This change has gone wayyyyyyyyy overkill. First, the single stack posters weren't a problem. If players didn't buy their single stacks, they'd stop posting them. Tell players to stop buying them if they don't want them.
Second, the change was applied in far greater scope than makes any sense at all.
Why does folded obsidium cost me 40g per to post? First, no one posts 100's of them in 1 stack each. No one, ever. It doesn't happen. Breaking those items didn't help a problem cause there was no problem. Second, no one buys them 200 at a time. Actually, they rarely sell. It's the kind of item that gets posted often in small stacks or individually, because people are usually just trying to craft one piece and either need 8-12 of them or maybe just one or two to finish what they need. Old crafting mats should not be affected by this change, period. There is literally zero excuse for this.
Apply the changes ONLY to items being posted in bulk as the super lazy (I'm too lazy to scroll past a few pages of auctions before I buy something) player base whined about. Which is probably less than a dozen new types of crafting mats.
But as it is, you've basically ended the sales of literally every crafting material that isn't purchased on a regular basis, because they're now too expensive to list.
This is absurd. There was a fix to a non-problem that was applied to inapplicable items. Get better.
08/22/2018 09:49 AMPosted by YthisensTo address some issues related to the Auction House, we’re reconsidering how deposits—the refundable fees you pay to list your auctions—are calculated. This fee is based on the item’s vendor price, and for profession materials in particular, vendors offer very low prices, so these mats have a low deposit cost. Deposits are substantial on items such as BoE uncommon gear, gems, and so forth, but not trade skill materials (trade goods such as cloth, ore, leather, etc.).
One thing we’ve identified as particularly troublesome is a large volume of trade skill materials being auctioned off in stacks of 1. Some addons make posting quantities of this size trivial to do, resulting in dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of auctions for a single item. As we looked at ways to change this behavior and improve the overall Auction House experience, we found that we prefer to avoid inflexible solutions such as caps on the number of listings a player can make, or increased minimum stack counts, which might interfere with many players' common gameplay habits.
Our current plan is to increase the deposit cost of some profession materials on a per-stack basis, which should provide incentive for players to post items in larger stacks.
Here's an example:
• Let’s say that a player is trying to sell 200 Tidespray Linen for 10g (gold) each. Today, each item has the normal deposit cost of 1c (copper), with a 1s (silver) minimum deposit, so 1 auction of 200 linen requires a deposit of 1s, and 200 auctions of 1 linen each adds up to a total deposit of 2g.
• Now imagine an additional 20% deposit added to the listing fee per auction. With an asking price of 10g each, that raises the deposit by 2g per stack. In the case of 1 stack of 200 linen, the total buyout price is 2000g, and the new deposit is 2g1s. In the case of 200 individual stacks, the new deposit of an additional 2g per stack brings the total deposit up to 402g.
In either case, the deposit is returned to the seller if the item sells. Successful auctions aren’t affected by this change.
Our goal is to give players some forewarning on this change, and to gather feedback. We’re putting together a list of the items that would be affected by this deposit change, which we expect to be limited to high-quantity trade goods. Furthermore, we’re deploying the change to the PTR first, so that addon authors can work through the change while we test it thoroughly.
This change will likely be a temporary measure, as we’re also working to broadly improve the default Auction House in the future. It’s clear to us that many players use addons because they find the default Auction House interface inadequate. A temporary change to deposit fees will help with this in the short term, and we’ll continue to work on overall improvements to the Auction House for a future patch.
I gotta say this is one of the worst ideas to fix your problem... your pretty much incentivizing people to go with smaller stacks so as they dont lose all your deposit should a bigger stack not sell. To combat your idea, i would simple split the 200 linen into 10 stacks of 20 or even 40 stacks of 5, that way instead of losing 402g total for one stack im more likely to lose less because atleast some of the smaller stacks would get bought. Not to even mention you are competing against other people that like to undercut by 1c.
If your trying to flood the market further this idea is brilliant...
