Page 1 of 1

Virtual Trades, a proposal to deal with inflation.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:08 pm
by Riemstagrad
Inflation has always been the bane of collectors who see their allready hard-to-get target cards with low owners getting sniped on the auction by inflators who pump their value sky high. Not only did you miss that card, it becomes almost impossible to get another copy in the future.

Inflation went really out of control after TCALS was removed.
Just look at the decks on the first page of the rankings and rank their cards by value. So many decks have page after page filled with intrinsically worthless commons and uncommons.

This is my proposal to deal with this:

Everytime a sale is concluded (auction or gift), 1 card, randomly chosen from the entire card-pool, is instantly 'traded' between two automatic system traders and that trade is registered as a normal trade and as such contributes to the market value calculation of that card.

This is the rule for a trade:
1) A match is made between Lowest Ask and Highest Bid
2) The maximum a match can be is the Market Value of the card
3) The hard-cap for a match is Junk-value * 1000 * Season multiplier

*) if there is no ask: Lowest Ask = Market Value
*) if there is no bid: Highest Bid = Junk Value
*) Season multiplier: S2 = 1; S1 = 2

I tested this formula on a number of cards to see what it would do with them:


most column headers should be clear for regular card players.
"Trade" is the actual trade that is decided by the rules described above.
"newvalue" is what would be the resulting market value after this trade if the previous 10 trades where all at the previous MV.
"ID" is simply card ID, for easy reference.

NameMVJVlowhighS MultmatchmaxcaptradenewvalueID
TestlandiaS15001888,881912539,9450020005005001
FrisbeeteriaS1296134010022202962000220288,42
UlvlandS24990,0139,996,42123,214991010450,13366497
BallotoniaS12031100002025010203200020320338
TestlandiaS2126119075,351132,6812610001261261
NervunS241914002012104191000210398,15
GreatNepalS2130150051252,513010001301301522
VardinyaS20,050,050,050,0510,050,05500,050,05146
JharznelheS210,052111,515011
CyborgianStatesS20,050,0110,0510,530,05100,050,05
WestCosovainiaS26830,016830,091341,556831010615,73216476
RiemstagradS22,050,23,14212,572,052002,052,05425
riemstagradS1120,29919,7259,35124001212425
XetrinS1100000,011000010,0125005,0110000202090022553473
FindhornS156000,05560,07228,04560010028,045042,8110567
MikeswillS19450,55000802254094510009459451011
MikeswillS2200,515718,11187,56205002020
FarrakhanS19520,5444,4410,092227,279521000227,27879,53832895
RubynaS111241750302390112420003901050,620857


Legendary cards or any cards with some interest in will have no hard time to keep their value. Cards that are not backed by anyone will decay. This decay will be much faster for inflated commons then for legendaries. Cards inflated above their max cap will decay regardless of being backed up.
I can do other cards in this spreadsheet if you link them in a reply.

This is a raw proposal. Things like seasonal multipliers might need some tweaking or instead of tying it to auction trades, it might be better to just fire some of these virtual trades at regular intervals or when the server is not very busy.
Another idea, to leave more room for market workings is to take Highest Bid as a sort of minimum cap: This would allow backed commons to stay above their max cap, but only if people are keeping good bids on the card.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:01 am
by Vylixan
I like the idea, but isn't it easier to let MV decay in some way?
Like say only take Trades in account that happened in the say last 30/60 days, or if distance in time to a trade grows, reduce it's effect by reducing the amount or something like that?
We need some way to reduce MV over time if it's not supported, I agree with that.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:22 am
by Thousand Branches
Vylixan wrote:I like the idea, but isn't it easier to let MV decay in some way?
Like say only take Trades in account that happened in the say last 30/60 days, or if distance in time to a trade grows, reduce it's effect by reducing the amount or something like that?
We need some way to reduce MV over time if it's not supported, I agree with that.

Or perhaps the MV of a card decays differently depending on rarity?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:28 pm
by The Unified Missourtama States
Vylixan wrote:I like the idea, but isn't it easier to let MV decay in some way?
Like say only take Trades in account that happened in the say last 30/60 days, or if distance in time to a trade grows, reduce it's effect by reducing the amount or something like that?

That's a great way to make valuable legendary cards worthless. I was going to link all of the top 20 Legendary cards with no trades in the last month, but that would be 18 links I'd need to post.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:13 pm
by United Calanworie
The Unified Missourtama States wrote:
Vylixan wrote:I like the idea, but isn't it easier to let MV decay in some way?
Like say only take Trades in account that happened in the say last 30/60 days, or if distance in time to a trade grows, reduce it's effect by reducing the amount or something like that?

That's a great way to make valuable legendary cards worthless. I was going to link all of the top 20 Legendary cards with no trades in the last month, but that would be 18 links I'd need to post.

Is that... a bad thing? It would encourage those top cards being placed on the market in order to prevent their value from decaying, allowing more individuals a chance to purchase them, by breaking up large collections where people may have dozens of the same card.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:11 am
by Imperium Anglorum
It doesn't help inflation to just pretend that the market value of a card is lower than it is. That's just a cosmetic 'solution'. Inflation is caused by the surplus of money, the lack of supply, or otherwise excessive demand. You need to tackle causes rather than apply an adjustment factor to 'market value' that makes the stated MVs irrelevant or inaccurate for their purpose: valuing a card ie how much someone would need to pay to get it.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 9:39 am
by Fauzjhia
Imperium Anglorum wrote:It doesn't help inflation to just pretend that the market value of a card is lower than it is. That's just a cosmetic 'solution'. Inflation is caused by the surplus of money, the lack of supply, or otherwise excessive demand. You need to tackle causes rather than apply an adjustment factor to 'market value' that makes the stated MVs irrelevant or inaccurate for their purpose: valuing a card ie how much someone would need to pay to get it.



inflation trade are large / pointless transfers.
yeah One can talk about the very large BANK we puppets user have gathered, but that large bank does not directly call us to inflate.
who inflate take advantage of the current MV calculations and the rarity of cte cards.

therefor, all we have to do is to change mv calculations or the rarity of inflated card to make inflation pointless.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2022 10:13 pm
by One Small Island
The solution to inflation is never going to be found if you're targeting the value of the card.

What needs to happen is there needs to be a way to remove bank from circulation introduced; and it needs to be something that will both eat bank and be worth the bank that it eats.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:45 pm
by Fauzjhia
One Small Island wrote:The solution to inflation is never going to be found if you're targeting the value of the card.

What needs to happen is there needs to be a way to remove bank from circulation introduced; and it needs to be something that will both eat bank and be worth the bank that it eats.


What is your solution ?

and how exactly is my bank causing inflation ? I know i had much Bank, at least 20 000, but how does that bank cause inflation ? we see players creating more (inflation) with less bank then what I have.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:20 pm
by One Small Island
Fauzjhia wrote:What is your solution ?

and how exactly is my bank causing inflation ? I know i had much Bank, at least 20 000, but how does that bank cause inflation ? we see players creating more (inflation) with less bank then what I have.

I don't recall saying that I had a solution; if I did have one then I would have made a thread on it.

As to how bank causes inflation... well that's pretty simple, there's nothing to do with bank, so people are able to accumulate excessive amounts of it, the excessive amounts of bank are then used to inflate cards. If the excessive amounts of bank didn't exist, the inflation wouldn't exist.

There will always be people who just enjoy inflating cards and so horde their bank for that, but if there was something worthwhile to spend bank on then there would be a lot fewer people doing it.

(I also don't really see inflated cards as the massive problem that some people do.)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:05 pm
by Kwisatz Carderach
One Small Island wrote:
Fauzjhia wrote:What is your solution ?
if there was something worthwhile to spend bank on then there would be a lot fewer people doing it.
(I also don't really see inflated cards as the massive problem that some people do.)


I am not certain that you can make this assertion with no proof to back it up. In fact, when TCALS was removed from the game, making inflation even easier than it was before, we (meaning the Cards Discord) saw a sharp decrease in activity/a number of traders stop playing or leave the discord, while a few players started or continued inflating at ridiculous amounts.

What is "something worthwhile" anyways? Besides Season 3 of course :p

Anyways, I disagree with the idea that removing bank from the system is the only way to solve inflation, though I suspect that implementing market caps would be far easier than Riemst's idea here...