Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
3200
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a problem that my team has been hoping to fix for quite some time now. We were prepared to make changes for the Rubicon release but after a lengthy discussion with the CSM we didn't feel satisfied with current solutions and so now we want to open up the discussion to you guys for help.
In case you aren't sure what I'm talking about:
The Margin Trading Scam exploits the mechanic where a character with the Margin Trading skill can place buy orders and only place a portion of the ISK in escrow. If they then transfer all of their ISK away, the order will fail when someone tries to sell to it, essentially allowing them to make a fake buy order. Usually this means players make purchases that are grossly overpriced with the expectation that they can sell them to the margin trading-based buy order and make money, but instead are left with a pile of items that they will have to take a loss on.
I want to make another thing clear about this issue which came up when talking with the CSM:
This isn't about scamming or whether or not it's okay for people to trick other people, which is obviously extremely EVE and we have no problem with. The issue here is that the client (via the market interface) is essentially lying to the player by showing an order which can't actually be filled.
The solution we proposed to the CSM initially was based around the idea that if you didn't have enough money in your wallet to back an order, that order would be cancelled. This would still allow traders to benefit from being able to have multiple orders for which they couldn't cover the total. For example, I could have one buy order for a thorax at 5 mil, and another order for a rupture at 5 mil with only 7 mil in my wallet. If my wallet went below 5mil, it would cancel both orders.
There are several problems with this solution, this biggest of which is that it puts unwanted pressure on legitimate up-and-coming market traders who need to be able to leverage the ISK they have. There is also a lot of advanced market gameplay around putting up very large buy orders which you can't technically cover, but which also will never realistically get filled. If you guys have feelings either way about this solution please share.
A second possibility which emerged from the discussion was built around marking orders in the market interface based on whether or not they were placed using margin trading. This would mean that when you place a buy order you would have to decide whether that would be a 'guaranteed' order or not, and then it would be marked (colored or check boxed or something) in the market interface so that people would know whether there was risk involved in trying to fill the order. This has several problems also, including: making legitimate market activity seem shady, making the interface more confusing, adding clicks for people placing orders and also costing new players money by steering them away from cheaper orders because of fear of scams.
It's a complex problem and we want to handle it carefully but we would appreciate any ideas or insights you guys can provide to help us.
Thanks!
|
|
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
193
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm all for the removal of the margin trading scam; I think something that appears to work in the market UI (selling a valuable item in the case of the scam) should work. Scams should in my opinion require some human error (ex selling 2 plex for 1 or w/e), not just not understanding how the orders work. |
Livonian
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
13
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
So when the order is canceled will tax/fees be refunded? Because that is one of the benefits of leaving the order up even if you don't have the isk to fill it, especially on larger orders. For new traders this would mean cutting into their already tiny profit if they don't get a chance to buy and then sell items to cover the fees. |
Thomas Hurt
Fiend Cartel
189
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Allow short sales and leveraged trades funded by some $$$ taken out of the player's RL debit account and held in escrow |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2319
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Destoya wrote:I'm all for the removal of the margin trading scam; I think something that appears to work in the market UI (selling a valuable item in the case of the scam) should work. Scams should in my opinion require some human error (ex selling 2 plex for 1 or w/e), not just not understanding how the orders work.
Gonna get out in front here and say that this is my viewpoint exactly. Scams are cool, scams that work because the game is lying to you or because the interface is bad/unclear rather than because you talked someone out of their stuff, less so. But wrecking the many legitimate uses of the skill is also not cool, so let's hear your ideas. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5564
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm not sure if I like the colored orders, but one thing I do like is the ability to actually force more escrow in than required because once you've trained margin trading it can be irritating when you've forgotten it and don't realize how much of the money in your wallet is earmarked for buys. "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Wouldn't it be better to have a more sensible escrow system such that a buy order is always backed by at least x% of its face value? IIRC, the way it works now is that if you post a buy order with Margin Trading V, the game takes 24% of the order's value from your wallet and dumps it into escrow. However, when someone sells to that buy order, they get paid from the escrow rather than from your wallet until the escrow is drained. This is what allows scamming players to create orders with zero backing - they place the order and then immediately buy some of their own goods at a price that will consume all of the escrow money. With the escrow thus removed, they empty the wallet of the selling character leaving a buy order that is backed by no escrow and an empty wallet and therefore cannot ever be filled.