Maybe a better idea would be giving a discount of bigger stacks when the sell goes through. What your planning doing sound more like a punishment when you should probably be incentivizing people to play the way you want them too... How much like gambling do you want to make it feel like? "Im gonna put it all on black!" Im gonna make a guess but the people who like to play the AH would probably try and make more money if you offered them a way to do so, and that your proposed idea will bring alot of hate in the long run.
09/19/2018 10:30 AMPosted by SnoopfoshizlThe focus should be "How can we give buyers more purchasing power and influence in price setting?"
Wrong. The focus of this change was "a huge number of players are complaining that auction house searches are TOO SLOW". This change was 100% about speed and NOT about anything you want instead.
The problem was real. For example, I play on 2 servers. I can search for one item (Winter's Bite) on Azuremyst and the search takes 15 seconds. On Wyrmrest Accord the same search takes almost 2 minutes: 120 seconds.
So updating all 6 Herb prices (one search) takes me almost a minute on A, but around 10 minutes (for one search) on WA. That's the problem.
personally I wish the AH was like this....
you put up 500 rough stone for a certain price the games interface then shows (when somone searches for it) a list of roguh stone quanityies, priceings per unit and how many listers are pricing it at that price.
like this
quantity/ item name/ price/ listers/
1069/ rough stone/ 34g 99s 99c per unit/ 3
4852/ roguh stone/ 35g 00s 00c per unit/ 35
672445/ rough stone / 85g 00s 00c per unit/ 1
edit: basically get rid of stack posting and allow the players to choosehow much they want to buy of that item. so when they click on 1069 rough stone a box pops up to type how many they need/want to buy
you put up 500 rough stone for a certain price the games interface then shows (when somone searches for it) a list of roguh stone quanityies, priceings per unit and how many listers are pricing it at that price.
like this
quantity/ item name/ price/ listers/
1069/ rough stone/ 34g 99s 99c per unit/ 3
4852/ roguh stone/ 35g 00s 00c per unit/ 35
672445/ rough stone / 85g 00s 00c per unit/ 1
edit: basically get rid of stack posting and allow the players to choosehow much they want to buy of that item. so when they click on 1069 rough stone a box pops up to type how many they need/want to buy
That is 100% backwards. The bigger stack has the SAME deposit as the smaller stack: you lose the SAME deposit.09/20/2018 08:57 PMPosted by Kuragariyour pretty much incentivizing people to go with smaller stacks so as they dont lose all your deposit should a bigger stack not sell.
The only difference is that 20 stacks of 1 is 20 deposits. 1 stack of 20 is 1 deposit. So you LOSE TWENTY TIMES AS MUCH with smaller stacks.
You can't: the deposit is 20% of ONE ITEM, not of the whole stack. Is linen selling for 2,000g APIECE on your server? I don't believe it. What is 20% of "quantity 1 linen"? 5g? That is the deposit for any size stack: 1 linen, 40 linen, 65 linen or 200 linen. It's still 5g per stack.09/20/2018 08:57 PMPosted by Kuragarithat way instead of losing 402g total for one stack
09/20/2018 08:57 PMPosted by Kuragari08/22/2018 09:49 AMPosted by YthisensTo address some issues related to the Auction House, we’re reconsidering how deposits—the refundable fees you pay to list your auctions—are calculated. This fee is based on the item’s vendor price, and for profession materials in particular, vendors offer very low prices, so these mats have a low deposit cost. Deposits are substantial on items such as BoE uncommon gear, gems, and so forth, but not trade skill materials (trade goods such as cloth, ore, leather, etc.).
One thing we’ve identified as particularly troublesome is a large volume of trade skill materials being auctioned off in stacks of 1. Some addons make posting quantities of this size trivial to do, resulting in dozens, if not hundreds, of pages of auctions for a single item. As we looked at ways to change this behavior and improve the overall Auction House experience, we found that we prefer to avoid inflexible solutions such as caps on the number of listings a player can make, or increased minimum stack counts, which might interfere with many players' common gameplay habits.
Our current plan is to increase the deposit cost of some profession materials on a per-stack basis, which should provide incentive for players to post items in larger stacks.
Here's an example:
• Let’s say that a player is trying to sell 200 Tidespray Linen for 10g (gold) each. Today, each item has the normal deposit cost of 1c (copper), with a 1s (silver) minimum deposit, so 1 auction of 200 linen requires a deposit of 1s, and 200 auctions of 1 linen each adds up to a total deposit of 2g.
• Now imagine an additional 20% deposit added to the listing fee per auction. With an asking price of 10g each, that raises the deposit by 2g per stack. In the case of 1 stack of 200 linen, the total buyout price is 2000g, and the new deposit is 2g1s. In the case of 200 individual stacks, the new deposit of an additional 2g per stack brings the total deposit up to 402g.
In either case, the deposit is returned to the seller if the item sells. Successful auctions aren’t affected by this change.
Our goal is to give players some forewarning on this change, and to gather feedback. We’re putting together a list of the items that would be affected by this deposit change, which we expect to be limited to high-quantity trade goods. Furthermore, we’re deploying the change to the PTR first, so that addon authors can work through the change while we test it thoroughly.
This change will likely be a temporary measure, as we’re also working to broadly improve the default Auction House in the future. It’s clear to us that many players use addons because they find the default Auction House interface inadequate. A temporary change to deposit fees will help with this in the short term, and we’ll continue to work on overall improvements to the Auction House for a future patch.
I gotta say this is one of the worst ideas to fix your problem... your pretty much incentivizing people to go with smaller stacks so as they dont lose all your deposit should a bigger stack not sell. To combat your idea, i would simple split the 200 linen into 10 stacks of 20 or even 40 stacks of 5, that way instead of losing 402g total for one stack im more likely to lose less because atleast some of the smaller stacks would get bought. Not to even mention you are competing against other people that like to undercut by 1c.
If your trying to flood the market further this idea is brilliant...
What are you talking about? This change has incentivized posting in higher stacks, not lower. This change has made the auction house substantially faster since it was implemented.
08/27/2018 06:02 PMPosted by ManziniHow about we bring back the mobile auction house? You know make the armory app valuable again? Or just an actual auction house app.
This, I support this.
09/20/2018 09:26 PMPosted by Kailenna09/20/2018 08:57 PMPosted by Kuragari...
I gotta say this is one of the worst ideas to fix your problem... your pretty much incentivizing people to go with smaller stacks so as they dont lose all your deposit should a bigger stack not sell. To combat your idea, i would simple split the 200 linen into 10 stacks of 20 or even 40 stacks of 5, that way instead of losing 402g total for one stack im more likely to lose less because atleast some of the smaller stacks would get bought. Not to even mention you are competing against other people that like to undercut by 1c.
If your trying to flood the market further this idea is brilliant...
What are you talking about? This change has incentivized posting in higher stacks, not lower. This change has made the auction house substantially faster since it was implemented.
hes saying lower stacks sell faster
Over the last couple of weeks, I was clearing out some items on a server I don't play on anymore. I wasn't aware of this AH change since it wasn't really published (other than here saying it was a PTR change), and I used TSM to just post everything quickly. Yesterday I noticed my gold total was quite low - apparently I was posting 1 single cobra scale and losing 1k gold each time it posted and wasn't sold. That's my bad and I'll pay the moron tax for not watching what I'm doing, but surely folks like me aren't the intended target of a change like this. Why in the world would it even apply to something like cobra scales, which clearly are not getting posted in walls of 1?
Anyhow, it got me doing a little testing until I stumbled on this thread to explain what happened. During that testing, I found an interesting bug. At absurdly high pricing, you start getting into some ugly integer overflow and the deposit pricing goes completely out of whack. Just another example of outdated coding and technology that needs overhauled.
https://imgur.com/a/u56wWHI
https://imgur.com/a/1ilxLgN
Anyhow, it got me doing a little testing until I stumbled on this thread to explain what happened. During that testing, I found an interesting bug. At absurdly high pricing, you start getting into some ugly integer overflow and the deposit pricing goes completely out of whack. Just another example of outdated coding and technology that needs overhauled.
https://imgur.com/a/u56wWHI
https://imgur.com/a/1ilxLgN
So you expect people to just magically know there is a new listing fee? This only works if you do a good job informing people of the change. A forum post isn't going to cut it. There has to be an in-game warning informing people when they try to post a single item. Unless your goal is to take money from unsuspecting sellers while eventually deterring single item auctions once it has become common knowledge and millions of gold have been removed from the economy.
And did you think what will happen once everybody realizes they need to sell max stacks? That means everybody has to buy max stacks. Need 2 reagents to craft an item? Well, too bad! You have to buy 200!
And did you think what will happen once everybody realizes they need to sell max stacks? That means everybody has to buy max stacks. Need 2 reagents to craft an item? Well, too bad! You have to buy 200!
I never buy single stacks, ever. Why would I buy just 1 ore? Why do people even post 1 of an item?
998g for mooncloth....60s for moonshroud, something is seriously broken. Nothing should cost a bloody grand to post on the AH!
This "fix" is seriously broken. I have an Ace of Iron I've been trying to unload at around 82g, but it costs over 460g to post it. How is anyone ever going to be able to buy an Ace of Iron on the AH if they want? No one wants stacks of 20 of this item--it has to be singles! I thought it was a bug. I reported it as a bug, but realized I would get no communication on the effort to fix, so also filed a ticket which directed me to this mess. Small Luminous Shards cost almost 300g to post. Thorium bars are priced out crazy as well and as far as I can tell, the AH isn't actually telling people the real deposit price before they click "Post Item".
Instead of sellers setting stack amounts, buyers should be able to just peel off the amount of any item they want off a big pile. Singles may have been an issue in AH scan times, but people want singles. That's why buyers post them. Why discourage something buyers want?
Instead of sellers setting stack amounts, buyers should be able to just peel off the amount of any item they want off a big pile. Singles may have been an issue in AH scan times, but people want singles. That's why buyers post them. Why discourage something buyers want?
09/30/2018 06:20 AMPosted by DraganeInstead of sellers setting stack amounts, buyers should be able to just peel off the amount of any item they want off a big pile.
This. 100x this. I understand why some sellers want to maintain their control over stack sizes and some of the techniques of listing hundreds of singles to set a "ceiling" price, but this is a ridiculous mechanism that favors certain sellers over buyers.
Blizzard has waited too long to start to fix this, and now they'll have to do so with all of the inertia involved of trying to fix something that has long ago become the "that's just the way it's always been done, so we can't change it now without being unfair to those who have mastered the AH mechanics as they have been forever" thing that people will QQ about as they try to fix it.
This piecemeal approach of clumsily raising stack deposits on the first item of each stack, without properly considering and weighing the market for each item and placing way too many commodity items in this category, was inexpertly executed and, seemingly at least, poorly adapted to fix very predictable problems as they arose.
I haven’t put anything up on the AH since they made this terrible change. It’s great because now there is one less aspect of the game to worry about. I just stockpile all the ore, skins, herbs I gather. When they change it so I can sell in stacks of 20 or 40 again without tanking a beating if they don’t sell, I’ll be putting stuff back up.
I think it would have been a better idea to limit the number of single stack crafting items a single character can have in the auction house rather than create this monetary penalty. Some people only want to buy like maybe 6 cloth for something and, with the penalty, they won't be able to do that. Instead, they'll have to buy far more than they want and be stuck with the excess.
09/30/2018 06:38 AMPosted by CereneI think it would have been a better idea to limit the number of single stack crafting items a single character can have in the auction house rather than create this monetary penalty. Some people only want to buy like maybe 6 cloth for something and, with the penalty, they won't be able to do that. Instead, they'll have to buy far more than they want and be stuck with the excess.
This exactly. Just limit the number total number of stacks a toon or account can post at once
No, stop posting in single stacks and you'll be fine.
09/30/2018 07:35 AMPosted by TrikanNo, stop posting in single stacks and you'll be fine.
People are posting less single stacks. The AH is still slow as molasses. Coincidentally this only started happening when Blizzard decided everything else needed to be slowed down too and they made changes to the AH API and removed it from the WoW mobile app.
Yet the single stacks for some reason weren't bogging down the AH for the 12+ years of people posting prior, even during Wrath when there was a peak 12 million+ players potentially bogging the system down.
i dont get why they just didn't put an option to search by stack size.....