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.
«1

Comments

  • looploop Posts: 302
    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.
  • PawainPawain Posts: 9,022
    edited January 16
    Vendor too full to accept more gold is also pretty annoying.
    Focus on what you can do, not what you can't.
  • looploop Posts: 302
    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?
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    edited January 16
    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.
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    Pawain said:
    Vendor too full to accept more gold is also pretty annoying.

    Well the gold storage is the other thing, which also seems arbitrary however that’s easily fixed with a new vendor or just withdrawing the gold.
  • looploop Posts: 302
    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 
  • TheoTheo Posts: 170
    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.  


  • SkettSkett Posts: 1,384
    and make it a red color warning
  • ArchangelArchangel Posts: 460
    they're call auction safes
  • creampiecreampie Posts: 80
    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.
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    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?  




  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    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.
  • ArchangelArchangel Posts: 460
    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?
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    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.  

    Regardless, even though auction safes are an option, I don’t see how it’s an argument against increasing the gold cap.
  • SkettSkett Posts: 1,384
    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 ? 
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    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. 
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    Auction safes charge 5% commission. 
    This is only the “buy now” option though correct?


  • Lord_FrodoLord_Frodo Posts: 2,245
    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.
  • Lord_FrodoLord_Frodo Posts: 2,245
    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.
  • SmootSmoot Posts: 389
    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. 
  • SmootSmoot Posts: 389
    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.
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    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.  

    The game would not change if only relied on existing things/items/mechanics.

    this seems like a simple and reasonable request.

    I would assume the only real argument is from those who own a ton of safes and don’t want to see them possibly devalued.
  • Lord_FrodoLord_Frodo Posts: 2,245
    Smoot 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.
  • PawainPawain Posts: 9,022
    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.
    Focus on what you can do, not what you can't.
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    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.
  • PawainPawain Posts: 9,022
    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.
    Focus on what you can do, not what you can't.
  • GrimbeardGrimbeard Posts: 1,978
    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...
  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    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.  


  • OreoglOreogl Posts: 287
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.