Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Harper Ei
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:37:00 -
[1]
Example:
There are 2 salesorders available.
Quantity: Price: 5 100 10 200
I want to buy the 10 and I am willing to pay 200 in order to keep the 5 at 100 in the market. They may even be my own!
I select the 10/200 order with a right-click and tip 10 and press buy.
What happens?
I takes the 5 at 100 and pays the seller 200 (1000 in all) for them, and takes another 5 from the 10/200 order, leaving this picture:
Quantity: Price: 5 200
which was not intentional. As a buyer I choose what to buy and at what price. In the real stockmarkets I would never have paid 200 but 100 for the first 5.
CCP you should choose what you want. Either I get the 10/200 order at 2000 isk, og I get the 5/100 and 5/200 at 1500 isk. Anything else is dysfunctional marketmaking.
H E
- This is not my main. I have no alts. I therefore have no main. This is me. Mains are for whiners only! |
Harper Ei
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:37:00 -
[2]
Example:
There are 2 salesorders available.
Quantity: Price: 5 100 10 200
I want to buy the 10 and I am willing to pay 200 in order to keep the 5 at 100 in the market. They may even be my own!
I select the 10/200 order with a right-click and tip 10 and press buy.
What happens?
I takes the 5 at 100 and pays the seller 200 (1000 in all) for them, and takes another 5 from the 10/200 order, leaving this picture:
Quantity: Price: 5 200
which was not intentional. As a buyer I choose what to buy and at what price. In the real stockmarkets I would never have paid 200 but 100 for the first 5.
CCP you should choose what you want. Either I get the 10/200 order at 2000 isk, og I get the 5/100 and 5/200 at 1500 isk. Anything else is dysfunctional marketmaking.
H E
- This is not my main. I have no alts. I therefore have no main. This is me. Mains are for whiners only! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:38:00 -
[3]
Implied buy order is implied. -
DesuSigs |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:38:00 -
[4]
Implied buy order is implied. -
DesuSigs |
Harper Ei
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:47:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Harper Ei on 25/09/2008 08:49:46
Originally by: Crumplecorn Implied buy order is implied.
Implied price functionality is not applicable on the EVE markets, since there are a multitude of marketplaces (stations). It is applied locally, not globally.
Also, implied price functionality is used when you are dealing with timefram shifts like for instance in dealing monthly contracts (synthetic orders). For normal trading it is not optimal, since it does not in itself generate more market liquidity. - This is not my main. I have no alts. I therefore have no main. This is me. Mains are for whiners only! |
Harper Ei
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:47:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Harper Ei on 25/09/2008 08:49:46
Originally by: Crumplecorn Implied buy order is implied.
Implied price functionality is not applicable on the EVE markets, since there are a multitude of marketplaces (stations). It is applied locally, not globally.
Also, implied price functionality is used when you are dealing with timefram shifts like for instance in dealing monthly contracts (synthetic orders). For normal trading it is not optimal, since it does not in itself generate more market liquidity. - This is not my main. I have no alts. I therefore have no main. This is me. Mains are for whiners only! |
Julius Rigel
House Rigel
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:55:00 -
[7]
The idea is to suppress ISK transfer via the market. Monkey want item, monkey get item. Monkey wants to move ISK off a trial account. Try a little harder.
While I agree that the system is a little awkward, I don't see why it is such a big deal.
Frigate racing is fast and fun! |
Julius Rigel
House Rigel
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:55:00 -
[8]
The idea is to suppress ISK transfer via the market. Monkey want item, monkey get item. Monkey wants to move ISK off a trial account. Try a little harder.
While I agree that the system is a little awkward, I don't see why it is such a big deal.
Frigate racing is fast and fun! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:56:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Harper Ei Implied price
I said implied order. I'm talking game mechanics, not econonomicanal stuff. -
DesuSigs |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 08:56:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Harper Ei Implied price
I said implied order. I'm talking game mechanics, not econonomicanal stuff. -
DesuSigs |
|
|
CCP Lingorm
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 09:09:00 -
[11]
The EVE market is modelled after a Commodities market, in which you legally have to sell the lowest priced item to the buyer,even if they have offered more.