You could change it so that any time someone tried to sell to the order, 24% of the payout would come from the escrow and 76% from the buying character's wallet. That would at least ensure that all orders were backed by the expected percentage and put a cap on the maximum profit achievable from a single fake MT buy order. Ceterum censeo, the RLML and HML nerfs must be undone. |
Grandma Squirel
46
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
What about a penalty paid by the margin trader for a failed order? To start with, the 24% or more that the put down could be paid to the attempted seller; so the seller gets 24% and keeps their item(s). You could ratchet it up and have the penalty that could bring the trader's wallet negative, though obviously, you couldn't give any of the negative wallet penalty to the seller, it would need to just be an isk sink. |
Swiftstrike1
Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black
333
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Give every character a market rating like on eBay. Expressed as a percentage, it would go down every time one of their orders failed to complete for whatever reason. Players could then make the choice as to whether or not they want to accept a buy/sell order based on the issuer's rating. Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0 |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Personally, I think that marking all buy orders made via margin trading is a bad call. All sorts of interesting deceptions can be performed by using this skill, and blatantly calling out which orders are margin traded can deflate some of this.
Some alternatives off the top of my head, not encumbered by any sort of tethering to the reality of the architecture in place:
* Disallow a minimum quantity of more than one (1) when setting up a buy order for more ISK than you can cover. The vast, vast majority of margin trading scams rely on a minimum quantity greater than one. If your goal is to eliminate margin trading scams, this would cover nearly all the bases without adversely harming the legitimate uses of margin trading.
* Only when selling to the top buy order, put in a confirmation prompt if the order is made via margin trading. This would allow margin trading orders to be detected by the process of "probing," but wouldn't reveal the dispensation of the entire buy order stack. This is not ideal, but it is a compromise between revealing everyone's orders and no one's. To reduce complexity, only check this for the "top" buy order in the stack; if I dump 10,000 units and that consumes three separate buy orders, one of which is an unfunded margin lower down, that's my fault and I should be more careful. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
scruff decima
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:24:00 -
[11] - Quote
What about a combination of these solutions: if the character that placed the order can no longer cover it, the order appears greyed out with a mouse over text that explains the problem. Other players selling can then make an informed decision. |
Thomas Hurt
Fiend Cartel
189
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
edit: Better idea, cancel any orders where the "isk required to cover" is greater than the amount left in your wallet. |
Swiftstrike1
Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black
333
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
2nd idea: if a market transaction fails due to margin trading shenanigans, the guilty party cannot place new orders at that station until they have paid a fine to the corporation that owns the station. Fleet Bookmarks New Gravimetric Sites Med Clones 2.0 |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2273
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
Despite the issues I like this solution:
"The solution we proposed to the CSM initially was based around the idea that if you didn't have enough money in your wallet to back an order, that order would be cancelled. "
If fact, there should be sufficient ISK kept in escrow to fully cover the most expensive buy order the trader has up. As orders get filled additional ISK is moved into escrow to keep this amount. If the wallet runs out, orders get canceled (most expensive first) until the amount in escrow is again sufficient to cover the most expensive remaining order.
Doing it that way means the game only need test the escrow amount against the orders, moving ISK and canceling orders as needed, upon an order change or fill. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Nil'kandra
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:45:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ever since I saw that "Market Fine" was an option in your wallet log dropdown, I wondered why it was never implemented for this reason.
You can create a disincentive *and* an isk sink. If people just keep using new chars to get around negative wallet issues in doing this, then you just increased the margin needed to make a scam worth it, making a isk sink and an SP sink that hits the scammers only. People get scammed still because, let's face it, EVE is harsh at times.
Might want to push up the skill needs on the Margin Trade skill while you're at it. SP sink also would be a huge disincentive to scammers. |
SOL Ranger
SOL.
133
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:As I see It this can be solved by making any escrow to be dependently shared among buy orders. Escrow rules:
- A buy order can never be set unless the resulting total amount in escrow covers its value fully.
- When total escrow is going below the value of a buy order your account(wallet) is charged to cover it.
- Failing to cover the attempted charge any buy order which is not covered by total escrow will be immediately removed the very moment this is true.
One important result from this is, the highest buy order will always be the limiting factor, thus you will only engage in business on a level you can actually afford to do business in....
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3585797#post3585797
The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.
|
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
349
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:48:00 -
[17] - Quote
A player (Buyer) creates a buy order and with margin trading and puts 24% of the total buy order in escrow.
The other 74% isk does not come out of player's (Buyer) wallet, but the amount is marked against player's (Buyer) wallet.
