SEN Store and Other Needed Changes, Vote for what you want SEN to have!
Polls
Post #2
HCM™Aristocrat
Aug 30 2010, 4:04 pm
|
✁ - - - - - - - - -
|
This is a copy of my post about the SEN Store System taken from the List of Known Bugs/Needed Features topic. I decided to create a new topic for this debate, considering the magnitude of the minerals system and thus the store.
I am just about fed up with this store system. The compendium tells me this: But the store interface shows this: Since it goes up to 334 minerals, can we assume it goes down to 16 minerals as well? What nonsense; just because someone scrambles in on a lucky day they can get a signature for less than a raffle ticket? Since minerals were brought back, I have yet to see any of the items cost fewer minerals than even 150% of their average cost. Something is wrong here. But before you admins fix the randomization code, please think about this: why are the prices randomized? Are random prices necessary? The way I see it, they are completely pointless and only discourage people from using the system simply because luckier people can get the same thing for substantially less. Here are the benefits and drawbacks of each system outlined: Static Prices, infinite stock, all items listed: Benefits:
Static Prices, limited stock, items randomly listed: Benefits:
Yes, okay, IP made the store system. However, IP is not infallible, even if he does pay the bill that keeps SEN online. Things need to change. A debate ensued, and I have copied the appropriate posts here. Now, that's your opinion Now, that's your opinion Give a good reason why we should have a store with dynamic prices instead of one where all item prices are non-varying. Because then it's a gamble. Do you wait for the item to become even cheaper or do you buy now? Gambling is a game, and minerals are a game. Generally it makes minerals less boring. Give a good reason why we should have a store with static items. Make it fair/predictable. I don't see why someone who checked the store at the right time gets it cheaply instantly, while someone else has to either pay more or wait for an extended period of time. The reason for static prices is fairness. That for random is? Also, you doodz promised other skins. What the hell. Give a good reason why we should have a store with static items. Read my post. I even boxed it with tags. I'm with Aristo on all counts. The randomization is completely and totally worthless, as is the "stock" system. Because then it's a gamble. Do you wait for the item to become even cheaper or do you buy now? Gambling is a game, and minerals are a game. Generally it makes minerals less boring. Give a good reason why we should have a store with static items. What gives more incentive to contribute to SEN: I need 200 minerals for a signature, and I want a signature!! or: I have 100 minerals and I want a signature; I'm going to wait until I can get a good deal at the store. Since people are going to be waiting for the cheapest prices, the chances of being able to buy an item are cut in half, and the store's activity is thus going to be cut in half. I say it would be more fun and meaningful to have all the available items static and in a large list, categorized by price or function -I don't care. I like the stock idea for rare items like name color, custom smilie, Excaliban Trophy, etc. Oh didn't read your big post before, sorry. The problem is you guys don't see it as a game. You're making this too serious. Like a business like amazon. Where everything has fixed prices, and is always in stock. Shopping via amazon is surely very fun... No it isn't. It's just convenient. 'Cause you buy things you actually have use for. Does a shoutbox color have a use? No. It's just for fun. (And before you say it: Even though avatar+ has a use it's still not changing anything you do at SEN. It's really just for fun.) The SEN store is more comparable to a flea market where you stroll over every now and then and check for interesting things. Granted there's too few items right now to convey that feeling, but still that's the general idea. It's more fun to check the store every now and then and when you see a good deal you're happy and if not you just come back another day. It's not like it's gonna run away or like you really need the items offered. Also working towards a goal would encourage spam. The idea is to just relax, post like you always do and when you get the opportunity you spend your wealth. Of course, it's difficult for you to sound convincing, as someone with a custom smiley, name color, signature, title, and plentiful avatar/PM space, already possessing everything that is a part of your definition of "fun". Shopping via amazon is surely very fun... No it isn't. It's just convenient. Also working towards a goal would encourage spam. Of course, it's difficult for you to sound convincing, as someone with a custom smiley, name color, signature, title, and plentiful avatar/PM space, already possessing everything that is a part of your definition of "fun". Shopping via amazon is surely very fun... No it isn't. It's just convenient. Also working towards a goal would encourage spam. I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that the SEN store is inconvenient, it's simply a different system. I still like the comparison with a flea market. Sure, it might be less convenient than going to a store and buying a vase for a fixed price when you know they have what you like, but you can't call a flea market where you're looking for something interesting inconvenient. Well, actually, I'm sure some do, but those simply do not belong there. Those people should just press on "disable fun" and get their free sig and be happy until the end of days. Unfortunately, despite quite a few voices demanding the return of "disable fun", there's no word if or when it will return. Still I'm