Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dmoney3788
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:01:00 -
[31]
Simple fix: If the buyer doesn't have enough isk to cover the buy order, the order becomes invisible to everyone until the buyer has enough isk to cover the order.
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:33:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Caius Sivaris There would be a way to "solve" that without changing margin trading, which is a very fine mechanics in its own right. It would be to be able to filter out orders with minimum amount as they are mostly used to scam anyway...
My X jump trit buy orders have a minimum quantity. Im not going to pull out my freighter and hit every station in X jumps for 5 trit.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died - |
Dmoney3788
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 23:12:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Caius Sivaris There would be a way to "solve" that without changing margin trading, which is a very fine mechanics in its own right. It would be to be able to filter out orders with minimum amount as they are mostly used to scam anyway...
My X jump trit buy orders have a minimum quantity. Im not going to pull out my freighter and hit every station in X jumps for 5 trit.
-Liang
Although it wouldn't hurt to have an option to filter orders by minimum quantity.
|
Keisty Fitten
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 06:33:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman So it is an exploit. Interesting.
Are you daft? No, it's not a friggin' exploit. Why would CCP put an entire skill into the game whose entire function is an exploit?
It's a completely legitimate scam, and it was even obvious.
someone's found his big boy poasting pants... |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 06:43:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Keisty Fitten
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman So it is an exploit. Interesting.
Are you daft? No, it's not a friggin' exploit. Why would CCP put an entire skill into the game whose entire function is an exploit?
It's a completely legitimate scam, and it was even obvious.
someone's found his big boy poasting pants...
-_-"
Stan, Stan, Stan...
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 06:45:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Serra Polaris I'd be surprised if Margin Trading was designed with the idea of setting up fake buy orders in mind.
You know, I bet CCP didn't make Destroyers with cheap Exhumer suicide ganks in mind. We should probably take them out of the game too.
|
WEELLLPS RIGHTSIDE
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 08:05:00 -
[37]
I think Widderbitter loves to scam and grief eh?
Simple fix for all: Add "query order" button
PROCESS
- Query order by button <query order>
- progam checks the order vs the players wallet
- returns: "Can Complete!" Or "Can't Complete!"
Simple, elegant. Scammers get to keep scamming and cautious players get to check the order before getting played. Everyone wins.
Well everyone accept Widderbitty, because he is about to explain to all of use why this would be terrible and destroy the game mechanics.
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 09:17:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: Serra Polaris I'd be surprised if Margin Trading was designed with the idea of setting up fake buy orders in mind.
You know, I bet CCP didn't make Destroyers with cheap Exhumer suicide ganks in mind. We should probably take them out of the game too.
Who are you kidding? CCP made destroyers with nothing in mind.
|
Serra Polaris
Polaris Operations
|
Posted - 2011.01.09 10:59:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: Serra Polaris I'd be surprised if Margin Trading was designed with the idea of setting up fake buy orders in mind.
You know, I bet CCP didn't make Destroyers with cheap Exhumer suicide ganks in mind. We should probably take them out of the game too.
That wasn't my overall point. The point is only CCP can say whether something is "working as intended". If they have then please post your source. If CCP thinks it's working as intended then fine.
|
Cerneus
THORN Syndicate Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 05:36:00 -
[40]
Good thing is you have enough lockbreaker bombs for the next decade.
|
|
Manipulator General
o.0
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 13:22:00 -
[41]
This again, eh?
|
Corina Jarr
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 18:12:00 -
[42]
This is not a bug nor an exploit. In fact, if you petition this, they will tell you this is exactly how it is supposed to work.
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 10:01:00 -
[43]
Originally by: WEELLLPS RIGHTSIDE I think Widderbitter loves to scam and grief eh?
Simple fix for all: Add "query order" button
PROCESS
- Query order by button <query order>
- progam checks the order vs the players wallet
- returns: "Can Complete!" Or "Can't Complete!"
Simple, elegant. Scammers get to keep scamming and cautious players get to check the order before getting played. Everyone wins.
