Blueprint Woman
   |
Posted - 2009.09.18 00:08:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: shadow124
The search option is indeed a very good way to avoid the majority of scams, but also not all. One example, you buy bpc's for cap parts, and don't buy one, more like 50 and more. If you buy hundreds for bigger projects, i can almost gurantee you that you'll find at least one single run bp in your hold at the end of the day.
Indeed, the contract system when trading in blueprints is pretty appalling.
I'd like to see additional filters there, such as BPO/BPC, ME/PE levels, number of runs, number of prints etc. Don't know how feasable it is given the difficulty CCP has in distinguishing BPOs/BPCs. A few small changes to the contract system would make it easier to use, both for casual and heavy users, and possibly address some of the scammer issues. Apparently CCP can add icons to BPCs (Tech2/Tech3) so I'm not quite sure why this has never been done with BPO/BPCs. I need to have a thorough read of the CCP Indy expansion thread to see if this has already been discussed.
In terms of scam contracts in general, stock response to these types of posts is "learn to read" which is fair enough if someone rushes to the forum to cry because they just accidentally accepted a scam contract. On the other hand, people tend to overlook the fact that these contracts are tedious for everyone to deal with, including people who trade heavily via contract. It's true that you learn to read contracts carefully, but using contracts is often a laborious process, made worse by scams. Contract traders tend to object to the idea of introducing historical records, but if there was a record, if you clicked "accept" on a contract marked up x1000 the historical value, the interface could give a warning of that similar to the market. I'm not entirely sure why contract traders object to historical records, but it does have the sound of "its always been like this, we don't want it to change (even though it's a flawed mechanic when compared to the market) because we've found a way to use this to our advantage".
Anyway, over to the other thread to see if this has been discussed there...
|