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) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2906
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 19:49:00 -
[61] - Quote
Matthew wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:RL businesses, just like traders in EvE, can implement good business practices to avoid future losses (like researching the true value of your goods, as well as their sales volume and volatility). Sure, if you order something once and then don't complete, the RL business would generally suck it up. But if you came in and did it every single day, that RL business is quickly going to realise that you are not a legitimate customer and refuse to do business with you. The anonymity of the Eve market and the inability of the market to self-regulate intent in the same way as such human decision-making prevents that from being a viable option, hence why other options like minimum collateral levels are being explored.
So let's remove the anonymity within the EvE market.... I want to see who's placing those buy & sell orders!!! And this would be a good source of potential conflict as people identify their competitors!!!
|
Simc0m
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
91
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 19:52:00 -
[62] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: They do it for 5 items, and place 5 of the same item up for sale in a station 12 jumps away. Sure a player could fly 12 jumps, get one item, bring it back and sell, then repeat 4 more times. But in all likelihood they will buy all 5 so as to do just one trip. Then upon arriving they will succeed in selling one item, and be stuck with 4 that are vastly overpriced.
Or the scammer could just cancel the order after the items are purchased at the distant station. This is more of a hauling scam and I don't think there is any real solution (nor should there be?). |
Lukas Rox
Aideron Technologies
47
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 19:52:00 -
[63] - Quote
Heres a copy of my post from another thread about this issue: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3600276#post3600276
Quote:Margin Trading scams exist because people trust the market too much. In 99.9% of orders they complete, so new players quickly learn to trust the market. And then out of a sudden it fails them, leaving them with an item they never wanted in the first place.
IMO what should be changed is Aura should say something about "dont trust buy orders" in the tutorial:
"Market buy orders can sometimes fail, for example when the buyer does not have enough money to cover the order. Some people can deliberately use this against you."
And that's it I think. If someone didn't run the tutorial, then and only then they can be blamed for their ignorance. Blogging about EVE on http://pozniak.pl/ |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
1925
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 19:53:00 -
[64] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Matthew wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:RL businesses, just like traders in EvE, can implement good business practices to avoid future losses (like researching the true value of your goods, as well as their sales volume and volatility). Sure, if you order something once and then don't complete, the RL business would generally suck it up. But if you came in and did it every single day, that RL business is quickly going to realise that you are not a legitimate customer and refuse to do business with you. The anonymity of the Eve market and the inability of the market to self-regulate intent in the same way as such human decision-making prevents that from being a viable option, hence why other options like minimum collateral levels are being explored. So let's remove the anonymity within the EvE market.... I want to see who's placing those buy & sell orders!!! And this would be a good source of potential conflict as people identify their competitors!!! The anonymity doesn't come from not being able to see who placed the order. The anonymity comes from freely available throwaway alts. |
Chigurh Friendo
Stay Frosty.
34
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 19:55:00 -
[65] - Quote
Rise,
I have a third solution, which basically covers how I manage my own use of the Margin Trading skill as a market player when handling the various debts that I owe to people.
The solution:
For any character with open buy orders (and the margin trading skill), only allow ISK transfers up and to the amount of the difference between the 'wallet balance' and the 'additional isk required to cover' for buy orders.
In practice, supposing that all buy orders filled instantly, the difference between 'wallet balance' and 'total isk required to cover' is the amount of liquid that a player has at their disposal, which they can freely transfer.
Thus, the solution would be that players can still take advantage of the Margin Trading skill to leverage themselves on the market in order to profit at the fastest possible rate as up-and-coming marketeers, but it doesn't allow for the abusive 'empty margin trading buy-order' that exists under the current system.
Proposal Summary:
Maximum ISK Transfer Amount = Wallet Balance - "Additional ISK Required to Cover" |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
1925
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 19:55:00 -
[66] - Quote
Lukas Rox wrote:Heres a copy of my post from another thread about this issue: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3600276#post3600276Quote:Margin Trading scams exist because people trust the market too much. In 99.9% of orders they complete, so new players quickly learn to trust the market. And then out of a sudden it fails them, leaving them with an item they never wanted in the first place.
IMO what should be changed is Aura should say something about "dont trust buy orders" in the tutorial:
"Market buy orders can sometimes fail, for example when the buyer does not have enough money to cover the order. Some people can deliberately use this against you."