Well everyone accept Widderbitty, because he is about to explain to all of use why this would be terrible and destroy the game mechanics.
Living up to expectations:
Yes, you have explained a very simple idea. An elegant tool which serves only one possible purpose, ever, is otherwise completely extraneous, and provides an excellent way to glean information based on someone else's private wallet balance. Well done old chap.
Originally by: Serra Polaris That wasn't my overall point. The point is only CCP can say whether something is "working as intended". If they have then please post your source. If CCP thinks it's working as intended then fine.
I could fabricate all kinds of crap right now, but none of it would be confirmably official. Try petitioning it, bro; that ought to be official enough. See: Corina Jarr's post
|
Drichter
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 10:52:00 -
[44]
Quote: I could fabricate all kinds of crap right now, but none of it would be confirmably official. Try petitioning it, bro; that ought to be official enough. See: Corina Jarr's post
Like in the past a petition always gave the correct answer although another GM said something different? Only ... and i mean the really only sure way to clarify this would be, that this is brought up by a CSM in a meeting. Followed by a discussion where the issue is clear. Not just "Hey CCP, that skill margin trading, does it work?" - "Well yes my dear player/subscriber, the skill is working as intended"
And i can't stop having the feel that a lot of ppl just think "i can do this and that, so it must be intended and allowed".
Remembers me about the last issue with a certain wormhole type and weapon-distrubting into the negative so blasters could hit from 250km. It did work ... but was it intended? Well ... CCP removed those boni to ewar in this type of wormholes. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 13:38:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Drichter
Quote: I could fabricate all kinds of crap right now, but none of it would be confirmably official. Try petitioning it, bro; that ought to be official enough. See: Corina Jarr's post
Like in the past a petition always gave the correct answer although another GM said something different? Only ... and i mean the really only sure way to clarify this would be, that this is brought up by a CSM in a meeting. Followed by a discussion where the issue is clear. Not just "Hey CCP, that skill margin trading, does it work?" - "Well yes my dear player/subscriber, the skill is working as intended"
Well, we could get it written in 4 languages and signed in Hilmar PTtursson's blood by all the members of the United Nations and the Queen of England, but that could potentially not be enough either.
It works fine, it's not that dangerous of a trap (if you're trading wisely, unlike our OP), and there are very solid reasons for why it works the way it does right now. If you had some coding experience and a brief review of the grief the CCP Database team has to go through for things like this, you would realize that they probably don't want to make an additional, extra database call to a player's character sheet, and then the player's wallet, for every single sell order that shows up every time you click an item type on the market. (And then what if they have the money for SOME of the order, but not all of it? You're treading tricky ground there, when it comes to coding and efficiency.)
Originally by: Drichter And i can't stop having the feel that a lot of ppl just think "i can do this and that, so it must be intended and allowed".
Welcome to EVE.
CCP's hardline, HTFU stance on player interactions since EVE's inception is what has lead to all the great thefts, coups, and shenanigans that everyone loves about the EVE community so much. This stance is that there are things you can do, and these are fine; scams, lying and double-crossing, theft, etc. are all entirely within the realm of the game. And then there are other things which are clearly wrong (infinite-tracking EWAR wormhole exploit) or give an unfair advantage over other players (ferrogel pos-production trick) or both; these rare animals are exploits, which CCP frowns upon from on high. It's a pretty clear distinction. Obvious behavior that is necessary for a skill to function logically in every situation that will arise is different. It is entirely normal for buy orders created with the Margin Trading skill to run out of escrow money without any sort of 'ill intent'. That's the whole point of the skill: don't miss any opportunities to buy while you can.
P.S. Pretty sure it's "bonuses," though I kinda like "bonii" now that I say it a couple times. "Bonii"...
|
foksieloy
Minmatar Universal Army
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 14:33:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Drichter Remembers me about the last issue with a certain wormhole type and weapon-distrubting into the negative so blasters could hit from 250km. It did work ... but was it intended? Well ... CCP removed those boni to ewar in this type of wormholes.