Look at share markets and similar, this is how it works.
CCP Lingorm CCP Quality Assurance QA Engineering Team Leader
Originally by: Lord Fitz Eve is to WoW as Wow is to an 8 player game of Unreal Tournament.
|
|
Dashhammer II
Amarr O RLY corp YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 09:14:00 -
[12]
You all have too much time on your hands.
- Dashhammer II |
Julius Rigel
House Rigel
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 09:18:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Dashhammer II You all have too much time on your hands.
I know I do.
Frigate racing is fast and fun! |
Cheap Dude
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 09:27:00 -
[14]
Originally by: CCP Lingorm The EVE market is modelled after a Commodities market, in which you legally have to sell the lowest priced item to the buyer,even if they have offered more.
Look at share markets and similar, this is how it works.
Well, seems this model does not work hence the world wide crisis
Sorry I pressed the 'report' button btw
|
Harper Ei
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 14:46:00 -
[15]
Originally by: CCP Lingorm The EVE market is modelled after a Commodities market, in which you legally have to sell the lowest priced item to the buyer,even if they have offered more.
Look at share markets and similar, this is how it works.
But that is not how it works! Read my example. - This is not my main. I have no alts. I therefore have no main. This is me. Mains are for whiners only! |
Veldya
Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:09:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CCP Lingorm The EVE market is modelled after a Commodities market, in which you legally have to sell the lowest priced item to the buyer,even if they have offered more.
Look at share markets and similar, this is how it works.
That is not how it works. If it is based on a commodoties market he would have been sold the 5 at 100 and 5 at 200. He paid 200 for the 100 items.
|
Faife
Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:13:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Faife on 25/09/2008 15:14:34 NM, misread OP.
i guess the game considers it not an auto sale, but you creating an open buy order that's then filled by a 3rd party from the open sell orders
your buy order price applies, not the sell order price.
*shrug* - - - i am a humble and inefficent ammo to dps converter |
mistakes happen
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:53:00 -
[18]
Originally by: CCP Lingorm The EVE market is modelled after a Commodities market, in which you legally have to sell the lowest priced item to the buyer,even if they have offered more.
Look at share markets and similar, this is how it works.
In that case why are they still charged the higher price? Legally that should not happen, an offer is in no way and actual transaction.
|
|
CCP Gangleri
Tanis. Corp Tanis. Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:00:00 -
[19]
This is working as intended.
If you select a sell order and choose to buy from it then the system will charge you the price of said order but deliver goods from the cheapest one. This only happens if the two orders are in the same station. ------------------
Originally by: CCP PrismX
Obviously this reply does not constitute a promise to do anything but I'd like to see the discussion take off and see opinions from both sides.
|
|
mistakes happen
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri This is working as intended.
If you select a sell order and choose to buy from it then the system will charge you the price of said order but deliver goods from the cheapest one. This only happens if the two orders are in the same station.
My question is this then. Why in a game where scamming is okay and people need to think before they act would you not let someone rip someone off in the market?
The way i see it is Working as intended to most MMORPG makers = Deal with it we dont care if it makes no sense
|
|
|
CCP Gangleri
Tanis. Corp Tanis. Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:06:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Julius Rigel The idea is to suppress ISK transfer via the market. Monkey want item, monkey get item. Monkey wants to move ISK off a trial account. Try a little harder.
While I agree that the system is a little awkward, I don't see why it is such a big deal.
This person pretty much has it nailed down. ------------------
Originally by: CCP PrismX
Obviously this reply does not constitute a promise to do anything but I'd like to see the discussion take off and see opinions from both sides.
|
|
mistakes happen
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:07:00 -
[22]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
Originally by: Julius Rigel The idea is to suppress ISK transfer via the market. Monkey want item, monkey get item. Monkey wants to move ISK off a trial account. Try a little harder.
While I agree that the system is a little awkward, I don't see why it is such a big deal.
This person pretty much has it nailed down.
