1. To log on and post you will need to create an account in the forums even if you already registered on the main Hotness Rater site. These registrations are separate.
    Dismiss Notice

BabeTrader changes

Discussion in 'Suggestions, Feedback and New Features' started by HotnessRater, Mar 12, 2019.

  1. HotnessRater

    HotnessRater Administrator Staff Member

    So I had changed BabeTrader so that you could set the sell price. Before that, everything was like an auction forever where the price just went up a certain percent from the last buy price. People complained and wanted to be able to set their own price, resulting in giving people a chance to essentially just price their pictures out of reach of anyone. It deadlocked most of the pictures and made it so you could only really get a picture if you got it new and locked it in.

    This kills the whole spirit I was trying to achieve where people who are playing could work hard and get any picture... and the person they took it from had a chance to get it back.

    I'm looking for options on how we should fix this. Several have been proposed.

    1) We could revert back to no setting prices. If you want a picture, buy it for 10% above the last buyer and its yours. People could steal pictures by making enough cash to steal them. The only way to protect them is to have enough cash to buy it back

    2) We could impose some kind of tax on pictures based on their asking price

    3) We could put a cap on the total asking price... maybe the users net worth or something.

    4) I don't know, you tell me your idea

    Personally, I would just revert everything back to no set prices and make it a free for all. No protection, if you can buy it, its yours. I know this would piss off the hoarders out there but I might be okay with that.

    I'm not going to make any changes without some input so lets have some discussion. Speak up now and argue your case or you might not like the changes.

    Any ideas?
  2. ChaoticPanda

    ChaoticPanda New Member

    What if you make it so each player can only hoard so may pictures? Based on your rank you can hoard a number of pictures. The higher your rank the more pictures you can hoard. Of course no one will be able to hoard all of there pictures. And if you drop in rank where you would have to lose a number of hoarded pictures then you'd have to un-hoard down to what your rank allows. This would allow the hoarders to hoard some of the pictures and still allow the game to happen. Plus if you un-hoard a picture you may or may not be able to hoard it again.
  3. HotnessRater

    HotnessRater Administrator Staff Member

    We could also allow you to toggle a picture as "Not For Sale" and have a daily maintenance fee charged for them. Maybe 100 points per day for each picture that you want to mark as not for sale. Essentially setting the price to 2,000,000,000 means "Not For Sale" anyway.
    ChaoticPanda likes this.
  4. Really there are several problems:

    1) all the good pics get locked up, creating a static situation that is no fun for new players

    2) a number of top accounts seem to be inactive, locking up thousands and thousands of pictures forever

    3) the game economy has an endless source of revenue with quests and Picture hits, but no drains at all, leading to large accumulations of points and nothing to spend them on.

    4) the current score system isn’t an accurate representation of a player’s wealth. It doesn’t consider how many pics you have, or what you invested in them. Your score should be the sum of points on hand and the total paid for inventory.

    There is no cost for keeping a bunch of pics locked up, so people just accumulate more and more pics and points. At this point top accounts that are inactive keep growing, because their pics get hits every day.

    But, people should have at least some say in pricing their own pics, so we need a balance between protecting a collection, getting what you want in order to sell, and keeping the game dynamic.

    I like the idea of marking some of our pics as not for sale. My preference is to use a percentage of the number of pictures owned, like 10% or something. So if you own 20000 pics, you could flag up to 2000 as your stash or collection or however you want to think of it.

    Note that other players could force you to release some of your stash by buying up your other pics. This would add a degree of economic combat to the game. Of course, if someone is buying your protectors, you’ll gain points (wish I could call it gold or money or something) which you can use to buy more cannon fodder to keep your collection safe.
  5. I also like limiting the amount we can mark up pics. The game already has a standard markup amount which shows up in auctions and if you buy a pic from somewhere. What is of concern is the additional marking up people do to take pics off the market.

    Using a player’s score to determine how much they can mark up is fine, but the REAL score should be used, their available points plus what is invested in their pics. Also, there should be some base value, like 100k, so new players have enough markup to protect themselves somewhat from the more powerful players. If a new player buys 100+ pics with their day one quest points, that would allow an average markup of 1000, giving them some protection from raiding. A player with a score of 2 million would distribute a total markup of 2100000 over however many pics they have.

    Players would have to balance their number of pics to concentrate their markups, while keeping enough pics to protect their collections.

    As pics get bought and sold their price will rise, making them better protectors. They will cost more to buy, so you don’t need to mark them up as much to protect your collection.
  6. I think it would make sense to score points when our pics win a matchup.
  7. I also like the idea of buying a temporary markup on individual pictures, with a price in points. It would work somewhat like a reserve price in auctions, you’d pay a percentage of the markup, lik 10%, for a temp price increase, lasting 6 months or a year.
  8. I think if an account is inactive (say, no completed quests in 7, or 10, or 14 days, that the account stops earning points for hits or matchup wins (it would still get paid for sales). I think it’s markups should be reduced by half each week the account is inactive. For example, consider a pic with a million point markup:

    Bought for 10, priced at 1,000,000. Standard automatic markup would be 5, so player markup would actually be 999,985.

    Price after:
    Week 1: 500,008 (999,985/2 + 15)
    Week 2: 250,011 (999,985/4 + 15)
    Week 3: 125,013 (999,985/8 + 15)
    Week 4: 62,514
    Week 5: 31,264
    Week 6: 15,638
    Week 7: 7,827
    Week 8: 3,917
    Week 9: 1966
    Week 10: 990
    Week 11: 507
    Week 12: 260

    It would take a bit less than 3 months for pics with a markup of a million to become affordable again.
    ChaoticPanda likes this.
  9. ChaoticPanda

    ChaoticPanda New Member

    I like this idea. It helps with keeping players active and it makes it so your inactivity doesn't hurt other active players.
  10. If we change to a system where the size of your total markups is based on your score, then that amount would have to be reduced each week.

    Or, maybe there should be some sort of carrying cost for pics. If we were art galleries we would have costs based on size. It should be large enough to reduce scores of inactive accounts, without being onerous to active players. Reduce their scores, reduce their total markups.
  11. Other things to change on babetrader screen for individual picture:

    Add price paid
    Add pic rating
    Add dates and times last purchased and viewed
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
  12. HotnessRater

    HotnessRater Administrator Staff Member

    Completed quests is not a good indicator. 7 of the top 10 people complete the log in quests weekly (even if they don't go to babetrader)
  13. HotnessRater

    HotnessRater Administrator Staff Member

    I still like just the standard markup on all pictures. If you lose it daily, you can buy it back for price + 10%. Paid price is always just under current price. It will go back and forth many times but that creates rivalry... and eventually someone gives up. One person gets the picture, the other gets a ton of cash

    Of course to make this work, we would have to give you the ability to clear lost pictures from your list.. the ones you give up on.

    Then when you log in, go to lost pictures. Buy back the ones you care about and clear the ones you give up on.
  14. Hmm, it doesn't give me the login quests until I buy a picture. I think that is how it should be, btw. You should have to do more than just click refresh on your browser window once a day, you should have to take some actions, rate some pics, something useful.
  15. HotnessRater

    HotnessRater Administrator Staff Member

    Well that isn't what the quest says:

    "Visit all 3 sites (must be logged into them)"
  16. Well, I'll check it again, but it seems to me the site quest doesn't give me any response until I've bought my first picture. It's hard to check these days, I have to stop buying pics.
  17. ChaoticPanda

    ChaoticPanda New Member

    I don't get credit for logging into the sites until I buy a picture either.
  18. Ah, good, so I'm not imagining it. So, the top accounts aren't questing if their pic counts stay the same or are dropping.
  19. gtsecond

    gtsecond New Member

    I think a simple cap on value per picture, say, 16000 units, should be introduced. Any system where one can still put 1,000,000 on an item stops trading, so a cap is essential IMHO. In parallel, an inactivity tax, to reduce picture value by, perhaps, 1% per inactive day, would help to encourage the dormant accounts to play actively. A bot guard of some kind would help this process. I would not recommend taxing player points, as this would reduce liquidity in the system.

    At any rate, change is good, as it favours active players who will adapt to whatever is enacted. If designed well it will also derail any bots to reduce abuse of the system.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019 at 9:55 AM
  20. Well, I've sold 3 pics in the 5000 range, and one for 15k, so I'd disagree with that. The pics were mostly worth it, as they are generating a lot of views per day. If they continue as they are they will pay off in a few weeks. If they get better then I priced them too low.

    The problem is pics priced just to keep them off the market, these pics generally generate only a few views a week, even though their quality can be very high.

    There should be some sources of reduction in liquidity, otherwise it just goes up and up without anybody really working for it. Since we generally can't find out if a pic is owned without granting some "liquidity" to inactive accounts, some carrying cost is called for. For example, how about 1 point per 10 pics owned per day? It's really not that big a deal, as pics generate hits to lots pf people searching the site, if the pic selection is good.

Share This Page