It worked as intended before the fix (unless everyone using it was warned (example: using newb ships to have a pos run out of ammo)) and it worked as intended after the fix.
So until people start getting banned/warned for unfulfillable orders, it is working as intended. Petition it and see if they get banned. Until then have a nice cup of CanSpotScam tea. Hot. _______________________ Drink Eau du Nichup«, the taste of heaven. Now available as Nichup Citrus« as well! |
Tore Smith
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 16:14:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: Sindayn Itai IMO is CCP legitimises it, it's prob a glitch they don't tend on fixing any time soon :)
Which part of "Working As Intended" says to you that it is "prob a glitch"? Please tell me, I'm writing a paper on people like you and I honestly don't know.
dude, no one gives a **** what your saying. stop posting. thank you.
|
HolyNerfBatman
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 16:31:00 -
[48]
Edited by: HolyNerfBatman on 12/01/2011 16:33:20 bah, not gonna cross post, if you want to see my proposal its in assembly hall
|
Rytlock Thackaray
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 18:29:00 -
[49]
Seems to me like it would make sense to automatically cancel any buy orders you can't afford the moment your wallet drops too low to cover it.
End of problem.
|
Srioghal moDhream
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 18:42:00 -
[50]
Is it possible to fill just 25% of the order, the minimum amount required to put up in margin trading? So that amount of the order will be filled, leaving 75% of it left for someone else to fail at? Maybe do 23-24% to make sure it is covered?
|
|
Zavulon Sukkot
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 21:10:00 -
[51]
One of the real basics of good trading is buy low, sell high. It is honestly beyond me why one would think they could systematically make money buying someone else's high order, and selling to someone's (other's?) low order.
Even if it looks good at the surface, it just doesnt make sense to do that systematically. It's not a sustainable trading methodology.
If you're going to counterscam, don even try unless you have the basics down first.
/thread. NATI. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 21:12:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Rytlock Thackaray Seems to me like it would make sense to automatically cancel any buy orders you can't afford the moment your wallet drops too low to cover it.
End of problem.
As it was mentioned earlier, you lose all your broker fees doing this. Which is pretty serious business, and makes the skill almost useless.
Originally by: Srioghal moDhream Is it possible to fill just 25% of the order, the minimum amount required to put up in margin trading? So that amount of the order will be filled, leaving 75% of it left for someone else to fail at? Maybe do 23-24% to make sure it is covered?
Yes, except that they set a minimum quantity so you HAVE to fill the whole order at once. So... actually no. If they don't set a minimum quantity, I don't know how that works; sounds like something worth testing.
Originally by: Tore Smith dude, no one gives a **** what your saying. stop posting. thank you.
Your mother was a hamster.
|
Rytlock Thackaray
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 21:15:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: Rytlock Thackaray Seems to me like it would make sense to automatically cancel any buy orders you can't afford the moment your wallet drops too low to cover it.
End of problem.
As it was mentioned earlier, you lose all your broker fees doing this. Which is pretty serious business, and makes the skill almost useless.
Ah, gotcha. Well, the idea of having the order go inactive until you can cover it is there, or it could simply be the price to pay for overextending yourself.
|
The Slagh
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 22:27:00 -
[54]
Edited by: The Slagh on 12/01/2011 22:28:46
Originally by: Serra Polaris
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: Sindayn Itai IMO is CCP legitimises it, it's prob a glitch they don't tend on fixing any time soon :)
Which part of "Working As Intended" says to you that it is "prob a glitch"? Please tell me, I'm writing a paper on people like you and I honestly don't know.
Well has CCP said it's working as intended? It's like dropping more than 6 cans around a gate with the intent to decloak or lag. Dropping cans is legit but it's considered an exploit. I'm not saying this has been classified as an exploit but I'm curious what CCP has to say about it. I'd be surprised if Margin Trading was designed with the idea of setting up fake buy orders in mind. People will set up similar real buy orders so it's hard to spot which ones are fake.
