Instead of having only sell orders in the market there should be possible to enter buy orders, for example:
Buy 1000 steel @ 125.
A second suggestion would be to compact all orders with the same price instead of separating every order even if they come from the same seller and/or have the same price.
The market window could show something like, for example:
Steel
Buy Price / Buy Volume / Sell Price / Sell Volume
129 / 550.100 / 129.12 / 5.400
128 / 400.000 / 129.6 / 300
127 / 425.000 / 130 / 10.500
126.97 / 12.100 / 132 / 20.000
126.5 / 85.124 / 135 / 1.000.000
Like in a normal market player would only enter a buy or sell order of a given volume with a maximum or minimum price. If it could be matched with any order already in the book it would be, or else it would be entered in the book with the price set by the player. The 10% commission could be paid by the seller as it happens right now.
Market suggestions (buy orders)
Moderator: moderators
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
Guest
Sorry Tycoon, didnt mean to violate etiquette
But there is another online space game that has an excellent market model that I think Kapilands could really adapt for use.
Especially things like a set timeframe for market sell and buy orders.
Non refundable broker fee (I think this is already in place)
Premium Kapilands account holders could have more available open buy and sell orders than non-premium acct holders.
The only down side to buy orders would be the big companies have the finances to buy up all the good values, and make it harder on the little guys to find the good deals.
We definitely need expiration times on the market sell orders. 2-4 weeks?
But there is another online space game that has an excellent market model that I think Kapilands could really adapt for use.
Especially things like a set timeframe for market sell and buy orders.
Non refundable broker fee (I think this is already in place)
Premium Kapilands account holders could have more available open buy and sell orders than non-premium acct holders.
The only down side to buy orders would be the big companies have the finances to buy up all the good values, and make it harder on the little guys to find the good deals.
We definitely need expiration times on the market sell orders. 2-4 weeks?
-
Guest
The only downside, in my understanding, is what Kapilands strives to strengthen: Greater opportunity for new comers.Traask wrote: The only down side to buy orders would be the big companies have the finances to buy up all the good values, and make it harder on the little guys to find the good deals.
E.g. Kapilands set "levels" to reduce efficiency of producing.
-
Guest
I see Jack, so just to clarify - its a good thing because the little guys can be more efficient at selling their alreay efficiently produced products.JackJack wrote:The only downside, in my understanding, is what Kapilands strives to strengthen: Greater opportunity for new comers.Traask wrote: The only down side to buy orders would be the big companies have the finances to buy up all the good values, and make it harder on the little guys to find the good deals.
E.g. Kapilands set "levels" to reduce efficiency of producing.
But what I was referring to is the inability with the little guys having less available funds to place efficient buy orders for eg Water and Power they need to produce items. Or steel to expand etc.
-
Guest
Thank you for that explanation! -
Guest
I can appreciate the concern about little players but I don't think there's any risk of that.
1) We're assuming a similar market with just an added mechanism. So if the buyers aren't buying up all the low prices now, why would it happen then? Right now the cheapest price for power on the market is .07, with .06 popping up a few times a day. Those .06 loads tend to go to people who have good timing and the funds to grab it. So with what you're saying those players would just put in a buy order at 0.06 instead of watching, which I assume would be filled first-come first-serve.
The price would still remain between .06 and .07 because that's where the buyers and sellers meet. This means you'll never find 0.06 power on the market, but will frequently get it by waiting in line with a buy order. .07 you'd be able to get immediately by finding a seller. And for sellers, they could sell at .06 immediately or post at .07 and wait. It's not a change in price, just a change in flexibility. (And less reliance on refreshing to find the latest offer.)
Just as further evidence, the exact opposite could happen now - a big player dumping a whole bunch of product on the market forcing it down. I don't see any horrible evidence that such a thing is happening.
2) Big buyers are pretty much doing this already - except instead of placing their bids on the market, they approximate them via faxes and forum listings. Now nothing is stopping a small player from doing that as well, but the nature of not knowing how much you're going to get, plus the trouble of listing, makes it better for the bigger guys than the little ones.
And incidentally, you'll notice (most if not all) of those offers related to power are listing it at 0.05. Big players have buying power - their advantage comes not from bidding more but from always being willing to buy.
I think this actually helps the little folks more than the big guys. They're the ones who need a certain amount of goods, but can't open themselves up to a flood nor buy up of the item when it is found.
