Calypso Land Deeds in the Auction

[NevadaJake]

yeah, it is simple. and which one do people use when selling in the street or on forum?

I usually see people selling on the street or here on PCF by saying "Selling 10 CLDs 1560 PED each".

 

[aridash]

Selling 17 CLD - +26644.5
--- if you can do that without a calc on the top of your head awesome.....I hope you didnt miscalculate.

and what exactly is wrong with using a calculator?

 

[valivill]

voted for % (how it was in the previous VU)

When im checking the auction its a mess.
I (like anyone else) want the cheapest CLD.
When im browsing the auction I am forced to check every stackable amount (1,2,5 or 10 cld listed)
to figure out which stack is the cheapest.

Current way: tt+ absolute numbers says that 10 cld for 15.000 ped = 1 cld for 15.000 (on auction listed at cheapest B/O). Which doesnt make sense.

I agree that 1499999999999999999999% as shown mu is a mess and on the "streets" ppl tend to say cld for 1500 ped instead of %.

conclusion: I want to see in 1 click what the cheapest CLD is on the auction instead of checking them all and to fix current shown mu which is at tt + 5k

 

[DISABLED]

voted for % (how it was in the previous VU)

When im checking the auction its a mess.
I (like anyone else) want the cheapest CLD.
When im browsing the auction I am forced to check every stackable amount (1,2,5 or 10 cld listed)
to figure out which stack is the cheapest.

Current way: tt+ absolute numbers says that 10 cld for 15.000 ped = 1 cld for 15.000 (on auction listed at cheapest B/O). Which doesnt make sense.

I agree that 1499999999999999999999% as shown mu is a mess and on the "streets" ppl tend to say cld for 1500 ped instead of %.

conclusion: I want to see in 1 click what the cheapest CLD is on the auction instead of checking them all and to fix current shown mu which is at tt + 5k

well, seems like the most of the players would like to use calculators to find out the cheapest stack browsing between multiple deed stacks and figuring out which stack is the cheapest per cld...

ohh, wait i just realized it, most of the players dont have enough money even for 1 cld, this explains everything LOL

 

[valivill]

hahaha

 

[Svarog]

I'd like to see % back, it's really annoying to divide stacks values by deeds amounts to figure out the price of 1 deed, for every damn cld stack on auction. Before a simple mouse-over was enough. One mouse-over over the whole page, actually.

and what exactly is wrong with using a calculator?

Nothing, except that before I hadn't had to use it. It became more inconvenient without adding any benefits.

Also it breaks the pattern, if CLDs are tt+MU - why aren't the fruits, tokens and all other stackable items of 0.00001 ped tt value (hopefully they won't change that as well)?

 

[NevadaJake]

Nothing, except that before I hadn't had to use it. It became more inconvenient without adding any benefits.

Yes, they upgraded to less utility. Why did they do this?

 

[forgo]

and what exactly is wrong with using a calculator?

1.This game software makes millions of calculations per second.


It seems redundant and elementary to need to use a calculator out of the game, especially when it had been making those calculations for us already for over a year.

2. People are lazy in general and impulse buy, they would much rather buy 10 single deeds at an easy to figure price, than buy 2 stacks at lesser value that they need to verify price.

Case in point I had 2 stacks last week selling lower than the 100+ some deeds that sold in singles. They never sold. even at 10 ped less per deed at its lowest point this week. Prior to this change, the discrepancy would have been noticed.

 

[Retrac]

Prefer TT + Markup

Simply because % on 0 TT items always shows an >99999999 on history. In the auction it is nice because they made the actual trade terminal value of the cld and insanely small .0000001 but I bet you would be twitching violently if they had played with you by making it .0000003 instead.

 

[Svarog]

Simply because % on 0 TT items always shows an >99999999 on history. In the auction it is nice because they made the actual trade terminal value of the cld and insanely small .0000001 but I bet you would be twitching violently if they had played with you by making it .0000003 instead.

There are no such things as "0 TT items". CLDs, fruits, tokens, nova/blazar fragments etc have tt value of 0.0001 ped. Put 100 fruits in TT and you'll see 0.01 pec. Then put 99 fruits and 1 CLD and you'll see 0.01 pec again.

 

[aridash]

1.This game software makes millions of calculations per second.


It seems redundant and elementary to need to use a calculator out of the game, especially when it had been making those calculations for us already for over a year.

so you would previous compare 149999999999% in auction with 4 @6080 from a street seller without reaching for the calculator? i have always used a calculator around EU trades, i'm surprised i was in such a minority.

 

[xian]

% was a rule for stackable. However when market price is desgned to be 1000000+% of TT value, TT+ would be nice. Either they increase the SB and BO column width, either they introduce 2 new column whith price per unit (in TT+)alongside the existing one or they leave it as they wish

 

[NevadaJake]

I really enjoy investing in Calypso Land Deeds and this change is really annoying to me. I know that it does not affect most Entropia participants.

That being said, perhaps they could make a separate section for Calypso Land Deeds in the Auction and list them as stackable items with MU %.

 

[Skippie]

I prefer the new +TT idea since the old style was somewhat difficult to read at times. But the new style should take stacks of deeds and divide them by the number of deeds in the stack instead of registering a sale at +14999 for 10 deeds in market value. The change has left the graph completely useless since there's no real way to see accurate data with the swings in daily sales between 1500 a pop and some high number registering on a multi-deed sale. I know the change was made to accommodate the ability to place deeds into banks, or something. But at least with the old style of market value you could see movements in the price on deeds over the day, week and month that actually represented what was realistically going on with the deed price.

 

[NevadaJake]

I prefer the new +TT idea since the old style was somewhat difficult to read at times. But the new style should take stacks of deeds and divide them by the number of deeds in the stack instead of registering a sale at +14999 for 10 deeds in market value. The change has left the graph completely useless since there's no real way to see accurate data with the swings in daily sales between 1500 a pop and some high number registering on a multi-deed sale. I know the change was made to accommodate the ability to place deeds into banks, or something. But at least with the old style of market value you could see movements in the price on deeds over the day, week and month that actually represented what was realistically going on with the deed price.

I agree. the new way would be great if it divided the total price by the stack size in the TT+ column. That would make the history useful and make it simple to tell at a glance which one is the cheapest stack.

 

[Etopia]

I prefer the new +TT idea since the old style was somewhat difficult to read at times. But the new style should take stacks of deeds and divide them by the number of deeds in the stack instead of registering a sale at +14999 for 10 deeds in market value. The change has left the graph completely useless since there's no real way to see accurate data with the swings in daily sales between 1500 a pop and some high number registering on a multi-deed sale. I know the change was made to accommodate the ability to place deeds into banks, or something. But at least with the old style of market value you could see movements in the price on deeds over the day, week and month that actually represented what was realistically going on with the deed price.

all stackable display price per unit , so i guess this is a bug.
all stackable with TT vallue lower than 0.1 pec should be display in TT+ instead of % .
and this for the simple fact , that if you display something it have to be readale , or there is no point to display it.
i dont think there is a discution here , how can someone say those very long % mark up make sence to show.

 

[robinsilni]

My N-word, wassup!

Why do you whine about it? It is as it is, was different before, now get used the new view. Dynamic, remember?

Harry the hairy troll

 

[NevadaJake]

all stackable display price per unit , so i guess this is a bug.
all stackable with TT vallue lower than 0.1 pec should be display in TT+ instead of % .
and this for the simple fact , that if you display something it have to be readale , or there is no point to display it.
i dont think there is a discution here , how can someone say those very long % mark up make sence to show.

It all has to do with sorting on the Auction. I agree that it is difficult to read the excessive 9999's but it gave us the ability to easily sort and analyze the CLD stack prices. We have lost that now. It looks like most people don't mind the new way even though it removed functionality. I hope they can offer a new column at the Auction that shows the price-per-deed for sorting and price history purposes.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Vlooe]

I prefer the %.

There would be a very simple way to get rid of the 99999 values.
Just show as many digits and cut of with the M,K,G... Similar to the count of stackables in inventory.
Mouseover would show the whole number.