Another player (Seller) sells said item against buy order and the player (Buyer) who created the order does not have the isk to fullfill it;
the player's (Buyer) wallet is deducted the isk amount which then becomes a negative amount.
the Player (Seller) receives isk for the item he sells at the buy order price.
I do not agree that a player can use the UI to scam someone. This mechanic needs to be fixed. So if you start to penalize the person who is trying to take advantage of this then it will stop.
The players who actually use this feature the proper way & for the reason it was implemented will not be affected. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2321
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:50:00 -
[18] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:2nd idea: if a market transaction fails due to margin trading shenanigans, the guilty party cannot place new orders at that station until they have paid a fine to the corporation that owns the station.
Grandma Squirel wrote:What about a penalty paid by the margin trader for a failed order? To start with, the 24% or more that the put down could be paid to the attempted seller; so the seller gets 24% and keeps their item(s). You could ratchet it up and have the penalty that could bring the trader's wallet negative, though obviously, you couldn't give any of the negative wallet penalty to the seller, it would need to just be an isk sink.
Both ideas ultimately can hit a legitimate user as well, and while in real world terms the legitimate uses are really sort of odd, they are what they are.
Thomas Hurt wrote:Automatically cancel any orders where the 'Minimum Buy Volume' * 'Price per unit' is greater than the amount in your wallet This isn't bad, I think.
Kyt Thrace wrote:
The players who actually use this feature the proper way & for the reason it was implemented will not be affected.
Qualifiably false. I'd have been penalized repeatedly in my early trading days, and I know many others who used similar techniques. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Maevra
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: The solution we proposed to the CSM initially was based around the idea that if you didn't have enough money in your wallet to back an order, that order would be cancelled. This would still allow traders to benefit from being able to have multiple orders for which they couldn't cover the total. For example, I could have one buy order for a thorax at 5 mil, and another order for a rupture at 5 mil with only 7 mil in my wallet. If my wallet went below 5mil, it would cancel both orders.
How about instead of cancelling the orders if the wallet dipped below the 'fulfillment' total it should reduce the quantity that the market sees as available, only cancelling the order if cash on hand is less than the minimum cost to purchase the minimum quantity of that order? The orders would be updated whenever a transaction occurred (similar to your proposed solution), and it would let marketeers float orders while waiting for revenue, and not immediately cancel everything if their wallet momentarily spiked low.
Situation 1: Marketeer has 10 million ISK on hand, places a buy order for 5 of item A at 2 mil ISK per, and 10 item B at 1 mil ISK per. Initial buy order Status: 5 of item A, 10 of item B Someone sells 3 item B, wallet at 7 mil ISK New State of Buy Orders: 3 of item A, (of max 5) 7 of item B (of max 7) Someone else buys 6 more item B, wallet at 1 mil ISK New State of Buy orders: item A order cancelled due to insufficient funds, 1 of item B.(of max 1)
Situation 2: Marketeer has 10 million cash on hand, places a buy order for 10 of item A at 2 mil ISK per, and a sell order of 10 of item B at 1 mil ISK per Initial buy order status: 5 of item A (of max 10) someone sells 4 of Item A, wallet at 2 New state of buy orders: 1 of item A(of max 6) someone purchases 5 item B, wallet at 7 mil ISK New state of buy orders: 3 of item A(of max 5)
Situation 3: Marketeer has 15 million ISK on hand, places a buy order for 30 of item A at 2 mil ISK per, with a minimum quantity of 5 Initial buy order status: 5 of item A at (of max 30) Someone sells 5 of item A, wallet at 5 mil New state of buy order: buy order cancelled, insufficient isk for minimum quantity |
Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Kyt Thrace wrote:A player (Buyer) creates a buy order and with margin trading and puts 24% of the total buy order in escrow.
The other 74% isk does not come out of player's (Buyer) wallet, but the amount is marked against player's (Buyer) wallet.
Another player (Seller) sells said item against buy order and the player (Buyer) who created the order does not have the isk to fullfill it;
the player's (Buyer) wallet is deducted the isk amount which then becomes a negative amount.
the Player (Seller) receives isk for the item he sells at the buy order price.
I do not agree that a player can use the UI to scam someone. This mechanic needs to be fixed. So if you start to penalize the person who is trying to take advantage of this then it will stop.
