Admirals who do nothing but go into low level Fleet Actions, farm them for gear, selling what they don't want, buying the things to make their alts worth while playing.
apparently a lot of people.....I don't jack em up to excessive levels.....I don't charge 150k+ for a 4000 item, like mines or torpedos.....I sell it for 8000, and that's only if it's not readily available at a vendor
not even STO sister game, i mean CO, got a sort by price feature and that has been out for a year.
take note ppl, cryptic will not listen to you.
most likely there is some programming difficulty on sorting the items by price. maybe they collect the search items dynamically and in order to sort thing one need to collect them in one array first.
also as a programmer, i can tell you that, sorting is actually quite processor intensive and the amount of works required grow quite fast as the number of item increase.
I would guess it is more a priority issue, sort could be done on client side, since each search is basically an update of data sent to client. Data downloaded to client, client then does a compare of some field that includes the markup percent, and a simple sort. so processor load is irrelevant.
However the downloading of only first 100 matches does make it server side.
And server cost of all downloadable items downloading is expensive and not a good idea especially with current server load.
So then it is not client side, and the server would have to make, for each item a map that holds the item using the percentage markup as the hash key, then each request for that item would cycle through each map that matches search criteria, adding lowest markup to user viewable list.
Or a worker thread could run in the background, that searches and keeps a map of the 100-200 cheapest items of any one type, then if a query request match hits 4 items, it grabs from each map till 100 units is reached, then client does another bubble sort to fix imperfection of each map not being compared to each other.
So map 1 might start with 10% mark up, map 2 20% mark up, yet the grabbing of first 100 would just pop from each map head. This would make it so an item from each matched queried item would be in sent out list, but not in true cheapest percent order. So then client would refine that order after getting the 100 items that are close to best price 100, making them lowest percent order and yet have some items from each matched search.
Server cost would be maintaining a 200 cheapest map for each item. When new item added it can be put in map, and when items removed, and list falls bellow 100 items, it re-searches and computes a new list of 200. There would need to be a list for each item that could be searched. Which would just be 200 IDs or pointers to data.
Band width cost would be the same.
Search access cost would be popping of items on maps created, and might actually be faster, since the stored order is maintained in worker thread, and maps the players are actually accessing only contain from 100 to 200 item pointers.
example
Search for disruptor beams, 20 maps of items matching disruptor beams exists, so each of those maps get first 5 items added to the 100 sent to client. Client then does a simple sort to put them in true markup order, and user is guaranteed to have some from every item his match hit.
Basically you just say anything above 200th place in price markup per item, does not ever need to be accessed, so is just parked somewhere where it is not searched. Then when bellow any map falls bellow 100, you can recheck that pile to see if some there fall within lowest 200 prices markups. Until the point they are in that range, they don't ever need to be sent when a search happens, so why search through them on each query, and instead just keep shorter maps of possibly active items.
If there is a map of every variety of every item, you could do a 10 / 20 min max size map, with an extra field saying more then that are on list, to help players cornering markets on an item. The size of maps is just how many items with lowest markup for each item type you think should be displayed.
So it does not seem that difficult, although I don't think it is high priority currently.
edit: when item added, if item markup percent is more then map tail, dont add it into quick map. If quick map is more then 200 units, pop most expensive, if adding a new item is below that cost. So maps float between some low and high bound that fires off a re-search in worker thread when more items needed, but holds enough items for quick access anytime a request for an item happens.
Also some players may be using exchange as a form of bank.
Since if you want to expand your banking slots, just put item on exchange with high price. So that might be why there are so many high prices there also.
Also some players may be using exchange as a form of bank.
Since if you want to expand your banking slots, just put item on exchange with high price. So that might be why there are so many high prices there also.
That's probably likely. Though I can't imagine needing to keep enough stuff to fill both the inventory and bank slots. What will you ever use it for?
I really dislike that Cryptic hasn't mastered the ability to let us sort out the exchange prices by ascending or descending order...no doubt they think that, in 400 years, the technology has de-evolved to such a state that Fed computers cannot do what spreadsheets have been doing since 1955. But, I am willing to wade through pages of over-priced junk in order to find the few of you who have posted your items at reasonable prices.
