Dear Broadsword .. update to GTN has ruined my game.

[AFadedMemory]

1 hour ago, DeannaVoyager said:

I don't know why someone would be ever so ...misguided... that they would buy CM version of companion compendiums from GTN when you can craft the required items yourself and add a few millions to buy those things from a vendor, unless they don't know about the vendor at all.  However: if someone does undercut properly (like with your example or with any other item) I have no problem with that. My problem is with the sleazy tactics some sellers use to push everyone else off the market with their 1 credit undercuts and the game not allowing us to skip these people. 

Undercut:

1. Offer goods or services at a lower price than a competitor
2. To weaken, damage, or cause the failure of something 

Based on these definitions, an undercut of 1 credit is a proper undercut. I don't think being undercut is a good thing though. I don't like placing an item on the gtn only to find it not sold because someone is selling one at a lower price. it doesn't really matter if the difference is 1 or 100,000 credits a failed sale is a failed sale. If I'm going to be honest, it upsets more when I'm undercut by large margins. Because now my item is worth a large margin less.

1 hour ago, DeannaVoyager said:

If they would let us choose which item we want to buy, even if it's not the cheapest, the hidden seller name wouldn't be a problem either. The name of the seller is unimportant, it's their behavior I despise and don't want to support.

As I mentioned earlier all the items are the same in a single listing. Not being able to choose what listing you get to buy, I assume is what you meant, is most definitely happening.

To say one margin of undercutting is good and one margin of undercutting is bad doesn't really make sense. If BS intentions were to prevent undercutting/cutting in line the easiest solution would be to have a queue of sale. i.e. the items would sell in the order they were listed. I think most of us would agree that that's a bad idea. If you really don't support undercutting you can request to buy said item for the undercut price in Trade Chat or wait for someone else to buy said item.

Going back to BS's intentions, I feel like the goals they have for the GTN are more realistically accomplished with force cheapest sale. Once again, I don't know this for sure because 1.) BS hasn't stated the overall objective for the GTN, and 2.) I don't have the needed data to compare. I would imagine however, once time pass BS will change how the GTN works if it's not working the way they hoped or intended. I for one believe that they are not likely to undo the changes.

Edited December 14, 2023 by AFadedMemory

[Lord_Janosch]

9 hours ago, OlBuzzard said:

Nonrefundable deposit on items not sold (canceled or simply not sold):  NO ... Just simply NO!

That's for me (from a casual sellers perspective) the only bad thing about the new GTN, which from my POV needs to change. Make it so that the fee is only paid i you sell or if you cancel your offer/change the price to undercut. So I have the option to wait till my offer expires and I pay nothing (execpt time), or I pay the fee and relist to undercut.

[Darkestmonty]

1 minute ago, Lord_Janosch said:

That's for me (from a casual sellers perspective) the only bad thing about the new GTN, which from my POV needs to change. Make it so that the fee is only paid i you sell or if you cancel your offer/change the price to undercut. So I have the option to wait till my offer expires and I pay nothing (execpt time), or I pay the fee and relist to undercut.

it is a good credit sink and can be as low as 100 credits.

in the long run it is better for the economy because it lowers inflation. You won't miss 100 or even 10,000 credits, but you will regret paying 1 billion credits for a common silver set or 15 billion credits for a hypercrate (inflation at it's highest).

[Lord_Janosch]

4 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:

it is a good credit sink and can be as low as 100 credits.

in the long run it is better for the economy because it lowers inflation. You won't miss 100 or even 10,000 credits, but you will regret paying 1 billion credits for a common silver set or 15 billion credits for a hypercrate (inflation at it's highest).

Yeah, I get that we need to reduce inflation and I'm all for it. I'm not against the new travel fees and increased repair bills (like many others here). And I also support buying cheapest (helps with credit laundering and scams) and the new high buyers taxes. But paying fees if you don't sell because someone undercuts feels a bit harsh. I support fees if you sell or if you want the relist.

[OlBuzzard]

2 hours ago, Lord_Janosch said:

That's for me (from a casual sellers perspective) the only bad thing about the new GTN, which from my POV needs to change. Make it so that the fee is only paid i you sell or if you cancel your offer/change the price to undercut. So I have the option to wait till my offer expires and I pay nothing (execpt time), or I pay the fee and relist to undercut.

The whole point of the GTN is for the convenience of posting items for sale by other players.  Those items are not just there to look at (window shopping).  IMO when the transactions are completed .. then ALL of the associated fees are collected NOT beforehand.  If the items expire and NO transactions have taken place .. then .. well that's it.  Nothing else happens!  You get all of your stuff back (including the deposit) and IF you so desire ... repost it and try again!

