Buy Bid Sniping

[Busterbloodvessel]

The cost (tax) of placing a buy bid is a significant fraction of the purchase price (default 10%). I dunno about anyone else but I get pretty peeved by the +1 bidding that goes on. So if I bid 300 for 500 logs some cheapskate comes along and bids 301gold, and another 302 and another 303 and so on. For me to outbid I have to ditch 15,000 gold and bid again. This is nonsense.

Let's have a coded  rule that requires any new highest bid to be at least 10% higher than the existing highest bid price. So for example, in the case of an existing bid of 300 gold any buying bid would have to be at least (300+10%) 330 gold, any outbid of that (330+10%) 363 gold and so on. Conversely bidders will be able to bid at 299 and get in line. I hope that will discourage multiple bid snipes.

I would also like to see any under-bid that is withdrawn, which has achieved no purchase quantity, have the bid money and tax refunded in total. I am not aware of any bid system where a bid tax is paid of 10% which is not returned, in full, if no sale is made due to a winning overbid by someone else; mind you the world is a bigger place than my back yard; It just seems wrong and pathetic. 

 

Buster (Fair Trade Committee)

Edited April 7, 2018 by Busterbloodvessel
i always do

[The Wren]

Tax should be paid by the buyer not the seller.

[Busterbloodvessel]

13 minutes ago, The Wren said:

Tax should be paid by the buyer not the seller.

A different point to the one I was making (about buying bids). However, in auction houses it is not unusual that both buyer and seller pay a commission/tax. But nothing is paid by either if nothing is bought or sold when a bid fails. So in that case I agree.

 

Buster (Rule 21 para 54b)

Edited April 7, 2018 by Busterbloodvessel

[z4ys]

Bids should be hidden. No open bidding.

[Farrago]

I also think contracts should be shorter. If not claimed with 3 days then it expires.

[vazco]

I like the current system. With 10%increments some goods would become much more expensive and trade less profitable, as people often can pay more, but protect their margins. 

10% tax paid by both sides is a lot, it should be probably just one side paying, or 5% tax for both.

 

A seller putting a contract for an extra fee regardless of success is historical though, you had to pay people who would advocate a sale for you - often this was a time consuming effort. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Busterbloodvessel said:

The cost (tax) of placing a buy bid is a significant fraction of the purchase price (default 10%). I dunno about anyone else but I get pretty peeved by the +1 bidding that goes on. So if I bid 300 for 500 logs some cheapskate comes along and bids 301gold, and another 302 and another 303 and so on. For me to outbid I have to ditch 15,000 gold and bid again. This is nonsense.

Let's have a coded  rule that requires any new highest bid to be at least 10% higher than the existing highest bid price. So for example, in the case of an existing bid of 300 gold any buying bid would have to be at least (300+10%) 330 gold, any outbid of that (330+10%) 363 gold and so on. Conversely bidders will be able to bid at 299 and get in line. I hope that will discourage multiple bid snipes.

I would also like to see any under-bid that is withdrawn, which has achieved no purchase quantity, have the bid money and tax refunded in total. I am not aware of any bid system where a bid tax is paid of 10% which is not returned, in full, if no sale is made due to a winning overbid by someone else; mind you the world is a bigger place than my back yard; It just seems wrong and pathetic. 

 

Buster (Fair Trade Committee)

I completely disagree.. In any bidding war there's no rule that states by how much you need to outbid someone. AND it's almost impossible make a port profitable unless you force a bidding war in it..

[Busterbloodvessel]

7 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

I completely disagree.. In any bidding war there's no rule that states by how much you need to outbid someone. AND it's almost impossible make a port profitable unless you force a bidding war in it..

No there is no rule. That's why I want one. If you keep the 1 gold system bidding there needs to be a return of tax.

Port profitability is determined by cost of the port charge. That could be modified accordingly.

 

Buster (wallet light)

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Busterbloodvessel said:

No there is no rule. That's why I want one. If you keep the 1 gold system bidding there needs to be a return of tax.

Port profitability is determined by cost of the port charge. That could be modified accordingly.

 

Buster (wallet light)

I've taken the liberty to hightlight the important info.. It's the point of a bidding war to basically drive the opponent(s) out of business.. I didn't create capitalism, but I sure as hell ain't going to lose in that game..

[Busterbloodvessel]

52 minutes ago, Lars Kjaer said:

I've taken the liberty to hightlight the important info.. It's the point of a bidding war to basically drive the opponent(s) out of business.. I didn't create capitalism, but I sure as hell ain't going to lose in that game..

Ahh. you read to much into my facetious text.

Buster (lies a lot) 

[RedNeckMilkMan]

5 hours ago, The Wren said:

Tax should be paid by the buyer not the seller.

what? the tax is paid to the port owners not the seller or buyer. 

[victor]

8 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

Bidding wars are cancer, especially when players use "stationary" alts that always stay in port. I hope UI changes will fix that, as we are supposed to use ports while sailing.

And this will solve the problem?

I will make it even worse since more people will be bidding.