EVE Search - When is CCP going to declare this as exploiting a bug? (Contract Scam)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

When is CCP going to declare this as exploiting a bug? (Contract Scam)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Montague Zooma Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:03:00 - [61] Quote: If a player doesn't familiarize him/herself with a particular feature in the game, they shouldn't be screwing around with it. That would be a valid point if this game came with a frickin' instruction manual. The FAQ is woefully inadequate. The only way to familiarize yourself with the various systems in the game is to screw around with them.
Vil'Hem Rekrap Caldari 69th sInfantry	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:09:00 - [62] Edited by: Vil''Hem Rekrap on 20/12/2006 18:18:33 Originally by: Nardon Originally by: Vil'Hem Rekrap Originally by: Sile Suirghiche Originally by: Vil'Hem Rekrap I know if someone offered me a box and said it was full of gold or something and all they wanted was $500 for it, I'd want to check the box rather than just taking their word for it (or assuming). If the contracts system allowed you to "check the box" then you might be onto something here, but (unlike the old escrow system) it doesn't. In this instance, there is, actually. Right click the contract, then select "view contract". At the bottom it'll show the offered item. If it's 1 of that item, it'll simply show the item name with the icon for it. If it's more than one, it'll show the item times however many it is. If it's several types of item it'll show a list with separate categories for the name, quantity, type, etc. A webifier, to me, means a webifier. A single item. It doesn't look plural. A webifier x 4, to me, looks like a webifier 4 times. Or...4 webifiers. I'd much rather devs waste their time making titan wrecks pink than waste time fixing something that isn't broken. I beg to disagree here. As you logically state there is a way to determine the quantity of the item in question by the "x #" identifier. Since this is omitted for a single item there is no way to tell how many items are included. Of course a viable assumption is there is one item there. But assumptions are what scammers work on. So if people get confused about the amount of items there are...well the scammer is successfull. And since the visual clues emphasize the given description people who are new to the system are prone to get confused and scammed. Once they get used to it they won't fall for it. That doesn't make the point invalid however. IF the item showed up as plural regardless of the actual # I'd agree with this. However, they don't. To put this in RL terms, a car is just that. A single car. Car x 1 is redundant, and further, we're taught in 3rd grade maths that 1 x anything is understood. Car x 4 means car 4 times...or 4 cars. In game...it might display 'webifier' (for example). Once again, it's singular. To me, there's no mistaking that it's only one of that item. I know I'm not alone in that regard, but I seriously hope I'm not in the minority, since this really is pretty basic stuff.
Vil'Hem Rekrap Caldari 69th sInfantry	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:22:00 - [63] Originally by: Montague Zooma Quote: If a player doesn't familiarize him/herself with a particular feature in the game, they shouldn't be screwing around with it. That would be a valid point if this game came with a frickin' instruction manual. The FAQ is woefully inadequate. The only way to familiarize yourself with the various systems in the game is to screw around with them. Yeah...ya got me there. The FAQs and non-player provided guides do tend to suck a bit (and by suck a bit I really mean I've seen better things come out of a poorly trained monkey's ass). All I can say to that is screw carefully and use condom sense.
Dawne Xi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:33:00 - [64] Originally by: Decarus And I'm still sticking to: "Nobody is going to get scammed if they'd read over the contract. Show me exactly where a contract to sell a single item says that it's a quantity of one. No one who says this has yet been able to. And if the answer is "No quantity listed means one," that's not an answer.
Sile Suirghiche Gaidhlig Technology	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:39:00 - [65] Originally by: Vil'Hem Rekrap IF the item showed up as plural regardless of the actual # I'd agree with this. However, they don't. To put this in RL terms, a car is just that. A single car. Car x 1 is redundant You're misrepresenting the pluralization issue here. One car = car, two of them = cars so, as you said, "car x 1" is redundant. However! One unit of Tritanium = Tritanium, two million units of tritanium is still just Tritanium, so "Tritanium x 1" is actually very informative. Combine this with the fact that there is nothing to inform the uninitiated that the description given on the contract information display is, in fact, entered by the ~~scammer~~ player who created it, and is emphatically not a generated description of the offered item(s) and you have the prefect recipe for scamming players new to the system and it is thus for no good reason whatsoever. Adding "x1" is not a problem for the coders and is not going to cost you money (unless you're a scammer). If this little oversight had not happened, do you actually think anyone would be able to make a reasonable argument to implement it? What does that tell you?
Rufless	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:46:00 - [66] Edited by: Rufless on 20/12/2006 18:47:22 I'm a new player but I wouldn't want to call myself too stupid. However, looking at the second picture, I can only see the quantity of the good listed once on that page. Logic would tell me that the three key pieces of information that are needed are: 1) The type of good 2) The price of the good 3) The quantity of the good From where I am standing all three pieces of information are there: Megacyte is mentioned twice, the price is mentioned once and the quantity is mentioned once. It is unfortunate that it says 30,000 units when it is only 1 unit. Personally if scammers can pull off confidence tricks I think that is pretty cool. But I think all three pieces of information should be clearly displayed on that page. And quantity is one of the three most important bits of information about the trade after all.
Taince Vohen School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:46:00 - [67] Originally by: Dawne Xi Originally by: Decarus And I'm still sticking to: "Nobody is going to get scammed if they'd read over the contract. Show me exactly where a contract to sell a single item says that it's a quantity of one. No one who says this has yet been able to. And if the answer is "No quantity listed means one," that's not an answer. When you place a bid you get a confirmation window, exactly like you used to do in escrow which EXPLICITLY tells you what you are about to buy/bid for. Linkage So, the scammer gets his chance to scam you, by putting up a deal that looks good, but you get the chance to back out if you look at the detail.
Dawne Xi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:56:00 - [68] Originally by: Taince Vohen Show me exactly where a contract to sell a single item says that it's a quantity of one. No one who says this has yet been able to. And if the answer is "No quantity listed means one," that's not an answer. When you place a bid you get a confirmation window, exactly like you used to do in escrow which EXPLICITLY tells you what you are about to buy/bid for. Yes you do, but like I said, no one can show me on the contract where it says Quantity of one. So if they bother to tell you in the confirmation window, why not do the same on the contract?
Vil'Hem Rekrap Caldari 69th sInfantry	Posted - 2006.12.20 18:59:00 - [69] Originally by: Sile Suirghiche Originally by: Vil'Hem Rekrap IF the item showed up as plural regardless of the actual # I'd agree with this. However, they don't. To put this in RL terms, a car is just that. A single car. Car x 1 is redundant You're misrepresenting the pluralization issue here. One car = car, two of them = cars so, as you said, "car x 1" is redundant. However! One unit of Tritanium = Tritanium, two million units of tritanium is still just Tritanium, so "Tritanium x 1" is actually very informative. Combine this with the fact that there is nothing to inform the uninitiated that the description given on the contract information display is, in fact, entered by the ~~scammer~~ player who created it, and is emphatically not a generated description of the offered item(s) and you have the prefect recipe for scamming players new to the system and it is thus for no good reason whatsoever. Adding "x1" is not a problem for the coders and is not going to cost you money (unless you're a scammer). If this little oversight had not happened, do you actually think anyone would be able to make a reasonable argument to implement it? What does that tell you? Ahh...good point with the tritanium example. Looks like we're narrowing down the options, here. 1. Scammers continue to prey on those looking for a quick buck that aren't familiar enough with the contract system. 2. Scammers, in the spirit of xmas or whatever repent their wicked ways and no longer scam people. 3. No one complains about scams in the future so we can brush little incidents like this under the carpet and act like they don't happen (we're a civilized set of empires, now, remember?) 4. Players are educated about contract scams in the tutorial that they're strongly urged to complete. I've not done the new one, so I wouldn't know if it's already there or not. 5. A x 1 is implemented for those that don't realize not having a quantity next to the item means there's only one of that item. There are more, but my coffee is done and I can't count past five using the hand that's not holding the coffee mug by itself. Good catch with the interchangeable plural/singular issue.
Dawne Xi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.12.20 19:01:00 - [70] Edited by: Dawne Xi on 20/12/2006 19:03:22 Edited by: Dawne Xi on 20/12/2006 19:02:16 Church Lady Voice: Nevermind
Taince Vohen School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2006.12.20 19:07:00 - [71] Originally by: Dawne Xi Yes you do, but like I said, no one can show me on the contract where it says Quantity of one. So if they bother to tell you in the confirmation window, why not do the same on the contract? Simple, currently it is possible to scam, to my knowledge the devs have never said that they want to take this away. If the contract description said Zydrine * 10000 and the icon showed zydrine * 1 then scams would be impossible. Anyway, the confirmation box is still part of the contract, it is telling you precisely what you are about to do and asks you "Are you sure you want to do this?"
Vil'Hem Rekrap Caldari 69th sInfantry	Posted - 2006.12.20 19:08:00 - [72] Oh. So they do tell you if it's actually just one item for anyone actually taking the time to read. I'm back to not seeing the issue again. It may not be in the spot you prefer, but it's still there. This is starting to get nonsensical. I don't see the point in ***ing about getting something there that's already there, and on that note, this thread no longer holds any interest. Quitcher***in'.
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2006.12.20 19:11:00 - [73] I kind of find this funny... When I used to order parts from the military supply system I had to give them a quantity... even if I only wanted 1... and yes they did question the time I transposed a few numbers and ordered a Main Battle Tank (M1 Abrams) instead of the power supply I really needed, but we did figure it out (Had to hand write the requests at the time, now it's all computer driven). In this thread some have pointed out that, if for consistency only, the quantity needs to be displayed (not an exploit, at best a minor bug, mostly just an inconsistent behavior) have the best point... Face it, some fool will still miss that the quantity is only 1 and buy that 1 unit of Trit for 1.6 million ISK... Some Scammer will be laughing all the way to the bank with their 1.6 million ISK and looking for another unit of trit to sell... but now the "form" will be consistent. Noob in training...
Dawne Xi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.12.20 19:14:00 - [74] Edited by: Dawne Xi on 20/12/2006 19:14:48 Well Vil'Hem for a brief few minutes there you started to make sense... until the post just above this one, so I'll repost what I had removed previously since I thought you actually started to understand the whole point of this thread .... Quote: Oh. So they do tell you if it's actually just one item for anyone actually taking the time to read. I'm back to not seeing the issue again. It may not be in the spot you prefer, but it's still there. This is starting to get nonsensical. I don't see the point in ***ing about getting something there that's already there, and on that note, this thread no longer holds any interest. Quitcher***in'. Vil'Hem Rekrap after reading all of your replies in the thread, I'll have to assume you're a scammer and trying to keep this in game for your own selfish needs. I have nothing more to say in regard to anything you choose to post on this matter here. Thanks for participating though.
Vil'Hem Rekrap Caldari 69th sInfantry	Posted - 2006.12.20 19:27:00 - [75] Originally by: Dawne Xi Edited by: Dawne Xi on 20/12/2006 19:14:48 Well Vil'Hem for a brief few minutes there you started to make sense... until the post just above this one, so I'll repost what I had removed previously since I thought you actually started to understand the whole point of this thread .... Quote: Oh. So they do tell you if it's actually just one item for anyone actually taking the time to read. I'm back to not seeing the issue again. It may not be in the spot you prefer, but it's still there. This is starting to get nonsensical. I don't see the point in ***ing about getting something there that's already there, and on that note, this thread no longer holds any interest. Quitcher*in'. Vil'Hem Rekrap after reading all of your replies in the thread, I'll have to assume** you're a scammer and trying to keep this in game for your own selfish needs. I have nothing more to say in regard to anything you choose to post on this matter here. Thanks for participating though. You know what they say about assuming. :) It leads to being scammed in contracts (and looking like an ass). Oh...and as was just posted, it DOES show that the quantity is 1 just before you complete the transaction. You're not the only one to make assumptions, though, and that 'yes' probably gets clicked without the text being read more often than not. No, I'm not a scammer...I honestly didn't think it'd be that lucrative at first. After reading this thread, though, I'm starting to wonder. People who assume only make it easy for them.
Dawne Xi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.12.20 19:33:00 - [76] Originally by: Sile Suirghiche Adding "x1" is not a problem for the coders and is not going to cost you money (unless you're a scammer). If this little oversight had not happened, do you actually think anyone would be able to make a reasonable argument to implement it? What does that tell you? Good point!
Decarus Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.21 00:12:00 - [77] Edited by: Decarus on 21/12/2006 00:14:12 Originally by: Dawne Xi Originally by: Taince Vohen Show me exactly where a contract to sell a single item says that it's a quantity of one. No one who says this has yet been able to. And if the answer is "No quantity listed means one," that's not an answer. When you place a bid you get a confirmation window, exactly like you used to do in escrow which EXPLICITLY tells you what you are about to buy/bid for. Yes you do, but like I said, no one can show me on the contract where it says Quantity of one. So if they bother to tell you in the confirmation window, why not do the same on the contract? Seriously man, you're just very slow. If you get a picture of something, just like when you get a picture of something in the game which is not packaged, you see a picture of that thing. That THING is a unit of a type of entity in the game. ONE UNIT of that type.When you see that picture OF A UNIT OF SOME TYPE OF STUFF IN THE GAME with no multiplication equation following it, you can safely assume THAT IT IS A UNIT rather than A UNIT TIME SOME ARBITRARY NUMBER THE SUBJECT OF SAID CONTRACT WANT YOU TO BELIEVE. It's really just a choice of preference. Would you say "I got one banana" or "I got one times one banana". ~Decarus, DANGER! Highly corrosive chemical material. Contact may cause severe irritation, burns or poisoning. Keep away from children.
Bill Shankly Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2006.12.21 00:39:00 - [78] Originally by: Dawne Xi Originally by: Aphotic Raven Those familiar with the trade system wont be had... just like.. omg... real life. Let's follow this to it's logical conclussion.... People who are caught scamming should be punished just like.. omg... real life. aye because after all IRL i can just warp to you and pod you.
Profhet Murder of Crows E N I G M A	Posted - 2006.12.21 02:44:00 - [79] the thing about alot of these scams, is if we were face to face, and I looked at the contract, it would be pretty obvious that it is not right. The contract interface is a little counter intuitive and not exactly straightforward. I appreciate the flavor that scamming adds to Eve, but should I lose 900 million ISK because of interface issues or should I lose it because you outsmarted me in some clever way. I vote for the latter. ____________________________ FEED ON THE DYING
Phalyssa Truixim Caldari Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2006.12.21 05:17:00 - [80] This is a very valid suggestion. It drives me nuts how people think that using the **** poor UI in this game to rip people off is something that shouldn't be changed. The only people I could think of that would be the against this are people exploiting it. Having a crappy UI doesn't make Eve a game for more intelligent people. Quite frankly, the user shouldn't even be given an option to enter a description. The description should be generated automatically and be of the form (or something like) Item: xxxx Quantity: xxxx Price: xxxx The people who got scammed aren't stupid. They are victims of poor programming. The fix is simple and hope it will be implemented soon.
Dawne Xi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.12.21 08:41:00 - [81] Originally by: Decarus It's really just a choice of preference. Would you say "I got one banana" or "I got one times one banana". Me slow? Cute :) The sign of one losing an arguement -- call the other person names :) Anyway -- Let's correct your example here so it's in line with the way the current contract system displays it. Would you say "I got banana" (the way it is now) or "I got one banana" (the way it should be).
Dawne Xi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.12.21 09:01:00 - [82] Edited by: Dawne Xi on 21/12/2006 09:03:04 Decarus and all you other "No Qty means One" crowd, Decarus' rant actually got me to thinking, and look what I found.... Apparently the devs deemed it necessary to help clarify what a Blueprint was going to produce... with an actual quantity. Go on, take a look :) http://www.equo.org/eve/images/bpoexample.gif You guys gonna start your own thread to get that quantity of one removed from BP's since it's unnecessary, and makes it look less neat, and whatever else you guys have claimed a "x1" would add to the contract? Link the thread here please would you?
Valerie Ganor Minmatar Defile. Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.21 09:17:00 - [83] i foundeth the secrat forah post! +=+=+=+=+=+=+ Win the crowd...
Apocryphai Caldari	Posted - 2006.12.21 09:46:00 - [84] There are only 2 possible explanations for why "x 1" doesn't appear in contracts: 1) An oversight. If that's the case it should be fixed, no question. 2) Deliberate omission by devs to facilitate scamming. This is EVE remember? The devs like piracy, scams, corp theft, betrayal and a whole range of other activities that in most MMORPGs would be classed as griefing. Personally I think it's stupid to omit the "x 1" but it wouldn't surprise me if the devs had decided to do it on purpose. Without an offical response we have no idea which of the above options is the truth so there's not much point getting worked up about it is there? Originally by: Victor Valka What the skull-chick said.
Decarus Amarr	Posted - 2006.12.21 10:36:00 - [85] Originally by: Dawne Xi Originally by: Decarus It's really just a choice of preference. Would you say "I got one banana" or "I got one times one banana". Me slow? Cute :) The sign of one losing an arguement -- call the other person names :) Anyway -- Let's correct your example here so it's in line with the way the current contract system displays it. Would you say "I got banana" (the way it is now) or "I got one banana" (the way it should be). True I shouldn't have called you names, it takes the focus away from my argument and you're not really slow, you just have a weird opinion and you're sticking to it (ofcourse the opinion is only weird in my opinion.. damn opinions). I extend my apology. Anywhos, I dont think you're listening to what the crowd that someone decided to falsely label "nothing means one crowd"" or something similar. You see we are not saying that nothing = one. We are saying that the picture, like all pictures of items in EVE, stands for 'one unit'. I'll use smilies to demonstrate. 1. := This equals one smilie () 2. * 10 := This equals ten smilies () 3. * 0 := This equals no smilies 4. * 1 := This also equals one smilie () but the 'times one' part of the equation is redundant as to (see number 1) First by observing #1 and #3 note the difference between 'one' and 'nothing'. This should silence the people who keep saying we're stating that one is nothing. Secondly observer #1 and #2 to see the difference between one UNIT of Megacyte and one unit of Megacyte TIMES A BILLION. I find it very straight forward. Thirdly observe #1 and #4 to understand why I dont want to see this happen. It's redundant and anyone who's ever studied math above grade school level will probably tell you that it's hence actualy wrong. 1 * 1 is not more accurate than just 1 (remember the picture of the smilie itself is still one smilie). 1 * 1 is an uneccessarily complicated (its not complicated, but still uneccessary) way of saying 1. So it really is not a matter of saying "I got banana" and "I got one banana" but more a case of wanting to say "I got one banana" or "I got one times one banana". ~Decarus, DANGER! Highly corrosive chemical material. Contact may cause severe irritation, burns or poisoning. Keep away from children.

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: 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.