(Keep it simple)

[OlBuzzard]

7 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

Undercut:

1. Offer goods or services at a lower price than a competitor
2. To weaken, damage, or cause the failure of something 

Based on these definitions, an undercut of 1 credit is a proper undercut. I don't think being undercut is a good thing though. I don't like placing an item on the gtn only to find it not sold because someone is selling one at a lower price. it doesn't really matter if the difference is 1 or 100,000 credits a failed sale is a failed sale. If I'm going to be honest, it upsets more when I'm undercut by large margins. Because now my item is worth a large margin less.

As I mentioned earlier all the items are the same in a single listing. Not being able to choose what listing you get to buy, I assume is what you meant, is most definitely happening.

To say one margin of undercutting is good and one margin of undercutting is bad doesn't really make sense. If BS intentions were to prevent undercutting/cutting in line the easiest solution would be to have a queue of sale. i.e. the items would sell in the order they were listed. I think most of us would agree that that's a bad idea. If you really don't support undercutting you can request to buy said item for the undercut price in Trade Chat or wait for someone else to buy said item.

Going back to BS's intentions, I feel like the goals they have for the GTN are more realistically accomplished with force cheapest sale. Once again, I don't know this for sure because 1.) BS hasn't stated the overall objective for the GTN, and 2.) I don't have the needed data to compare. I would imagine however, once time pass BS will change how the GTN works if it's not working the way they hoped or intended. I for one believe that they are not likely to undo the changes.

Regardless of intentions:  the lack of choice is hurting the overall scope of everything else that was done correctly in the GTN.

**  If someone wants to undercut prices that's cool!  That is their choice!  And it should also be the choice of those spending their credits as to accept the price (as it is) or no!

**  It should also be noted that very seldom does ANYONE demand to pay the HIGHER price.  IMO there's no real discussion there!  To me personally a lot of it depends on the item I'm looking at.  It ALSO depends on how much of a cheaper price it is.  One or two credits difference to me personally NOPE!  If someone wants to get my attention it will be a significantly cheaper price.  Now THAT to me is someone wanting to SELL and beat the other person at the game.  THAT is the person I want to do business with.  One credit (especially with this new system) ... I'm not that impressed and could care less!  And YES I really have (in the past when we had the option) would frequently bypass the one person flooding the market with their ONE credit cheaper price and buy from someone else!

Competition is good!  Cleaning up the pages and pages of the same item (offered by the same person one item at a time) was also VERY good!  A couple of tweaks to the system and things will be fine.  

I would STRONGLY recommend making the changes!

Edited December 14, 2023 by OlBuzzard

[Darkestmonty]

5 hours ago, OlBuzzard said:

Regardless of intentions:  the lack of choice is hurting the overall scope of everything else that was done correctly in the GTN.

**  If someone wants to undercut prices that's cool!  That is their choice!  And it should also be the choice of those spending their credits as to accept the price (as it is) or no!

**  It should also be noted that very seldom does ANYONE demand to pay the HIGHER price.  IMO there's no real discussion there!  To me personally a lot of it depends on the item I'm looking at.  It ALSO depends on how much of a cheaper price it is.  One or two credits difference to me personally NOPE!  If someone wants to get my attention it will be a significantly cheaper price.  Now THAT to me is someone wanting to SELL and beat the other person at the game.  THAT is the person I want to do business with.  One credit (especially with this new system) ... I'm not that impressed and could care less!  And YES I really have (in the past when we had the option) would frequently bypass the one person flooding the market with their ONE credit cheaper price and buy from someone else!

Competition is good!  Cleaning up the pages and pages of the same item (offered by the same person one item at a time) was also VERY good!  A couple of tweaks to the system and things will be fine.  

I would STRONGLY recommend making the changes!

Lowest price selling first eliminates a couple scams that were being pulled on the old GTN. That is good for everyone but the scammers.

Your feelings (and mine) about how large a discount we deserve between two posted items is meaningless when it comes to stopping scams and protecting players.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Darkestmonty

[TrixxieTriss]

20 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

Most likely situation: either there will be constant undercutting or only 1 person will be selling in that section. 

Which is bad for the 99.99999999% of other sellers besides that 1 person. 

I tried listing dyes at the current cheapest price. Nothing sold.

Ive tried undercutting by 1 credit, I sold 1 dye out of 50 that I listed. 