Now this makes a lot more sense.
|
Marchocias
Silent Ninja's
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:10:00 -
[23]
Indeed, I have an example of just HOW it stops isk transfers:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=873418
Worked out alright for me tho (so far). ---- Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*coughcough*aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrr!! |
Davich MacGregor
Minmatar Stellar Products and Quality Resources
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Dashhammer II You all have too much time on your hands.
LMAO. Truer words were never spoken.
|
mistakes happen
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:15:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Davich MacGregor
Originally by: Dashhammer II You all have too much time on your hands.
LMAO. Truer words were never spoken.
Well, they are rebooting the server =)
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:18:00 -
[26]
Just to point out, whilst the current behaviour is 'as designed', we do want to change bracket ordering to be more sensible than 'keep the change' method you have currently. It is correct to buy from the lowest seller, however it should be more intelligent in bracketing the order.
Ideally we should bracket fill properly by quantity. Such that if you want to buy 100 units of something, and there are three orders of 50 @ 10, 30 @ 15 and and 40 @ 20 then it should fill the order (50*10)+(30*15)+(20*20) rather than taking 100 at 20 as now.
So in short, I agree the current behaviour could be improved and should be.
|
|
Demitria Fernir
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:18:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Harper Ei In the real stockmarkets
DON'T
10100110010100101010011010100101001100101110101001 I will Conquer My Signature Somewhere in the future 10100110010100101010011010100101001100101110101001 |
Shad0wsFury
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 16:18:00 -
[28]
Simple solution: post a buy order for what you want at the price you want to pay, and set it for instant.
Using your example, if you put up a buy order under instant for 10 units at 200isk, you would buy the 5 at 100 for 200, and you'd get the other 5 for 200, but you'd get all 10 at once.
Very simple.
|
Harper Ei
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 18:16:00 -
[29]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Just to point out, whilst the current behaviour is 'as designed', we do want to change bracket ordering to be more sensible than 'keep the change' method you have currently. It is correct to buy from the lowest seller, however it should be more intelligent in bracketing the order.
Ideally we should bracket fill properly by quantity. Such that if you want to buy 100 units of something, and there are three orders of 50 @ 10, 30 @ 15 and and 40 @ 20 then it should fill the order (50*10)+(30*15)+(20*20) rather than taking 100 at 20 as now.
So in short, I agree the current behaviour could be improved and should be.
That is great news! Hurry up!
- This is not my main. I have no alts. I therefore have no main. This is me. Mains are for whiners only! |
Vyktor Abyss
IONSTAR Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 18:53:00 -
[30]
Gosh just look at all the Blue bars here...
Does that mean the information blackout is oveur? :P
|
|
Synapse Archae
Amarr Demonic Retribution G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 20:06:00 -
[31]
As much as I love updates to the markets, this is not worth CCPs time.
Add binary star systems instead of this. We'll all get more out of that time spent.
Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
Faife
Minmatar Noctiscion
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 21:16:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Gosh just look at all the Blue bars here...
Does that mean the information blackout is oveur? :P
ICWYDT. - - - i am a humble and inefficent ammo to dps converter |
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 22:18:00 -
[33]
Edited by: CCP Explorer on 25/09/2008 22:19:30
Originally by: Harper Ei I takes the 5 at 100 and pays the seller 200 (1000 in all) for them, and takes another 5 from the 10/200 order
Functioning as intended and as designed.
(You paid no more than you what had indicated that you were willing to pay and all the sellers got at least what they requested.)
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
Durzel
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 22:22:00 -
[34]
That would explain why I got paid more for something that I was selling than my sell order was listed at, thanks for clearing that up.
|
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 22:31:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 25/09/2008 22:35:06
Originally by: CCP Chronotis It is correct to buy from the lowest seller, however it should be more intelligent in bracketing the order.
Why is it mandatory that we buy from the "lowest seller"? Why can we not choose to buy from (for example) allies or neutrals rather than giving our money to our enemies who just happen to offer the product at a .01 isk discount? It seems to me that such a simplistic mechanism grossly hampers real markets and prevents what could be much greater depth to economic PvP.
|
War Games
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 00:08:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 25/09/2008 22:35:06
Originally by: CCP Chronotis It is correct to buy from the lowest seller, however it should be more intelligent in bracketing the order.
Why is it mandatory that we buy from the "lowest seller"? Why can we not choose to buy from (for example) allies or neutrals rather than giving our money to our enemies who just happen to offer the product at a .01 isk discount? It seems to me that such a simplistic mechanism grossly hampers real markets and prevents what could be much greater depth to economic PvP.
But then you'd be wrong. As the men in blue stated :)
Seriously though... the reason you can't do it is because CCP is using a flimsy commodity trade models to prevent IRL trading of ingame isk. What Gaming Dev's really think of you! |
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 01:26:00 -
[37]
Originally by: War Games the reason you can't do it is because CCP is using a flimsy commodity trade models to prevent IRL trading of ingame isk.
If that's true, if that's the reason, it's pretty lame.
|
Havohej
Minmatar Comply Or Die G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 02:24:00 -
[38]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Just to point out, whilst the current behaviour is 'as designed', we do want to change bracket ordering to be more sensible than 'keep the change' method you have currently. It is correct to buy from the lowest seller, however it should be more intelligent in bracketing the order.
Ideally we should bracket fill properly by quantity. Such that if you want to buy 100 units of something, and there are three orders of 50 @ 10, 30 @ 15 and and 40 @ 20 then it should fill the order (50*10)+(30*15)+(20*20) rather than taking 100 at 20 as now.
So in short, I agree the current behaviour could be improved and should be.
Do the math and pay attention for them too, now?
Way to dumb things down.
While you're at it, why not give them automated messages that pop up whenever they set destination that'll have autopilot take them through a system in which suicide ganks have taken place, a war target has been in the last hour, is lowsec, or anything else that might be remotely costly to them?
To clarify, I've used sarcasm in this post to suggest that the dev team works on changing things that are broken - player stupidity is not broken.
Originally by: CCP Explorer You can still steal their stuff.
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 07:03:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: War Games the reason you can't do it is because CCP is using a flimsy commodity trade models to prevent IRL trading of ingame isk.
If that's true, if that's the reason, it's pretty lame.
No, it's pretty clever actually.
I wonder if the new market filtering options have a negative effect on that though ...
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Bald Rikk
The Legendary Fleet
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 10:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: War Games the reason you can't do it is because CCP is using a flimsy commodity trade models to prevent IRL trading of ingame isk.
If that's true, if that's the reason, it's pretty lame.
Explain why?
-- Baldrikk
Originally by: CCP Explorer You can still steal their stuff.
|
|
SentryRaven
The Movement
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 10:10:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Havohej
To clarify, I've used sarcasm in this post to suggest that the dev team works on changing things that are broken - player stupidity is not broken.
This does not only apply to this issue.... --------
I play nekkid. |
SharpMango
14th Legion
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 10:50:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 25/09/2008 22:35:06
Originally by: CCP Chronotis It is correct to buy from the lowest seller, however it should be more intelligent in bracketing the order.
Why is it mandatory that we buy from the "lowest seller"? Why can we not choose to buy from (for example) allies or neutrals rather than giving our money to our enemies who just happen to offer the product at a .01 isk discount? It seems to me that such a simplistic mechanism grossly hampers real markets and prevents what could be much greater depth to economic PvP.
if you want to buy from a particular person, use the contract system. Quite simple really.
|
Ballistic CEO
The Ballistic Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 10:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Cheap Dude
Well, seems this model does not work hence the world wide crisis
world wide except China. Say hi to the new no.1 superpower o/
|
Tiirae
The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 11:09:00 -
[44]
I think this is an old solution that doesn't really do anything any more; there are a thousand and one ways to easily transfer isk between players. The benefits of changing this system would be many, in that players *should* be able to decide who they buy from.
My reasoning here is pvp. It irks me no end that I can't determine who gets my money; If I want to pay 20% more just to avoid my enemy getting the cash I should be able to do that.
As I already said, there's a ton of other methods by which ISK sellers can move their money around, totally gimping market pvp just to block one particular isk transfer method is throwing the baby out with the bathwater imo.
