This is 100% important IMO. People toss around terms like ‘ripped off’ or ‘crooked sellers’ but I see things as being different from what I think @Evergreen is trying to say when he used the phrase “min/max their coins”.
Most players are trying to min/max their coins in the sense of buying for as little as possible, and selling for as much as possible. This is the normal behavior, and not creating sustainable relationships or supporting an ongoing multiplayer ecosystem, which is one of the things that people seem to argue against the most here.
Too much trouble, and not enough time. they want a warp to the cheapest seller and a warp to the highest buyer, please and thank you. This is the practically the literal definition behind the phrase, minimum effort / maximum reward.
Someone who comes in and sells themselves out of sustainability in a matter of weeks and then quits in 6 weeks from burnout and being tired of working so hard and still not making any margin (here’s one thing I call stabbing yourself in the foot) may put several other long term players off the game because suddenly they have zero business for more than a month. Or have to compete on margins so thin they can’t afford to support their own desire to build or play other parts of the game, it’s just not worth it to them any more.
I’ve seen this happen a few times, especially with forgers. And cooks.
And that’s why you see so much worry and talk about these things when a system like this comes up. Even from people that are, in the end, eager for the system. It’s not that the system causes these behaviors, but it facilitates them. And plenty of us would prefer that it not be built in such a way as to maximize them.
I’ve said a little about the potential pros of this system, and a lot about potential cons. Others too, i think mostly because the pros of the system are obvious and most of us want something like this in place. I don’t think that anyone here is expressly trying to argue against an index, though some would prefer more, or something different in its place.
Still, in the realm of specific targeted feedback on the design as presented:
I’m not worried about placement in the list. In fact I’m doing fine without any list. But I am concerned about not even being in the list because once there is a list, very few players will look past it. And I think there are plenty of other people here who think they can attract buyers on volume, location, or other angles but only if they are actually on the list.
These people will not be fighting with a goal of undercutting, or for top placement on the list. But if they feel they have to, they will go as far as they can to actually get on the list. With only 16 slots on a busy planet and (presumably) centicoin increments for bumping yourself up on the list, this can turn into obsessive list watching etc … and again, turn people even further off the notion of playing the game.
Paging a query is not much more resource intensive, and the increase is on-demand, not static. I suspect the reason that some of the features already in the back end but not being exposed currently have as much to do with interface design as with concerns about load. Considering the “roots” of the game I hope so, at least.
But in terms of actual feedback as much as any worry or what some people call complaining, I would VERY MUCH like to see this list be browsable to it’s full depth.
Honestly I think knowing that everyone will be visible anyways would help to devalue or even suppress a lot of the behaviors that people are concerned about.
I honestly think this would be “worth it’s weight” in implementation cost.
Editing to add: I haven’t actually seen screens of this, though it’s been mentioned. Is anyone that’s been on test looking at the display or rounding of partial coin amounts, or prices in excess of 4 digits?