I always post prices based on a rule. If it is a green, I do like 20% over vendor. For example.. 10,000 vendor... 12,000 market. Not bad
blue, low tier: 30%, high tier: 40%.
Much better than the 12432931592375% I see some people put TRIBBLE on there for.. and at least I feel it is consistent and fair to others.
I routinely sell weapons for 2-3x price, and am still consistently the lowest price on the list.
I do the same depending on the weapon and am sitting at just under 1 million credits I do have to laugh at the fools selling white loot items for 400k :rolleyes:
I tend to put most of my stuff on the exchange for roughly 80% of the actual value. Some of the stuff sells more or less as soon as its posted, but there are a few of the more common items still sat on there.
Some of the prices got me. 2000 for a small hypo? You're having a laugh.
I haven't sold much on the exchange but like many of you I stay reasonable and try to keep it a bit lower then what I also consider other reasonable prices. Rather it sold then deal with it again.
And now back to the OP's original point, I agree. Searching thru the exchange for the right price for something is a real pain. I spend more time breaking down the names that are close to what I want into the search bar so I can at least get a smaller listing to scan. Hate to see what will happen when more people begin using it as they level up. It'll be a nightmare.
But then people can just get it from the vendor for less?
You are aware that the vendor price is you get is half of the price listed on the item dont you and that you cant buy said item from a vendor in most cases.
I tend to put most of my stuff on the exchange for roughly 80% of the actual value. Some of the stuff sells more or less as soon as its posted, but there are a few of the more common items still sat on there.
Some of the prices got me. 2000 for a small hypo? You're having a laugh.
Always sell at face value. Means nobody gets ripped off and I get a sale quickly, or quicker.
It can also mean that someone will come along, buy what you sold for really cheap, turn around and try to resell it for a much higher value. That's typically what happens when you get a sale quickly. Some buy/sell overcharging shark got it.
As for why the ungodly high prices on items; it's people abusing the exchange as extra storage space.
I'm making a small fortune bit by bit on the exchange. I always go with under vale for commons, equal to or under value on uncommons and slightly above on the rares.
I think the economy is begining to fix itself as more and more of us try to undercut each other!
I'm making a small fortune bit by bit on the exchange. I always go with under vale for commons, equal to or under value on uncommons and slightly above on the rares.
I think the economy is begining to fix itself as more and more of us try to undercut each other!
I haven't sold much on the exchange but like many of you I stay reasonable and try to keep it a bit lower then what I also consider other reasonable prices. Rather it sold then deal with it again.
And now back to the OP's original point, I agree. Searching thru the exchange for the right price for something is a real pain. I spend more time breaking down the names that are close to what I want into the search bar so I can at least get a smaller listing to scan. Hate to see what will happen when more people begin using it as they level up. It'll be a nightmare.
I agree completely. Thankfully most of the rare items are "bind on equip" so once they're used they won't be back in the exchange.
It can also mean that someone will come along, buy what you sold for really cheap, turn around and try to resell it for a much higher value. That's typically what happens when you get a sale quickly. Some buy/sell overcharging shark got it.
As for why the ungodly high prices on items; it's people abusing the exchange as extra storage space.
At least the market will be self-correcting so that people who are profiteering will be undersold by people who continue to post reasonably priced items. It is not possible for them to corner the market since it invests their own money and limited storage space.
Comments
Which is why we don't buy from you...Ferengi.
Who are the idiots who buy your stuff?
Admirals who do nothing but go into low level Fleet Actions, farm them for gear, selling what they don't want, buying the things to make their alts worth while playing.
apparently a lot of people.....I don't jack em up to excessive levels.....I don't charge 150k+ for a 4000 item, like mines or torpedos.....I sell it for 8000, and that's only if it's not readily available at a vendor
I would guess it is more a priority issue, sort could be done on client side, since each search is basically an update of data sent to client. Data downloaded to client, client then does a compare of some field that includes the markup percent, and a simple sort. so processor load is irrelevant.
However the downloading of only first 100 matches does make it server side.
And server cost of all downloadable items downloading is expensive and not a good idea especially with current server load.