Whatever MA is going to do, i hope they are able to convert the old MU Hisotry data

 

[forgo]

so you would previous compare 149999999999% in auction with 4 @6080 from a street seller without reaching for the calculator? i have always used a calculator around EU trades, i'm surprised i was in such a minority.

You are confusing me with someone who might be talking about non auction trades. This thread is about the auction. Person to person is one thing, an auction with associated fees, and confusing markup history is another.

 

[NevadaJake]

Hey all!

We're in the process of collecting some information about individual reports of bugs you want to be fixed.

If you're experiencing any bug in the game like old annoying bugs or what you believe is a completely new one, please help us out by providing as much detailed information possible.

We will make a list of the bugs and prioritize them by your votes.

The following information listed below is taken from my personal investigation

----MARKUP BUGS----

Bugs - Markup - MU of Calypso Land Deeds is shown incorrectly in the MU view

Under investigation

It looks like the Dev team might fix the MU view

 

[Cerberis]

tt+MU for stacable is useless. It is same like nothing. Or even worse - some noob can get lost and buy some realy owerpriced CLDs just because MU show nosense

 

[Teiwaz Storm]

tt+MU for stacable is useless. It is same like nothing. Or even worse - some noob can get lost and buy some realy owerpriced CLDs just because MU show nosense

While you are right about 99% of stackables, for some items, like CLDs it makes much more sense to have +MU instead %. It's much more misleading to see 999999999999999% MU than +1500.
Only problem as of now is that +MU on CLD is not working as it should be.

 

[Angel O2 Mercer]

Perhaps what MA should have done is to give the CLD some TT, let's say 1 PED. That way MU as a percentage would be meaningful, and not just 999999999999% which is even worse than +MU.


150000% > +1500 > 9999999999%

 

[Svarog]

Perhaps what MA should have done is to give the CLD some TT, let's say 1 PED. That way MU as a percentage would be meaningful, and not just 999999999999% which is even worse than +MU.


150000% > +1500 > 9999999999%

It has tt of 0.00001 ped and that's why % is meaningful. 1 CLD at 1500 is 150000000%, displaying 9999999999% for them and other low tt stuff is just a lame coding, apparently all % longer than 4 digits are displayed as 999999999999%, 150000% would be displayed like that too. That's what should have been fixed.

 

[Cerberis]

While you are right about 99% of stackables, for some items, like CLDs it makes much more sense to have +MU instead %. It's much more misleading to see 999999999999999% MU than +1500.
Only problem as of now is that +MU on CLD is not working as it should be.

It is working as it should be working atm... If u sell 1 CLD, it will say that MU is tt+1500, if u sell 50 CLD in one stack it will say MU is 75000... If it is stacable - it must be like stacable - %, if it is tt+xx - it must not be stacable.

 

[sawachika]

Actually, I can't understand why they couldn't have just reverted back to the old MU in % for the code and add in an extra line or something to make the system convert it into +MU

Eg:

TT value for CLD * Current MU in % = MU in PEDs

0.00001 PED * 15000000000% = 1500 PEDs.

And then show it as +MU in the auction history or something.

Would that have been plausible?

 

[Vlooe]

I can only repeat myself and at the moment i think everything else is bullshit.

I prefer the %.

There would be a very simple way to get rid of the 99999 values.
Just show as many digits and cut of with the M,K,G... Similar to the count of stackables in inventory.
Mouseover would show the whole number.

Whatever MA is going to do, i hope they are able to convert the old MU Hisotry data

 

[Angel O2 Mercer]

It has tt of 0.00001 ped and that's why % is meaningful. 1 CLD at 1500 is 150000000%, displaying 9999999999% for them and other low tt stuff is just a lame coding, apparently all % longer than 4 digits are displayed as 999999999999%, 150000% would be displayed like that too. That's what should have been fixed.

No, the limit is 7 digit. So 150000% is displayed correctly. But I completely agree with you, lame coding for such an important thing.

Something must be done to fix it.