Misleading title to illustrate a point.

So we have this rule:

At the same time, a lot of requests are wording their reward as the title above. Meaning that the requester can effectively pay anywhere from zero to the advertised price for a request (Up to 50k implies anywhere from zero to 50k). Obviously an artist doesn't want to work for free. And price discussion is something that typically happens after a work is done (In Toribash at least). So that leaves the artist in an awkward position of having to lobby for their price after they've already put in hours of work to finish it.

So here's what I suggest to fix this problem. Either request makers are required to advertise a minimum payment (If it's different from the maximum payment) OR request makers who use the phase "Up to XX TC/USD" are required to pay at least 80% of the "Up to" price.

The first part is actually the current rule set more or less. The only real change needed is adding a clause for the use of "Up to" whatever. This is clearly a suggestion in favor of the artists working on requests. But, I think this change would make for a healthier environment overall for both the requester and the artist.

Irregardless though, the rule above is getting loophole'd pretty hard by today's request board jargon. I don't think whoever made the market rules wanted this to happen.

Yeah, the price really attracts artists especially when it's big, but when it comes to the deal, they lower the (upto XX TC) prices drastically.

I support this. Gj

Yeah this should have been changed up a while ago, Lot's of People offer up a lot of tc and just say forget about it because they don't want to spend that much. It would change alot if duelers had to actually pay more than 200k when they offered say, one million tc.

So, the folks that I've talked to generally support this suggestion. Citing that "Up to" is misleading/ambiguous and whatnot. Anyone want to spring for the other side and say why they don't like this suggestion?

Personally, I can imagine one good situation where request makers would want to use the "Up to" phrasing. Say you make a set request for "Up to 300k." And then someone makes a set that you genuinely want and think is awesome. But in the current market is clearly only worth ~150k or so. Obviously you don't want to pay 300k for a ~150k set, so using your "Up to" reward phrasing you barter for a lower price with the artist. Here, the request maker protects themselves from making a terrible deal for a set just because they mentioned that they were possibly willing to pay an absorbently large 300k.

Protection for request makers is good. However, a request maker can still protect themselves while offering the same attractive prize under the suggested rules. Using the above example, if a request maker thinks they could be satisfied by a set worth 150k (Of course this has to be a preemptive thought). Then they can simply advertise "Prize: 150k-300k." What is new under the suggested rules however, is that if a request maker only advertises a large "Up to 300k" prize, then an artist doesn't have to worry about that request maker trying to lowball into paying only 20% or 50% of their only advertised price. This protects the artist some, and in my opinion will make such requests much more attractive to artists.

What I think is fair is saying "I will at minimum pay this much, and anything above and beyond what I was expecting, along with changes that needed to made along the way that require more labor will be compensated with x much more money"

So like

[R]HQ Robot Texture Set, ~150k

Hey there, I'm looking for a Robot Texture set, 512x512, color scheme is Demon and Azurite. I have 215k, I'd like to spend 150k on the request but the extra money is there if need be.

Ye that's the min and max approach which is one of the better and more transparent ways of getting your payment range across. Tbh when it comes to these things in my opinion more information is always better whenever possible. However, at the same time I can sympathize with request makers who "don't know what they want" (Heck common phrase is to expect that your client doesn't know what he/she wants). So I don't think outright banning these ambiguous payment ranges is the solution. Keeping them unchecked is a bad idea though (Again, in my opinion).

I support this, the thing is I made a banner/art for someone before, and he was offering up to 100k, he chose my work and raly pushed me to make it better, after I produced the piece he really liked, he hustled me and said "43k is the max that I can go, take it or nothing", that's because he spent his 57k on some items, anyways, I got mad and told the whole story to my brother he told me "well that's the thing about requests because if they're not taking your piece, then what're you gonna do with it? It'll just be a waste of your time and effort, so just take it instead."
My point here is guys, don't damn raise the expectations of artists who do this shit for a living! I have experienced injustice that day, and I hope that this suggestion will help reduce or stop injustices like this happening to artists, old and new.

Erm so this rule can't really be implied unless maybe you speak to a Market Squad member, plus if he pays 80% to someone who's making it, what if he doesn't like that artists work? Also what if many artists are working on a set for him, what will happen then?

can't artists decline the offer if it's shit?

(the offer, not their art)

Yeah they can, but then the guy who's requesting will just walk away, leaving the artist with a useless piece of art whom no one likes, so yeah just wasted time and effort ^_^"