And that's it I think. If someone didn't run the tutorial, then and only then they can be blamed for their ignorance. The question is, do we want the UI to intentionally lie to you? Can you name any other aspect of the game where it does?
(API in relation to POS siphons. Yes I'm still kinda mad. [/offtopic]) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2277
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 19:55:00 -
[67] - Quote
Simc0m wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: They do it for 5 items, and place 5 of the same item up for sale in a station 12 jumps away. Sure a player could fly 12 jumps, get one item, bring it back and sell, then repeat 4 more times. But in all likelihood they will buy all 5 so as to do just one trip. Then upon arriving they will succeed in selling one item, and be stuck with 4 that are vastly overpriced.
Or the scammer could just cancel the order after the items are purchased at the distant station. This is more of a hauling scam and I don't think there is any real solution (nor should there be?). Yes they can do that, but that requires they be on 24/7. My way is "fire and forget". http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5567
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 19:57:00 -
[68] - Quote
Simc0m wrote: Really? I would love for you to explain what's wrong with my solution.
as has already been pointed out, you don't even appear to know how to do a margin scam. nobody does it the way you suggest because those are obvious, margin scams are done one of these two ways:
a buy order of one or two will fail with an empty wallet because your escrow is not enough to cover one or two of the item
or you just put up a buy for 100 minimum 1, then sell yourself 24, presto escrow gone and it looks normal
so you should probably know how a margin scam even works before proposing fixes "I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Miranda McLaughlin
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:02:00 -
[69] - Quote
I agree that margin trading in and of itself is not a bad thing. I also agree that margin scams should be, for lack of a better phrase, fought against and that the only way to do this is by providing information to other players.
I don't think that canceling orders based on how much ISK you have in your wallet is a good idea as it ignores the time factor in market activity. The only time that an order should care about how much ISK you have is when it is trying to be fulfilled.
Let's use Rise's example of having a buy order for a thorax for 5 million, another buy order for a rupture for 5 million, and only 7 million ISK in my wallet. If someone then fulfills the thorax order my wallet balance would drop to 2 million ISK leaving me 3 million short for the rupture order. Currently as long as I add the remaining 3 million to my wallet before someone tries to fulfill the rupture order everything is fine. A cancels orders might cancel the rupture order once my wallet drops to 2 million forcing me to, at best, recreate the order. At worst I may not even realize the order was cancelled.
I think there are several things that could be done that, together or individually, would significantly help the problem.
1) Add a column to the market window for whether an order was made on margin or not. This allows people to easily see this information when looking at any order, doesn't add any more complexity to the interface, and allows people to freely ignore the information if they want to.
2) When someone views the information of a buy order it checks the buyer's wallet and tells the seller whether buyer can afford the order at that moment or not. This allows a player to have more confidence in arbitrage and would help protect players from margin scams. I'm debating whether I think it would be a good idea for multiple quantity buy orders to show exactly how many of the item the buyer could afford. I'm leaning more towards no.
3) On the list of my orders show whether or not I can cover the cost of the order. This is more just to help people verify if they have enough ISK in their wallet.
4) I like the idea of being able to "guarantee" an order by putting up the full amount. As I understand it the system currently causes all buy orders to be made using margin trading so you could simply have the option to guarantee but have the default be margin so there really isn't much of a difference. Additionally you could have the option to guarantee the order after it has been placed. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2906
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Matthew wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:RL businesses, just like traders in EvE, can implement good business practices to avoid future losses (like researching the true value of your goods, as well as their sales volume and volatility). Sure, if you order something once and then don't complete, the RL business would generally suck it up. But if you came in and did it every single day, that RL business is quickly going to realise that you are not a legitimate customer and refuse to do business with you. The anonymity of the Eve market and the inability of the market to self-regulate intent in the same way as such human decision-making prevents that from being a viable option, hence why other options like minimum collateral levels are being explored. So let's remove the anonymity within the EvE market.... I want to see who's placing those buy & sell orders!!! And this would be a good source of potential conflict as people identify their competitors!!! The anonymity doesn't come from not being able to see who placed the order. The anonymity comes from freely available throwaway alts.
Actually... I'd like CCP to implement Industrial, Financial, and Market Analysis Agents that allow you to follow the isk trail.
I agree, throw-away alts allow you to hide too much of your identity. But you can also approach this from the opposite perspective, and choose to deal with players that have good reputations.... If I want to buy a supercapital, I go to Chribba...
It won't take long for players to develop reputations for honorable dealings.
Finally, who is hurt buy a failed buy order? Not the informed seller, who bought the goods at a reasonable price knowing that the buy order may fail. The buyer loses some fees, but for the most part, neither party is hurt.
The pain comes when people use buy orders to estimate the true value of a product, and buy an item over-market-value that they can't resell for profit. The onerous is on the reseller here... not on the buyer!
|
|
Noriko Mai
1066
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:05:00 -
[71] - Quote
Chigurh Friendo wrote:Rise,
I have a third solution, which basically covers how I manage my own use of the Margin Trading skill as a market player when handling the various debts that I owe to people.
The solution:
For any character with open buy orders (and the margin trading skill), only allow ISK transfers up and to the amount of the difference between the 'wallet balance' and the 'additional isk required to cover' for buy orders.
In practice, supposing that all buy orders filled instantly, the difference between 'wallet balance' and 'total isk required to cover' is the amount of liquid that a player has at their disposal, which they can freely transfer.
Thus, the solution would be that players can still take advantage of the Margin Trading skill to leverage themselves on the market in order to profit at the fastest possible rate when they are up-and-coming marketeers, but it doesn't allow for the abusive 'empty margin trading buy-order' that exists under the current system.
Proposal Summary:
Maximum ISK Transfer Amount = Wallet Balance - "Additional ISK Required to Cover"
Ok. I buy one Tritanium for one billion from my alt at a different station and transfer the ISK that way...
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2906
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:06:00 -
[72] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote: The question is, do we want the UI to intentionally lie to you? Can you name any other aspect of the game where it does?
(API in relation to POS siphons. Yes I'm still kinda mad. [/offtopic])
Hopefully, when they implement "deployable decoy ships", your overview & dscan will lie to you and inform you there is an avatar at that cyno, when really there isn't!
*edit* Also, many large collideable structures have the names of ships... but you can't fly off with them.... |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
3180
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:26:00 -
[73] - Quote
How about this:
Add an "fillableUnits" field to every order (how many he can actually buy with his current wallet), and a "minimum ISK required" field to each player (the amount needed to completely fill the largest margin order he has outstanding)
Each time a player's wallet amount changes and he had < minimum ISK required either before or after the change, check his active margin buy orders and update the fillableUnits field to be the actual number of units he can buy with the current content of his wallet.
If fillableUnits < minimum units required, display the order in red and do not let a player attempt to fill it.
If fillableUnits < units remaining in the order, display the order in yellow but let it be partially filled.
Send notifications to the buyer when orders go red or yellow.
Recompute the minimum ISK required as needed (for example: fillableUnits changes, or if a margin order is added, cancelled, changed or filled)
At first glance, since most players don't have margin buy orders outstanding, and most of the ones that do aren't playing fancy games and will have > minimum ISK required, this should minimize the cost of implementing the check. Like any honest politician, "My door is always open, and my hand is always out" |
Noriko Mai
1067
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:32:00 -
[74] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:How about this:
Add an "fillableUnits" field to every order (how many he can actually buy with his current wallet), and a "minimum ISK required" field to each player (the amount needed to completely fill the largest margin order he has outstanding)
Each time a player's wallet amount changes and he had < minimum ISK required either before or after the change, check his active margin buy orders and update the fillableUnits field to be the actual number of units he can buy with the current content of his wallet.
If fillableUnits < minimum units required, display the order in red and do not let a player attempt to fill it.
If fillableUnits < units remaining in the order, display the order in yellow but let it be partially filled.
Send notifications to the buyer when orders go red or yellow.
Recompute the minimum ISK required as needed (for example: fillableUnits changes, or if a margin order is added, cancelled, changed or filled)
At first glance, since most players don't have margin buy orders outstanding, and most of the ones that do aren't playing fancy games and will have > minimum ISK required, this should minimize the cost of implementing the check. Why showing them in red and not hide them? I don't want to look at dozens of red orders if the have no meaning for me. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2906
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:35:00 -
[75] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:How about this:
Add an "fillableUnits" field to every order (how many he can actually buy with his current wallet), and a "minimum ISK required" field to each player (the amount needed to completely fill the largest margin order he has outstanding)
Each time a player's wallet amount changes and he had < minimum ISK required either before or after the change, check his active margin buy orders and update the fillableUnits field to be the actual number of units he can buy with the current content of his wallet.
If fillableUnits < minimum units required, display the order in red and do not let a player attempt to fill it.
If fillableUnits < units remaining in the order, display the order in yellow but let it be partially filled.
Send notifications to the buyer when orders go red or yellow.
Recompute the minimum ISK required as needed (for example: fillableUnits changes, or if a margin order is added, cancelled, changed or filled)
At first glance, since most players don't have margin buy orders outstanding, and most of the ones that do aren't playing fancy games and will have > minimum ISK required, this should minimize the cost of implementing the check.
While I don't mind this option... Is this feasible? Anytime someone's personal wallet changes, the server needs to update the legitimacy of all their orders. That overhead, coupled with the sales volume of Amarr, Rens, or Dodixie (let alone Jita) would be brutal!! Is this realistically an option? |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
1928
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:38:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Rise already suggested cancelling the order whenever you don't have enough money, so I would guess that this is feasible. |
Lethin
Aliastra Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:42:00 -
[77] - Quote
Simple option? Once the margin isk is used up, require the character top up the % or the buy is flagged with color text showing its in default until topped up. Or do not show margin orders that have no isk behind them? |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
622
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:43:00 -
[78] - Quote
If a market order fails, the player should forfeit their escrow for that buy order and their Margin Trading skill gets reset to I. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Chigurh Friendo
Stay Frosty.
34
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:53:00 -
[79] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:Automatically cancel any orders where the 'Minimum Buy Volume' * 'Price per unit' is greater than the amount in your wallet
Supported, server load issues notwithstanding. |
Armakoir
Sessrumnir's Chosen
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:56:00 -
[80] - Quote
A simple suggestion in terms of coding (presumably): what if character info for buyers and sellers was accessible through the market window?
This would keep the responsibility in the hands of the selling player, which I think is the best--and most capitalistic--approach. Allowing players to see who is selling and buying would allow for communication between buyer and seller, and in the case of honest orders, allow for API verification that the order would go through. It would also allow for the building of reputations, both good and bad--and would put solving the problem in the hands of the Eve community. This solution would also not eliminate the potential for such scams all together. This solution would also have more complex ramifications, but I think these would generally be good (ie. things going boom).
I recognize that brokers actually handle the buying and selling, but perhaps it's time for the privacy "laws" of New Eden to change? Or perhaps there is some other initial design reason why this information has never been available on the market screen and it's time to readdress that reason? |
|
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
127
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 20:56:00 -
[81] - Quote
IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
1930
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:04:00 -
[82] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer. Because of throwaway alts. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2908
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:05:00 -
[83] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer.
Two points:
a.) Killrights on the player if you sell to their buy order and the order fails.... This would be awesome... but pragmatically people would easily avoid it using alts.
b.) The amount of isk you pay in brokers fees is dependent on your standings with the NPC owning the station. Failed buy orders resulting in standings hits would increase brokers fees and the cost of setting this up. Pragmatically though, the profit from a well-executed margin trade scam will trivialize these fees.
Arthur Aihaken wrote:If a market order fails, the player should forfeit their escrow for that buy order and their Margin Trading skill gets reset to I.
You can drain the isk in your escrow by selling yourself items right after you set up the buy order. This is often done to prevent clever marketeers claiming the isk in your escrow account when you setup an obnoxiously overpriced buy order. |
Chigurh Friendo
Stay Frosty.
34
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:07:00 -
[84] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:Chigurh Friendo wrote:Rise,
I have a third solution, which basically covers how I manage my own use of the Margin Trading skill as a market player when handling the various debts that I owe to people.
The solution:
For any character with open buy orders (and the margin trading skill), only allow ISK transfers up and to the amount of the difference between the 'wallet balance' and the 'additional isk required to cover' for buy orders.
In practice, supposing that all buy orders filled instantly, the difference between 'wallet balance' and 'total isk required to cover' is the amount of liquid that a player has at their disposal, which they can freely transfer.
Thus, the solution would be that players can still take advantage of the Margin Trading skill to leverage themselves on the market in order to profit at the fastest possible rate when they are up-and-coming marketeers, but it doesn't allow for the abusive 'empty margin trading buy-order' that exists under the current system.
