- Forums
-
Pricing
- Community Pricing
- Pricegrid
- Spreadsheet
- Browse Suggestions
- Latest Changes
- Unusual Pricelist
- Browse by Item
- Browse by Effect
- Steam Community Market
- Market Pricelist
-
Trading
- Classifieds
- Classified Listings
- Utilities
- Calculator
- Premium Search
- Statistics
fixing this:
Mini-Suggestion for Roboactive Bonk Boy
http://backpack.tf/item/1651517341 - Sold for Burning Flames Pomade Prince ( http://backpack.tf/item/2985069654 )
24 * 0.9 = 21.6, round up to 22.
on the grounds of this
http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/24937917
surely it shouldn't be valued at 22 in the trade if he then turns around to sell it for 20. correct me if i'm wrong on that.
The B/O in the actual trade is the one that's important. What he's reselling for doesn't matter.
why not? i'm sure i've seen buyouts used like this before. it definitely seems all kinds of wrong that the only buyout on the market, indeed the particular person who bought it in the trade shown, is asking less and has been since before the previous suggestion. why should it be valued higher than what he is willing to sell it for?
Find me one example of this happening before and then we'll discuss it, firstly.
if i could just prove that there's a precedent i would have done so without bothering to engage in a discussion about the principles involved in pricing, lol. i don't know where i've seen it but i feel i have. in the same way that a buyout matters before the trade, it should matter after.
if i could just prove that there's a precedent i would have done so without bothering to engage in a discussion about the principles involved in pricing, lol. i don't know where i've seen it but i feel i have. in the same way that a buyout matters before the trade, it should matter after.
Principles? Oh it's coming down to this again is it...
Just as the reseller's B/O has never mattered, it doesn't matter here. That's allowing a person's personal opinion to influence the price outside of sales, which is a slippery slope.
if you accept that buyout before the trade matters, you have a point to answer about why it doesn't count immediately after the trade. you can't handwave a buyout as personal opinion but also accept that it's important information before the trade.
It's important information for the trade of the sale. Currently this B/O HAS no sale. WHEN it sells, this B/O will matter. But right you're dropping a price based only on a B/O which is against the guidelines. It sold for 22, so that's the price.
why does a buyout matter 2 seconds before but not 2 minutes after when it's still exactly the same thing in effect? it still applies to the sale whether you apply it forward in time or backward. it still reflects a valuation of the unusual by a trader, it just happens to be revealed later and the trader is a different person. i'm not dropping it based on the buyout, i'm arguing that the sale itself should be valued differently due to the buyout just as it would have been if the buyout had been on the side of the seller.
It's a counter to the suggestion that passed. Raising the value from 18 to 22 when it hasn't sold in 3 weeks at 20 was kind of odd.
*Sets fire to the guidelines and dances on them with enough vindictive glee to make pacifists physically Ill*
If we're going to change the rules on the fly, I'm not going to count the sales of anybody who's middle name starts with ''S'' until proof can be provided that the S doesn't stand for ''Sharker.'' Or ''Stupid.'' Or the third one in that list that would most definitely push this comment into warnable territory.
This is why I'd like access to that big compendium of rulings you keep touting, Polar. If we HAVE a million loopholes that aren't in some way publicised or, god forbid, people are allowed to use ''logic'', that way anarchy lies, and that's not the bp.tf police state I grew up under like you were Doctor frigging Wily.
The rules are guidelines, individual exceptions can appear.
lol? What are you talking about? This is common sense. Why should a hat be valued MORE than 20 buds when there is one sitting for 20 buds for a month. I don't understand why this suggestion is so hard to believe. This is not a suggestion to lower the price based on a b/o. This is a counter suggestion to the one accepted at 22. This is still considered a raise from the previous price at 18. YOU yourself have made suggestions capping the high end using b/os when the sale is higher than the b/o.
Not when there's only one sale I haven't. And anyway, Giang used to do that and it drove everybody fucking loopy, I don't know why everyone's suddenly so chill about this.
And anyway again, every time I've made common sense assumptions I've been shot down faster than a passenger airliner over Ukraine.
I hate capping off b/os that are young. But the one on the market has been relisted several times. It has been more than 1 month at 20 buds without getting sold. I hope you can see the difference between a hat having a b/o for 2-3 days and not being able to sell and a hat having a b/o for >1 month and not being able to sell.
Not being able to sell at 20 buds for a week doesn't mean it can't sell for more in a reasonable amount of time. But not being able to sell for more than a month means we need to let buyers know that even valuing this at 20, they should expect to be with this hat for the long haul.
I don't even know why I'm arguing with you anyway, I might as well just prepare my own noose instead of outsourcing it.
Yes I'm aware of the difference, but I'm also aware of precedence. And that dictates that at the very least this should be 20-22. I appreciate the guidelines can be bent but they could at least be reliably bent instead of bent in whichever direction the suggester desires.
And if the next time I make a logic call I get spun out, there will be absolute hellfire to deal with.
Show me the precedent where a hat was priced above a b/o up on the market for >1 month.
I can support what I actually said, supporting a range.
Meanwhile, do you have any precedence for this?
if someone offered this to you, would you see it as 20, 22, or below 20? argue for your arbitrary interpretation of the rules regarding buyouts as much as you like but i'm glad that common sense is prevailing.
(side question, seriously how big a deal is unusual pricing to you when you make cheap comments about hundreds of people dying, over a technicality you feel has been ignored, and threaten hellfire when people challenge your interpretation of guidelines? the people who wrote them, too. nobody has gone after you here, i explained my reasoning, polar pointed to why it wasn't what you thought it was, and you seem to be taking it all very personally.)
Common sense isn't prevailing, Polar is prevailing -_-
Cheap comments? Which one? Is this going to dissolve into you not being able to take a joke on the internet, is it?
i just think it's a bit crass to compare people disagreeing with you about unusual hat pricing to the shooting down of airliners, but i guess i must be the one overreacting to the situation.
Have y- I'm gonna stop myself before I say something warnable.
Let's just say that the second part of that comment is the first thing you've said that I agree with. There, agreeing with people, nice and friendly