Few Scars
Marauder
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2009
- Posts
- 7,329
- Location
- Arkadia
- Society
- Freelancer
- Avatar Name
- Bjorn Bjorn Longstaff
We have all been there. Spent a nice sum of PED tiering up a weapon. We check the tier X market value history and hope the next tier up reflects what has been invested, and so forth up the tiering ladder. At higher levels it creeps into +X000s of PED.
But, when it comes time to part with that beloved weapon, what the community values it at differs from what you put into it. Yes, there is usually some haggling and bargaining, but at the end of the day, if you want to sell it, the community decides on the value.
There is no real gentleman’s agreement on what tiering costs should be lost in the value of the weapon.
Example: A tier 5.9 Adjusted Revenger Minisweeper V1. Valued about 9kPED with good TIRs.
To take it to Tier 6: Costs about 3000PED in materials! Say one gets 15% back that’s still 2550PED in costs.
Now, is it now worth 11550PED? Or does one expect a percentage tiering cost devaluation?
What percentage do players feel is an acceptable benchmark for tiering cost devaluation?
Some may say 10%, others 50%. I have made a poll to see where the benchmark should be.
Cheers
Bjorn
But, when it comes time to part with that beloved weapon, what the community values it at differs from what you put into it. Yes, there is usually some haggling and bargaining, but at the end of the day, if you want to sell it, the community decides on the value.
There is no real gentleman’s agreement on what tiering costs should be lost in the value of the weapon.
Example: A tier 5.9 Adjusted Revenger Minisweeper V1. Valued about 9kPED with good TIRs.
To take it to Tier 6: Costs about 3000PED in materials! Say one gets 15% back that’s still 2550PED in costs.
Now, is it now worth 11550PED? Or does one expect a percentage tiering cost devaluation?
What percentage do players feel is an acceptable benchmark for tiering cost devaluation?
Some may say 10%, others 50%. I have made a poll to see where the benchmark should be.
Cheers
Bjorn