Edited by johnny9fingers, 14 February 2012 - 12:38 AM.
database is making my head hurt
#1
Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:32 AM
#2
Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:34 AM
It's making my head hurt
#3
Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:36 AM
#4
Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:39 AM
#5
Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:19 AM
so i just got done running neon by slink. i decided since my items werent selling anyway to change the program from lowest to average. got done running it, and it had the slorg-shaped topiary listed in my shop at 96470np and the squid delight pizza at 99999. i thought that was high so i went to the database which showed the topiary at 7176np last updated 1 minute ago by JOHNNY9FINGERS and the squid delight pizza at 21476np again priced by JOHNNY9FINGERS. my question is were these outlier prices that my program threw out or what? how is there such a disparity between the db and the prices set by neon that updated the db? if im the one who updated the database why are the prices i have set as averages nowhere near the ones that reported to the database
It ususally does this to me on 1 NP items - though it hasn't done it in a while. For some reason it will price my omelettes and random junk at 99999 most of the time.
I have nothing constructive to add to this thread except that it does it to me as well but I don't find it that big of a deal. I reprice my items frequently enough that it doesn't really matter to me.
#6
Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:00 AM
so i just got done running neon by slink. i decided since my items werent selling anyway to change the program from lowest to average. got done running it, and it had the slorg-shaped topiary listed in my shop at 96470np and the squid delight pizza at 99999. i thought that was high so i went to the database which showed the topiary at 7176np last updated 1 minute ago by JOHNNY9FINGERS and the squid delight pizza at 21476np again priced by JOHNNY9FINGERS. my question is were these outlier prices that my program threw out or what? how is there such a disparity between the db and the prices set by neon that updated the db? if im the one who updated the database why are the prices i have set as averages nowhere near the ones that reported to the database
Johnny - Abrosia references our Item Database when purchasing the items which gives you the initial estimation of value. NeonAP prices items by checking the SW 'X' amount of times (based on your settings) and then it too reports back to the item database. When you switched from lowest to average that is not going to tell the Item Database the "average" price of an item it is still going to go with the smaller number. I am guessing that during the 'X' amount of times that you had NeonAP pricing your items that it had seen the lowest for each of those once and the rest of the times came up at 99,999 NP or something similar which would throw the entire 'average' price way higher than otherwise anticipated.
#7
Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:20 AM
Johnny - Abrosia references our Item Database when purchasing the items which gives you the initial estimation of value. NeonAP prices items by checking the SW 'X' amount of times (based on your settings) and then it too reports back to the item database. When you switched from lowest to average that is not going to tell the Item Database the "average" price of an item it is still going to go with the smaller number. I am guessing that during the 'X' amount of times that you had NeonAP pricing your items that it had seen the lowest for each of those once and the rest of the times came up at 99,999 NP or something similar which would throw the entire 'average' price way higher than otherwise anticipated.
I really think it's just a bug
Even if it was only finding prices of 99,999 NP for the omelettes and random crap I am pricing, my inflation is .9 so it should be pricing them at 89,999 not 99,999.
#8
Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:44 AM
I really think it's just a bug
Even if it was only finding prices of 99,999 NP for the omelettes and random crap I am pricing, my inflation is .9 so it should be pricing them at 89,999 not 99,999.
Should probably be looked into then.
#9
Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:10 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