Yesterday I watch 1 or 2 sellers constantly sit there undercutting everyone else’s dyes by 1 or more credits every few minutes (obviously I don’t know if it was only 1 or 2, it could have been more). They drove the price down 300% in the space of 30 minutes & over flooded the market at the same time. No one else’s dyes will sell now because of them. And those other sellers will lose their deposits. 

2 things need to happen to fix the current GTN issue. 

1. Players need to be given back the agency to buy what ever items they choose at what ever price is listed. It doesn’t matter if it’s the cheapest or the most expensive. People can now easily see what the cheapest is, so no one is being fooled or tricked into buy the most expensive. With player names being scrubbed from listings, it would still be much harder for credit sellers to launder credits. Plus, it’s already been demonstrated how they are circumventing the changes already. So once again, no reason to keep this cheapest only system in place if that’s the core reason for it.

2. Listing deposits need to be refunded if an item doesn’t sell. This should never have been changed in the first place.

Edited December 14, 2023 by TrixxieTriss

[AFadedMemory]

7 hours ago, OlBuzzard said:

The whole point of the GTN is for the convenience of posting items for sale by other players

This is an opinion, not fact. The only people who know what the intent of the GTN are the people who created it, and now the people who manage it. It's logical to assume that convenience is a desired function but it is not logical to assume it's the only goal they are trying to accomplish.  I will argue two things

1) the GTN is still a convenient place to post and sell items. I can post items on it and potential sell them without being logged on. this is not possible any other way. This, in my opinion, is the convenience the GTN was originally designed to accomplish. Everything else was fluff that technically is still accomplished through the Trade Chat or other means.

2) Force Cheap Selling makes it's more difficult to launder cash purchased credits then the old system and a system where names are the only thing being modified. (I've mention why in previous posts) This, in my opinion, is now a main function the current mangers of the GTN want it to accomplish. 

7 hours ago, OlBuzzard said:

Regardless of intentions:  the lack of choice is hurting the overall scope of everything else that was done correctly in the GTN.

Without SWTOR the GTN has 0 value. Does these changes hurt or improve the longevity of SWTOR? I would say it benefits more then it hurts. Once again the changes have not been around long enough to know that yet.

7 hours ago, OlBuzzard said:

**  It should also be noted that very seldom does ANYONE demand to pay the HIGHER price.

I would agree with this statement, which is why asking for the dev to change things back so we can buy an object at a slightly higher price does not make sense.

Edited December 14, 2023 by AFadedMemory

[OlBuzzard]

I'm guessing I must have pulled a Han Solo :  Well, I must've hit pretty close to the mark to get 'em all riled up like that!

😜

[DeannaVoyager]

21 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

Undercut:

1. Offer goods or services at a lower price than a competitor
2. To weaken, damage, or cause the failure of something 

Based on these definitions, an undercut of 1 credit is a proper undercut.

Proper:

1. denoting something that is truly what it is said or regarded to be; genuine

2. of the required or correct type or form; suitable or appropriate

 

Now add those two words together to see the problem.

21 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

To say one margin of undercutting is good and one margin of undercutting is bad doesn't really make sense.

By the definition of the word "proper" it makes perfect sense. I am not against proper undercutting, I am against undercutting by one credit in a system, where we can't skip the lowest priced items.

But even if we don't use definitions to distinguish the different types of undercutting, but a real example:

Someone is listing a bronze item for 50 mil credits. It's not even a rare one, the GTN is just empty of them because a lot of people stopped using it. It would make perfect sense for me to list my identical item for let's say 50k, because I know it's not worth 50 millions and I really just want to get rid of mine. It would be stupid of me to undercut by one credit because someone would have to be even more stupid to buy it. The only way to get rid of it is to undercut properly.

 

 

 

 

[AFadedMemory]

53 minutes ago, DeannaVoyager said:

 

But even if we don't use definitions to distinguish the different types of undercutting, but a real example:

Someone is listing a bronze item for 50 mil credits. It's not even a rare one, the GTN is just empty of them because a lot of people stopped using it. It would make perfect sense for me to list my identical item for let's say 50k, because I know it's not worth 50 millions and I really just want to get rid of mine. It would be stupid of me to undercut by one credit because someone would have to be even more stupid to buy it. The only way to get rid of it is to undercut properly.

What if I wanted to undercut you and still get the optimal amount of credits? Undercutting by making a listing of 49,999 credits would be a very effective way to do this.  Now I acknowledge that some people might pick yours over mine, but it is also true that some people would pick mine over yours. (most likely because it was faster/more convenient to pick the very top item and hit buy when filtering by cheapest price.) If there was a way to see which situation happens more and it turns out people would choose the higher price, your argument would be stronger then mine. I feel that is extremely unlikely however.

If the problems the new changes cause are worse then all of the benefits it provides I'm sure BS will address it. I think that will most likely not happen anytime soon though.

Edited December 15, 2023 by AFadedMemory

[DeannaVoyager]

35 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

What if I wanted to undercut you and still get the optimal amount of credits? Undercutting by making a listing of 49,999 credits would be a very effective way to do this.  Now I acknowledge that some people might pick yours over mine, but it is also true that some people would pick mine over yours. (most likely because it was faster/more convenient to pick the very top item and hit buy when filtering by cheapest price.) If there was a way to see which situation happens more and it turns out people would choose the higher price, your argument would be stronger then mine. I feel that is extremely unlikely however.

If the problems the new changes cause are worse then all of the benefits it provides I'm sure BS will address it. I think that will most likely not happen.

A lot of people buy the cheapest listing because it's right there, listed first. They do it because they don't care, think about it or they are being lazy. Being lazy or not caring doesn't make an argument strong, that really even isn't an argument to begin with. But several people have an issue with the game not allowing them to choose which item they want to buy and we've given valid reasons why we want to choose. 

But here's a suggestion: why not change the GTN so that if someone undercuts, it will be an automatic undercut of let's say 50% of the cheapest item. That would make those people think twice if they want to undercut or not. If people want to have their freedom of choice removed, removing it from both buyers AND sellers would be only fair.

[AFadedMemory]

36 minutes ago, DeannaVoyager said:

A lot of people buy the cheapest listing because it's right there, listed first. They do it because they don't care, think about it or they are being lazy. Being lazy or not caring doesn't make an argument strong, that really even isn't an argument to begin with. But several people have an issue with the game not allowing them to choose which item they want to buy and we've given valid reasons why we want to choose. 

Exactly. I'm saying most players do not care enough about undercutting to have BS address it specifically, especially a niche category of it. This is totally a valid reason not to act. It's not worth BS's time, unless some game breaking issue is generated. It's also worth mentioning people filter for cheapest price because they want to see the cheapest price. Like it or not, 49,999 is cheaper than 50,000.

36 minutes ago, DeannaVoyager said:

But here's a suggestion: why not change the GTN so that if someone undercuts, it will be an automatic undercut of let's say 50% of the cheapest item. That would make those people think twice if they want to undercut or not. If people want to have their freedom of choice removed, removing it from both buyers AND sellers would be only fair.

BS technically has. Sellers are now forced to sell at lower prices, and they can't bulk sell. From what I hear the seller are getting hurt much more then buyers. I don't think the forced change in selling behavior is bad though.

Edited December 15, 2023 by AFadedMemory

[AFadedMemory]

8 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

I would agree with this statement, which is why asking for the dev to change things back so we can buy an object at a slightly higher price does not make sense.

I will add to my own comment:

Especially when we still can buy at the higher price in Trade Chat.

Edited December 15, 2023 by AFadedMemory

[AFadedMemory]

Could have sworn I responded to this post before, I guest I didn't hit submit reply 🤷‍♂️

10 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Which is bad for the 99.99999999% of other sellers besides that 1 person. 

Is it bad for SWTOR though?

10 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Ive tried undercutting by 1 credit, I sold 1 dye out of 50 that I listed. 

There is a good possibility that your dyes stopped selling because buyers have more option then before. There have been many times that I chose to buy a cheap dye because the dye I really wanted was too expensive. Now dyes that would cost millions on a lower inflation server cost hundreds of thousand instead. Your post even supports this idea:

10 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

They drove the price down 300% in the space of 30 minutes & over flooded the market at the same time.

 

10 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

1. Players need to be given back the agency to buy what ever items they choose at what ever price is listed. It doesn’t matter if it’s the cheapest or the most expensive. People can now easily see what the cheapest is, so no one is being fooled or tricked into buy the most expensive. With player names being scrubbed from listings, it would still be much harder for credit sellers to launder credits. Plus, it’s already been demonstrated how they are circumventing the changes already. So once again, no reason to keep this cheapest only system in place if that’s the core reason for it.

I agree that people lost the convenience of buying what ever listing they want in the gtn, However the ability to do so still exist with in the game. Players can use the information the GTN provides to generate a request in trade chat to purchase items at what ever price was listed there.  