Proposal Summary:
Maximum ISK Transfer Amount = Wallet Balance - "Additional ISK Required to Cover"
Ok. I buy one Tritanium for one billion from my alt at a different station and transfer the ISK that way...
I agree. This proposal fails, too. That is, there are workarounds not limited to over-buys on alt-items in obscure market locations and more straight-forward contractual over-buys.
It seems to me that the problem with the Margin Trading skill is the issuance of leverage without collateral... There's no security backing up the debt that is granted. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4309
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:09:00 -
[85] - Quote
Simc0m wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: This is often coupled with contracts to sell their goods, or with goods located in a different station in system. That's not a margin trading scam. "Order cancel scams" are a completely different kind of scam whereby the buy order does not FAIL due to insufficient isk but is manually canceled after the sell contract is accepted.
Nope. "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 |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2908
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:21:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: A second possibility, which emerged from the discussion with the CSM, 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.
I find this an acceptable thing to implement...
However, does anyone believe this will solve anything?
As a legitimate trader that places buy orders in market hubs and mission/production/harvesting systems, players are going to sell to the highest buyer (they don't even get a choice). As a trader maximizing my isk potential, I'm very rarely going to choose to setup an order up-fronting the full value when I can hold on to my isk instead, and I really, really, really doubt other marketeers will too. As such, 90% of buy orders will still be flagged as "placed using margin trading". The 10% that aren't will be unskilled players or off-the-beaten-path traders luring people to their system. My point: To any new player, they will still experience 99.9% of all market buy orders being fulfilled regardless of the Margin Trade Flag. This will result in the same situation we have now:
Buy orders are not guaranteed. Players will assume they are valid, and will continue to fall for the margin trade scam.
At the end of the day, unless you prevent incompletable buy orders from appearing on the market, CCP Needs to drive home the notion that "Buy orders are NOT guaranteed".
|
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
127
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:23:00 -
[87] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Berluth Luthian wrote:IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer. Two points: a.) Killrights on the player if you sell to their buy order and the order fails.... This would be awesome... but pragmatically people would easily avoid it using alts. b.) The amount of isk you pay in brokers fees is dependent on your standings with the NPC owning the station. Failed buy orders resulting in standings hits would increase brokers fees and the cost of setting this up. Pragmatically though, the profit from a well-executed margin trade scam will trivialize these fees. Arthur Aihaken wrote:If a market order fails, the player should forfeit their escrow for that buy order and their Margin Trading skill gets reset to I. You can drain the isk in your escrow by selling yourself items right after you set up the buy order. This is often done to prevent clever marketeers claiming the isk in your escrow account when you setup an obnoxiously overpriced buy order.
The biggest thing that I think standings effects would do though is increase the transaction costs and risks for the margin trader. For every scam he wants to set up, he has to pay a fee, for every one that fails that's sunk costs. For every person that looks at his bio and sees negative sec status, that's one less customer. He may be clever enough to turn a profit still, but he has to be extremely efficient at it, and he has to deal with the many costs of doing dirty business. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
944
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:27:00 -
[88] - Quote
mynnna wrote: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.
I too agree with this completely.
If a player lies to get your isk, awesome, thats EVE.
If the interface lies to get your isk, that should probably get looked at.
On the same point, this is the main reason the in game font should be fixed so that different letters always look different. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2909
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:28:00 -
[89] - Quote
Here's kind of a low-overhead addendum to Trevor's idea: Rather than have the market auto-populate red and yellow and green orders. How about we setup a market query function.
Want to know the status of a buy order... right click and query the order. At this point, the "broker" double checks if funds are available for completing the transaction.
If funds are available, it gives you the green light. If funds are NOT available to complete the minimum order, it automatically cancels the order.
The querry function should cost you.... say 50k isk to perform.
Now the players can vet the market on their own, it doesn't cause nearly as much crazy overhead in market systems, and we can all have our margin trade orders and enjoy them too!
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
115
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 21:30:00 -
[90] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer.
No because of scams. There are some people who create juicy couriers in lowsec on kickout stations with just enough m3 that you cannot use frigs or stabbed haulers/cloaky haulers and then they catch the hauler and kill it on station. After that the courier taker has to cancel the contract. I don't see why these people should be punished twice; once by losing the collateral and secondly by penalizing their standing. |
|
|
|
|
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 |