I use a Scythe to kill terrible interceptor pilots and I'd be surprised if the Scythe was designed with the idea of me killing bad interceptor pilots in mind. Exploit or not, you be the judge.
edit: ****, beaten by the destroyers example
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 00:30:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Iam Widdershins on 13/01/2011 00:32:28
Originally by: Rytlock Thackaray Ah, gotcha. Well, the idea of having the order go inactive until you can cover it is there, or it could simply be the price to pay for overextending yourself.
Yes; if CCP ever feels they actually want to change this behavior, that's probably along the lines of how they'll do it. There is a lot of extra cruft involved here though; either all a player's market orders have to be rechecked EVERY TIME their wallet balance goes down, or the wallets and skills of the buyer have to be checked EVERY TIME you list market orders. edit: if it's not done every time, you have to check ALL of them periodically, and some invalid orders will still show up on the list. plus there would have to be a special area made for inactive orders with all its UI changes/additions and oh god
This is the sort of hellish thing that developers have good reason to avoid like the plague, especially if it's all in pursuit of decreasing modes of income in their game and making everything squishy and wonderful for incareful market prospectors like our dear OP.
|
Alastor Grimstone
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 01:07:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Alastor Grimstone on 13/01/2011 01:09:59 Edited by: Alastor Grimstone on 13/01/2011 01:08:28 I'm pretty new to this game, but it seems like to me if you try to implement something that clearly mirrors a real world situation, it should behave pretty close to that real world example.
If a buy order is placed on a margin and it gets filled, it is the buyer's responsibility to come up with the money to cover the margin. The seller doesn't care if the buyer has the money or not (and shouldn't), because the 3rd party allowing the buyer the margin is paying the money. The goal of course is for the buyer to sell the commodities for more than they bought them for + fees for profit (usually this occurs later, but not before the contract expires, as the buyer believes the commodity will be worth more than they paid). Otherwise the buyer takes a loss. If you don't have enough money to cover your loss, then the institution who extended the margin to you comes knocking on your door. That same institution will keep an eye on all your margins and usually has some formula to calculate your risk to them based off your current "account" value. If you hit a certain level of risk a margin call is executed, meaning they want you to pay up to a certain balance to lower their risk.
It sounds to me like they never should have implemented margins in this state without all the other parts that make up margins. At the very least named it something else. I'm not saying they should put all this other junk in there (like actual banks / financial institutions), but there is reason why these other rules for margins exist in rl financial markets. |
Serra Polaris
Polaris Operations
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 01:31:00 -
[57]
Originally by: The Slagh Edited by: The Slagh on 12/01/2011 22:28:46
Originally by: Serra Polaris
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
Originally by: Sindayn Itai IMO is CCP legitimises it, it's prob a glitch they don't tend on fixing any time soon :)
Which part of "Working As Intended" says to you that it is "prob a glitch"? Please tell me, I'm writing a paper on people like you and I honestly don't know.
Well has CCP said it's working as intended? It's like dropping more than 6 cans around a gate with the intent to decloak or lag. Dropping cans is legit but it's considered an exploit. I'm not saying this has been classified as an exploit but I'm curious what CCP has to say about it. I'd be surprised if Margin Trading was designed with the idea of setting up fake buy orders in mind. People will set up similar real buy orders so it's hard to spot which ones are fake.
I use a Scythe to kill terrible interceptor pilots and I'd be surprised if the Scythe was designed with the idea of me killing bad interceptor pilots in mind. Exploit or not, you be the judge.
edit: ****, beaten by the destroyers example
Well I responded to the other person, it's up to CCP to decide what is an exploit and what isn't. I'm pretty sure CCP wouldn't be surprised to find out that ships were being used to destroy other ships.
