Back to PK
forum logo

Average Weekly Trade Prices Return to Trade Post


Teamnoir
 
World: Legends
Gold: 210834
Flags: 8
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 9:22 am

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by Teamnoir on Tue May 25, 2010 4:11 pm

Micali wrote:
Teamnoir wrote:
Micali wrote:Not a bug. A design choice.


Of course we each make our own life choices about how to spend our time. Your point here about that might be relevant if I were attempting to encourage the devs to "work harder". I'm not, nor have I noticed anyone making that argument. Which makes your point rather an irrelevant non sequiter.


LOL. Clearly I hit some area of thin-skin of yours.


Hardly.

Classifying the inclusion of tax in the prices as "a bug" implies a mistake made by the developers when it was a simple design choice.


Nonsense on two counts. First, there is no implication of a mistake, but rather the statement that the feature, (including tax), is not the desired feature.

Second, there's no indication that this was a deliberate or intentional choice at all. It may well have simply been an oversight. We don't know.

I was correcting your factual inaccuracies therefore my comments are anything but irrelevant.


My statement was one of opinion and clearly labeled so. You cannot correct the veracity of my opinion. To do so would be to claim that you know my mind better than I do and I assure you that is not the case.

I did not say that your opinion nor your comments were irrelevant. I said that your argument, that developers already work hard enough, was immaterial to the question of whether this feature was desired or not.

Please explain how, by precisely what mechanism the number of hours that the developers work changes my opinion of whether the feature is desired.

Believing the comments of someone who disagrees with you are automatically irrevelent is ridiculous.


You are ascribing both behavior and motivations to me that are not mine. I said before and I've repeated above that it is not your opinion I find irrelevant, but your argument in support of your opinion. Your opinion is simply another opinion, no more nor less relevant than any other.

Classifying my corrective comments to this effect as "irrevelant non sequiter" is either pure arrogance or simply naivity on your part towards software design and development.


Your use of the word "corrective" here is offensive. You seem to be claiming that your opinion has the weight of objective truth where no other opinion has that weight.

I assure you that I am not naive with respect towards software design or development. I am, in fact, an expert in them.

Describing the inclusion of tax as a "known inaccuracy" is simply wrong. Inclusion of the tax is technically accurate. Failure to include it would be closer to a bug.


This is an opinion, not a fact. However, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

The "price" of an item is the price the seller receives. The "tax" is not part of the "price", as evidenced by the fact that we use a separate word to describe it as a separate amount which is also paid. When setting the price for an item, the price to which I would most prefer to refer is the price of other sales.

Everyone knows items trading in a TP include tax.


This is an obvious fallacy. While most active players may know, most people, even most players by count do not.

The transaction price is WITH TAX.


Here you are simply mistaken. There isn't a single transaction but rather there are two. There is the amount which is paid by the purchaser which does indeed include the tax. However, there is also the price received by the seller which does not. One transaction includes the tax, the other does not.

The amount people are more interested in as a gauge of market value is without tax.


On this I concur. And this is the reason why I would prefer to see this value listed.

Simply because the amount of most useful value to the trader (the one without tax) is not what the report shows does not make reporting actual trade prices as trade prices a bug.
At worst it makes it a less useful/appropriate design choice.


And now you're arguing semantics. If I'm following you, and I'm not sure that I am, you seem to be agreeing that the currently reported value, the one which includes tax, is less desirable than a value which did not. Which would seem to indicate that we are both expressing a preference for the same thing.

This whole issue is such a silly item that I would not even bother to reply except for some reason you insist on classifying accurate (though less than ideal) data as buggy, converting what should be a trivial point into a "pseudo" debate, and turn a minor friendly correction into an attempt at insulting.
Get over it.


No insult was intended. I wasn't even writing to you. I have nothing to "get over" as I'm neither blocked nor upset.


brick
The PerBlue Developer
 
World: Legends
Gold: 66075
Flags: 2
Posts: 3973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by brick on Tue May 25, 2010 4:21 pm

Alright you two. If you want to continue your debate, take it to off topic.

