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) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4324
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 21:09:00 -
[181] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:Tippia wrote:Oh, and the buyer might have ran out of money, but that's ok because you are still being 100% protected and you're not going to lose a dime. The purpose of this thread is to eliminate the instance where the buyer has an order up that he can't perform on. Everything you listed is part of normal market game play.
You're right, running out of money is normal gameplay. At which point, the seller is protected by retaining his goods, and the person with the buy order is punished by forfeiting the broker's fees he paid.
Quote:There is no logical reason that such an order should exist. And the broker placing the order wouldn't let someone continue to place worthless orders either. That IS the point of the order guarantee, ie the guarantee that the order is legitimate in the first place and can be completed.
There is no such order guarantee in EVE. EVE's brokers do not provide the exact same service as RL brokers (who act as both a broker and a short term lender providing float). A major use of the Margin Trading skill is to place orders that you cannot complete right now.
From the Broker's point of view, the trader says "I'll be able to cover it by the time someone's ready to sell to it." If that happens, great. If it doesn't, the broker shrugs and declines to complete the order, and the seller is left entirely unharmed.
Quote:No one is looking to guarantee that someone can click a mouse fast enough to get to an order. Jesus, what a straw man argument that is.
What's the difference between being unable to sell to the order you've pegged your hopes on because it's already been completed/cancelled and being unable to do so because the buyer is broke?
The chance that a potential buyer will be unable to pay for ordered goods is the reason why sensible businesses require deposits or cash up front before beginning special orders. "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 |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 21:24:00 -
[182] - Quote
Tippia wrote:including there not being enough ISK at the other end. So I'm questioning why it needs to be addressed at all since it makes absolutely no difference for the seller why the order failed.
It makes a difference to the buyer since it isn't a real order.
Quote:Sure there is: the buyer might be able to get the ISK back in there before anyone tries to sell to it. Again, saying that it shouldn't exist is like saying that an order that the buyer is going to cancel or adjust in very soon should not exist. After all, you won't be able to sell it either, and on your end, it will be the exact same thing.
What a wonderful leap of logic. Now an order that can't be performed on is the same as one that might be changed soon.
Quote:The problem you're seeing is that the information you should be looking at isn't the one you're looking at. So fix that problem. Don't make arbitrary rules about which failed sales should be burdened with because that just makes the entire market inconsistent and ineffective.
Please explain how eliminating fake orders from the system makes the entire market inconsistent and ineffective. It seems the opposite would be true.
Quote:Not really, no. If people start suggesting that they should be guaranteed to sell to any order they see on the market, then it applies equally to all reasons why they might not be able to do so. You may not have fully considered what you were saying, but the ramifications of the kinds of guarantees you're asking for really do go that far.
Please point out what "guarantees I asked for" besides the one where if an order is placed, the person placing it has the ISK to execute it while it is in play
Quote:It's not a straw man GÇö it's explaining to you what you're suggesting. I am fully aware that it's not your intent to suggest that you should be able to sell to orders that no longer exist, but that is still effectively what you're doing. Again, just because you can see an order on the market does not ever mean that you will be able to buy or sell to it. The problem is that people assume that they can GÇö that's the actual knowledge problem that needs fixing. As far as accurate market data goes, it already exists people assume that it is in the order list GÇö that's the other actual knowledge problem that needs fixing.
Again, an order that can't be performed on by the owner has nothing to do with orders that have already been executed or are gone because of lag or anything else. Those are all normal market functions. Fictitious orders generated by clever use of game mechanics are not the same.
|
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 21:37:00 -
[183] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:You're right, running out of money is normal gameplay. At which point, the seller is protected by retaining his goods, and the person with the buy order is punished by forfeiting the broker's fees he paid.
There is no such order guarantee in EVE. EVE's brokers do not provide the exact same service as RL brokers (who act as both a broker and a short term lender providing float).
Of course they don't provide the same services. Even then, they shouldn't keep orders on the market knowing the owners can't perform
Quote:A major use of the Margin Trading skill is to place orders that you cannot complete right now.
Apparently so and for some people it is for placing orders that you never intend to complete, thus this thread.
Quote:From the Broker's point of view, the trader says "I'll be able to cover it by the time someone's ready to sell to it." If that happens, great. If it doesn't, the broker shrugs and declines to complete the order, and the seller is left entirely unharmed.
Except for the part where the order wasn't legitimate and the buyer couldn't perform.
Quote:What's the difference between being unable to sell to the order you've pegged your hopes on because it's already been completed/cancelled and being unable to do so because the buyer is broke?
The chance that a potential buyer will be unable to pay for ordered goods is the reason why sensible businesses require deposits or cash up front before beginning special orders.
The difference is that the order that was completed/cancelled was a legitimate order.
|
Rhivre
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
596
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 21:42:00 -
[184] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
Please point out what "guarantees I asked for" besides the one where if an order is placed, the person placing it has the ISK to execute it while it is in play
So because a tiny % of the market orders are margin scams, you suggest making sure that you always have isk to cover (aka removing margin trading)?
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record....surely it is better that people actually understand what happens on the market? As in, maybe there should be some sort of tutorial which goes into how the market works.
This would also remove other sources of frustration, such as mis-sorted markets (because the game default setup is not by price) causing 100m rifters to be sold.
The buyer loses fees when the margin trade fails....the seller? They have items still to sell.
The outcome is no different than if they arrive at the hub and the order has filled and the one below it is much lower. Everyone talks as if the "victim" ends up losing all their isk. |
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
31
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 21:44:00 -
[185] - Quote
Rhivre wrote:So because a tiny % of the market orders are margin scams, you suggest making sure that you always have isk to cover (aka removing margin trading)?
Feel free to actually read the thread at any time.
|
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
317
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 22:14:00 -
[186] - Quote
So what we want is
1. Margin scamming to still be possible but to have a risk attached to the scammer (which it doesn't currently). 2. The margin trading skill to do pretty much what it does currently for traders. 3. If interesting new gameplay can be generated this would be good. 4. Less bots spamming in local.
From reading most of this thread , stealing some ideas and adding to them i suggest the following.
1. Make sure the minimum escrow is 50% of what it would be with margin trading if you were setting it up now. ie at max skills 12% of outstanding order is the lowest the escrow goes topped up from wallet. 2. If through player manipulation / lack of isk in wallet this isn't possible then the order shows up red in the market and an extra warning added. 3. It is possible once per day to query (for a fee) an order to see if there is enough isk in the players wallet to cover it. If there is enough isk to cover minimum trade volume but not enough for whole order then it is flagged yellow. Your 1 check/day is not consumed. If not enough for minimum order then it will show red (to you). At this point your market contact in gratitude at your discovery of a dodgy order will let you buy the info for that chars other active buy orders and colour codes them green to red. If you try and fill a yellow or red order and it fails 75% of escrow is taken as npc market fines and 25% to person who tryed to buy as a reward for finding it.
Now it should be possible to goto another region buy the scam item for a normal price and liberate some isk from the scammer. cautious and subtle scammers should be able to continue almost as normal. In addition overstretched market players will be vulnerable to other players who take down their market orders and steal their escrow. This will only be possiible if the wallet depletes enough that their is a single order from the many outstanding that can't be covered AND that someone finds it. New skill INSIDER TRADING allows for one extra market check a day with margin trading and a social skill as prereq's. here is a list of all the fiat currencies that didn't end up at zero value.....and here is a list of the places where a currency pegged to a real commodity has successfully co-existed with compound interest....-á Here is a physics professor explaining why sustainable growth isn't a thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY |
Fifth Blade
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
17
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 22:28:00 -
[187] - 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.
There are several problems with this solution, the 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 some 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.
As you have identified, this would pretty much remove the purpose of the skill. Those who use it on a small scale are heavily leveraged, as are those on the larger scale (like myself). To the point where these playstyles simply wouldnt be possible with the new version, rendering the main uses for it....pointless.
I would not object to the colour suggestion, but I don't believe it would give the required clarity while adding concern about legitimate orders.
Thomas Hurt wrote:Automatically cancel any orders where the 'Minimum Buy Volume' * 'Price per unit' is greater than the amount in your wallet +1 on this. Solves the problem even when people clear the escrow as they would not have the required isk as soon as they transfer it. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17484
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 22:40:00 -
[188] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:It makes a difference to the entire market since it isn't a real order. Sure it is. It is as real as every other order out there. It's an order you can try to sell to. With a bit of luck, the conditions that will make it go through will have happened by then; with a bit of bad lack, the conditions that make it fail will be in place instead.
Quote:What a wonderful leap of logic. Now an order that can't be performed on is the same as one that might be changed soon. In what way are they different? Both are orders that you will fail to sell to. Both are orders that will cost the buyer, not you. Both are orders that will sit on the market and be inaccurate or not real. Both lead to the same outcome for both you and the other party. Functionally, there is no difference whatsoever.
Quote:Please explain how eliminating fake orders from the system makes the entire market inconsistent and ineffective. Because there is no such thing as a fake order GÇö none that can be determined mechanically at any rate. There are simply orders on the market that may or may not be possible to fulfil when you press that sell or buy button. Eliminating orders because of some arbitrary definition of GÇ£fakeGÇ¥ means that the market is just as GÇö probably more GÇö inaccurate than if the orders are displayed. Without them, you have no clue what orders are actually available for you to try. I lose out on tons of cash because I sell to a lower price than someone is willing to pay, if they get the money in timeGǪ
Quote:Please point out what "guarantees I asked for" besides the one where if an order is placed, the person placing it has the ISK to execute it while it is in play But that guarantee already exists. What you wanted was that GÇ£buy orders should be guaranteed, [GǪ] You don't have a market without binding buy orders.GÇ¥ In other words, if I see it, I should be able to buy or sell to it GÇö no ifs or buts. That would require tick-by-tick updates on every order in the databse and tick-by-tick updates of the market interface for anyone having a market window open. That seems like an awful lot of needless work compared to just accepting the fact that, no, the order you see might not be there when you try to execute it and that they are only processed when someone actually tries to call in one of those offers.
Quote:Again, an order that can't be performed on by the owner has nothing to do with orders that have already been executed or are gone because of lag or anything else. GǪaside from functionally being the exact same thing for both buyer and seller, and aside from both being normal market functions. Why are you trying to create a distinction that doesn't exist? How is an order that currently can't be paid Gǣnot legitimateGǥ? How do you determine that the buyer isn't trying to get the money in before the order is called?
Again, why are you trying to impose arbitrary mechanical restrictions on what people can and can't do, and wilfully displaying incorrect data on the market, just to fix a problem that is all about people not understanding how the market works; how investments work; and where to find the information they need to make intelligent decisions. Why are you trying to solve an education and information problem through game mechanics rather than by providing education and information?
In fact, I have to ask at this point: what is the actual problem you're trying to solve here? GÇ£Orders not being completed when I try themGÇ¥ is an unacceptable answer because then we have to remove all order manipulation functionality and all time limitations from the game since they will all create that problem. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17484
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 22:43:00 -
[189] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:RubyPorto wrote:A major use of the Margin Trading skill is to place orders that you cannot complete right now. Apparently so and for some people it is for placing orders that you never intend to complete, thus this thread. GǪand the question is: so what? What's the problem?
It's just another order that fails when you try to sell to it, no different than cancelled, modified, outdated, or completed orders. How does it make any difference whatsoever what their intent with the order was when the outcome is exactly the same in all cases? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4325
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 23:17:00 -
[190] - Quote
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:Of course they don't provide the same services. Even then, they shouldn't keep orders on the market knowing the owners can't perform
They don't. That's why the orders cancel as soon as the buyer is unable to produce the cash required for a purchase. Remember, the whole point of the Margin Trading skill is the ability to say "I'll have the money before someone sells me the goods, so put the order up now." Whether there is money to cover the order is of entirely no consequence until someone attempts to fill the order, at which point the Broker checks, and takes the order down.
Quote:Except for the part where the order wasn't legitimate and the buyer couldn't perform.
The order is perfectly legitimate. The market allows you to put less ISK into escrow than is required to cover the entire order. In other words, whether the buyer can complete his end of the order is entirely irrelevant until there's a seller ready to provide goods.
If the buyer can't pay, the order's canceled, the seller loses nothing, and the buyer is out his broker fees.
Quote:The difference is that the order that was completed/cancelled was a legitimate order.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Orders placed using the Margin Trading skill are placed following all the normal rules of the EVE market. That's the very definition of legitimacy. "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 |
|
El Geo
Pathfinders.
170
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 00:20:00 -
[191] - Quote
Electrique Wizard wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Thats it, I'm done making balance threads and sticking to market related threads from now on!
Lot of great feedback here so far. I'll make sure the rest of my team reads this (and whatever gets added over the next few days) and then we'll discuss where to go from here.
Thanks <3 If any change should be made to the market its the simple things. Being able to remove your orders by right clicking it (instead of from Orders) Being able to modify the order amount from Orders and the market screen Being able to modify other aspects aswel (range, time, etc) Being able to specify minimum sell amount (BULK DISCOUNT GET YOUR BULK DISCOUNT)
Yes Yes Yes Yes And corporation roles that reflect corporation orders, i.e multiple players can update and change orders given the right roles? Would also be bloody amazing to see other regions markets, lets be honest, its not like that shouldn't be viable. path-+find-+er (pthfndr, p+ñth-)n. 1. One that discovers a new course or way, especially through or into unexplored regions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvEPathfinders/videos?view=0 |
SJ Astralana
Syncore
14
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 00:51:00 -
[192] - Quote
Well I prefer the mechanic as it is. I may have 20bil in buy orders with 10bil liquidity behind it at times, but my sales exceed my purchases on a daily basis and there's just no risk of not meeting my obligation. Certainly the legitimate uses of the skill far outweigh the illegitimate.
The issue is that some idiot has paid 500mil for something worth 50mil to try to sell it for 1bil, and there's nothing in the escrow system that will get him his 450mil back, nor to provide enough disincentive to the scammer unless he's obliged to cover the order by going into negative isk.
But negative isk doesn't work because that would be an isk faucet of epic proportions, as the buyer would now be the scammer.
I think the simplest solution is to show multi-unit margin orders in red. Attempting to buy that item will pop up a big warning that the buyer proceeds at his own risk. It's the simplest code change, it educates the marks, it doesn't impact legitimate players, and it puts the scammers out of business. SJ Astralana = Danari = Alak D'bor. I don't fuss about which account/toon is logged in, nor do I hide behind alts. |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
110
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 00:57:00 -
[193] - Quote
Magin trading skill is a useful skill. Used as intended it is powerful without doubt. Used with malice it is only powerful if idiots fall for it.
HOW TO NOT FALL FOR A MT SCAM?
Do not respond if an order requires more than 1 unit.
SOOOOOOO
HIGHLIGHT THAT PART OF THE ORDER!
nuff said.
If you nerf this skill please also give me back those skill points. Thanks
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown |
Lord Jita
Lord Jita's Big Gay Corp
84
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 01:05:00 -
[194] - Quote
Querns wrote:
* 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.
Nah, I have seen A LOT of margin scam orders for expensive single unit items like limited ships and apparel, etc. And only SOME of them were me. In fact I used it as a tool to test for and fool market bots and made many billions doing it. It is actually the one tool for screwing up market bots that works. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4328
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 01:29:00 -
[195] - Quote
SJ Astralana wrote:I think the simplest solution is to show multi-unit margin orders in red. Attempting to buy that item will pop up a big warning that the buyer proceeds at his own risk. It's the simplest code change, it educates the marks, it doesn't impact legitimate players, and it puts the scammers out of business.
How would you get a popup when interacting with a sell order or contract for an item based on what *buy orders* may be in existence? Or do you mean that you get a popup when you try to interact with the buy order?
Also, you don't need a minimum quantity greater than 1 to do margin scams.
In other words, I think that's 3-4 false statements out of 4. 1. The simplest change is no change (since there's not actually a problem). 3. It certainly impacts legitimate players (1. Scamming is legitimate gameplay in EVE, 2. An additional popup box every single time you buy something would be a decent sized impact) 4. It fails entirely in putting anyone out of business. "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 |
Aryan Kerrigan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 01:34:00 -
[196] - Quote
There seems to be a lot of confusion in this topic of what the target is.
People keep going on tangents about how to fix the scams, and I'm sitting here thinking "who cares, this is eve, how does that fix their UI problems?" There is one thing that needs to be understood if you want to discuss this:
Elimination of margin trading scams is not the real focus of the discussion.
The only reason CCP is concerned is because their market UI is not representing information accurately to the users and this can be exploited. Yes, it most notably enhances market trading scams, but that is just one byproduct of the issue. If you are to fix "margin trading scams" it should be more of an accidental benefit from your solution to the real issue at hand. The focus should be on how to more accurately represent information to people on the market without gutting or gimping margin traders. It's a bit harder to tackle because you are lying in a sense about how much isk you are pushing onto an order.
You can clearly see in the discussion that people are focusing more on the scam issue than the UI issue in the various attempts to "punish the scammer" by inciting fees, taxes or obstacles in their path. This is completely meaningless as not only does nothing to improve the UI's misrepresentation of orders, but it also misses it's misguided target as scammers use throwaway alts that take their penalties with them to the garbage. Ultimately it would only impact legitimate margin traders and serve no benefit to the trade community. I would ask that you change your perspective to improve the rate of progress in this thread instead of being bogged down in nonsense. |
Rhivre
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
598
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 01:42:00 -
[197] - Quote
Lord Jita wrote:Querns wrote:
* 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.
Nah, I have seen A LOT of margin scam orders for expensive single unit items like limited ships and apparel, etc. And only SOME of them were me. In fact I used it as a tool to test for and fool market bots and made many billions doing it. It is actually the one tool for screwing up market bots that works.
Not to mention ore/mineral/ammo orders often have minimum quantities.
The question seems to be, how do we stop people thinking these are real orders.
Tengu
Nice coat, huh?
|
Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 01:52:00 -
[198] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Actually, I really think this is a "Fix" that doesn't introduce the complexity you suggest, nor require removing the margin trade functionality: Quote:Create 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 isk to perform (say 50k isk) to limit the "spamming" of this function, while still making it available to everyone.
The ideal result: Players can vet the market on their own. This doesn't require nearly as much crazy overhead in market systems, and we can all continue to use our margin trade orders and enjoy them too!
I think something like the suggestion above would work best: a feature that would query the order as needed. I would have the feature report the following:
- "SCC has confirmed that the full order has been guaranteed by escrow funds." - if escrow funds will cover the full amount of the order.
- "SCC has determined that the minimum order amount is covered by escrow funds at this time. The full order cannot be guaranteed." - if escrow funds will cover the minimum order but not the full order.
- "SCC has found that escrow funds will not cover the minimum order. Proceed with caution." - If escrow funds will not even cover the minimum order.
This way, the feature only reports on the amount of outstanding escrow funds deposited for the particular order. This is information that is independent of the buyer's wallet amount, and is as accurate as the system can be.
If the information can be retrieved and presented easily with no/minimal overhead, no fee would be needed. Otherwise, I would suggest a fee associated with the item value, like 5% of buy order price.
Remember, we're only trying to fix a particular edge case: to keep a greedy, careless player from endangering his wallet. This feature would give him the warning that all may not be as it appears. I expect the feature would probably go unused in most day-to-day trading.
Use of this feature should also be added to a tutorial, so new players are aware that the feature exists.
Reporting escrow status on all orders is not reasonable, and not needed. Allowing players to double-check the escrow status of a suspicious order sounds like a good compromise.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5641
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 01:55:00 -
[199] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
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.
I don't really see how the UI is lying when all the info it shows is completely accurate. The fact it doesn't contain info about the status of the buyers wallet and contains orders, that are for any reason currently unable to be fulfilled isn't lying. It's just missing info, that leads to orders having the possibility of failing at the time of the transaction. Assuming that can't happen is just some players making baseless assumptions, that the game gives no real reason for them to make. What ever you want to call it is just rhetoric though, so I won't dwell on it as it serves no constructive purpose.
The real problem you claim you want to fix is orders showing on the market, that can't be fulfilled. I can see 2 basic options for you. Either nerf the margin trading skill and **** off traders to varying degrees based on the severity of the implementation, or just hide problematic orders from the market system until the issuers wallet balance can handle the minimum volume order again. Obviously the second option would be preferable in my view, since it achieves everything you want without having any major negative affect to trading.
How easy it would be to implement and how costly it would be for the servers is something I can't comment on. I do recommend though, that if you can't implement a good solution now, don't implement one. Do it properly and as unobtrusively as possible or don't do it at all. This change is basically aimed at nerfing a scam in order to protect the wallets of greedy traders who don't know the value of the item they're trying to trade in*, so don't expect a lot of sympathy if you nerf competent traders, the market in general or create any other trouble for the players while doing it.
Thanks.
*A non-trader would just buy the overpriced item and use it instead of trying to resell it, so any planned change would not affect his situation nor would he have reasons to complain even by your standards. He just bought an item at the value the market order indicated. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4329
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 02:03:00 -
[200] - Quote
Aryan Kerrigan wrote:The only reason CCP is concerned is because their market UI is not representing information accurately to the users and this can be exploited.
So what's inaccurate about the information that's being presented? "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 |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17491
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 02:15:00 -
[201] - Quote
Aryan Kerrigan wrote:Elimination of margin trading scams is not the real focus of the discussion.
The only reason CCP is concerned is because their market UI is not representing information accurately to the users and this can be exploited. Yes, it most notably enhances market trading scams, but that is just one byproduct of the issue. If you are to fix "margin trading scams" it should be more of an accidental benefit from your solution to the real issue at hand. The focus should be on how to more accurately represent information to people on the market without gutting or gimping margin traders. It's a bit harder to tackle because you are lying in a sense about how much isk you are pushing onto an order. The question is, what's GÇ£not accurateGÇ¥ here? I think that's the major hang-up for me.
The price is accurate if the ISK is there, and tbh, I don't really see that the state of someone else's wallet is my business. Not to mention that this state will change from one second to the next. Imagine the server load if the market is supposed to check every order for Gǣmargin tradeGǥ flag and then poll each and every one of those wallets every time someone pulls down the market info for an itemGǪ and even then, it'll be inaccurate unless it pushes updates to everyone watching at any time when any of those wallets change.
I still only see inaccuracies in people's assumptions about what the market window is telling them, so the better strategy to my mind is to go after those assumptions. A market order is a market order is a market order. Some fail (for any of a myriad of reasons) and some will go through, and I'm already fully protected regardless since no trade ever takes place without both sides getting what they asked for. Maybe if some of the price history or deviation-from-average information was moved directly to the market listing itself rather than hidden in a separate tab or in the buy/sell dialogue? That would give the double information of GÇ£here's the potential offer, and here's what the market says it's actually worth in practiceGÇ¥.
The mechanics work. The information and education about them less so. The notion that some orders should be market is fraught with technical problems, not to mention that it would largely be pointless anyway unless they completely reprogrammed how the market worked. Yay, now the MT orders are highlightedGǪ so what? That will still be the vast majority of them, which means there's too much noise to make any good decisions anyway. And I'll still can't pick who I'm buying from or selling to, and GǣfixingGǥ that makes the market inefficient. Those who are afraid of not getting their stuff sold are still better served by the price history, because that's where the information they need sits.
Drab Cane wrote:Remember, we're only trying to fix a particular edge case: to keep a greedy, careless player from endangering his wallet. This feature would give him the warning that all may not be as it appears. Why does this edge case need to be fixed? Especially considering that it's not really what we're trying to fix, which is any supposed inaccuracies in the market UIGǪ if any such can really be determined. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
106
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 03:09:00 -
[202] - Quote
Just going to add my voice to those that want better education of new players and not a change to a useful skill. I can not see any change that doesn't in some way nerf the effectiveness of the skill and any change doesn't fix the problem as market scams could still happen even if the skill is removed. |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
340
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 03:57:00 -
[203] - Quote
Make it so you escrow enough isk to cover 1 unit on every buy order.
Or make this apply when there is no competition on buy orders.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
218
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 04:44:00 -
[204] - Quote
As a former margin trade scammer, one of MY biggest problems with the mechanic, from a game design point of view, is that the buy order escrow gets depleted for before the player's on-hand cash.
This allows a margin trade scammer to make the buy order for two items instead of one - then he or she sells one of the items back to themselves for exactly the amount in escrow, then empties the cash out of their account.
The less experienced scammers don't do that though. They just train margin trading and then put the officer mod or w/e up for sale. When this happens, even if there is 0 cash in the account, you can still sell the item to the buy order for a minimum of 25% of the buy order's listed value.
If you set it up so that escrow gets depleted proportionally to on-hand cash, then scammers no longer have a way to completely empty out their accounts. Counter-scammers can then sell items into the buy orders at 25%. You'll find that the number of margin trade scammers will dry up really damn quick if it's possible to take their money from them. |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
161
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 05:40:00 -
[205] - Quote
Before reading the replies of others, my first thoughts;
If we would choose the CSM option, my trading alts need the option to place an order as Secure or as Margin traded. So it would require an option that you have to select.
Like others said before, this could also be done by reimbursting the Margin Trade skill and offer anyone this choice, it would even out the playing field. |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
161
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 06:01:00 -
[206] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:What if CCP just told everyone that buy orders are NOT GUARANTEED.... Why should a buy order be not guaranteed? It's one thing if you are late and someone else filled it, but if you are in time and can't sell because of some ingame mechanics... I think at least the minimum volume or 24% (the higher of this two) must be guaranteed.
Do you know that a lot of manufacturers get payed after the sale in the store itself, or even 90 days after the sale of an item? ... so that can be weeks / months after final construction. So 'buy' orders from those manufacturers are all filled by people who have no guarantees at the moment of a default by the retailer. None. (An example is DELL).
Those industrialists trust the buy orders, because of research (Balance Ratio's, Stock price, Ratings) ... just like you can do in EVE. Trading is a risky business, dont go into it blind. No change would be needed to the current system.
Helping inexperienced people is another matter entirely. Showing them that margin traded orders are around would not be a problem in my view.
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
161
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 06:12:00 -
[207] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Instead of cancelling the order, can you just hide it while the buyer doesn't have enough money to cover buying the minimum volume? A hidden order will not be visible in the market window, and won't be attempted to be sold to. When the buyer acquires enough ISK to cover the minimum quantity, the order will appear again.
This does nothing to legitimate traders, as your order is only hidden while you wouldn't be able to utilize it anyway. Even better, your order won't be cancelled and you won't lose broker fees if you temporarily run out of money and someone tries to sell to you. Scams would be obviously eliminated.
I agree that scams using deceit, misplaced trust or false advertising are okay. Scams using faults of deficient UI are bad. (And the correct solution is not to hand out bans, but to fix the UI problems in the first place.)
"Don't count on the order being displayed being there tomorrow" (or in an hour) is a good rule. "Don't count on the order being displayed being there *now*" is bad UI.
But consider that the "hidden" orders then still would use up Order Slots on your characters account. |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
161
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 06:52:00 -
[208] - Quote
Xqpvqsvs Qr'atyuqink wrote:...
And this is the best way to do it, well maybe except of fix where u are placing exact amount of isk into order u are creating. Its simple and easy to understand. Every other way will be time consuming and wont work as good. Reason is simple - world just doesny work like margin trading skill. ...
The world works exactly like this.
Banks work with 'Leverage' on loans, on inter-banking loans, etc. Its how the world is financed.
Another example of this in RL is Corporations on the end of supply chains who 'Leverage' risks by moving the risk to the manufacturers in the world. The bigger the retailer, the higher the Leverage they put on their debt. Think a Wall-Markt, DELL, Amazon, etc. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
291
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 07:28:00 -
[209] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:The world works exactly like this. Amazingly enough though, the real world is not EvE. You don't get to biomass yourself and start over to avoid consequences. When you screw somebody over in EvE, they don't get to take you to court for fraud and have you thrown in EvE-jail. EvE is a game. It does not adhere to real life examples. |
hmskrecik
TransMine Group German Information Network Alliance
137
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 08:39:00 -
[210] - Quote
The whole thread is rather out of my main areas of interest so I'll just drop my two cents. Apologies if it was already covered
Thomas Hurt wrote:Automatically cancel any orders where the 'Minimum Buy Volume' * 'Price per unit' is greater than the amount in your wallet plus
Vincent Athena wrote:Another possibility is not canceling the order, but temporarily suspending it. The order would be reactivated automatically if and when funds become available.
I think addresses it best. Not even need to issue reactivation penalty. Legit trader can find himself low on cash and so orders will be suspended (should be removed from the list or marked as such). Scammer can still scam but then he has to work on it, as opposed to almost effortless thing we have now.
Server load is a matter of proper algorithm. Just out of whack one thing which comes to mind is to create sorted high watermark list for each trader, which list could be checked against balance change. Another improvement would be to make it delayed operation (like ticks from missions) which incidentally could open interesting possibilities with scammer having 20 minute window when he can pull it off like in old days. |
|
|
|
|
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 |