So then it is not client side, and the server would have to make, for each item a map that holds the item using the percentage markup as the hash key, then each request for that item would cycle through each map that matches search criteria, adding lowest markup to user viewable list.
Or a worker thread could run in the background, that searches and keeps a map of the 100-200 cheapest items of any one type, then if a query request match hits 4 items, it grabs from each map till 100 units is reached, then client does another bubble sort to fix imperfection of each map not being compared to each other.
So map 1 might start with 10% mark up, map 2 20% mark up, yet the grabbing of first 100 would just pop from each map head. This would make it so an item from each matched queried item would be in sent out list, but not in true cheapest percent order. So then client would refine that order after getting the 100 items that are close to best price 100, making them lowest percent order and yet have some items from each matched search.
Server cost would be maintaining a 200 cheapest map for each item. When new item added it can be put in map, and when items removed, and list falls bellow 100 items, it re-searches and computes a new list of 200. There would need to be a list for each item that could be searched. Which would just be 200 IDs or pointers to data.
Band width cost would be the same.
Search access cost would be popping of items on maps created, and might actually be faster, since the stored order is maintained in worker thread, and maps the players are actually accessing only contain from 100 to 200 item pointers.
example
Search for disruptor beams, 20 maps of items matching disruptor beams exists, so each of those maps get first 5 items added to the 100 sent to client. Client then does a simple sort to put them in true markup order, and user is guaranteed to have some from every item his match hit.
Basically you just say anything above 200th place in price markup per item, does not ever need to be accessed, so is just parked somewhere where it is not searched. Then when bellow any map falls bellow 100, you can recheck that pile to see if some there fall within lowest 200 prices markups. Until the point they are in that range, they don't ever need to be sent when a search happens, so why search through them on each query, and instead just keep shorter maps of possibly active items.
If there is a map of every variety of every item, you could do a 10 / 20 min max size map, with an extra field saying more then that are on list, to help players cornering markets on an item. The size of maps is just how many items with lowest markup for each item type you think should be displayed.
So it does not seem that difficult, although I don't think it is high priority currently.
edit: when item added, if item markup percent is more then map tail, dont add it into quick map. If quick map is more then 200 units, pop most expensive, if adding a new item is below that cost. So maps float between some low and high bound that fires off a re-search in worker thread when more items needed, but holds enough items for quick access anytime a request for an item happens.
Since if you want to expand your banking slots, just put item on exchange with high price. So that might be why there are so many high prices there also.
That's probably likely. Though I can't imagine needing to keep enough stuff to fill both the inventory and bank slots. What will you ever use it for?
I always post prices based on a rule. If it is a green, I do like 20% over vendor. For example.. 10,000 vendor... 12,000 market. Not bad
blue, low tier: 30%, high tier: 40%.
Much better than the 12432931592375% I see some people put TRIBBLE on there for.. and at least I feel it is consistent and fair to others.
But then people can just get it from the vendor for less?
Then you're not looking hard enough. I haven't bought anything off the list yet that was at or above its "value" price.
I do the same depending on the weapon and am sitting at just under 1 million credits
Some of the prices got me. 2000 for a small hypo? You're having a laugh.
And now back to the OP's original point, I agree. Searching thru the exchange for the right price for something is a real pain. I spend more time breaking down the names that are close to what I want into the search bar so I can at least get a smaller listing to scan. Hate to see what will happen when more people begin using it as they level up. It'll be a nightmare.
You are aware that the vendor price is you get is half of the price listed on the item dont you and that you cant buy said item from a vendor in most cases.
I'm just having a smile at Marvin. Well done
It can also mean that someone will come along, buy what you sold for really cheap, turn around and try to resell it for a much higher value. That's typically what happens when you get a sale quickly. Some buy/sell overcharging shark got it.
As for why the ungodly high prices on items; it's people abusing the exchange as extra storage space.
I think the economy is begining to fix itself as more and more of us try to undercut each other!
Welcome to capitalism!
I agree completely. Thankfully most of the rare items are "bind on equip" so once they're used they won't be back in the exchange.
At least the market will be self-correcting so that people who are profiteering will be undersold by people who continue to post reasonably priced items. It is not possible for them to corner the market since it invests their own money and limited storage space.