sure it will, eventually. Yes, we knew it would encourage some SENners to post more than they normally would, but we love minerals so we decided that by taking appropriate measures we can keep the spam to a minimum and maybe even encourage productivity. No reason to alter regulations in a way that could make people spam more. Because many said that the store is totally bugged... It is as it should be, there is nothing "horribly wrong". Min cost: 50, max cost:150. Average: 100! Rly?! Ya! This is all, nothing else. E.g. name color 1000-2000 average: 1500. (if these are correct values). Stop crying about it. Because many said that the store is totally bugged... It is as it should be, there is nothing "horribly wrong". Min cost: 50, max cost:150. Average: 100! Rly?! Ya! This is all, nothing else. E.g. name color 1000-2000 average: 1500. (if these are correct values). Stop crying about it. Are you serious? Have you clicked on the store page? Store page:[encase] ![]() Shoutbox Colors Enables the use of permanently selecting any color for the shoutbox. Cost: 560 3 in stock Compendium: ![]() Shoutbox Colors Enables the use of permanently selecting any color for the shoutbox. Average cost: 275 Rarity: 50 Assuming 560 is max value, and 275 the average, the min value must be -10 minerals. Obviously, something is bugged here. Please stop being so insistent that nothing is broken and actually check the store page before dismissing everything. Actually, there is a cost modifier which increases the price by X after calculating the price. lets say, the modifier is 25, min price 50 and max 100 Price: 90 (random) + 25 -> 115. Actually, there is a cost modifier which increases the price by X after calculating the price. lets say, the modifier is 25, min price 50 and max 100 Price: 90 (random) + 25 -> 115. What is the point of the modifier when you can just increase both the min price and the max price by 25 and get the same effect? The modifier effectively raises the average price. Therefore, the average price should take the modifier into account as well, otherwise it would be an erroneous display. IP coded it before I worked on SEN. I simply used his code, because why should I recode stuff which was already done? Because it's broken? define broken, lol. Broken is something different, this is rather intended. Then you have bad intentions. The example Aristo has shown is clearly stupid. The price range should be smaller. Which do you support? The current system, or a store with static prices? This post was edited 2 times, last edit by Aristocrat: Aug 30 2010, 9:54 pm. Reason given: Lolwut ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Post #3
MadZombie!
Aug 30 2010, 4:12 pm
Post #4
DevliN
Aug 30 2010, 7:34 pm
|
SOMETHING STATUS GO
|
You quoted me twice in there.
As far as I know, the Signature Enabler is actually closer to 175. The problem is that Devourer changed the price after the existing 3 went "on sale" in the store, so their value is still much higher. Once those 3 are gone and the next batch of Signature Enablers goes up, they'll be closer to the price listed in the compendium. Also... But before you admins fix the randomization code ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() CURRENTLY WORKING ON Shadowlands | Demonic: Urban Apocalypse Invasion: Ares | Recon | OMG TEH ZOMBIES!!! |
Post #5
UnholyUrine
Aug 30 2010, 7:36 pm
Post #6
HCM™Aristocrat
Aug 30 2010, 7:46 pm
|
✁ - - - - - - - - -
|
As far as I know, the Signature Enabler is actually closer to 175. The problem is that Devourer changed the price after the existing 3 went "on sale" in the store, so their value is still much higher. Once those 3 are gone and the next batch of Signature Enablers goes up, they'll be closer to the price listed in the compendium. Isn't that a bit of a problem? The shop should restock on a timer, not restock based on sales. Now no one will buy these three, thinking that if they wait then they can get things for cheaper. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Post #7
DevliN
Aug 30 2010, 7:50 pm
|
SOMETHING STATUS GO
|
I didn't say it wasn't a problem. It's just not something I can fix. This is all on Devourer.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() CURRENTLY WORKING ON Shadowlands | Demonic: Urban Apocalypse Invasion: Ares | Recon | OMG TEH ZOMBIES!!! |
Post #8 Undead-Fox Aug 30 2010, 8:20 pm
|
Personally, I'd rather have no prices for basic forum functions.
Perhaps anything that makes stuff LOOK cool, but taking away titles and signatures... like I've said elsewhere, this is the only forum in this style I've been on that takes that stuff away and charges ridiculously large amounts of fake money to get them. Even if I had the minerals to do so, I wouldn't buy them. [ADD] And to those who think that things like signatures are just to throw in a cool picture for people to look at..? Look at the post right above me... Is there a picture there? Nope. Is it useful, simple, unobtrusive advertising for his projects? Why yes, yes it is. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Post #9
Vrael
Aug 30 2010, 8:26 pm
|
Or we could stop whining about the SEN store and just start buying stuff. O WAIT MY BAD I FORGOT THE SEN STORE IS SUPER SERIOUS AND MUST BE PERFECTLY FAIR IN ALL ASPECTS AND WE MUST COMPLAIN UNTIL IT IS SO.
Secondly, Aristocrat you can shut your trap. I noticed in that super huge post that you attacked NudeRaider's credibility, which means you are automatically wrong. No one may attack NudeRaider's credibility and live!!! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Post #11
FoxWolf1
Aug 30 2010, 9:20 pm
|
I like the idea of dynamic prices, so long as it's executed well, because it creates hope-- that is, if there's something you really want but are unlikely to ever get enough minerals for, you can keep checking the store and maybe you'll get lucky on a price.
