Glad to see this issue is being discussed. I've been away, therefore I've not been able to reply. Now I'm back, I would like to address some points people have made, or elaborate on points I've bade before. Yes, I will likely be repeating myself or others, but I will try to elaborate where I can.
[NOTE: If using quotes, I will remove anything I believe is irrelevant to my point]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aravero wrote:I strongly doubt that any player has ever decided for or against continuing to play on LVS based solely on competitiveness in the markets. I've seen Ray push out Suzie, I've seen EB1 step into the void left when Ray's was less active, and I suspect this current climate is nothing more than a pendulum swing in the market caused by Ray's re-entry.
Price in a fair market is always determined by the willingness of the buyer to purchase whatever the seller was willing to produce.
Personally, I don't think the market has ever been a matter of the 'dominant player(s)'. However with undercutting, it will become so. Not everyone is so willing to decrease their prices, as their profit margin will drop along with them. With the market, collecting items will take time and effort, especially for newer players who will not have super quick farms, or easy access to a specific resource. The newer players will become more established over time as they improve their farms, but by that time it might be too late. One or two players may have a stranglehold of market prices, therefore dis-encouraging players from entering the market.
Your second point I completely agree with. I think market vendors will find that most players will pay more than some of the prices in the markets - some of them are dirt cheap compared to what they used to be. I seem to remember the times when Mending books sold for 5 or 6 diamonds, but now they sell for 2 diamonds (or just 1 in some cases). I find it strange that mending books will sell for less than say a Silk Touch book, when Mending is less easily obtained than a Silk Touch book. Hence, Mending is a 'treasure enchantment'. (Same with Frost Walker)
Silk is obtainable through: Enchanting Table, Chest Loot, Villager Trading or Fishing [4 ways]
Mending is obtainable through: Chest Loot, Villager Trading, or Fishing [3 ways] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raysun wrote:New players might not be able to sell their stuff at high prices? But they still might! And the prices for the things they need to buy will be as low as possible. Which in turn means they can get their equip and materials as fast as possible. If they want to sell their things - they can and will at their own price , and people will still buy it.
Players don't know which the lowest price is in the market - so if they don't look all around they won't know - usually they just buy the first thing they accept the price for. Setting a minimum price will basically make the market less fun in my opinion.
If the players know the minimum price for the thing they're looking for the players that sell in higher prices will be less desirable in the market because the prices for things will be set in stone. This will lead to monopolizing the prices.
I disagree, and feel in some ways this contradicts itself.
I have no evidence, so this is an assumption: Diamonds are precious to lots of players, some players don't have as many as others. A player may look around for a low price in the market, that time could be used instead of looking for more diamonds underground. Players often ask in chat where the lowest price for an item is in the market, and when they are told, they think nothing more but to buy from the lowest price. This results in anyone who doesn't set their prices low to receive no sales, making the market unworthy of their time and effort.
I understand that providing cheap items is beneficial towards the customer, however I believe for the market to be fun, you need to take into account both parties, the other obviously being the seller. I say that as both a customer (albeit rather irregular) and a seller myself.
Where I feel this is contradictory is where you mention:
1. "If they want to sell their things - they can and will at their own price , and people will still buy it."2. "If the players know the minimum price for the thing they're looking for the players that sell in higher prices will be less desirable in the market because the prices for things will be set in stone."Surely this is also the case when undercutting happens? Decreasing prices makes higher prices less desirable too. (Some may argue more so.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectatre wrote:About 110 items sold at market have more than one seller at the moment; almost all of them have different prices between their sellers. I would wager the majority of people selling multiple things at the market have undercut something, at some point. Whether that be because the previous market price seemed astronomical, to them, or because it was possible to sell it cheaper, for them...both seem more likely than a grand scheme to corner the market and take all the sales.
I think we should encourage new players to pitch at the 'going rate' for an item, where there is one. I would be against forcing that to happen by way of regulations. While no-one has explicitly suggested it yet, I would be entirely against minimum prices for market goods. It's another hurdle for new players entering the market. It would be a living nightmare deciding to fix a minimum price for every item currently being sold at market, never mind for every item in the game.
I agree with this, unless the issue worsens, and is putting the market on the brink of an oligopoly.
As others have mentioned, undercutting may not just make it harder to sell at the market, but it can be annoying. To combat that, it would just mean having a discussion that goes along the lines of: "What do you think a reasonable price for <item, quantity> is?". This is where methods of pricing such as Dax' 'Diamond Time Standard' will come in handy, or looking for the 'going rate'.
A highly regulated market wouldn't be fun in my opinion. Not only coming up with minimum prices for items (which may change after an update), but enforcing this would be painful for everyone. Whilst I clearly don't like undercutting, I feel adding more regulations is a bit extreme. But, I guess, to get rid of one issue, you sometimes have to make sacrifices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe undercutting is an issue of benefits for customers vs. keeping the market fun for sellers/all. I have been thinking about this issue for a long time and honestly wish I had started this discussion quite a while ago. I hope the discussion continues on, despite the fact the topic will be raised at council meetings.
I will conclude this essay-long post here.
-Sneaks