

It’s ridiculous really.

Yes. I possibly used the wrong word as well.

Inflation is independent of the price cap, because auction safes, have already {allowed} this to happen. It is already happening, there is no price cap technically. And even if there was a price cap, players would be finding a way around it, for supply and demand to operate.

I should have said allowed, not made.

But onto your point, yes, it is about supply and demand economics as well. Many things sell for 10m. Just because the price cap is increased, does not mean they go to 175m+.

Cookie said:

Oreogl said:

This argument is null and void though?

Auction safes have already made this happen.

It’s a lack of understanding of basic economics.

some of the leurocians in ATL are priced up to 200m on the auction safes.  While the lower is 165-175 on vendors.  By his logic all of these should be valued at 200m because someone simply priced it higher.

It’s ridiculous really.

Yes. I possibly used the wrong word as well.

Inflation is independent of the price cap, because auction safes, have already {allowed} this to happen. It is already happening, there is no price cap technically. And even if there was a price cap, players would be finding a way around it, for supply and demand to operate.

I should have said allowed, not made.

But onto your point, yes, it is about supply and demand economics as well. Many things sell for 10m. Just because the price cap is increased, does not mean they go to 175m+.

Yep you got it.  In the end this would be a nice to have that makes more sense than not, in  my opinion.

I agree!
Vendors cap should be raised from 175M to 500M
and vendor holding gold also should be raised from 2P to like 5p?

if vendor cap ever increased, 90percent of items i have priced at 175 would get raised to like 200-250.   Safes are costly, and take up space.  many things end up on a vendor that players would price higher if it was practical to do so.  Just like commission vendors caused inflation, so would increasing vendor cap.  

Smoot said:

if vendor cap ever increased, 90percent of items i have priced at 175 would get raised to like 200-250.   Safes are costly, and take up space.  many things end up on a vendor that players would price higher if it was practical to do so.  Just like commission vendors caused inflation, so would increasing vendor cap.  

Well, again.  Just because you price them higher neither means they’re worth that nor that people will buy it.

if availability became scarce, sure.  

Smoot said:

if vendor cap ever increased, 90percent of items i have priced at 175 would get raised to like 200-250.   Safes are costly, and take up space.  many things end up on a vendor that players would price higher if it was practical to do so.  Just like commission vendors caused inflation, so would increasing vendor cap.  

Are you selling out everything that you are placing for 175M

Lord_Frodo said:

Are you selling out everything that you are placing for 175M

@Smoot     

Probably can't fix the spaghetti code <span></span>