Of course, if it isn't working properly, and is raising the prices and not lowering them, that's bad-- but it's also a different issue from fixed vs. dynamic pricing in general. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Post #13
CecilSunkure
Aug 30 2010, 9:52 pm
Post #14
HCM™Aristocrat
Aug 30 2010, 9:56 pm
Post #15
poison_us
Aug 30 2010, 11:28 pm
|
no re
|
A simple function based on number of items in stock would be better than either static or random dynamic. Some basic economics would be cool. Basically, what we have is a scatter plot with random values, and what I'd like to propose is more like a quadratic function.
For whichever item that's above and has the min and max at 50 and 150, respectively, I mean something like this (x's are item stock, y's are item cost at each price): ![]() f(x)=ciel(150-(1.1floor(x)^2-floor(x))) Sorry it looks so crappy, but I did it in roughly 5 minutes, and I don't really care much for how it looks. It's the concept that matters. Also, you're gonna want to open in a new tab... EDIT: For those who are interested, the values look all step-like because you can't have fractional parts of an item. The prices are this: 1: 150 2: 148 3: 144 4: 137 5: 128 6: 117 7: 104 8: 88 9: 70 10: 50 And yeah, at about 4 I realized that a sine curve would have sufficed, and actually might have been better, but meh. That's another option. This post was edited 1 time, last edit by Nasus: Aug 30 2010, 11:33 pm. |
Post #17
HCM™Aristocrat
Aug 30 2010, 11:48 pm
Post #18
poison_us
Aug 30 2010, 11:55 pm
|
no re
|
In my opinion, static prices are stupid, but the random prices are even dumber. The idea of an item limit is great, though. If items are increased by 1 at least once a week, then the function above would be viable. Think about it: if the "average" is 100, then there would have to be at least 8 items to buy below the average. If more expensive/less used items are increased less often than the cheap ones, then that would make the function that more viable.
Long story short, this random crap is stupid. I support static pricing, but above static (although few will agree with me), stock-based pricing. I have never checked the store and seen any item with average or less-than-average cost. At least static prices would be reliable, and above that function-based stock pricing (in addition to a limit of items per member) would benefit far more members than the current random pricing pile of crap. EDIT: Aristo, even always high static prices are better than the damn near always high random prices. Function-based would at least alleviate the always/nearly always high prices, and would be somewhat reliable. This post was edited 1 time, last edit by Nasus: Aug 31 2010, 12:00 am. |
Post #19
Neki
Aug 31 2010, 12:30 am
|
morals are made up, just like unicorns and rainbows.
|
I also support static prices, even though my want for minerals has greatly diminished due to the long awaited wait just for it to be restored basically to how it was before they were taken away. SEN shouldn't need to strip features to make the store more useful, the more logical choice would be to add cooler features.. Instead of SEN doing "oh hey, we have a store now, look at this new cool stuff you can buy", it is now "oh hey, since we can't think of anything, so we took all that free stuff you had before and now we're making you buy it, yay! minerals are so funz." It's like SEN downgraded the forums with the induction of minerals.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Post #20
MadZombie!
Aug 31 2010, 1:00 am
|
mfw
|
Weren't sigs given out before after a certain amount of posts or days on SEN instead of having to pay for them? Maybe that was another board....
Anyways let them have their sigs. Personally I don't see signatures as a necessity and the only reason I'm not okay with them being a store item is that we can't get minerals from any forum. Beh. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Post #21
NudeRaider
Aug 31 2010, 1:21 am
|
You're not old until the past seems more fun than the future.
|
You are all arguing in circles. The main problem is that Devourer is not fixing anything at the moment. You can put up thousands of polls with awesome ideas or complaints, easy to implement or not - it will not get done for now.
Also fixing the store values to be in reasonable boundaries would be just as easy as making prices static so there's no argument either. Same for "disable fun" for all of you who want instant sigs rather than earn it: It *should* have been implemented right when the minerals came back, but it wasn't and bitching about the "downgrade" won't help either because nothing is done atm. Neither adding "disable fun" nor removing the mineral system so you can stop right here, right now with your futile complaints. In addition we've decided to give everyone some starting capital of roughly 200-300 minerals so the first item isn't really far away anymore. I'm sure this would have helped immensely in calming those who have been stripped of a valuable feature. Unfortunately, like everything else, this has been postponed until someone codes it. Thanks for your support, Vrael, my beloved zealot of rage. But I think most people realized that I've just shed light on the reasoning that's behind the current mineral system. And since the whole staff decided on it there's no credibility to be lost for myself. It's a matter of opinion anyway. |
0 members in this topic (italic members are currently writing a reply): None
+ guest(s)
+ guest(s)
[02:37 am]
[02:29 am]
[02:17 am]
[02:16 am]
[02:10 am]
[02:10 am]








.. as you Pee





![[close]](/images/up.gif)