Whoever resold my western lowland Gorilla..

MaximusSC

MaximusSC
Mrkoekie1991 said:
Shame on you. I put it up for 1500 and someone isntant buys it and to my suprise... same name same stats same age on the store for 4000! I was trying to help ppl, yet the moneygrabbers take advange, this is suposed to be community challenge. Diiiiiiisgusting. :)
Click to expand...

You got your 1500 cc's so why worry about it? Also, it doesn't mean they'll get the 4000 cc's.
 

MaximusSC

MaximusSC
Dae said:
because it's not about getting 1500 CC but about helping other players :(
Click to expand...

Players have no control over who purchases the animals they place on the market. Once the animal is sold it's the purchasers to do with the animal what they want. That is just the way it is. By trying to control who purchases the animals on the market only results in a poor market where many won't will be able to do anything. You aren't 'helping' anyone by complaining that someone purchased an animal for the price you asked for then that purchaser resold the animal for a higher price (which may or may not be true anyway). Maybe that person needed more cc's to get an animal that runs at higher cc's? Who knows? WHO CARES?
 
Last edited:

FelixAkuma

FelixAkuma
Oh man! I have to give up on community challenges haha, I stopped playing franchise for a bit due to the bugs and tried to join into the gorilla one so opened a new zoo an had like 800 CC and thought I could atleast get one to start with... NOPE! XD Cheapest one was like 2700 CC. Shame but I'll have to have fun with the other 3 modes :p
 

MaximusSC

MaximusSC
bamber said:
Player A Helps out and sell for 1500 Sees it sold for 4000 - Unhappy
Player B Buy for 1500 sells for 4000 - Happy
Player C Buy for 4000 - Happy

*Player C is happy because he purchased it - no one forced him to

Seems 2 out of 3 are happy with the deal

Capatilism rules!!!
Click to expand...

And as unhappy as player A might be they can't be 100% certain that the animal with the same name and stats is in fact the same animal that they sold. I can say this with 100% certainty because I, myself, had 3 animals in my possession that had identical names and stats.
 

FelixAkuma

FelixAkuma
bamber said:
Player A Helps out and sell for 1500 Sees it sold for 4000 - Unhappy
Player B Buy for 1500 sells for 4000 - Happy
Player C Buy for 4000 - Happy

*Player C is happy because he purchased it - no one forced him to

Seems 2 out of 3 are happy with the deal

Capatilism rules!!!
Click to expand...

Player C is happy he got one but unhappy he has no CC left? XD

Not everyone can play as much as others so the price inflation punishes other who can't play as much.
 

MaximusSC

MaximusSC
Wolfen75 said:
In other words, no good deed goes unpunished.

Thats why the only species that should be endangered is the homo sapiens 🐺
Click to expand...

That's an unfair claim to make as the OP can't be 100% certain that the animal that he sold is the exact same animal that appeared in the market for a higher price than he sold his for.

On the other end of this spectrum I currently have a problem where I can't give away some animals for discounted prices. I'm gaining more cc's by releasing animals to the wild than I'm making when I place animals on the market. Clearly there are a lot of players who want the animals to be free. That helps no one. So I say more power to those who are gauging prices IF they are actually selling those animals. Making money (cc's) is a huge part of the game after all.
 

MaximusSC

MaximusSC
FelixAkuma said:
Player C is happy he got one but unhappy he has no CC left? XD

Not everyone can play as much as others so the price inflation punishes other who can't play as much.
Click to expand...

And depending on that animal and it's fertility rates and how that player manages his/her zoo that player will likely get a return on his/her investment. So how 'unhappy' should they be?
 

MaximusSC

MaximusSC
LaTokk said:
Maybe they could make it so that you couldn't resell an animal bought from another zoo until you had bred from it. Might stop people just trading animals like shares to farm CCs.
Click to expand...

Is that really necessary? Why arbitrarily deflate the value of the animals by making them age? OR have the result of older animals being placed into the market at the same or higher prices? Which would only result in more complaints of animals that are too old on the market and lessen the returns on investments by those who purchase those animals. IMHO the market is better the way it works now in regards to prices.
 

NL_Mutso

NL_Mutso
Prices exploded in a couple of days.. 2-3 days ago they were 800-1500

Wow, that's a lot of difference than the bengal tigers one...
 

Dae

Dae
MaximusSC said:
Is that really necessary? Why arbitrarily deflate the value of the animals by making them age? OR have the result of older animals being placed into the market at the same or higher prices? Which would only result in more complaints of animals that are too old on the market and lessen the returns on investments by those who purchase those animals. IMHO the market is better the way it works now in regards to prices.
Click to expand...

Because managing a zoo is not about speculation? Buying just to sell higher price is possible but unethical. Making it so that when you buy an animal it is to put it in your zoo instead of just making more CC is not "deflating" because you can sell later some of the young adults born from that animal. And with a good breeding program the babies are of higher stats so they can sell for more CC.
 

MaximusSC

MaximusSC
Dae said:
Because managing a zoo is not about speculation? Buying just to sell higher price is possible but unethical. Making it so that when you buy an animal it is to put it in your zoo instead of just making more CC is not "deflating" because you can sell later some of the young adults born from that animal. And with a good breeding program the babies are of higher stats so they can sell for more CC.
Click to expand...

Whether or not it's 'unethical' to buy low and sell high is subjective. A matter of opinion. Who says your opinion is right and others opinions are wrong is also subjective. One does NOT buy stocks in a stock market and sell them for the same or lower price than they purchased them for. They sell the stocks when the value is higher than they purchased the stocks for! A huge part of the game requires players to generate conservation credits. It's Capitalism.

Since the bulk of the complaint made by the OP is about price restricting the purchaser to keep the animal for any reason and for any length of time absolutely will deflate the value of the animal. It deflates the value in the eyes of the next buyer if that animal is placed back onto the market simply because the animal has aged and holds less potential return (short term) than if the animal was placed immediately back onto the market because the animal is that much closer to death and may not produce more offspring depending on it's age. If the animal is too old when it's placed back onto the market it may have no value to potential buyers at all.


....you can sell later some of the young adults born from that animal. And with a good breeding program the babies are of higher stats so they can sell for more CC.
Click to expand...

That statement justifies higher prices for animals. Returns on your purchase of the animals don't have to be, nor should they be, made back immediately or within the animals first set of offspring. Each generation of offspring adds to the return on the original cost of the first animal purchased.

The fact remains that one buying and reselling an animal for a higher price than they purchased it for hurts absolutely no one! Not other than the original sellers feelings. Which really comes across as they are disappointed in themself for not asking for a higher price than they did in their original sale.
 
Last edited:

Vayman

Vayman
The market prices will continue to ebb and flow as the game and it's community starts to find it's place. Community challenges will throw a grenade into a stable market now and again. It's fairly healthy, but I completely understand how it can be frustrating if one tries to do a nice deed by listing something far under market only to see it resold for significant profit. But that's the risk.

I look at it this way: if a given animal is listed so cheaply that it can be quickly bought up and sold for a significant markup, then the market at large didn't really need the original cheap price in the first place.

And as someone said, it doesn't guarantee the marked up price will lead to a transaction. As I understand it to work, Frontier will often list animals at prices that they set in an effort to control profiteering. This will give new players and those who are short on CC income to get involved and not have to deal with the larger franchises that try to corner the market.

It's too early to say if it's all working as intended, but so far, it seems OK to me.

Invest your 1500 wisely! :)
 

Charmmy Colour

Charmmy Colour
It sucks, really.

I would be fine if we were talking of objects or stock or whatever. But they are supposed to be living animals! We are supposed to respect them.

But between the market speculation, the puppy mill challenges and the ultra-speed, the game it’s doing a veeeeery poor job with the conservation message.
 

Wolfen75

Wolfen75
Charmmy Colour said:
It sucks, really.

I would be fine if we were talking of objects or stock or whatever. But they are supposed to be living animals! We are supposed to respect them.

But between the market speculation, the puppy mill challenges and the ultra-speed, the game it’s doing a veeeeery poor job with the conservation message.
Click to expand...

Obviously creating hype is more imporant atm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom