Grave please.
About this thread
Posts archived: 19 / 19 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.
- Archived posts
- 19
- Discussion span
- →
- People posting
- 14
- Likes on archived posts
- 35
- Posts by staff, officers and moderators
- 2
- Authority score
- 42 / 100
- Historical score
- 38 / 100
- Story score
- 57 / 100
- Engagement score
- 65 / 100
Most-liked replies
- bogie [148747] Admin
· 4 likes ·
We already do this. Items auctioned by the NPC or used for lucky dips are confiscated items that we redistribute in this manner. You can see The_Hamster's display for what's on offer. She's given a bunch of things to Duke … - WaywardSquid [2330087] Officer
· 1 likes ·
Graved per OP request.
Mentioned in this thread
Viciously_Grim [2752611] ×1
Foreskin
I like it. Would also take some money out of the economy albeit negligible amount.
luv your idea foxy!!
Agreed
Love the idea! :D
I think that's what the hamster npc is for but lately they've (staff) been lazy and only auction off lats stuff
This is generally where The Hamster gets a ton of his stuff, is off of Fedded accounts and usually gets re introduced through either community giveaways, or stuff like special auctions etc.
Limiting the auction to one randomized item per federated account might be more sensible to prevent distorting the value of other items in Torn. Without such a limit, the system could avoid be exploited, potentially leading to erratic item values. However, I do appreciate the concept and would support it if there were daily limitations on the items available in the market.
I never even knew about this Hamster NPC! Thanks for sharing info about it, Varides and Order! It does definitely feel underutilized, though.
@Order Good contribution! I like to think the best way to do that is to leave the decision of which accounts' contents to auction off at the staffs' discretion, to make sure no one just walks away with fourteen quintillion Xanax by paying a meager 1b or something, ha ha. Staff could always just edit the amounts of items on such accounts too, so that the market wouldn't be flooded with obscene amounts of certain products, too, once the auction has reached its end! ^_^
We already do this. Items auctioned by the NPC or used for lucky dips are confiscated items that we redistribute in this manner. You can see The_Hamster's display for what's on offer. She's given a bunch of things to Duke for this Christmas to do with as he sees fit....
Ahhh, okay. Well, go ahead and grave this topic then, please. ^^;
Can y'all... send me all the confiscated receipts? 👉👈
You sent 14x Receipt to Viciously_Grim with the message: merry Christmas
Mentions: Viciously_Grim [2752611]
Honestly, hard no on upping this any further.
I like the idea -- a lot, actually -- but functionally when flooding the market with these high-value assets (likely to be given under value inflating active account networth values) we'd be likely to see more motivated economic controls due to inflation which will impact us even more than we believe and unevenly so for the vast community who didn't win out on the auctions. Further, these auctions would almost certainly be won by people who don't even need the financial boost to begin with.
Just doesn't seem worth the reward in other creative avenues admin/Lt. Wolf would need to take to control for this sort of thing.
But assuming both of these things are true (market flooding and people winning auctions who don't need a financial boost), wouldn't the people that win be receiving items that would depreciate in value immensely once they re-enter the market due to the flooding? Would it not be a net loss to them, in the grand scheme of things, due to lack of profitability?
Graved per OP request.
No, because people wouldn't bid on them.
For example, PIs as a hard asset have a minimum viable value that has held throughout time and doubtlessly will. In spite of this it offers a reasonable income as a rental which perhaps may depreciate over time but is unlikely to as long as there are have nots that cannot afford the minimum base price to own (which is fundamentally pretty high in networth if one considers cost of ownership vs. opportunity cost re: income with that same money -- maxing out the city bank or some stock passives, for instance).
@bogie