The players who actually use this feature the proper way & for the reason it was implemented will not be affected. This doesn't penalize the seller, this allows anyone who can afford an alt account to generate infinite free ISK for themselves by creating buy orders for some trash item (trit at 1b per unit, say) on a throwaway alt in an out of the way station, emptying the alt's wallet, filling the order with their main, and then just letting the alt account with the immensely negative wallet expire. Ceterum censeo, the RLML and HML nerfs must be undone. |
|
Nil'kandra
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:54:00 -
[21] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Thomas Hurt wrote:Automatically cancel any orders where the 'Minimum Buy Volume' * 'Price per unit' is greater than the amount in your wallet This isn't bad, I think.
I disagree due only to practicality concerns. Server load would be unpleasant on the Jita node if it was making this check every time a quantity of isk was deducted from a wallet. |
Hanazava Karyna
The Foundation Of Mammon
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:57:00 -
[22] - Quote
Margin Trading scams are part of Eve, are Eve itself.
Market is PvP and you want to take market's the most gudgeon-killing (and one of the most popular trick in market transations) feature of all time. It's deeply integrated into market logic and I wouldn't even dream about touching those regions. Why would you want to take this out in the first place? To make market childish playground with training wheels? Every investement can be profitable, but the more it's profitable the more dangerous it (potentially) becomes. Sometimes you have to be fast to buy something cheap and sell high, but you have to read with understanding *what* are you buying and *what* are you going to give for it. Read every detail, be fast, think about your decision.. Yeah, think. Because making even 2000% profit seems very legit. And, how weird!, you can only sell those items in a pack of 10! Well, more money!
Don't make market childish playground. You just want to cut out a huge PvP aspect from PvP game. And, just for your information, Eve has one of the best and realistic player-driven market in history of gaming. Think about it. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2321
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:57:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nil'kandra wrote:mynnna wrote:Thomas Hurt wrote:Automatically cancel any orders where the 'Minimum Buy Volume' * 'Price per unit' is greater than the amount in your wallet This isn't bad, I think. I disagree due only to practicality concerns. Server load would be unpleasant on the Jita node if it was making this check every time a quantity of isk was deducted from a wallet.
Server load is the downside, yeah, if it's possible for it to be minimized it'd be okay. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Maevra
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
13
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:57:00 -
[24] - Quote
Nil'kandra wrote:mynnna wrote:Thomas Hurt wrote:Automatically cancel any orders where the 'Minimum Buy Volume' * 'Price per unit' is greater than the amount in your wallet This isn't bad, I think. I disagree due only to practicality concerns. Server load would be unpleasant on the Jita node if it was making this check every time a quantity of isk was deducted from a wallet. This is what CCP Rise was proposing so I think they've considered server issues, and I think market interactions don't take place on system servers as they're tied to the regions. |
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
349
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:58:00 -
[25] - Quote
Morwennon wrote:Kyt Thrace wrote:A player (Buyer) creates a buy order and with margin trading and puts 24% of the total buy order in escrow.
The other 74% isk does not come out of player's (Buyer) wallet, but the amount is marked against player's (Buyer) wallet.
Another player (Seller) sells said item against buy order and the player (Buyer) who created the order does not have the isk to fullfill it;
the player's (Buyer) wallet is deducted the isk amount which then becomes a negative amount.
the Player (Seller) receives isk for the item he sells at the buy order price.
I do not agree that a player can use the UI to scam someone. This mechanic needs to be fixed. So if you start to penalize the person who is trying to take advantage of this then it will stop.
The players who actually use this feature the proper way & for the reason it was implemented will not be affected. This doesn't penalize the seller, this allows anyone who can afford an alt account to generate infinite free ISK for themselves by creating buy orders for some trash item (trit at 1b per unit, say) on a throwaway alt in an out of the way station, emptying the alt's wallet, filling the order with their main, and then just letting the alt account with the immensely negative wallet expire.
I got to thinking after I posted this, you are right. Someone would just use this to make free isk.
Forget what I said. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4304
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 17:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:The Margin Trading Scam exploits the mechanic where a character with the Margin Trading skill can place buy orders and only place a portion of the ISK in escrow. If they then transfer all of their ISK away, the order will fail when someone tries to sell to it, essentially allowing them to make a fake buy order. Usually this means players make purchases that are grossly overpriced with the expectation that they can sell them to the margin trading-based buy order and make money, but instead are left with a pile of items that they will have to take a loss on.
The Margin Trading Scam exploit's the mark's credulity and unwillingness to do basic research before investing. The market history window provides more than enough information to allow easy identification of overpriced items.