I have made a ton of isk over the years from this too, but it should be changed.
|
Harper Ei
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 18:07:00 -
[45]
Originally by: CCP Explorer Edited by: CCP Explorer on 25/09/2008 22:19:30
Originally by: Harper Ei I takes the 5 at 100 and pays the seller 200 (1000 in all) for them, and takes another 5 from the 10/200 order
Functioning as intended and as designed.
(You paid no more than you what had indicated that you were willing to pay and all the sellers got at least what they requested.)
No. I paid what I was prepared to pay the individual seller I selected. I did not intend to give money to the other seller.
If what you write is intended, then your design is flawed.
And who am I to listen to? You or your colleague?
- This is not my main. I have no alts. I therefore have no main. This is me. Mains are for whiners only! |
Harper Ei
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 18:17:00 -
[46]
Originally by: War Games But then you'd be wrong. As the men in blue stated :)
Seriously though... the reason you can't do it is because CCP is using a flimsy commodity trade models to prevent IRL trading of ingame isk.
Nonsense. You only have to select another station - or another product for that matter - with only 1 sell order to work around that.
This problem relates to stations with several sell orders. To not let me choose whatever order I'd like to fill is to my best knowledge a flaw in the gamedesign.
H E
- This is not my main. I have no alts. I therefore have no main. This is me. Mains are for whiners only! |
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 18:41:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Bald Rikk
Originally by: Catherine Frasier if that's the reason, it's pretty lame.
Explain why?
I would, but Tiirae said it for me.
Originally by: SharpMango if you want to buy from a particular person, use the contract system. Quite simple really.
Sadly, that turns out not to be a solution or at least it's not anything remotely like a "simple" one. Being able to select from among available orders is simple. Having to approach people, one at a time, perhaps even at random, and ask them if they happen to have what I need and if they would sell it to me and then, when I find such a person, negotiate a price, arrange a contract...
Then apply that tortuous method to all my industrial needs...
No, I think not.
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 18:45:00 -
[48]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Just to point out, whilst the current behaviour is 'as designed', we do want to change bracket ordering to be more sensible than 'keep the change' method you have currently. It is correct to buy from the lowest seller, however it should be more intelligent in bracketing the order.
Ideally we should bracket fill properly by quantity. Such that if you want to buy 100 units of something, and there are three orders of 50 @ 10, 30 @ 15 and and 40 @ 20 then it should fill the order (50*10)+(30*15)+(20*20) rather than taking 100 at 20 as now.
So in short, I agree the current behaviour could be improved and should be.
Sounds like a great idea for a new Trading skill //// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Necrosmith
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 20:08:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Gosh just look at all the Blue bars here...
Does that mean the information blackout is oveur? :P
I see what you did there.
Clever! ------------- "Isk is cheap. Life is cheaper. This week, they're having a sale on both." Laugh until you cry: Battle Asses
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 20:28:00 -
[50]
Originally by: mistakes happen
Originally by: CCP Gangleri This is working as intended.
If you select a sell order and choose to buy from it then the system will charge you the price of said order but deliver goods from the cheapest one. This only happens if the two orders are in the same station.
My question is this then. Why in a game where scamming is okay and people need to think before they act would you not let someone rip someone off in the market?
The way i see it is Working as intended to most MMORPG makers = Deal with it we dont care if it makes no sense
because mistakes happen
and you can rip them off all you want, just make sure you are selling the lowest priced item in that station
|
|
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 21:59:00 -
[51]
Edited by: CCP Explorer on 26/09/2008 22:01:18
Originally by: Harper Ei
Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Harper Ei I takes the 5 at 100 and pays the seller 200 (1000 in all) for them, and takes another 5 from the 10/200 order
Functioning as intended and as designed.
(You paid no more than you what had indicated that you were willing to pay and all the sellers got at least what they requested.)
No. I paid what I was prepared to pay the individual seller I selected. I did not intend to give money to the other seller.
And who am I to listen to? You or your colleague?
You don't know what seller you have selected when you are buying, the market listings are anonymous. You only know afterward from whom you bought.
You should listen to both of us
He has some ideas about how to change and hopefully improve the market. Until those new designs are approved and implemented then the market is functioning as designed based on its current designs. That's what matters to me from the software side.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |