EVE Search - Why is the market anonymous? More transparency please.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why is the market anonymous? More transparency please.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Buck Futz New Order Logistics CODE. 151	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:11:00 - [1] - Quote TLDR; Players who create buy/sell orders on the EVE's public market should be visible, rather than 'anonymous until interacted with'. This would improve the game significantly, with relatively little programming effort on CCP's part. One thing I have always wondered about it why it isn't possible to identify which players are creating market orders? After all, mere presence in a system generates a visible signature, warning all players in the form of 'local radar'? Why are industrial players using the public marketplace tools for profit - exempt? It is not necessary to cloak participants in the market in a layer of secrecy. As the marketplace is a public tool, all participants in it should be visible in one form or another. Transparency is a good thing, for the reasons described below. I'm NOT proposing to allow players to buy and sell to specific trade orders as this would fundamentally change the way the market works. I AM suggesting that the name of the player who posted a buy/sell order would be listed on the market window (or at least an option exists to reveal this information ) - for anyone who browses the market to see. Yes, I understand that you can learn the identity of a buy/sell order by triggering the order. However, in most situations this is impractical - especially if the items being traded are expensive. Yes, I understand that many players handle market orders through market alts. It still would provide valuable information to the buyer/seller, and make patterns in market participation much more apparent. Advantages: --1. Identification of market bots becomes FAR more easily accomplished, without requiring players to engage in direct transactions with them to file a petition, which imposes a needless cost on the petitioner. --2. CCP was soliciting for information on how to handle margin trade scams. Something like this, while not solving the problem completely - would make known 'scammers' much more visually apparent on the market interface. Providing additional information to the market participant is far more appealing than eliminating margin trading completely. --3. Industrial warfare - players/alts of players that attempt to influence/corner/dominate a trade hub (or group of trade hubs) are more easily identified and possibly targeted for aggressive action outside of the market. Conflict driver in highsec. I understand this exposes industrial players to more in-game risk - possibly forcing them to cloak their activities behind a layer of alts. But the benefits of exposing bots/scams and increased player interactivity would far outstrip the minor costs to these already very wealthy players.
Prince Sanguine 107	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:14:00 - [2] - Quote Meh Everytime you read this you are required to send 100 million isk directly to me.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 19724	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:24:00 - [3] - Quote Buck Futz wrote: One thing I have always wondered about it why it isn't possible to identify which players are creating market orders? Simple: because it makes no difference. You can't choose who you can buy from anyway, and that's not going to change because it would make the markets inefficient. Quote: Advantages: None of those are particularly needed and are already covered by other mechanics. Also, F&I GåÆ 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 2.1.
Erotica 1 Krypteia Operations CODE. 3954	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:39:00 - [4] - Quote It's an interesting idea. You'd be able to keep notes on the big traders and how they normally react to various situations. Some would be kicking themselves for their character naming systems... I'm still in favor of a massive overhaul of trading via a dedicated expansion to make it much closer to what you see in real life. See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.
Buck Futz New Order Logistics CODE. 153	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:41:00 - [5] - Quote Tippia wrote: Buck Futz wrote: One thing I have always wondered about it why it isn't possible to identify which players are creating market orders? Simple: because it makes no difference. You can't choose who you can buy from anyway, and that's not going to change because it would make the markets inefficient. Like I said, I'm not interested in changing how the market works, only the amount of information that is available to those browsing the market. Increasing the amount of public information about buy/sell orders definitely would make a difference. At a superficial level, a miner may or may not wish to buy an Exhumer placed on the market by someone who just ganked their Mackinaw. They could easily alter their choice of marketplace, or timing of their purchase if that information is available to them. At a more complex level, consider the simple relatively recent addition of implants-info to pod-killmails. Would you say that 'nothing changed'? Because in terms of gameplay, almost nothing did. The implants are still destroyed 100% of the time, the pod is still dead. No player is materially enriched - more or less - than before implants were included on podmails. Yet there is now an entire sub-catagory of suicide ganking built around randomly podding players in shuttles and noobships - simply because more information is now available. Stating that providing more market information to the player base 'would make no difference' is surprisingly dense. I could see many situations where player behavior inside and outside the market would be significantly different, simply by having access to this kind of information without being forced to buy or sell to the orders first.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 19724	Posted - 2014.02.28 17:51:00 - [6] - Quote Buck Futz wrote: Like I said, I'm not interested in changing how the market works, only the amount of information that is available to those browsing the market. GÇªwhich changes how the market works, and for no particular reason. All your supposed GÇ£advantagesGÇ¥ are already covered. Quote: Stating that providing more market information to the player base 'would make no difference' is surprisingly dense. Good thing that I didn't say that, then. You seem to suggest that it doesn't, though, since you don't intend to change how the market works. Also, F&I GåÆ 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 2.1.
Buck Futz New Order Logistics CODE. 153	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:11:00 - [7] - Quote You said 'because it makes no difference'. Please explain what you meant. Maybe our definitions of 'it' differ. In my universe, 'It' is the simple act of providing a tab on the market window that identifies the 'owner' of the market order, visible to all. When I said I am not interested in changing 'how the market works', I meant that the market functions in a similar fashion - the highest buy orders and lowest sell orders are automatically filled, in the order in which they exist. The actual mechanics of how the market 'works' will not change, nor am I interested in that sort of change, so lets not waste time with that particular straw man. You don't need to change the transactional workings of the market to change how individuals respond to the information the market provides. I've already illustrated that for you. Please explain why such a change would 'make no difference' , as you seem to suggest it would be a pointless waste of time for CCP to address it? I fail to see how it is 'redundant'. Currently the only way to learn about other participants in the market is to buy and sell with them directly - and this is a heavy burden to impose on a player if the items traded are multiple massive stockpiles of materials - or expensive items such as Jump Freighters.
Batelle HOMELE55 1995	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:16:00 - [8] - Quote alts would protect the seller anyway, even if they could still be identified. it would reduce the efficiency of the market. Players can't ban people, so players don't particularly need to identify market bots. CCP knows who put up which order. I would still be in favor of this. Maybe the one downside is that it would make npc market alts more important to have, which I am not in favor of doing. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!" Never forget.
Seven Koskanaiken Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 915	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:19:00 - [9] - Quote We could refuse business to people when we disagree with their...choice of play style. Just like Arizona.
Miriya Zakalwe Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 88	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:28:00 - [10] - Quote Ooh. This would be awesome. You could correlate players with money and use locator agents to maximize your ganknado return.
Caviar Liberta Moira. Villore Accords 462	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:39:00 - [11] - Quote Tippia wrote: Buck Futz wrote: One thing I have always wondered about it why it isn't possible to identify which players are creating market orders? Simple: because it makes no difference. You can't choose who you can buy from anyway, and that's not going to change because it would make the markets inefficient. Not only that, the player you might be trying to keep from buying from could just push sells orders through an alt you don't know about.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 19725	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:42:00 - [12] - Quote Buck Futz wrote: You said 'because it makes no difference'. Please explain what you meant. Please read what I said in full. Quote: I fail to see how it is 'redundant'. Because the information is already available and, as others are pointing out, pretty meaningless. Also, F&I GåÆ 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 2.1.
LUMINOUS SPIRIT The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 130	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:44:00 - [13] - Quote The proposed change would seriously affect market interaction. With locator agents and watch lists you could very easily work out who is alt thats related to hauling and selling huge tons of sleeper loots for example, or regular officer mods. Makes piracy easier. Makes trading riskier.
AnotherUseless Alt Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 17	Posted - 2014.02.28 19:03:00 - [14] - Quote Clearly you don't get EvE. CCP intentional codes in this manner to allow even the most incompetent of scammers to actually be able to scam. Let's face it, the average scammer has the intelligence of a three-legged frog on steroids, 90% of them are unable to come up with an original scam, and simply copy what they see. Without CCP's help, the scamming community would be dead. "Self help is all in your head"
Buck Futz New Order Logistics CODE. 158	Posted - 2014.02.28 21:36:00 - [15] - Quote Certainly, it makes trading riskier. It facilitates market PVP - outside of simple .01 games and attempt to manipulate/corner markets - by helping move the warfare outside of the marketplace. Supply chains could be more easily identified if players were not required to first buy or sell to orders to learn the identity of the owner. The market would lend itself to greatly simplified information gathering for traders and non-traders alike. Tippia wrote: Simple: because it makes no difference. You can't choose who you can buy from anyway, and that's not going to change because it would make the markets inefficient. OK, this is your quote in its entirety. I've already demonstrated how it would 'make a difference'. You stated that a player cannot 'choose' who to buy from. This is false. I'll provide another simple hypothetical to disprove your statement. Suppose a trade alt is named "AryanNations69" or something to that effect. It could have a significant impact on the number of players willing to buy/sell an item from that player. A player may choose to postpone a purchase until another order underbids. A player may also choose to buy from another station. If that hypothetical racist market alt is involved in trading in high-priced, low-turnover items like Jump Freighters or Slave Sets, it could be a very long time, indeed, before someone decided to interact with that order. Not all players are solely influenced by the pricepoint of an item, if more information is available. Hell, the entire organic food/'free range' chicken egg market is built on this concept. Now replace the 'racial nametag' disincentive to interact with that alt - with any other you can imagine in EVE. A player can choose to activate an order, or not activate an order. Knowing which player set up the order can impact that decision. Perhaps you are referring to the issue of NPC alts. NPC are currently used to cloak relationships between characters, yes. However: - Not everyone uses market alts - or wishes to employ them. There IS a cost involved. - Even knowing the market patterns of alts can be valuable information, making it easier to track which items they tend to trade in, when they tend to update orders - without first requiring you trade with them. -Finally, even the cloak around alts can be penetrated. For example - scan freighters incoming to a trade hub. A large stack of 20 Falcons is noted. Within 5 minutes, a large sell order of 20 Falcons is placed on the market under an NPC alt. You now have established a relationship between the nameless alt and the freighter pilot. And here is the important bit - WITHOUT being required to buy a Falcon from them first. Further investigation of the freighter pilot could lead to the identity of the manufacturer and the source of the Falcons. If a competitor wishes to engage in industrial warfare with that market alt - wardecs, awoxing and suicide ganking could follow. I'm still kind of mystified why you think it would be 'a bad idea', or merely a waste of CCP programming resources. You certainly seem to be in the minority.
Divine Entervention The Lonetrek Militia Rapidus Incitus Pactum 91	Posted - 2014.02.28 21:38:00 - [16] - Quote I agree. It would add an ability to make the choice to not buy from specific people. In a game all about choices, being able to choose to avoid purchasing from specific people sounds like sandbox content generation. Thanks for the suggestion, it's fantastic.

ISD Tyrozan ISD Community Communications Liaisons 378	Posted - 2014.02.28 21:51:00 - [17] - Quote Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion. ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department @ISDTyrozan \| @ISD_CCL

Buck Futz New Order Logistics CODE. 161	Posted - 2014.02.28 22:10:00 - [18] - Quote Oh yeah, been absent from the forums so long I'd forgotten my old rule for the EVE-O forums. "OP should never propose a viable solution to a problem in GD." If you try to 'be constructive' in the original post, your thread automatically goes off to oblivion in F&I. Far, far better to just be argumentative and let others come to your desired conclusion on their own..... I suppose I should have structured this thread differently. Oh well.
Sister of Pain Ze DoucheWaffe 6	Posted - 2014.02.28 22:12:00 - [19] - Quote I'll give you guys two situations and let you run with them. 1.( Buy orders) Lets say I just made 5000 units of Hobgoblins, or whatever, and was bringing them to jeeter to sell. Now lets say I can see that someone, we'll call him JoeBlowSpaceCadet, has a buy order up for X number of hobgobs at a price i like. Now I contact him and offer him all my hobs for x amount of isk. He says ok and I made a contract that he accepts, and our deal is done. 2.(Sell orders) Now that I have my isk from the hobs, lets say I want to pick up a few hundred Rifters to bring back for my corp newbies. I see that HackJobMarketAlt has a pile of rifters for sale. I contact him and say listen, i'll take a large number of your Rifters right now, but this is what I would like to pay. If we agree, he makes me a contract which I accept and take my rifters, and the deal is done. Both of the above examples were possible because I was able to see WHO the buyer was and who the seller was. More importantly, in BOTH of the above examples, somebody lost ISK. Who was it? Pain is inevitable, but the suffering is optional.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Scope Gallente Federation 269	Posted - 2014.02.28 22:20:00 - [20] - Quote Sister of Pain wrote: I'll give you guys two situations and let you run with them. 1.( Buy orders) Lets say I just made 5000 units of Hobgoblins, or whatever, and was bringing them to jeeter to sell. Now lets say I can see that someone, we'll call him JoeBlowSpaceCadet, has a buy order up for X number of hobgobs at a price i like. Now I contact him and offer him all my hobs for x amount of isk. He says ok and I made a contract that he accepts, and our deal is done. 2.(Sell orders) Now that I have my isk from the hobs, lets say I want to pick up a few hundred Rifters to bring back for my corp newbies. I see that HackJobMarketAlt has a pile of rifters for sale. I contact him and say listen, i'll take a large number of your Rifters right now, but this is what I would like to pay. If we agree, he makes me a contract which I accept and take my rifters, and the deal is done. Both of the above examples were possible because I was able to see WHO the buyer was and who the seller was. More importantly, in BOTH of the above examples, somebody lost ISK. Who was it? Why don't you enlighten us. I see nothing wrong with either of the above situations. New player resources: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á
Sister of Pain Ze DoucheWaffe 6	Posted - 2014.02.28 22:22:00 - [21] - Quote The tax man, aka CCP, never saw a dime. (or an ISK ) Pain is inevitable, but the suffering is optional.
Buck Futz New Order Logistics CODE. 161	Posted - 2014.02.28 22:32:00 - [22] - Quote I don't really see a problem with either situation. I suppose one could argue that this is 'technically possible' without making a change.....IF you first agree to purchase/sell items to those 'mystery orders' first. IF they are arranged in away that you can immediately interact with them, without going through a pile of other traders first. But presenting that information as simple column tag in the market window would greatly simplify things and encourage interaction between traders, without first imposing the requirement of actually trading with them. I suppose there is the matter of contracts also costing ISK. And even if there was a significant 'tax savings' I would imagine that most transactions would still take place in the marketplace for convenience's sake. Worst case, marginal impact on an ISK sink (though the taxes on market transactions are already insanely low). Is that a good reason to foreclose on all the other player interaction benefits? Not in my mind. Interesting wrinkle though.
Sister of Pain Ze DoucheWaffe 6	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:00:00 - [23] - Quote Buck Futz wrote: I don't really see a problem with either situation. I suppose one could argue that this is 'technically possible' without making a change.....IF you first agree to purchase/sell items to those 'mystery orders' first. IF they are arranged in away that you can immediately interact with them, without going through a pile of other traders first. But presenting that information as simple column tag in the market window would greatly simplify things and encourage interaction between traders, without first imposing the requirement of actually trading with them. I suppose there is the matter of contracts also costing ISK. And even if there was a significant 'tax savings' I would imagine that most transactions would still take place in the marketplace for convenience's sake. Worst case, marginal impact on an ISK sink (though the taxes on market transactions are already insanely low). Is that a good reason to foreclose on all the other player interaction benefits? Not in my mind. Interesting wrinkle though. I agree with you 100% on this one. Some of the folks I contract trade with now I met only because I previously sold something to them, then decided to drop them a message the next time I had those same items to sell again. Some of us have become friends and private contract trade (10,000isk broker fee) back and forth various items all the time now. Which i cool because its a sandbox and we should all play together anyway. We need to see the market in this game on the enormous scale that it actually is. How many thousands of transactions happen every day? How many PVP/PVEer's, miners, mission runners, etc,.... show up and quick sell their loot, ore, and goods? The broker fees and taxes on all these transactions every day must be huge. (I would love to hear a figure from a dev) I prefer to deal privately when I sell or buy things, but I dont think CCP will want to let go of the isk cow that broker fees and taxes have come to be. Pain is inevitable, but the suffering is optional.
Gigan Amilupar No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 184	Posted - 2014.02.28 23:03:00 - [24] - Quote I like the idea, simply on the grounds that when I'm trying to sell something on a market for profit I can look up other sellers, contact those online, and work out a way to fix the price super high. +1
Ulasdair Macauselan Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2014.03.01 00:13:00 - [25] - Quote I strongly support this. Buyers should have every right to choose who they buy from off the market, and to avoid buying from anyone they wish. In a game like EVE, the INABILLITY to engage in an economic embargo is.....odd. Imagine, the Bears rise up and all refuse, en masse, to buy from the Goons. Yes, Market alts would of course be an issue, as alts always are an issue. Thats not a good enough reason not to do it IMO.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 1826	Posted - 2014.03.01 02:19:00 - [26] - Quote Clearly nobody's considered the fact that this will increase how much data has to be fetched when loading/refreshing the market, multiplied by all the people who are fetching market data from the server at any given second... ..unless, of course, you want Market TiDi to be the crowning feature of Winter 2015.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 19730	Posted - 2014.03.01 03:21:00 - [27] - Quote Ulasdair Macauselan wrote: I strongly support this. Buyers should have every right to choose who they buy from off the market, and to avoid buying from anyone they wish. No, they should not because that's not how commodity brokerage works. It would also make the market hideously inefficient. If you want to treat with people directly, use contracts GÇö that's what they're for. Quote: In a game like EVE, the INABILLITY to engage in an economic embargo is.....odd. It's entirely possible to engage in embargoes and economic warfare. You just have to undock or spend a whole lot of ISK to do so. 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 2.1.
Buck Futz New Order Logistics CODE. 161	Posted - 2014.03.01 10:24:00 - [28] - Quote Tippia wrote: Ulasdair Macauselan wrote: I strongly support this. Buyers should have every right to choose who they buy from off the market, and to avoid buying from anyone they wish. No, they should not because that's not how commodity brokerage works. It would also make the market hideously inefficient. If you want to treat with people directly, use contracts GÇö that's what they're for. Quote: In a game like EVE, the INABILLITY to engage in an economic embargo is.....odd. It's entirely possible to engage in embargoes and economic warfare. You just have to undock or spend a whole lot of ISK to do so. Strawman again. You seem to be hung up. There is a difference between: #1. Simply making the owners of buy/sell orders visible. (What I want) #2. Giving players the ability to buy and sell to specific orders on the market. (NOT The #1 is being proposed, #2 is something Tippia for some reason wants to keep bringing up to confuse the issue. A player's choice will be limited to 'transact wih the top order - or not', which means the 'efficiency of the market' is not compromised or altered at all. I maintain that simply knowing which players are participating in the market, would be a boon and provide players a choice - without forcing players to buy the entire stockpiles extant within a station to learn those details. It may be quite easy to learn the identity of various traders if the items are limited in number and not expensive -but quite ludicrous when the items involved cost hundreds of millions or billions. I'm still curious as to why Tippia is so steadfastly opposed when it is clear 'market efficiency' would not be impacted. Beyond a very weak and false assertion that 'it would make no difference' - precisely because I'm not proposing the strawman he keeps bringing up.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 239	Posted - 2014.03.01 10:30:00 - [29] - Quote Do you also suggest a change of market functionality? Because even if you chose the 10th or 3rd order, you always buy from the top order downwards.
Buck Futz New Order Logistics CODE. 161	Posted - 2014.03.01 10:41:00 - [30] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Do you also suggest a change of market functionality? Because even if you chose the 10th or 3rd order, you always buy from the top order downwards. No. Simply providing a new information column in the market window that lists the owner of the order. No change in how the market 'works'. I maintain that this information could be used for metagame purposes as well as enhancing 'market PVP' by reducing the costs of knowing your competitors.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.