The data is stored with the price including tax. As such, it was easiest to include the tax in the display. I do, however, feel that this is more useful for the buyer.

I agree that some statistical work could improve the data; however, the average player won't know how to interrupt the data anyways.


Micali
The Mentor
 
World: Legends
Gold: 15297882
Flags: 1834
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:19 pm

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by Micali on Wed May 26, 2010 7:36 am

brick wrote:Alright you two. If you want to continue your debate, take it to off topic.

The data is stored with the price including tax. As such, it was easiest to include the tax in the display. I do, however, feel that this is more useful for the buyer.

I agree that some statistical work could improve the data; however, the average player won't know how to interrupt the data anyways.


Ok. I was merely defending what he clearly described as a "known bug" as not a bug at all. There is a big difference in how users set their expectations when something they want is a "bug fix" vs. a "feature enhancement". Bug fixes should get priority but enhancements get in line.

It's true most players neither grasp the simplistic (tax inclusion) nor the complex (insufficient volume impacting data credibility), nor the mathematical esoteric (impact on statistical impact of standard deviation based on a false assumption of unilateral validitity of data points [not values]) so much of this is geek talk.

But the overall issue is that knowing market prices are eratic means that unless the values in a trade report are restricted to data of very high credibility (through whatever geeky means necessary), they will tend to only confuse people more, not less. That's my main point.

And I speak from extreme RL experience in all these concepts.


Teamnoir
 
World: Legends
Gold: 210834
Flags: 8
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 9:22 am

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by Teamnoir on Wed May 26, 2010 8:20 am

Micali wrote:There is a big difference in how users set their expectations when something they want is a "bug fix" vs. a "feature enhancement". Bug fixes should get priority but enhancements get in line.


IME, this is an oversimplistic approach to issue tracking. Most companies I've worked with and most of the bug tracking systems I've set up include the concepts of critical feature enhancements and of low priority bugs.


brick
The PerBlue Developer
 
World: Legends
Gold: 66075
Flags: 2
Posts: 3973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by brick on Wed May 26, 2010 8:29 am

Teamnoir wrote:
Micali wrote:There is a big difference in how users set their expectations when something they want is a "bug fix" vs. a "feature enhancement". Bug fixes should get priority but enhancements get in line.


IME, this is an oversimplistic approach to issue tracking. Most companies I've worked with and most of the bug tracking systems I've set up include the concepts of critical feature enhancements and of low priority bugs.

We do have an issue tracking system and I have already added this to it.


mDimitry
 
World: Legends
Gold: 3049613
Flags: 1082
Posts: 236
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by mDimitry on Fri May 28, 2010 7:21 am

I was curious, how are we dealing with price manipulation.


I know some have done it. :-)


Bertram-The-Destroyer
 
World: Legends
Gold: 469572
Flags: 12
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by Bertram-The-Destroyer on Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:15 pm

I do a bit of statistical work myself and just wanted to say that I love the stats chat on the PK forum :) We could write up a Bayesian network to see what the probability of each transaction being a legit sale vs. a payback! LOL


DCHansen
The Beta Knight
 
World: Legends
Gold: 599997
Flags: 406
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by DCHansen on Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:07 am

Can this be updated to include the upgrade level of all of the new gear?

i.e.,
Shuriken 40,185.57 gold 7
Ruby Poison Shuriken 77,000.00 gold 5
Ruby Poison Shuriken 71,500.00 gold 3
Shuriken 31,349.50 gold 2
Shuriken 121,000.00 gold 2
Shuriken 77,000.00 gold 1
Shuriken 33,000.00 gold 1


Shake_N_Bake
The Beta Knight
 
World: Legends
Gold: 2691809
Flags: 1642
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:10 am

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by Shake_N_Bake on Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:27 pm

210k wood thats epic =) 21m gold traded weekly? actuually wood like 120g per :o


Chipandtoast
 
World: Legends
Flags: 3802
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Average Weekly Trade Prices

Post by Chipandtoast on Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:12 am

I think prices are starting to go down again...

PreviousNext

Who is Online

Users browsing this forum: No registered players and 1 guest

cron