Bolded the part where you seem to be saying every bit of market PVP is bad. It's a zero sum game, someone wins and someone else loses. Signing up to play (the first bolded bit) exposes you to the risk that you'll be the one losing (the second bolded bit). Neglecting to properly research the game (Market PvP) you're signing up to play increases that risk. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Kal Arkhenty
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 18:03:00 -
[27] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Grandma Squirel wrote:What about a penalty paid by the margin trader for a failed order? To start with, the 24% or more that the put down could be paid to the attempted seller; so the seller gets 24% and keeps their item(s). You could ratchet it up and have the penalty that could bring the trader's wallet negative, though obviously, you couldn't give any of the negative wallet penalty to the seller, it would need to just be an isk sink. Both ideas ultimately can hit a legitimate user as well, and while in real world terms the legitimate uses are really sort of odd, they are what they are. I think being fined for not having enough funds to pay for an order, albeit annoying, is reasonable. In the real world you get fined if you write a check you can't cover. It would force you to pay more attention to how you lay out your buy orders. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2905
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 18:03:00 -
[28] - Quote
I have mixed thoughts on this:
The Margin Trading Scam: The only way the scammer makes any isk at all from a Margin Trade Scam is if they trick a person to purchase overpriced goods directly from them. Any player that actually investigates teh value of the product they are buying won't fall for margin trade scams:
--- Price history gives a solid indication of how much an item has been selling for. --- Sales Volume History gives a solid indication of how rapidly an item moves.
Both of these tell you the volatility of an item, which moreless represents the risk associated with buying an item to resell for profit. A trader willingly assumes this risk when they purchase an item.
IMO, you do not need to change the margin trade skill at all. Instead, CCP needs to make this pointt CRYSTAL CLEAR:
Quote:ALL buy orders are NOT GUARANTEED.
It is that simple.... Put it right on the market interface....
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4305
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 18:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kal Arkhenty wrote:I think being fined for not having enough funds to pay for an order, albeit annoying, is reasonable. In the real world you get fined if you write a check you can't cover. It would force you to pay more attention to how you lay out your buy orders.
You actually don't get fined for writing a check you can't cover. You get fined when someone tries to cash a check you can't cover. It's a pretty important difference.
When you give someone a bad check, you receive something of value, and the person who sold it to you ends up receiving nothing in exchange.
When a margin order fails, you receive nothing and the person who's trying to sell to you loses nothing because no exchange took place. This would be like you writing a check, calling your bank to find your balance is low before giving the check to the seller, and deciding not to complete the transaction. The seller keeps the goods, you keep your lack of money. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Banlish
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Insidious Empire
122
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 18:14:00 -
[30] - Quote
A possible solution What if it was possible to open two market windows on the SAME client and you could 'DEAL LINK' the two items between them, then if the buy order had the isk available the order would show 'GREEN' if the order could not currenly be filled it would show 'RED DO NOT BUY' this would stop a global appearance where someone with big bucks or a ton of supply could nuke out a bunch of orders just because they are a different color(however PLEASE remmber there are color blind people in the world and figure out a fix for them too), but if someone wanted to take the time to MANUALLY link the two orders in the interface they could see the results they need. It would require a 1 minute tutorial video and give the player a reward of like a +1 implant or a week of +1 to all stat training time to watch it and you'd be quite good to go.
A way a VISIBLE TO ALL EASILY market change could be ruthlessly abused. Remember there are those of us with anywhere from 40b to a few trillion lying around, now lets say I wanted to abuse this new mechanic, how would I do it? Well lets say I see 100 market buy orders for a moon mineral, but I see that the bottom 40 of them don't have the isk available. I buy the full amount of moon mineral for the biggest order and try to sell to them all, canceling every order that doesn't have enough isk. THIS COULD BE WORTH IT TO ME if I was trying to corner the market and push it up. Please keep that in mind with how this is handled CSM and Dev like ppl.
Why Margin trading has to at least stay around I personally sell somewhere around 40b to 60b per month of tech two, I invent it all and build it all, but I don't keep enough isk around (10 accounts are expensive) to cover all my supplies up front. Margin trading has allowed me to have 20% of the available isk and put my sell orders up maybe 1% to 2% under market average to get quick sales so I CAN cover my missing isk before the orders are filled.
One thing that might help if you are going to rework Margin Trading anyway Can we get a log of what orders closed unfilled, even a notification of the original order, size and price, nothing worse then putting in a buy order for 12 things, one FAILED being filled 2 minutes after you logged off, the other 11 were filled and you don't know because it's no longer on your buy orders or in your wallet whatsoever. Please give us something that would allow me to sign on, see the 11 and just put up the 12th AGAIN to fill it. Would help market activity.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |