Only allow 1 order per resource per room on the market
-
This screen cap (from the Shard2 market ui) shows 9 different orders, but they are all selling the same 675 H. This basically means that if you look at any single-component resource on Shard 2, all you see is this one guy's market order for a small amount of that resource.
I think the tools to modify market orders are sufficient, and using a small amount of resource to completely dominate the user interface is kind of annoying.
But I can see the other side of it too: the user gets 50 market orders, and if they want to put the same 675 H up for sale 50 times, and pay the listing fee, maybe it's better to not restrict the players.
-
This is only visually appalling for humans, and really doesn't pose any problems at all.
He is the cheapest, so his orders are first.
So I don't see a reason why there should be a change necessary.
-
I would honestly be fine if I could filter on amount in the ui (rather than just sort).
-
A limit on one order per resource type per room would also be a performance benefit. Every time you request H orders you have to parse all the info for these orders.
-
This would probably be a good check against a bug in someone's code that makes several hundred orders. I've heard of a few of those.
-
I actually don't understand what the problem is.
Why is this a problem?
What if it were 50 people with one order each cluttering the same interface? Would it still be a problem? How would it be different?
Only the top 1-5 of these are ever relevant anyways, in my experience.
Any automation needs to build "the wall" aggregating these orders (over some window) anyways, regardless of who they are from.
-
@black0441 said in Only allow 1 order per resource per room on the market:
I would honestly be fine if I could filter on amount in the ui (rather than just sort).
The UI needs work, this users poor code is punished by the market order cap.
-
Just wanted to add that if such a limit is added, it has to be at least two orders per resource type. It should be perfectly viable to have both a sell-order and buy-order.
That said, I do not think this is a problem.