It is easier to circumvent name scrubbing then it is to circumvent Force Cheap Sale. Even if Force Cheap Sale and Name scrubbing were the same level of difficulty to circumvent. Force Cheap Sale has the additional benefit of driving prices down. Name scrubbing doesn't really do that. I would be so bold as to say that the intent behind name scrubbing, as it currently exist, isn't really to prevent laundering so much as to protect the person with the current lowest price.

Edited December 15, 2023 by AFadedMemory

[Darkestmonty]

10 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Which is bad for the 99.99999999% of other sellers besides that 1 person. 

I tried listing dyes at the current cheapest price. Nothing sold.

Ive tried undercutting by 1 credit, I sold 1 dye out of 50 that I listed. 

Yesterday I watch 1 or 2 sellers constantly sit there undercutting everyone else’s dyes by 1 or more credits every few minutes (obviously I don’t know if it was only 1 or 2, it could have been more). They drove the price down 300% in the space of 30 minutes & over flooded the market at the same time. No one else’s dyes will sell now because of them. And those other sellers will lose their deposits. 

2 things need to happen to fix the current GTN issue. 

1. Players need to be given back the agency to buy what ever items they choose at what ever price is listed. It doesn’t matter if it’s the cheapest or the most expensive. People can now easily see what the cheapest is, so no one is being fooled or tricked into buy the most expensive. With player names being scrubbed from listings, it would still be much harder for credit sellers to launder credits. Plus, it’s already been demonstrated how they are circumventing the changes already. So once again, no reason to keep this cheapest only system in place if that’s the core reason for it.

2. Listing deposits need to be refunded if an item doesn’t sell. This should never have been changed in the first place.

Players have come back en masse for Life Day like they do every year.

More returning players = more players buying and selling but the problem you are running into is that commonly crafted items like player crafted dyes lose value because they are flooding the market and people are hyped up about the new metallic dyes.

Even the classic Black/Black dye has lost value since the metallic dyes were released; you think player crafted dyes which thousands of players can craft on demand is going to retain it's value over an item like the classic Black/Black dye?

Edited December 15, 2023 by Darkestmonty

[DeannaVoyager]

6 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

Exactly. I'm saying most players do not care enough about undercutting to have BS address it specifically, especially a niche category of it. This is totally a valid reason not to act. It's not worth BS's time, unless some game breaking issue is generated. It's also worth mentioning people filter for cheapest price because they want to see the cheapest price. Like it or not, 49,999 is cheaper than 50,000.

People who don't care wouldn't  also care if the current problems got solved. They have no opinion on the matter, so you can't automatically assign them to support your argument. If we'd get the old GTN back right now, or at least the flaws fixed, they still wouldn't be on either side. If you only look at the forum posters and the points they have made, there are far more people who hate the changes and have stopped using GTN than people who like it now. Those are the only sides that count. 

Is fixing it worth BS's time is another thing. People didn't unsub before GTN was what it used to be, they left after it was changed. So it's not that uncommon for them to put resources on things that are not worth the time and cause more harm than good. So you never know. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

6 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

BS technically has. Sellers are now forced to sell at lower prices, and they can't bulk sell. From what I hear the seller are getting hurt much more then buyers. I don't think the forced change in selling behavior is bad though.

Not really, not the way I meant. The sellers can still choose quite a lot, buyers can't. It should be free trade for all, or free trade for no-one. 

6 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

I will add to my own comment:

Especially when we still can buy at the higher price in Trade Chat.

Yes, that will be the only viable way left to trade anything, but those trades are double-taxed and they also take too much time. I can't even give a deco I got as loot from an operation to someone in the group without being taxed, which is stupid.

Also why have GTN at all, if the trades need to be done in Trade Chat in the future. It's going to be just as obsolete as group finder for sm ops is: the only people who will be using it will be the ones who are new to the game and don't know what they are doing yet.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by DeannaVoyager

[akdonkey]

I have not sold anything since the new GTN Update. I always sell something. I usually price the items at the lowest price and nothing seems to help. I think These new GTN settings are terrible. It was not broken before but it sure is now.

[taxidermis]

3 hours ago, DeannaVoyager said:

Yes, that will be the only viable way left to trade anything, but those trades are double-taxed and they also take too much time. I can't even give a deco I got as loot from an operation to someone in the group without being taxed, which is stupid.

Trades should be double taxed. It's a great anti inflation measure.  Was talking to some folks on star forge and the anti inflation measures are slowly working. Prices are the lowest they've been since 2020 for many items. 

[TrixxieTriss]

2 hours ago, taxidermis said:

Trades should be double taxed. It's a great anti inflation measure.  Was talking to some folks on star forge and the anti inflation measures are slowly working. Prices are the lowest they've been since 2020 for many items. 

Sure, but that’s not really the discussion here. I don’t think any legitimate player doesn’t want inflation & the economy fixed. A lot of what they’ve done has been good & was needed. But they’ve also been heavy handed in other areas or made really bad design choices that are currently negatively affecting players instead helping the community. It’s those few things that aren’t right that we want tweaked or fixed before they do lasting damage to the game or drive more players away. But some people here just want everything to be extreme because it helps them. Instead of looking at the big picture & what is actually the most beneficial to the community & player base. 

There are still 3 main design issues that are negatively affecting players or soon will if they aren’t addressed. If we could get @JoeStramagliato tweak these, the economy system changes would be much better for the community ad a whole.

1. Player to Player trade tweaks.
Allow gifting again (obviously gifts would need to become legacy bound so people can’t circumvent the trade taxes). Give players back the ability to trade items dropped in a group for an hour without taxes being applied. 

2. Allow players to buy any items on the GTN at what ever price they choose. Players shouldn’t be forced to only buy the cheapest item listed because this encourages everyone to undercut by 1 credit & takes away buyers choice. 

3. The listing GTN deposit fees should be refunded if an item doesn’t sell. This should never have changed, especially when they made only the cheapest item available to buy. 

[Darkestmonty]

50 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Sure, but that’s not really the discussion here. I don’t think any legitimate player doesn’t want inflation & the economy fixed. A lot of what they’ve done has been good & was needed. But they’ve also been heavy handed in other areas or made really bad design choices that are currently negatively affecting players instead helping the community. It’s those few things that aren’t right that we want tweaked or fixed before they do lasting damage to the game or drive more players away. But some people here just want everything to be extreme because it helps them. Instead of looking at the big picture & what is actually the most beneficial to the community & player base. 

There are still 3 main design issues that are negatively affecting players or soon will if they aren’t addressed. If we could get @JoeStramagliato tweak these, the economy system changes would be much better for the community ad a whole.

1. Player to Player trade tweaks.
Allow gifting again (obviously gifts would need to become legacy bound so people can’t circumvent the trade taxes). Give players back the ability to trade items dropped in a group for an hour without taxes being applied. 

2. Allow players to buy any items on the GTN at what ever price they choose. Players shouldn’t be forced to only buy the cheapest item listed because this encourages everyone to undercut by 1 credit & takes away buyers choice. 

3. The listing GTN deposit fees should be refunded if an item doesn’t sell. This should never have changed, especially when they made only the cheapest item available to buy. 

the current GTN is a great design that eliminates credit laundering and scams.

If you actually cared about the community as a whole you wouldn't be advocating to open up the current GTN to the same exploits the previous GTN had.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Darkestmonty

[taxidermis]

Trade tax is a good thing. It's a small credit sink that helps the economy. 

Controversial opinion.. but undercutting is a good thing too. It drives prices down.  

 

Why should it matter if undercutting is 1 credit or 10000 credits. It's still an undercut. And that helps drive a healthy economy. As more players can afford items. 

 

Gtn listing fee being non refundable is also another credit sink that is good for the games economy. Small credit sinks like this are exactly what's needed 

[ElZaguero]

I gave up on figuring it out. It makes no sense to me, so I just don't sell or buy things anymore.

[Spikanor]

2 hours ago, taxidermis said:

Why should it matter if undercutting is 1 credit or 10000 credits. It's still an undercut. And that helps drive a healthy economy. As more players can afford items.

healthy exonomy really what a lame joke more.

the 5 servers have the worst economy there is its not healthy at all and it will never become a healthy economy also anymore since there screw up big time in the 6.X era and also in the 7.X era for some time.

also the undercutting by 1 credit is also going to hurt the new players hard since its for then hard to sell something then if players keep undercutting each time.

 

2 hours ago, taxidermis said:

Gtn listing fee being non refundable is also another credit sink that is good for the games economy. Small credit sinks like this are exactly what's needed

its also the worst idea at all since its only hurting more the new players since there need the refundable from the items that are not sold since there have not a ton of credits in there legacy cargo from the 6.X era.

 

2 hours ago, taxidermis said:

Controversial opinion.. but undercutting is a good thing too. It drives prices down.

before people stop selling since its not worth at all and then you get that the price for that item go's only up more so in the end undercutting is only doing the more bad things then something good.