The only thing I would do differently is this - make the fee come from both sides. The problem with the suggestion as I understand it is that potential buyers would be able to post a bid with no penalty. That allows them to overbid low with no penalty, and potentially walk it up later. (Meanwhile that's not a good strategy sell-side because the fees will eat you.) There are two better possibilities I think:
1) Make the lister pay 10% as the rule. Sell listing, seller pays. Buy listing, buyer pays. If they remain separate, that's the best way. However if you also put in an auto-matching system then you're dealing with double fees. Not terrible but in the interest of fairness I'd prefer refunding 5% each way in that case when the transaction completes.
2) Make both sides pay 5% on every transaction. This would affect both buyers and sellers, on both buy order and sell orders. That would mean a slight change from the business model as it is now, but practically speaking would be about the same.
1) We're assuming a similar market with just an added mechanism. So if the buyers aren't buying up all the low prices now, why would it happen then? Right now the cheapest price for power on the market is .07, with .06 popping up a few times a day. Those .06 loads tend to go to people who have good timing and the funds to grab it. So with what you're saying those players would just put in a buy order at 0.06 instead of watching, which I assume would be filled first-come first-serve.
The price would still remain between .06 and .07 because that's where the buyers and sellers meet. This means you'll never find 0.06 power on the market, but will frequently get it by waiting in line with a buy order. .07 you'd be able to get immediately by finding a seller. And for sellers, they could sell at .06 immediately or post at .07 and wait. It's not a change in price, just a change in flexibility. (And less reliance on refreshing to find the latest offer.)
Just as further evidence, the exact opposite could happen now - a big player dumping a whole bunch of product on the market forcing it down. I don't see any horrible evidence that such a thing is happening.
2) Big buyers are pretty much doing this already - except instead of placing their bids on the market, they approximate them via faxes and forum listings. Now nothing is stopping a small player from doing that as well, but the nature of not knowing how much you're going to get, plus the trouble of listing, makes it better for the bigger guys than the little ones.
And incidentally, you'll notice (most if not all) of those offers related to power are listing it at 0.05. Big players have buying power - their advantage comes not from bidding more but from always being willing to buy.
I think this actually helps the little folks more than the big guys. They're the ones who need a certain amount of goods, but can't open themselves up to a flood nor buy up of the item when it is found.
The only thing I would do differently is this - make the fee come from both sides. The problem with the suggestion as I understand it is that potential buyers would be able to post a bid with no penalty. That allows them to overbid low with no penalty, and potentially walk it up later. (Meanwhile that's not a good strategy sell-side because the fees will eat you.) There are two better possibilities I think:
1) Make the lister pay 10% as the rule. Sell listing, seller pays. Buy listing, buyer pays. If they remain separate, that's the best way. However if you also put in an auto-matching system then you're dealing with double fees. Not terrible but in the interest of fairness I'd prefer refunding 5% each way in that case when the transaction completes.
2) Make both sides pay 5% on every transaction. This would affect both buyers and sellers, on both buy order and sell orders. That would mean a slight change from the business model as it is now, but practically speaking would be about the same.
-
Guest
This is a very good suggestion. Both sides have advantages in every deal, so why shouldn't they pay?Knolls wrote:
2) Make both sides pay 5% on every transaction. This would affect both buyers and sellers, on both buy order and sell orders. That would mean a slight change from the business model as it is now, but practically speaking would be about the same.
Knolls wrote:
1) Make the lister pay 10% as the rule.
This is the part I disagree.
The lister(s) is the one responsible for the market volume. The lister is the one who is allways there and is unable to use his money (for a buy order) or materials (for a sell order) untill his listings are matched. It is because of him that others may sell or buy instantly.
So, in my opinion, if someone should pay a lesser fee it should be the lister. I'm not saying that the lister shouldn't pay, but he should pay the same or less than the instant buyer or seller.
-
Guest
There is one aspect that until now wasn't discussed in this topic. It is the possibility of speculation.
This could lead to the start of a new type of player. A player that gets his money from the market, buying some goods and selling it latter at a higher price, or by selling it first and buying latter for a cheaper price. Some companies might even have buy and sell orders at the same time, but at different prices.
In a real commodities market there are companies like it. They are called market makers. They make money without ever using or producing the goods they are trading.
What would be the advantage of having this kind of players in the game?
1) They produce liquidity. Because of them anyone who wants to buy a product that he/she needs instantly or wants to sell a product right away may be able to do so. It would be a good thing to improve the liquidity of some products in Kapilands. Some products like e-unit, CPU, Plastics have a small liquidity making it difficult to sell rapidly. Products like pigs or glass have small quantities offered and a big buy order would make the prices to climb. This leads me to the second point
2) The volatility (the amount and velocity of price change) would be smaller. The markets with high volume are more stable. Since there would be a higher amount of products to buy or sell the prices would be more stable. You can already see this in markets with higher volume, e.g. power, where the prices move between 0.06
This could lead to the start of a new type of player. A player that gets his money from the market, buying some goods and selling it latter at a higher price, or by selling it first and buying latter for a cheaper price. Some companies might even have buy and sell orders at the same time, but at different prices.
In a real commodities market there are companies like it. They are called market makers. They make money without ever using or producing the goods they are trading.
What would be the advantage of having this kind of players in the game?
1) They produce liquidity. Because of them anyone who wants to buy a product that he/she needs instantly or wants to sell a product right away may be able to do so. It would be a good thing to improve the liquidity of some products in Kapilands. Some products like e-unit, CPU, Plastics have a small liquidity making it difficult to sell rapidly. Products like pigs or glass have small quantities offered and a big buy order would make the prices to climb. This leads me to the second point
2) The volatility (the amount and velocity of price change) would be smaller. The markets with high volume are more stable. Since there would be a higher amount of products to buy or sell the prices would be more stable. You can already see this in markets with higher volume, e.g. power, where the prices move between 0.06
-
Guest
A few of us dabble in arbitrage, myself included as I imply in a post every so often. To have a regular market maker though, the market must have
1) High volume
2) A low transaction cost.
Plus the market maker himself must have
1) Huge amounts of cash
1a) The ability to sell short (or even more cash to keep goods on hand)
2) Constant availablility.
Now if you skip the market entirely and deal just in contracts you can avoid the market fee. But there are few products so robust that you'll get the volume to deal with them. Meanwhile even if I had enough cash to try to make the market in, say, gas - what happens when I'm offline? I'd have to avoid the market, convince people to choose me instead of the market, and hope they don't mind waiting if I'm not around. I think most people will just choose the market.
That said, I think this does happen a little. I'm thinking specifically of the coins market. There are several players who will give you both their "buy price" and "sell price" for coins, and are therefore market makers for that item.
In order to make it happen at large, they'd have to get rid of the market fee altogether. I don't think that will happen. The game's style is more one of encouraging contracts between players.
1) High volume
2) A low transaction cost.
Plus the market maker himself must have
1) Huge amounts of cash
1a) The ability to sell short (or even more cash to keep goods on hand)
2) Constant availablility.
Now if you skip the market entirely and deal just in contracts you can avoid the market fee. But there are few products so robust that you'll get the volume to deal with them. Meanwhile even if I had enough cash to try to make the market in, say, gas - what happens when I'm offline? I'd have to avoid the market, convince people to choose me instead of the market, and hope they don't mind waiting if I'm not around. I think most people will just choose the market.
That said, I think this does happen a little. I'm thinking specifically of the coins market. There are several players who will give you both their "buy price" and "sell price" for coins, and are therefore market makers for that item.
In order to make it happen at large, they'd have to get rid of the market fee altogether. I don't think that will happen. The game's style is more one of encouraging contracts between players.
-
Guest
don't like the idea, myself.
Sounds like a good idea but there is a problem.
What if that player doesn't have that much money?
Which means he'll have to put up the money in advance, killing the cash flow of money, reducing trading.
money still figures into the supply and demand curve, so the less money available, stuck in accounts waiting for players to sell those goods, then the less money will be traded on the buy market.
Sounds like a good idea but there is a problem.
What if that player doesn't have that much money?
Which means he'll have to put up the money in advance, killing the cash flow of money, reducing trading.
money still figures into the supply and demand curve, so the less money available, stuck in accounts waiting for players to sell those goods, then the less money will be traded on the buy market.
-
Guest
If the player does not have the money, the buy contract falls through (is cancelled), and the player who didn't have the money is out the 10% posting fee. That should be a reasonable deterrent for earmarking sufficient funds for honoring any buy orders posted. Or the player could go in the red, which would naturally prevent any further posting of buy/sell orders, until the player gets back into black.dbsuma wrote:don't like the idea, myself.
Sounds like a good idea but there is a problem.
What if that player doesn't have that much money?
Which means he'll have to put up the money in advance, killing the cash flow of money, reducing trading.
money still figures into the supply and demand curve, so the less money available, stuck in accounts waiting for players to sell those goods, then the less money will be traded on the buy market.