Originally by: Iam Widdershins
CCP's hardline, HTFU stance on player interactions since EVE's inception is what has lead to all the great thefts, coups, and shenanigans that everyone loves about the EVE community so much. This stance is that there are things you can do, and these are fine; scams, lying and double-crossing, theft, etc. are all entirely within the realm of the game. And then there are other things which are clearly wrong (infinite-tracking EWAR wormhole exploit) or give an unfair advantage over other players (lag-bombing to easy-mode people who are jumping/warping to a gate) or both (ferrogel pos-production trick); these rare animals are exploits, which CCP frowns upon from on high. It's a pretty clear distinction. Obvious behavior that is necessary for a skill to function logically in every situation that will arise is different. It is entirely normal for buy orders created with the Margin Trading skill to run out of escrow money without any sort of 'ill intent'. That's the whole point of the skill: don't miss any opportunities to buy while you can.
Well I see 3 different types of "exploits".
1. The infinite tracking ewar and ferrogel trick seem more like bugs to me. By that I mean something happened in the code which produced unintended results. Another example would be the quick warp on large ships that showed up in Apocrypha.
2. Intentional lagging with cans etc and the logon trap are metagaming.
3. When I think of exploits though I think of the lofty scam. Clearly within the rules of the game, but not what CCP wanted to happen.
The examples in #1 are obviously unintended, and when they show up and are fixed immediately. The other 2 depend on what CCP decides.
As for the margin trading scam, it's sort of crossing the line since there's no way to tell if a buy order is legit or fake.
|
Sealiah
Minmatar Coffee Lovers Brewing Club Care Factor
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 10:11:00 -
[58]
Yes - it is very, very bad to do so. Yes - in the real world you would get convicted of commiting a crime for that No - it is not an exploit in the EVE WORLD No - petitioning it will give you nothing, it has been explained many time that THAT is one of the proper ways of using the skill. Although it is against all logic - it should be penalised, all you can do is just wardec the person, it's legit use of game mechanic, although it is using it on purpose, not by accident as you might think was intended when the skill was created.
|
Rytlock Thackaray
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 12:48:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Rytlock Thackaray on 13/01/2011 12:52:42 Edited by: Rytlock Thackaray on 13/01/2011 12:49:09
Originally by: Iam Widdershins Edited by: Iam Widdershins on 13/01/2011 00:32:28
Originally by: Rytlock Thackaray Ah, gotcha. Well, the idea of having the order go inactive until you can cover it is there, or it could simply be the price to pay for overextending yourself.
Yes; if CCP ever feels they actually want to change this behavior, that's probably along the lines of how they'll do it. There is a lot of extra cruft involved here though; either all a player's market orders have to be rechecked EVERY TIME their wallet balance goes down, or the wallets and skills of the buyer have to be checked EVERY TIME you list market orders. edit: if it's not done every time, you have to check ALL of them periodically, and some invalid orders will still show up on the list. plus there would have to be a special area made for inactive orders with all its UI changes/additions and oh god
This is the sort of hellish thing that developers have good reason to avoid like the plague, especially if it's all in pursuit of decreasing modes of income in their game and making everything squishy and wonderful for incareful market prospectors like our dear OP.
I doubt it's as hellish as you'd like people to think. Just a quick, efficient routine to run out and grab the balance and compare that to the persons order data if orders are present. There are other ways as well... if someone posts a buy order then that amount of ISK becomes frozen in their account while the order is active, for example. This wouldn't keep people from cancelling at the last second, but it would keep people from being afk while bogus orders are up.
|
Misunderstood Genius
|
Posted - 2011.01.13 14:44:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Misunderstood Genius on 13/01/2011 14:44:53
Originally by: Christopher AET People sell an item at an inflated price. They then put a buy order and using the margin trading skill so they do not have to pay the full escrow. They then empty the wallet so there is not enough in the wallet to cover the deficit when someone tries to fill the buy order. So the buy order is cancelled.
It's despicable but brilliant.
I am not experienced with the trade mechanics. If it works like this it should be an exploit. It makes no sense that someone can put a buy order up to the market without covering the costs. Therefore noone is able to realize that this is a dead buy order what will vanish in the moment when someone wants to sell to it. Stupid if you ask me and needs a fix: when the buy order is not covered by the wallet it will be canceled or reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |