NATION

PASSWORD

[Cards suggestion] Change MV formula to exclude outliers

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Bawkie
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 24
Founded: Feb 27, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bawkie » Wed Apr 28, 2021 11:23 am

Personally I don't think you need to discount trades other than self-trades from the market value calculations. I believe MV needs changes though.

How about extending the averages set to 25 trades and where the number of valid trades is below 25, junk value is used in its place.

Example 1:
S2 CrunchyBread has trades 5,000.00, 5,000.00, 5,000.00, 0.02, 1.00 (5/25 trades) so 20 are junk (0.01). The average is 625.05. This doesn't eliminate inflation, but decreases its speed.

Example 2:
S1 Farrakhan has trades 514.00, 1,000.00, 507.00, 2,499.66, 2,499.97, 500.41, 500.01, 1,250.00, 1,253.67, 1,200.00, 500.00, 500.00, 500.00, 500.00, 1,257.34, 775.00, 775.00, 775.00, 775.00, 775.00, 775.00, 775.00, 775.00, 775.00 (25/25 trades) so 0 are junk. The average is 914.88. This is not too far off its current inflated value which consists of regular trades as opposed to two or three large trades.

Example 3:
S2 Kylarnatia has trades 15.00, 22.00, 22.50, 21.25, 9.00, 9.00, 9.07, 10.00, 12.00, 10.00, 9.55, 13.98, 9.18, 9.25, 13.99, 12.00, 14.00, 14.00, 14.00, 14.00, 13.00, 13.50, 13.95, 12.02. The average is 13.18. This is close to its current value and about right for a non-CTE legendary right now.

Hopefully this would have the following effects:
◼ Values of cards cannot change as drastically from large trades due to an increase in the averages taken, and the use of junk values where few trades have taken place.
◼ Trading a card more times up to 25+ creates an average over time, which should become more accurate. Think of junk value as a placeholder value ready to replaced with a more representative value.
◼ Inflation is still possible for those wish to partake, but there should be less cards at 1000+ value due to inflation. It would take far more higher valued trades to bring a card to 1000+ value.

Trades information accurate as of 28 Apr 2021 18:11 UTC

User avatar
Almonaster Nuevo
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5074
Founded: Mar 11, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Almonaster Nuevo » Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:45 am

At the end of the day market value is what someone is prepared to pay.

Part of the problem is the never-ending suppy of free cards, so the available bank keeps rising (and mostly goes to those who invest their time in collecting it). None of the proposed solutions addresses that, and I think it would be quite hard to do at this stage.

On the inflation side, I see more of a problem with the 10 transaction window. That means that following big trade, you get a lot of sharks (like me) grabbing a couple of cheap copies and aiming to sell them on at an inflateed price before the big trade drops out of the window.

One way to remove the window effect is for the MV to be calculated directly from the previous MV (set to JV initially) and the latest trade, keeping the current exclusions. The exact proportion is debatable, but assuming 10% for consistency with the current setup, the newMV would be ((9*old MV)+trade)/10. If you like Bawkie's approach of reducing the effect of each sale, then the proportion could be set to 4% instead.

The effect would be that the impact of each trade fades slowly with time, but withut the sudden jump when an outlier goes out of scope. I think there is also a case for also including a (much smaller) component of JV in the calculation, as an anti-inflation measure. Again, the exact proportions are a separate debate from the underlying mechanism.

You would need to record the MV behind the scenes with more precision, and only round it for display, otherwise commons would tend to stay glued to 0.01 MV

The calculation is simpler, and gives a meaningful MV right from the the get-go. It also means that you do not need to check the history before deciding whether to offer. Inflation still works, but people are less likely to get caught out by sudden value drops.
Last edited by Almonaster Nuevo on Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Christian Democrats wrote:Would you mind explaining what's funny? I'm not seeing any humor.
The Blaatschapen wrote:I'll still graze the forums with my presence
Please do not TG me about graphics requests. That's what the threads are there for.

User avatar
HumanSanity
Envoy
 
Posts: 300
Founded: Feb 06, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby HumanSanity » Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:17 am

Bawkie wrote:Personally I don't think you need to discount trades other than self-trades from the market value calculations. I believe MV needs changes though.

How about extending the averages set to 25 trades and where the number of valid trades is below 25, junk value is used in its place.

Example 1:
S2 CrunchyBread has trades 5,000.00, 5,000.00, 5,000.00, 0.02, 1.00 (5/25 trades) so 20 are junk (0.01). The average is 625.05. This doesn't eliminate inflation, but decreases its speed.

I feel like this is still more ease of inflation than I'd like to see, although it is something.

Is there a reason something like this couldn't be combined with 9003's proposal? A large part of the problem is allowing the outlier numbers to be factored in at all because they inevitably shew things upwards, especially where we take averages rather than medians. As an aside, Luc/Fauzhija's idea about taking the median definitely has potential problems but is not a terrible angle to consider in discussions.
HumanSanity
Legislator of the South Pacific
Security Council Correspondent for Refugia
Former Delegate of 10000 Islands and Chief Executive of Renegade Islands Alliance

User avatar
Almonaster Nuevo
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5074
Founded: Mar 11, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Almonaster Nuevo » Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:33 am

I'm not convinced that it is consistently possible to differentiate an outlier from a "genuine" price, especially when there have been relatively few trades.
Christian Democrats wrote:Would you mind explaining what's funny? I'm not seeing any humor.
The Blaatschapen wrote:I'll still graze the forums with my presence
Please do not TG me about graphics requests. That's what the threads are there for.

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Refuge Isle » Sat May 01, 2021 2:25 am

Almonaster Nuevo wrote:At the end of the day market value is what someone is prepared to pay.

If only this were the case. :roll:

User avatar
Almonaster Nuevo
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5074
Founded: Mar 11, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Almonaster Nuevo » Sat May 01, 2021 2:51 am

Refuge Isle wrote:
Almonaster Nuevo wrote:At the end of the day market value is what someone is prepared to pay.

If only this were the case. :roll:


I ment actual market value as opposed to MV or asking price.
Christian Democrats wrote:Would you mind explaining what's funny? I'm not seeing any humor.
The Blaatschapen wrote:I'll still graze the forums with my presence
Please do not TG me about graphics requests. That's what the threads are there for.

User avatar
Comfed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 925
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Sat May 01, 2021 6:23 am

Almonaster Nuevo wrote:
Refuge Isle wrote:If only this were the case. :roll:


I ment actual market value as opposed to MV or asking price.

You’re right, but the deck value stat that gets you a shiny badge is determined by game-calculated MV.
Mall:
Best part about being a mod was engaging in normal player behavior and getting accused of abuse
"You think this is abuse? I'll SHOW you abuse."
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:In the liberal justice system, raiding-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The South Pacific, the dedicated defenders who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Council on Regional Security. These are their proscriptions. DUN DUN.

Numero Capitan wrote:I haven't bothered reading back but I can unequivocally say that I agree with everything HEM has said and Unibot is wrong

Put this in your sig if you passed biology and know that gender and sex are not the same thing.

User avatar
Racoda
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 126
Founded: Aug 12, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Racoda » Tue May 04, 2021 4:18 pm

Another solution to consider (somewhat similar to Almonaster's) is to make MV be influenced most by the most recent trades, ie. replace the current 10 trades average with a weighted average (or a similar system).
This doesn't stop inflation, but it makes inflated cards' MV much more volatile – if an inflate card sells at 0.01, this most recent trade can tank it pretty significantly. On the other hand, a recent inflation will also increase the MV much more.

This system doesn't hurt the MV of cards that are consistently traded at around the same price, but it quite correctly reflects the volatility of inflate-and-forget cards' MVs.
Last edited by Racoda on Tue May 04, 2021 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Foxgard

Advertisement

Remove ads