| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
   |
Posted - 2006.12.22 19:41:00 -
[1]
In the contract system there is a bug that is being exploited and offenders need to be reported for this. CCP needs to fix this bug to stop the exploitation.
On contracts for items that have a quantity of anything other than one (1), the quantity is clearly shown with a "X #####" after the item shown in the "Offered Items" section of the contract.
Any item that is a quantity of one (1), does not have it's quantity listed as "X 1" on the contract screen but does have it in the final confirmation window before the contract is accepted -- Only if you have not disabled this final warning message though.
For some reason, if you are creating a contract, the quantity is shown for both quantity of one and greater than one, in the final confirmation window
This is inconsistent and leads to confusion and needs to be fixed so all contracts display the same way. See images below for examples of this.
Image of Quantity greater than one -> http://www.equo.org/eve/images/qty_gtone.gif
Image of Quantity of one -> http://www.equo.org/eve/images/qty_one.gif
Image of Confirmation Screen when setting up a contract -> http://www.equo.org/eve/images/confirmation.gif
I have reported this in the Bug Reports and am wondering when CCP is going to put out the general warning to everyone exploiting this bug. See images above as examples (note the one that has no quantity listed but is advertised as a quantity of 30,000 and a price of 75,000,000 isk).
And for everyone that is going to say "No quantity means it's a quantity of one" and it's the way the devs wanted it and all that stuff, need to explain to me why they think the devs bothered to put a x1 in the confirmation window when creating a contract .... I'll offer one for you. It's so you can't rip yourself off by mistakenly putting up more than one item when you intended to put up only a single item. It's to make it clear what you are setting up a contract for. Shouldn't the buyers be afforded the same consideration, by putting the x1 into the contract screen and not in a window that can possibly be disbabled?
|
Bill Shankly
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 19:48:00 -
[2]
sorry but if the buyer cant read then hows that an exploit ?
|
subvert
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 19:54:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Bill Shankly
sorry but if the buyer cant read then hows that an exploit ?
there's nothing to read. an item with 1 amount should list 1 amount, I think thats the point the OP is trying to make.
its not an exploit but its certainly inconsistant and should be patched. 1 item should show x1
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 19:54:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Bill Shankly
sorry but if the buyer cant read then hows that an exploit ?
If there was something to read, it wouldn't be a problem -- that's the point -- The problem is on the contracts with a single item for sale, it doesn't say that anywhere on the screen describing what it is, where it is, who is selling it, etc.... I am not sure what you're talking about here. Did you read the post?
|
Tigolbiddies
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 20:19:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Bill Shankly
sorry but if the buyer cant read then hows that an exploit ?
Here is yet another case of someone displaying the flaws of the contract system in a clear, persuasive manner, and a typical ignorant response of "if they can't read, it is their fault"
As displayed, there is a screen shot where the ONLY quanitity visible is the false quantity amount. If just one item is being sold, there should be a X1.
After that, let the buyer beware.
|
Argenton Sayvers
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 21:20:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 22/12/2006 21:21:55
1*x^1*2 + 1*x + 1*2
He ate one unit of apple.
I think its common convention to not mention the quantity if its only one item. While it may be inconsistent, its no where near an exploit, so stop the witchhunt and get in queue. There are a million worse problems to fix with contracts first.
|
Louhbo
Gallente
KVA Noble Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 21:26:00 -
[7]
If the amount were prominent in the contract and showed exactly what you are getting into, then it wouldn't be an exploit...but as is...it is a huge problem. I was just duped for a 10m contract on 1 unit of zyd. I had no idea where to find the amount and a warning didn't come up on the zyd auction contract. I however went to the megacyte contract and it did warn me about only having one unit. Dunno why this is so inconsistant. CCP needs to display exactly what you are getting and in what amounts on the contract window.
My frustrated 2 cents worth
Louhbo
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 21:37:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers
I think its common convention to not mention the quantity if its only one item.
Argenton would you care to share a screen shot of something that is a single quantity and doesn't have a x1 or [1] or displayed? Unpackaged items don't count because those are unstackable.
|
Cupertino
Castellum
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 21:49:00 -
[9]
Quote:
a warning didn't come up on the zyd auction contract
As far as I recall (and as Dawne points out in the first post), the amount IS stated in small print in the window that pops up to confirm the auction, but not before. If you disabled the popup, you won't see this, but tbh that's a pretty silly thing to do. Regardless of this, I agree that it needs to be changed, the actual amount definitely needs to be clearly displayed prior to that stage.
|
Phrater
|
Posted - 2006.12.22 22:27:00 -
[10]
Caveat Emptor;
Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware
: a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk.
BUT
http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/banning.asp
6. SCAMMING
Severe offenses may result in an immediate ban without warning; however, warnings may be given for first time offenses, followed by account suspensions of varying degree and ultimately a permanent ban if a player:
* a. Illegally obtains items from another through use of an exploit or cheat method.
* b. Intentionally creates missions that cannot be completed through normal game mechanics or abilities.
* c. Has been told by a GM to discontinue a scam ploy and disregards the instruction.
Players are exploiting the contract system because it does not show the quantity upfront.
CCP is not enforcing it's own rules on exploiters the contracts or dragging npc's to a gate to kill next person thru (yes it is an exploit using game mechanics to grief then loot their items). COSMOS is a joke so many farmers you can't do the missions with out a corp trying to steal everything or kill you for interupting their farming. 
|
Al Thorr
Caldari
The Wheel
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 00:35:00 -
[11]
Hey its a system that can be used to trap the unwary .
Been 'done' by it myself. when buying a hulk for an ex corp mate. ( tbh alcohol + didnt read the warnings , got greedy. and 300M down the drain.) - hey whose fault was it - mine. am I peed off - yes of course BUT at myself .
lesson learned - of course.
will I do it again - yeah sure - depends how much beer has been consumed.
Still dont think it an exploit / bug . just me looking at it via rose tinted ' greed specs'
Anyhow just my opinion .
Al Thorr
.
"You cant polish a turd" - The new rendered font is living proof.
|
Ariel Stardust
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 01:23:00 -
[12]
This is not an exploit, coming straight from the dev team.
Stop whining and posting the same garbage 10 times over.
--
Originally by: Dammar
God I HATE Angels. 
|
Ariel Stardust
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 01:25:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Phrater
Caveat Emptor;
Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware
: a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk.
BUT
http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/banning.asp
6. SCAMMING
Severe offenses may result in an immediate ban without warning; however, warnings may be given for first time offenses, followed by account suspensions of varying degree and ultimately a permanent ban if a player:
* a. Illegally obtains items from another through use of an exploit or cheat method.
* b. Intentionally creates missions that cannot be completed through normal game mechanics or abilities.
* c. Has been told by a GM to discontinue a scam ploy and disregards the instruction.
Players are exploiting the contract system because it does not show the quantity upfront.
CCP is not enforcing it's own rules on exploiters the contracts or dragging npc's to a gate to kill next person thru (yes it is an exploit using game mechanics to grief then loot their items). COSMOS is a joke so many farmers you can't do the missions with out a corp trying to steal everything or kill you for interupting their farming.
You apparently dont understand what the word "exploit" means. It means taking advantage of a bug or unintentional design flaw. The difference here is, scamming legal in Eve, and THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL DESIGN ASTHETIC.
--
Originally by: Dammar
God I HATE Angels.
|
Miss Overlord
Gallente
Ferrum Pugnus
New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 01:40:00 -
[14]
CCP like to allow scamming and this is the way they designed it the xxxx 1 and not showing single units is basically meant to be there CCP have said by their inaction on this that they want this to be in place to the OP scamming is allowed and this is how it will happen. Stop whining
These posts represent my personal views and not those of my corp or alliance. These do not reflect offical alliance or corp views
This is a disclaimer |
Dei
Crystaline Green
Order of the Khanid Crown
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 01:42:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Ariel Stardust
Originally by: Phrater
Caveat Emptor;
Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware
: a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk.
BUT
http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/banning.asp
6. SCAMMING
Severe offenses may result in an immediate ban without warning; however, warnings may be given for first time offenses, followed by account suspensions of varying degree and ultimately a permanent ban if a player:
* a. Illegally obtains items from another through use of an exploit or cheat method.
* b. Intentionally creates missions that cannot be completed through normal game mechanics or abilities.
* c. Has been told by a GM to discontinue a scam ploy and disregards the instruction.
Players are exploiting the contract system because it does not show the quantity upfront.
CCP is not enforcing it's own rules on exploiters the contracts or dragging npc's to a gate to kill next person thru (yes it is an exploit using game mechanics to grief then loot their items). COSMOS is a joke so many farmers you can't do the missions with out a corp trying to steal everything or kill you for interrupting their farming.
You apparently dont understand what the word "exploit" means. It means taking advantage of a bug or unintentional design flaw. The difference here is, scamming legal in Eve, and THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL DESIGN AESTHETIC.
Surely you have to agree that in order to be fair to the wider EVE population, and to make it easier for newbies to join the game without getting scammed of their hard earned isk, that CCP have to stick in the x1.
Sure it's not an exploit, but you're arguing over spilt milk, just /sign the x1 plea.
|
sesanti
Minmatar
Universal Exports
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 01:44:00 -
[16]
Pfft, stupid whiners, they call exploit or bug anything they don't like to try and force CCP to change it, citing paragraphs of the EULA like if they were lawyers from Harvard and the EULA was a national penal code. 
_______________________________________________
The ShadowMaster -
<I am a guy... don't mind the portrait> |
Ariel Stardust
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 01:45:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Ariel Stardust on 23/12/2006 01:45:32
Originally by: Dei
Originally by: Ariel Stardust
Originally by: Phrater
Caveat Emptor;
Etymology: New Latin, let the buyer beware
: a principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk.
BUT
http://www.eve-online.com/pnp/banning.asp
6. SCAMMING
Severe offenses may result in an immediate ban without warning; however, warnings may be given for first time offenses, followed by account suspensions of varying degree and ultimately a permanent ban if a player:
* a. Illegally obtains items from another through use of an exploit or cheat method.
* b. Intentionally creates missions that cannot be completed through normal game mechanics or abilities.
* c. Has been told by a GM to discontinue a scam ploy and disregards the instruction.
Players are exploiting the contract system because it does not show the quantity upfront.
CCP is not enforcing it's own rules on exploiters the contracts or dragging npc's to a gate to kill next person thru (yes it is an exploit using game mechanics to grief then loot their items). COSMOS is a joke so many farmers you can't do the missions with out a corp trying to steal everything or kill you for interrupting their farming.
You apparently dont understand what the word "exploit" means. It means taking advantage of a bug or unintentional design flaw. The difference here is, scamming legal in Eve, and THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL DESIGN AESTHETIC.
Surely you have to agree that in order to be fair to the wider EVE population, and to make it easier for newbies to join the game without getting scammed of their hard earned isk, that CCP have to stick in the x1.
Sure it's not an exploit, but you're arguing over spilt milk, just /sign the x1 plea.
You don't understand...
CCP doesn't WANT Eve to become a carebear infested mickey mouse game where you can't die, can't lose anything, and enemies are for all intents and purposes immaculate. This includes newbs.
If you want a game where no one can be scammed... there're plenty out there.
--
Originally by: Dammar
God I HATE Angels.
|
Elvarien
Caldari
The Night's Watch
THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 02:02:00 -
[18]
think of it this way ...
you look at a contract .. how much megacyte are you buting ? ... oh wait whadda ya know I`m buying "MEGACYTE"
... nowhere does it state x10 or x100000 or x4252342134 or whatever value you would like to dream about so its not a bug its not a problem its just .. megacyte ... its quite clear to me actualy a simple single unit of megacyte... if you have not learnt to properly read by now you deserve to get scammed imo
>---
A properly fitted manticore is Ninja. |
Allen Deckard
Gallente
LFC
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 02:22:00 -
[19]
you know you can also link the discription of the item being sold? This shows full discription lets say a hulk in the item discription since their is no 1x display for 1 item it shows completely normal. But their is no item.
For any of you that keep screaming that it's intentional? Ok quit scamming.
I could throw in here how ccp intended on log off tactics to be used cause it works.
Not everything that is in the game that works works because they intended it to be that way.
Not quite so convenced that ccp sitting at their desk saying hmmmmm how can I make this a less used feature. I really dont want people using this feature of the game so how can I make it easier to get scammed on it?
Kentucky where the goats roam and the rednecks run free |
Palitir
Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 02:29:00 -
[20]
if theres just a single item for display, it wont display the ammount.. if theres more than one it will show you the ammount, if it doesnt, then it might be a bug. But if theres only one, it will just show the picture of the one item, nothing more, nothing less.
=========================
Sponsored to bring you grief by the Bounty Channel. |
Herring
Pimpology
Pimpology in Mining Player
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 02:42:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Argenton Sayvers
Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 22/12/2006 21:21:55
1*x^1*2 + 1*x + 1*2
He ate one unit of apple.
I think its common convention to not mention the quantity if its only one item. While it may be inconsistent, its no where near an exploit, so stop the witchhunt and get in queue. There are a million worse problems to fix with contracts first.
I'd challenge you to list the top 3 as opposed to the formentioned issue.
Wishing for better mining ships in a system near you. |
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 02:54:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ariel Stardust
This is not an exploit, coming straight from the dev team.
Stop whining and posting the same garbage 10 times over.
Ariel good job addressing the original post :) Belittling or name calling, the first sign someone has no arguement.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 02:56:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Miss Overlord
CCP like to allow scamming and this is the way they designed it the xxxx 1 and not showing single units is basically meant to be there CCP have said by their inaction on this that they want this to be in place to the OP scamming is allowed and this is how it will happen. Stop whining
Miss Overlord if there was consistancy in the way things were displayed across the board I might have a different view -- as it is, there isn't.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 02:57:00 -
[24]
Originally by: sesanti
Pfft, stupid whiners, they call exploit or bug anything they don't like to try and force CCP to change it, citing paragraphs of the EULA like if they were lawyers from Harvard and the EULA was a national penal code.
Thanks for this pointless contribution...
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 02:58:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Elvarien
think of it this way ...
you look at a contract .. how much megacyte are you buting ? ... oh wait whadda ya know I`m buying "MEGACYTE"
... nowhere does it state x10 or x100000 or x4252342134 or whatever value you would like to dream about so its not a bug its not a problem its just .. megacyte ... its quite clear to me actualy a simple single unit of megacyte... if you have not learnt to properly read by now you deserve to get scammed imo
Elvarien you didn't read the whole original post did you? Read the whole thing before you post next time, the last paragraph of post comments specifically on this.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 03:00:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Palitir
if theres just a single item for display, it wont display the ammount.. if theres more than one it will show you the ammount, if it doesnt, then it might be a bug. But if theres only one, it will just show the picture of the one item, nothing more, nothing less.
Palitir you might want to read the entire post again, I specifically say this is inconsistent, there are no other places I have been able to find that an item that is a single item, does not have it's quantity of one listed. Can you?
|
Trak Cranker
Feral Tendency
Ratel Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 03:29:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Elvarien
think of it this way ...
you look at a contract .. how much megacyte are you buting ? ... oh wait whadda ya know I`m buying "MEGACYTE"
... nowhere does it state x10 or x100000 or x4252342134 or whatever value you would like to dream about so its not a bug its not a problem its just .. megacyte ... its quite clear to me actualy a simple single unit of megacyte... if you have not learnt to properly read by now you deserve to get scammed imo
That is quite faulty logic - on top of obviously not having read the OP all the way through.
Megacyte in plural is also Megacyte - so if you are not aware of this issue, you might well think its just the type designation. That it just says Megacyte no matter how much of it. Which might also go for items that are not the same in singular and plural - for all the buyer knows.
And on top of that, the problem is that there IS an amount designation on the screen. Entered by the seller. In such a way that the buyer - still unaware of this issue - might be lead to think its "official" information, as it is the only amount designation in the window.
Should it stay that way? Its debatable, but I don't think so. But at least get the facts and the logic straight.
|
Semkhet
Saudarkars
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 04:56:00 -
[28]
Some threads definitely smell like diapers...
If understanding that
"no specific amount displayed tacitely means ONE unit"
is soo difficult, then probably the OP has never had to cope with the intricacies of the wording of any contemporary contract you may find in real life.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 07:10:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Dawne Xi on 23/12/2006 07:11:07
Originally by: Semkhet
Some threads definitely smell like diapers...
If understanding that
"no specific amount displayed tacitely means ONE unit"
is soo difficult, then probably the OP has never had to cope with the intricacies of the wording of any contemporary contract you may find in real life.
Ahh another insult coupled with no support for the opposing side.
Here are examples of places in the game where a one is clearly shown to indicate quantity. Would any of you "No Qty obviously means it's one" crowd please show me an example of an item, other than unpackaged items, where a quantity of one, does not accompany the icon or the text describing an item?
Minerals:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/mineral.gif
From a blueprint, describing what is produced from it:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/blueprint.gif
Stackable items:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/stackableitems.gif
Confirmation Screen when entering a contract:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/confirmation.gif
I am anxiously awaiting your screen shots...
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 07:23:00 -
[30]
Repeated posting of the same topic still doesn't make it liked by the mods around these parts. It might have been a better idea to bump up your other thread about the issue.
If the issue was a bug or considered an exploit we'd already have seen a fix or two and an announcement or five since it has been implemented.
No official word in the context of a change in EVE usually means that the feature works exactly as intended or that the devs like the way it came out in the end.
Hint: Do not buy ammo, ores or minerals with the (expensive) contract system.
--*=*=*--
The cause for this is not yet known, but we do have a possible fix in testing.
by Sharkbait | 2006.09.20 |
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 08:23:00 -
[31]
Tachy problem was, I had to recently clear out my IE history and cache and stuff because of a problem and lost track of where the original went -- I went down about 20 pages and couldn't find it. I made a short cut on my desktop to this one so that won't happen again.
|
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 11:15:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Tachy on 23/12/2006 11:15:55
There is a rudimentary search engine in the upper righthand corner thanks to google selling cheap search solutions.
You can click on your portrait and look at the last couple of threads you posted in.
Eve-search.com is pretty good too. 
One day this forum will be as useful as all those from the competition. ccp promised ...
--*=*=*--
The cause for this is not yet known, but we do have a possible fix in testing.
by Sharkbait | 2006.09.20 |
Jokim
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 18:35:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Here are examples of places in the game where a one is clearly shown to indicate quantity. Would any of you "No Qty obviously means it's one" crowd please show me an example of an item, other than unpackaged items, where a quantity of one, does not accompany the icon or the text describing an item?
Minerals:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/mineral.gif
From a blueprint, describing what is produced from it:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/blueprint.gif
Stackable items:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/stackableitems.gif
Confirmation Screen when entering a contract:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/confirmation.gif
I am anxiously awaiting your screen shots...
Rofl, you owned em all there
good stuff
bet they are just children fearing one of their best ways to make credits is about to dissapear :) It is actually THEY who dont know how to play the game
|
Stakhanov
Gallente
Newbies On Xstacy
|
Posted - 2006.12.23 18:58:00 -
[34]
Boring...
Such whines only come from fools betrayed by their own greed. It is common sense to double check the terms and content of contracts when large sums are involved. It only costs 10k to make a test contract with your friend or alt , and compare them. People buying hangar loads of megacyte like common ammo deserve what they got. Besides , there is no reason to use contracts to sell minerals instead of sell orders , think before you click buy.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.25 23:33:00 -
[35]
And still no screen shots.... hmm
|
Evil RedEye
Minmatar
Visions of Evil
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 01:32:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
In the contract system there is a bug that is being exploited and offenders need to be reported for this. CCP needs to fix this bug to stop the exploitation.
On contracts for items that have a quantity of anything other than one (1), the quantity is clearly shown with a "X #####" after the item shown in the "Offered Items" section of the contract.
Any item that is a quantity of one (1), does not have it's quantity listed as "X 1" on the contract screen but does have it in the final confirmation window before the contract is accepted -- Only if you have not disabled this final warning message though.
For some reason, if you are creating a contract, the quantity is shown for both quantity of one and greater than one, in the final confirmation window
This is inconsistent and leads to confusion and needs to be fixed so all contracts display the same way. See images below for examples of this.
Image of Quantity greater than one -> http://www.equo.org/eve/images/qty_gtone.gif
Image of Quantity of one -> http://www.equo.org/eve/images/qty_one.gif
Image of Confirmation Screen when setting up a contract -> http://www.equo.org/eve/images/confirmation.gif
I have reported this in the Bug Reports and am wondering when CCP is going to put out the general warning to everyone exploiting this bug. See images above as examples (note the one that has no quantity listed but is advertised as a quantity of 30,000 and a price of 75,000,000 isk).
And for everyone that is going to say "No quantity means it's a quantity of one" and it's the way the devs wanted it and all that stuff, need to explain to me why they think the devs bothered to put a x1 in the confirmation window when creating a contract .... I'll offer one for you. It's so you can't rip yourself off by mistakenly putting up more than one item when you intended to put up only a single item. It's to make it clear what you are setting up a contract for. Shouldn't the buyers be afforded the same consideration, by putting the x1 into the contract screen and not in a window that can possibly be disbabled?
Someone please explain how this is an exploit?!
Its quite simple within contracts.... If it says Mineral x 10,000 then there would happen, believe it or not, to be more than one of said mineral. If it says Mineral then there is only one unit of that mineral. Admittedly I was very nearly caught out by this but its quite easy to notice the obvious lack of "x #####"
|
Petrothian Tong
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 01:34:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Petrothian Tong on 26/12/2006 01:36:47
the only reason I can think of for them to fix it is to reduce the amount of scam contracts that are up..
(not easy to scam, so they dont bother ??)
lets face it... in some regions, I dare say half or more of the contracts are mineral and bpo scams...
sure, i would never fall for any of them (me being paranoid from days of UO..) but it gets annoying to look at the contracts and have to shift though the legit stuff from the many many many many scam contracts people put up...
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 03:40:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Evil RedEye
Its quite simple within contracts.... If it says Mineral x 10,000 then there would happen, believe it or not, to be more than one of said mineral. If it says Mineral then there is only one unit of that mineral. Admittedly I was very nearly caught out by this but its quite easy to notice the obvious lack of "x #####"
Evil RedEye you didn't read the original post did you? I'll repeat the last paragraph and perhaps you can offer an explanation for the inconsistency when setting up a contract.
Originally by: Dawne Xi in Original Post
Image of Confirmation Screen when setting up a contract -> http://www.equo.org/eve/images/confirmation.gif
And for everyone that is going to say "No quantity means it's a quantity of one" and it's the way the devs wanted it and all that stuff, need to explain to me why they think the devs bothered to put a x1 in the confirmation window when creating a contract .... I'll offer one for you. It's so you can't rip yourself off by mistakenly putting up more than one item when you intended to put up only a single item. It's to make it clear what you are setting up a contract for. Shouldn't the buyers be afforded the same consideration, by putting the x1 into the contract screen and not in a window that can possibly be disbabled?
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.26 22:14:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Here are examples of places in the game where a one is clearly shown to indicate quantity. Would any of you "No Qty obviously means it's one" crowd please show me an example of an item, other than unpackaged items, where a quantity of one, does not accompany the icon or the text describing an item?
Minerals:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/mineral.gif
From a blueprint, describing what is produced from it:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/blueprint.gif
Stackable items:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/stackableitems.gif
Confirmation Screen when entering a contract:
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/confirmation.gif
I found another one to go with this list
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/multi_item_contract.gif
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.27 03:58:00 -
[40]
Guess I need to start bug reporting all those instances I've found clearly displaying a quantity of one (see my post right above this one for screen shots). From what I've heard in this thread, and others like it, when no quantity is listed it means there is one of the item in question, it's redundant, it junks up the display, it's unnecessary because an 8 year old can figure out that when there is no quantity, it means there is one of the object in question. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah and if I want my hand held I should go play WoW.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.30 03:36:00 -
[41]
Making sure the thread doesn't die to help educate more about this bug.
|
M Dizzle
|
Posted - 2006.12.30 03:43:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Palitir
if theres just a single item for display, it wont display the ammount.. if theres more than one it will show you the ammount, if it doesnt, then it might be a bug. But if theres only one, it will just show the picture of the one item, nothing more, nothing less.
NO U
_____________________________________________
I AM THE GREETEST |
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 06:13:00 -
[43]
Hoping to educate more since this has sunk down quite a bit
|
hotgirl933
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 07:36:00 -
[44]
yes but CCP staff 90% are on holidays atm wont be back until feb at earliest dont expect any fixes until then at least
|
MysticNZ
Solstice Systems Development Concourse
The Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 07:46:00 -
[45]
Get over it and learn to use your eyes. It's not that hard to spot.
-=====-
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 08:18:00 -
[46]
Originally by: MysticNZ
Get over it and learn to use your eyes. It's not that hard to spot.
Would that be in much the same way you used your eyes to read the post? Or did you even bother?
|
Ghan Tylous
Paxton Industries
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 08:29:00 -
[47]
And I thought that CCP had said that scamming was ok? 
---
Words without action is death to the nature of logic. |
Saldun Zexu
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 08:47:00 -
[48]
It isn't scam. you have to pay attention. if not, is your fault. read well before accept.
scam in EVE is GTC scam. rest - no.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 08:55:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Ghan Tylous
And I thought that CCP had said that scamming was ok?
Originally by: Saldun Zexu
It isn't scam. you have to pay attention. if not, is your fault. read well before accept.
scam in EVE is GTC scam. rest - no.
Did you two even read the post? I said nothing about scamming being wrong or not part of EVE. Go read the original post then make a comment.
|
Gaius Sejanus
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 10:13:00 -
[50]
I read the original post. This is not a bug. This is not an exploit. The proper solution would be to remove the x 1 designation while creating a contract. That will erase this inconsistancy that has your pants all in a bunch.
Only if you are careless will you be taken in by this rather pathetic scam. There are at least 3 ways to detect it before you fork over your money. Failing to do any of the three is entirely YOUR fault, and whining (yes, whining is entirely accurate for how you are behaving) about it will change nothing.
Personally, I wish it was harder to detect. People being screwed over by themselves gives me no end of amusement.
|
Robacz
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 10:51:00 -
[51]
It is not a bug or an exploit, but yes it is confusing for players who are not familiar with contracts. These players will not know that description showed on contract details can be faked and together with item icon lacking quantity information, they can be easily scammed.
If CCP ever made any manual or documentation for new features, it would be different story, but since there is not even ingame help available, I think its valid request.
But as Argenton said, there is a lot more serious issues with contracts which needs to be fixed. Lets hope next version will come sooner than in Kali2. 
___________
Buying/Selling: Implants & Hardwirings
Producing/BPCs: Mining Barges, BCs, Cruisers |
Malicia Skirj
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 13:08:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Malicia Skirj on 09/01/2007 13:08:37
edit 1: Highlighting the part of Robacz post I was referring to. I don't actually disagree with anything in his post. The bit at the bottom about the pictures is in reference to Dawne's pictures of different items.
Originally by: Robacz
It is not a bug or an exploit, but yes it is confusing for players who are not familiar with contracts. These players will not know that description showed on contract details can be faked and together with item icon lacking quantity information, they can be easily scammed.
This is true....but...at the very end when you go to accept the contract one of those exciting little "ARE YOU SURE?" screens pops up outlining exactly what it is you're receiving and how much of it regardless of what the description is.
Anyone truly concerned will be reading that before making the contract final. There's absolutely no reason that final screen shouldn't alert someone that they're only buying one unit of something when they think they're buying more unless they've disabled that screen. But..if they're unwilling to read that it's kinda silly to assume they'd read anything else that might hint that they're about to get scammed.
Caveat Emptor is a relatively well known phrase for a reason.
Posting the pictures showing how one packaged item has a unit listed everywhere but in the finalized contract is a nice touch, but doesn't really change much. Apples, oranges and peaches are all similar fruits, but there's no reason for them to be consisten in every way because they're not the same fruit. Post pictures of unpackaged items with a 1 (in your inventory)...and post pictures of finished "single units of a single item" contracts with a 1 and without a 1...then it'd be inconsistent. As it is, every single unit item contract is the same in that respect. In other words, consistent.
|
Matori Kar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 14:57:00 -
[53]
Nice to see all the scammers, scammer alts, and owners of scammer alts appearing in this thread Thank you OP 
Caldari: Don't have to worry about transversal, falloff/optimal, cap, tracking, how your damage type is being tanked,ship speed, the direction you are moving... etc. Easy Mode w00t!! |
Sorela
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 15:38:00 -
[54]
I can't fathom this one? I mean I understand how people got tricked by some of the escrow stuff. I'd never fall for it but I know not everyone is careful.
But how is this one even a scam? It's not even remotely confusing.
Even if you don't know "Megacyte" means one megacyte you obviously know it doesn't mean some specific number of megacyte that you are supposedly purchasing.
It should be cleared up for the sake of consistency and because it's cleaner but basically this thread should be deleted for claiming to be about an exploit and bug and wasting my time. All in all I feel far more violated by the OP than I would be by a scammer who tricked me with this "scam".
|
Isyel
Minmatar
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 15:46:00 -
[55]
Bug? No. I see nothing wrong with it. Sure i agree it could be done better, and more consistent, but there's so much more to fix before this. 
Originally by: Matori Kar
Nice to see all the scammers, scammer alts, and owners of scammer alts appearing in this thread Thank you OP
You, sir, are a fool.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Originally by: Wrangler
We don't want to discriminate anyone! We want *both* anti-social *and* social players to grief each other! 
|
Vladikov Orrico
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 16:05:00 -
[56]
Quote:
The difference here is, scamming legal in Eve, and THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL DESIGN ASTHETIC.
Great to know. Gonna get right on that mass game mail I was gonna send out pretending to be EVE staff and asking for account information.
I wasn't going to....but I mean since scamming is legal and all..
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 18:42:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Dawne Xi on 09/01/2007 18:39:47
I call this a bug because I am giving the programmers / designers the benefit of the doubt that they are not stupid and must have simply overlooked including the quantity for a quantity of one, expecially since in the Dev blog that preceded Kali clearly shows a contract for an item of one showing the quantity.
Here's a link to how the contract system started out http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=360
Perhaps that was an incorrect assessment on the intelligence of the Dev team, I'll not make this mistake in the future.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 19:14:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Dawne Xi on 09/01/2007 19:11:33
Does everyone remember the threats to ban people who exploited the Escrow BPO / BPC confusion because CCP declared it a bug, a few patches back? I have been searching for information on exactly what was shown or not shown. I thought, though, that there was some way you could tell that something described as a BPO was a really a BPC or something like that, if you knew what you were looking at. Does anyone remember if this was true, and where it was exactly you had to know where to look?
I can't recall, but if there was a way to tell that the advertised BPO was really a BPC, I am not sure this topic is too far removed from the BPC escrow scam of last year.
|
Nadarius Chrome
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 19:43:00 -
[59]
I think everyone understands the "No quantity means 1x" argument. It's true. Once you've spotted one of these scams you know that the description field is freeform, and that no quantity elsewhere means it's a single unit. This will (should) only catch anyone ever once. Even if only 10% of people click past the final confirmation stage without reading it then that's still 15,000 potential victims.
I just did a search for Zydrine in The Forge. Couldn't find a single non-scam contract. Heck, one optimist thinks they can swap one unit of Zyd for an obelisk...
My point is, the lack of numbers on a single-unit contract only benefits the scammers. I can't imagine why anyone would object to a simple fix that will affect nobody but scammers and people who simply haven't used the contract system before and don't know the "None means one" rule...
|
Kylania
Gallente
Phoenix Industries
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 19:51:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Edited by: Dawne Xi on 09/01/2007 19:11:33
Does everyone remember the threats to ban people who exploited the Escrow BPO / BPC confusion because CCP declared it a bug
The difference is that was a bug while this is merely an arguably bad design feature. With the BPO/BPC thing there wasn't any way of telling the difference. With a single unit Contract there is.
You might disagree with it's presentation but there's a clear, easy to understand and instantly verifiable method of telling how many items are in a Contract. Multiple methods in fact.
--
Lil Miner
Newbie Skills Roadmap | How to Build from a BPO |
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 20:09:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Kylania
With the BPO/BPC thing there wasn't any way of telling the difference.
Ok, I thought there was, my mistake then. Thanks Kylania.
|
Vladikov Orrico
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 20:25:00 -
[62]
Quote:
You might disagree with it's presentation but there's a clear, easy to understand and instantly verifiable method of telling how many items are in a Contract. Multiple methods in fact.
So.....your arguing the fact of whether is qualifies to be called a bug? Or do you in fact not want it changed to be easier and more clear as to lower the scammer abuse of this feature?
If it's simply terminology...i think we can all agree that, while not a exploit in the game itself...it is certainly a feature im bad need of a quick fix. There is no reason anyone can argue that they should "not" fix this unless you are lumped into the forementioned "scammer" group.
As the former person said, the only people the fix would affect would all the losers trying to prey on a badly setup and worded game screen...
I am pretty sure that we should be done with the "it shouldn't called a bug or exploit" discussion. I think we have determined that already. Lets get this fixed and wait for the next big scam to show it's ugly mug.
|
Kylania
Gallente
Phoenix Industries
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 20:45:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Kylania
With the BPO/BPC thing there wasn't any way of telling the difference.
Ok, I thought there was, my mistake then. Thanks Kylania.
At first there was, it said in the escrow info window how many runs something had but then there was a bug for a while where there wasn't. BPCs were showing up the same as their default BPO (which is how it works in contracts, grr!!!) That's what the ban warnings were for.
--
Lil Miner
Newbie Skills Roadmap | How to Build from a BPO |
Tremitry Darkstar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:04:00 -
[64]
From a noob's perspective:
I don't think this is a bug. I learned a long time ago outside of video games that a lack of quanity usually denotes a single unit. The only claim that can be made here is that it is inconsistent with the rest of the game. While some games make efforts to provide consistent game mechanics, Eve is an enitrely different game which is why I've started playing it. it is more open-ended and realistic (if a sci-fi game can be considered realistic) in it's behavior.
If you are going to spend a ton of money, why on God's green Earth would you not re-read the contract multiple times before clicking on buy?
|
Vladikov Orrico
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:11:00 -
[65]
Because this is a game for you and me...
but for CCP it is a business.
A business is all about keeping your customers, and I would hate to think that CCP specifically left out features that would make scamming easier.
I can accdept osme sort of "you have to read before you buy", but specifically making it easier to scam would drive more people away than it would attract I think.
|
Malicia Skirj
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:22:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome
the lack of numbers on a single-unit contract only benefits the scammers. I can't imagine why anyone would object to a simple fix that will affect nobody but scammers and people who simply haven't used the contract system before and don't know the "None means one" rule...
No. Lack of attention, greed and in some cases, plain stupidity benefit the scammers. Even if this got changed there would still be greedy idiots out there trying to jump on the good deal before they realize:
A) They read the description only in their haste
B) They forgot to check the remaining duration of the contract
C) They didn't realize the unit of trit they had to move needed to go deep into 0.0 space
D) They dumped a lot of ISK on a faction or T2 ship after glancing at the icon and seeing the (possibly?) newly added X 1, but didn't bother making sure it wasn't actually a similar looking T1 equivalent.
I think most people in here are annoyed by the dead horse being beaten over and over because it's not a bug or an exploit (as the title suggests), scamming in the contract system IS supposed to be part of the game, apparently, and most of us know...deep down...that this won't make a difference. Scammers will find new ways to fool idiots and idiots will find new ways to be fooled. Anyone that thinks adding a x1 will cut down on scams is only fooling themselves.
And no, people against fixing this aren't all scammers. Personally, I'd just prefer CCP fix real bugs and real exploits, first, not spend time adding training wheels and a bib to the game. I realize some of you won't be able to get around that concept, but that's ok since the only time I make a contract is to trade stuff between alts.
|
Kylania
Gallente
Phoenix Industries
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:25:00 -
[67]
Guess it depends on the kind of customer CCP wants. Since the beginning EVE has been a very harsh and unforgiving game and that's just the way CCP and EVE's players want it. EVE has fought very hard to not dumb itself down and to make players accountable and responsible for their actions and oversights.
Piracy and scamming and being "evil" are very integral parts of EVE and always have been. As much as I may personally disagree with some of that, I firmly believe they should always be part of EVE. There was even a tremendous lecture about that very subject in the last Fan Fest. EVE is one of the few games where being evil is truly possible.
CCP seems to be doing pretty well new player wise even with the current state of scamming in game, and since it's 100% preventable, I still don't see the need to change anything based on "keeping customers". The type of player that would quit EVE based on a contract scam won't last long anyway, so dumbing down the game to "protect" them just dulls and game and makes it trivial for the rest of the players who would stick it out.
--
Lil Miner
Newbie Skills Roadmap | How to Build from a BPO |
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:26:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Tremitry Darkstar
If you are going to spend a ton of money, why on God's green Earth would you not re-read the contract multiple times before clicking on buy?
That's the point, there is no "x1" or "Qty 1" or anything of the sort on that screen to read and re-read, other than a quantity the contract issuer can enter to be anything they want it to say.
Why is this point lost on so many?
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:30:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
No. Lack of attention, greed and in some cases, plain stupidity benefit the scammers. Even if this got changed there would still be greedy idiots out there trying to jump on the good deal before they realize:
A) They read the description only in their haste
B) They forgot to check the remaining duration of the contract
C) They didn't realize the unit of trit they had to move needed to go deep into 0.0 space
D) They dumped a lot of ISK on a faction or T2 ship after glancing at the icon and seeing the (possibly?) newly added X 1, but didn't bother making sure it wasn't actually a similar looking T1 equivalent.
I'd like to point out, not a single thing you listed here as to do with a poorly designed interface. Thanks for helping make my point.
|
Tremitry Darkstar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:33:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Tremitry Darkstar
If you are going to spend a ton of money, why on God's green Earth would you not re-read the contract multiple times before clicking on buy?
That's the point, there is no "x1" or "Qty 1" or anything of the sort on that screen to read and re-read, other than a quantity the contract issuer can enter to be anything they want it to say.
Why is this point lost on so many?
It's not lost. You are simply expecting something to be there when the absense of that something should be giving you just as much information.
|
Malicia Skirj
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:36:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Tremitry Darkstar
If you are going to spend a ton of money, why on God's green Earth would you not re-read the contract multiple times before clicking on buy?
That's the point, there is no "x1" or "Qty 1" or anything of the sort on that screen to read and re-read, other than a quantity the contract issuer can enter to be anything they want it to say.
Why is this point lost on so many?
There isn't?
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:38:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Tremitry Darkstar
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Tremitry Darkstar
If you are going to spend a ton of money, why on God's green Earth would you not re-read the contract multiple times before clicking on buy?
That's the point, there is no "x1" or "Qty 1" or anything of the sort on that screen to read and re-read, other than a quantity the contract issuer can enter to be anything they want it to say.
Why is this point lost on so many?
It's not lost. You are simply expecting something to be there when the absense of that something should be giving you just as much information.
Just a fancy way of saying what's been said over and over, as idiotic as it is, "Nothing equals One"
|
Malicia Skirj
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:39:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
No. Lack of attention, greed and in some cases, plain stupidity benefit the scammers. Even if this got changed there would still be greedy idiots out there trying to jump on the good deal before they realize:
A) They read the description only in their haste
B) They forgot to check the remaining duration of the contract
C) They didn't realize the unit of trit they had to move needed to go deep into 0.0 space
D) They dumped a lot of ISK on a faction or T2 ship after glancing at the icon and seeing the (possibly?) newly added X 1, but didn't bother making sure it wasn't actually a similar looking T1 equivalent.
I'd like to point out, not a single thing you listed here as to do with a poorly designed interface. Thanks for helping make my point.
"Exploiting a bug" doesn't have much to do with "poorly designed interface", either. You're welcome. :)
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:45:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Tremitry Darkstar
If you are going to spend a ton of money, why on God's green Earth would you not re-read the contract multiple times before clicking on buy?
That's the point, there is no "x1" or "Qty 1" or anything of the sort on that screen to read and re-read, other than a quantity the contract issuer can enter to be anything they want it to say.
Why is this point lost on so many?
There isn't?
No there isn't on the screen he was referring to.
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/qty_one.gif
I've never said there wasn't a quantity listed on the confirmation window, it's in the original post. I also pointed out that this window can be disabled in the original post.
|
Malicia Skirj
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 21:52:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Tremitry Darkstar
If you are going to spend a ton of money, why on God's green Earth would you not re-read the contract multiple times before clicking on buy?
That's the point, there is no "x1" or "Qty 1" or anything of the sort on that screen to read and re-read, other than a quantity the contract issuer can enter to be anything they want it to say.
Why is this point lost on so many?
There isn't?
No there isn't on the screen he was referring to.
http://www.equo.org/eve/images/qty_one.gif
I've never said there wasn't a quantity listed on the confirmation window, it's in the original post. I also pointed out that this window can be disabled in the original post.
But you have to admit, the buyer is shown the correct quantity of single item types unless they, the buyer, elect not to be shown. That'd mean the only people this "poor interface" argument applies to are the people who've already elected not to be shown what they're buying, anyway.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 22:03:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Dawne Xi on 09/01/2007 22:10:04
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
But you have to admit, the buyer is shown the correct quantity of single item types unless they, the buyer, elect not to be shown. That'd mean the only people this "poor interface" argument applies to are the people who've already elected not to be shown what they're buying, anyway.
Well I think I did in the original post, in the third paragraph, sorry no gotcha this time :)
Originally by: Dawne Xi from original post
Any item that is a quantity of one (1), does not have it's quantity listed as "X 1" on the contract screen but does have it in the final confirmation window before the contract is accepted -- Only if you have not disabled this final warning message though.
And I'd like to thank you for adding one more screen shot to the list of places where a quantity of one is clearly shown, unlike the contract screen.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 22:13:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Dawne Xi on 09/01/2007 22:10:34
double post deleted
|
Malicia Skirj
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 22:26:00 -
[78]
So you're agreeing players are afforded the opportunity to see that there's plainly only one unit listed. Or something. The gist of what I'm getting is "this is a bug/exploit/poor design because the x 1 is located on the contract, but not in a certain spot and anyone that has chosen not to see the correct quantity of a single unit contract is unable to see the correct quantity of a single unit contract."
Pretty convoluted.
I'll try to think up a way to test this theory that having a "X quantity" makes a difference. Gotta take the girly out to eat. Hafa adai, peeps.
|
Dawne Xi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 22:36:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
So you're agreeing players are afforded the opportunity to see that there's plainly only one unit listed. Or something. The gist of what I'm getting is "this is a bug/exploit/poor design because the x 1 is located on the contract, but not in a certain spot and anyone that has chosen not to see the correct quantity of a single unit contract is unable to see the correct quantity of a single unit contract."
Pretty convoluted.
I'll try to think up a way to test this theory that having a "X quantity" makes a difference. Gotta take the girly out to eat. Hafa adai, peeps.
Ok, not only did you not read my last reply, you probably didn't read the original post either.. What's your point? I said in the original post that was the only place, yeah... I said it, oh no you got me.. Next time, before replying, try reading what you're replying to. It makes discussing things so much easier, instead of having to constantly repeat what's been said several times now.
|
Nadarius Chrome
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 23:17:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome
the lack of numbers on a single-unit contract only benefits the scammers. I can't imagine why anyone would object to a simple fix that will affect nobody but scammers and people who simply haven't used the contract system before and don't know the "None means one" rule...
No. Lack of attention, greed and in some cases, plain stupidity benefit the scammers. Even if this got changed there would still be greedy idiots out there trying to jump on the good deal before they realize:
A) They read the description only in their haste
B) They forgot to check the remaining duration of the contract
C) They didn't realize the unit of trit they had to move needed to go deep into 0.0 space
D) They dumped a lot of ISK on a faction or T2 ship after glancing at the icon and seeing the (possibly?) newly added X 1, but didn't bother making sure it wasn't actually a similar looking T1 equivalent.
I'll assume it's unintentional that you misread my statement. What it means is:
The only benefit from listing no quantity is to scammers.
It does NOT mean that the only thing scammers benefit from is the lack of a quantity.
By this, I am saying that no other group or person benefits from the lack of a quantity. To nobody else can the lack of a "1 x" be of benefit.
As for CCP spending time fixing "real bugs and exploits", if you're somehow under the impression that everyone's always working on the same facet of the game, you're completely unaware of the workings of a 200-person dev team.
|
Moraguth
Amarr
Rangers
|
Posted - 2007.01.10 02:15:00 -
[81]
To the OP
Please keep bringing this up. I don't know if it has been you the whole time or not, but this does need to be easily seen by anyone just checking out the forums (usually just the first page if you only have a passing interest i'm guessing). I don't know about calling it a bug, but it is an exploit of game interface. I fully support the abilities of the old scamming on escrow, but this is harder to catch. I've not fallen victim to it, and i most likely never will. But seriously, keep bringing this up, start new topics, whatever you have to until someone (ISD/DEV/GM/other important person) comes along and says it is working as intended.
To those people who say "no GM is paying attention cause it IS working right", you're dumb. The lack of a response does NOT indicate that everything is right in the world, just that they haven't gotten to it yet. If nothing else, constantly bringing it up will make them look at it sooner and tell us one way or the other.
Thanks
good game |
Cambrian
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 11:21:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Cambrian on 20/01/2007 11:18:52
Edited by: Cambrian on 20/01/2007 11:18:35
basic algebra, when describing one of something, you might right x or y or whatever, x*1 or 1x is still correct but never used, its only when decribing >1 or <1 that you use a number.
still can be misleading thats why i checked out the forum, alot of auctions seeming to good to be true
|
Talen Kross
Dragon's Rage
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 13:35:00 -
[83]
It's a feature not a bug.
|
Misses Gap
The Lantern Mining Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.01.20 18:03:00 -
[84]
I may be wrong, but was it not one of the features of the new contract system that you could mask out known scammers ?
Sorry if this is a bit unrelated but on one hand, but on the other it could help a lot to overcome scams.
gap
|
Malicia Skirj
|
Posted - 2007.01.21 05:47:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Malicia Skirj on 21/01/2007 05:45:55
Originally by: Dawne Xi
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
So you're agreeing players are afforded the opportunity to see that there's plainly only one unit listed. Or something. The gist of what I'm getting is "this is a bug/exploit/poor design because the x 1 is located on the contract, but not in a certain spot and anyone that has chosen not to see the correct quantity of a single unit contract is unable to see the correct quantity of a single unit contract."
Pretty convoluted.
I'll try to think up a way to test this theory that having a "X quantity" makes a difference. Gotta take the girly out to eat. Hafa adai, peeps.
Ok, not only did you not read my last reply, you probably didn't read the original post either.. What's your point? I said in the original post that was the only place, yeah... I said it, oh no you got me.. Next time, before replying, try reading what you're replying to. It makes discussing things so much easier, instead of having to constantly repeat what's been said several times now.
Holy thread necromancy, blatman.
Not only did I read your reply, I read the original post AND the original thread you started. My point is, the game already provides a way for people to know if they're only getting 1 of an item even when the person puts more than one in the description. It's on that confirmation screen at the end. No, it's not on the very specific screen you seem to want it on, but the fact is it's there. Who really gives a **** WHERE it is as long as it's being brought up PRIOR to the player accepting the contract. And currently....................it is. If I go to buy something that says Zydrine and the description is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 zydrine for 1 ISK...at the end a screen will pop up asking if I'm sure I want to buy 1 zydrine for 1 ISK. That's the problem I have with this thread and all the complaining going on in it. What you're asking for is already in place as shown in the link I posted with my "There isn't?" comment earlier.
|
Moraguth
Amarr
Rangers
|
Posted - 2007.01.21 10:10:00 -
[86]
I support this thread. It's not really a bug or an exploit, but QA should have noticed it. If it was intentional, then so be it, but I have yet to see a dev or someone who actually knows say that the lack of a "x1" was intentional.
Bump for the masses
good game |
Tremitry Darkstar
Caldari
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 14:53:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Tremitry Darkstar on 22/01/2007 14:52:29
Not only do I find this conversation silly, I would actually support keeping it the way it is.
For starters: I haven't really used contracts a whole lot, but did pick up on this.
The ONLY way you can get scammed from this "bug" is if you are not paying attention to what you are buying.
It's like signing a contract without reading the fine print. HELLO!? Are you telling me that you go out in real life and purchase things that require a combination of a) large amounts of money, b) involve a large time commitment, and c) could include stiff penalties and fees, AND YOU DO NOT EVEN READ THE ENTIRE CONTRACT?
Here, let me put this in a different perspective. I'm going to write some things, and you're going to tell me how many of them there are. Ready? Go!
4x orange
8x banana
grape
9x cherry
2x apple
How many grapes are there? Now, let's move on to simple arithmetic using algebra. Algebra (should) have been taught to you in middle school and high school. If you didn't pay attention to your class, then... well... it seems like life will be rough for you.
I'm going to come up with an arbitrary number. Thus number could be anything, so I will call it "Z". Z could be equal to 1 or 1 million, it doesn't really matter. So let me throw out a few multiplication problems....
7 x Z = ?
3 x Z = ?
9 x Z = ?
Z = ?
So, whatever number Z is (let's say Z is equal to 2), the first equation would be 14, the second would be 6, the third would be 18, and the last one would be 2. Clearly, when Z is by itself, it is equal to itself.
So, let's move right along and instead of numbers, we'll use... oh... minerals. Let's say that Z is now equal to "Ubermineral", a freshly discovered mineral that allows for the construction of Ubertitans. So, tell me... using basic algebra, what are the quanities of the following:
5x Ubermineral = ?
28x Ubermineral = ?
9000x Ubermineral = ?
Ubermineral = ?
1234567890x Ubermineral = ?
This is pretty basic high school math. You can't graduate high school without doing simple algebra. So complaining about this mechanic sounds VERY silly to me. If anything, I think the mechanic should stay simply to weed out the people who don't pay attention or can't accept the fact that this game requires more sa***uards for the player.
If you want more safe-gaurds, go play WoW. Please. I even have a level 60 mage that I'm not using anymore. As my WoW raid leader was often quoted for saying (and I'm quite the Eve noob myself), cry more noob.
*edit*
Wow, the language filter is pretty aggressive. Go figure that it'd block out a chunk on the word safe-guard?
-Tremitry Darkstar |
Ione Hunt
Gekidoku
Koroshiya Buntai
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 15:10:00 -
[88]
Sorry for the people getting scammed, but the total quantity is indicated on each contract. Ofc if there's only 1 unit it won't show "1x" next to the big item symbol, but rather next to the price.
I fell for that trick once or twice too, but that's the harsh reality of EVE. As in RL, read the fineprint!!! Best to learn from your mistakes and don't repeat 'em.
PS: I categorily refuse to go contract shopping past 1am because I know how it could end
_______________
|
shaolinp
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 15:13:00 -
[89]
lemme see if i got this correct.
was looking at another item and i seen sum1 selling 250mil trit for only 150mil. that itself made me wary.
anyways is it the box at the very bottom of the screen (the one that says offered items) that will correctly show the true amount of that item thats being sold by that party?? meaning if theres no ### next to it then its only 1 item?
|
Dai007
Caldari
Crabbs
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 15:33:00 -
[90]
Im not even gonna bother reading the posts here. If you cannot read the contract then maybe you should seek help from an optician.
It is VERY simply, look at ebay.. they don't say Selling 1 X Camera do they?? no. If there is no "quantity" then it is ONE, SINGLE, ITEM!.
If there is MORE THAN ONE, then it is given a quantity.
Jesus.
|
Decarus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 15:57:00 -
[91]
Are you honestly going to try and pin the fact that you got scammed fair and square on CCP by maintaining that your logical facilities cannot disassociate the 'Contract Creation' view from the 'View Contract' view? The argument that "Seeing as the create contract view shows [unit] x [quantity] even when [quantity] = 1 then the view contract view should follow suit!" doesn't even apply here! If your brain is unable to view these two views as seperate things who might have different characteristics then it still doesn't make sense that you'd assume that [unit] x [void] is anything (void here stands for the lack of 'x 1' when dealing with a quantity of one)! Especially not a million units of whatever just because the title says so.
What I'm saying is that, even in the case of you being right and a redundant 'x 1' should be applied to all units, it does not explain why you'd assume things who have no multiplication sign by them can be substituted with 'x 100.000.000' (or whatever number the title implies)? The way I see it, if you maintain that there should always be a 'x 1' there it should be even easier for you to notice that it's lacking and thus realise that not only is the system faulty as it doesn't show your desired 'x 1' but the person who is claiming to be selling Y units of whatever is lying as there's no 'x Y' there.
Secondly, this isn't a bug. Bugs aren't the consequences of developers having different opinions than you. Bugs are unforseen behaviours, there's nothing unforseen about 'x 1' being omitted when the devs obviously decided to do it.
Also, it's kinda silly to ask people to show you a stack (unpackaged item) which doesn't show it's quantity, don't you think. Stacks by nature have a quantity where as unit representations usualy signify a single unit. Now stop assuming that the pretty pictures in the contracts are stacks (as nothing indicates that) and start assuming they are unit representations of said item (which the lack of 'x 1' indicates they are)... or you can just go on blaming everyone else for your misfortune.
~Decarus,
DANGER! Highly corrosive chemical material. Contact may cause severe irritation, burns or poisoning. Keep away from children. |
Xiaodown
Dragons Of Redemption
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:01:00 -
[92]
Guys, both of you here on the 4th page read my post - last one on the 3rd page.
Even if you say that "No quantity explicitly displayed = 1", CCP is actaully feeding people information that suggests it is a multiple quantity when it's not (it says "offered items", plural, when it's only one Item).
I mean, yeah, you see the quantity on the confirm screen, but a.) that can be disabled, and b.) it is confusing, i'll conceed that. |
Decarus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:12:00 -
[93]
Sure, I'll conceed that using plural there isn't very accurate. Especially since there's probably a conditional in the code removing the 'x 1' part which might aswell assign 'Item' rather than 'Items', might have to add another conditional to check whether there were other types of items in the contract there aswell but that isn't too much of an overhead.
However, I'm not going to agree that this means that CCP is responsible in any way for people who think they are getting the deal of their lifetime and fall pray to a scam because they have their common sense gets clouded by the glittering almost-too-good-to-be-true offer. Well to be honest they're probably not all too good to be true, but I doubt people notice this and this is not the deciding factor in them getting scammed, they're being rash and reap the rewards for it.
~Decarus,
DANGER! Highly corrosive chemical material. Contact may cause severe irritation, burns or poisoning. Keep away from children. |
Ka'non
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:13:00 -
[94]
Just my 2 cents as a new player.
I've been looking at contracts, mainly the "courier" contracts as a quick way to make money while I'm trading but I've been put off due to the huge collateral compaired to reward and the fact that I can't see what I'm being asked to courrier so I don't know if the stuff is Illegal or untransportable.
I'm a wary sort and enjoy risk/reward but here I don't see that people that haven't already been burned have a chance as this isn't made clear, new players or players that haven't used this system or chanced across this post don't have a chance.
If I saw an auction for x10,000 Sabretooth Missiles for 100,000 isk I'd read the contract.
If I saw in the "Offered ITEMS" Sabretooth Missile - No alarm bells would ring as this looks correct to someone who isn't aware of this feature.
Yes it's obvious to people who already know about it but thats kind of not the point....
And as said it's inconsistant and as posted above to all those saying ZOMG read it: well someone HAS, and it says ITEMS! Plural, so misleading all over the place methinks.
|
Kylania
Gallente
Phoenix Industries
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:17:00 -
[95]
Quote:
I can't see what I'm being asked to courrier so I don't know if the stuff is Illegal or untransportable.
As I said in your other post, you cannot set up a courier for illegal items, so you don't have to worry about that.
--
Lil Miner
Newbie Skills Roadmap | How to Build from a BPO |
Ka'non
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:22:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Dai007
It is VERY simply, look at ebay.. they don't say Selling 1 X Camera do they?? no. If there is no "quantity" then it is ONE, SINGLE, ITEM!.
If there is MORE THAN ONE, then it is given a quantity.
Jesus.
Erm actually i'm selling dozens of CISCO WIreless adapters on Ebay.
Some yes just say Cisco Wireless card and are for a single unit.
However I tried one auction selling 4 at a time as I noticed some people bidding on multiple cards so I thought I could sell in bulk.
The Auction was for 4x Cisco Airnet cards.
The Description described and showed a single card.
Does this mean that I could send the winner a single card because they didn't check the description? I don't think so.
|
Ka'non
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:23:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Kylania
Quote:
I can't see what I'm being asked to courrier so I don't know if the stuff is Illegal or untransportable.
As I said in your other post, you cannot set up a courier for illegal items, so you don't have to worry about that.
Huh? Oh thanks I thought I posted earlier then couldn't see my post so I reposted this one...err...I'll go look again >_<
*feels embarrassed*
|
Kylania
Gallente
Phoenix Industries
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:27:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Kylania on 22/01/2007 16:23:45
EVE is not eBay and you should not even try to use one to explain the other.
In EVE Online's Contract system an icon with no other indications means "a single unit". End of story. If someone cannot grasp that fact, they should stick to the market.
This isn't difficult and it's not confusing. If it has x999 it's more than one unit, if it doesn't it's one unit. That's how it works. Trying to compare it to anything else in game or out of game is what's causing most people problems. Accept that "icon = 1" and you'll be much happier.
Edit: Your missing post ended up on the main page!
--
Lil Miner
Newbie Skills Roadmap | How to Build from a BPO |
Ka'non
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:29:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Ka''non on 22/01/2007 16:34:48
Edited by: Ka''non on 22/01/2007 16:30:01
Edited by: Ka''non on 22/01/2007 16:28:15
No it's not confusing, once you KNOW.
however this fact isn't explained in the game, in the tutorial, or in the help, a player has to find out by being scammed or finding out on the forum which isn't right imho.
And I only used ebay because someone else used it as an excuse for this system so I was pointing out a flaw in that excuse.
Yes you could also find out in chat if your lucky and the right people are on (as I've had some idiots trying to scam me when I asked questions in chat and no-one jumped in to help instead joining in the nooby baiting).
I asked what the skill and X-Bones and orange background on players meant and I was told it means they have a bounty on them and I can attack them.
May of fallen for it if it wasn't for the warning box and even then I thought about it for 2 seconds...
But why would a careful player who's read read and re-read the item description and can't see a problem ask in chat something they think is probably a real stupid question.
Yes I agree that you still have the pop up warning (though as I intend to be a space trader having played and loved X2 and X3 and making trade empires) I can see why some people unaware of this issue may have disabled pop up warnings prior to every taking on a contract and having the only place to spot a "scam" on the forums or in an "optional" warning box is a flaw.
I'm not defending peoples right to be stupid or not read, but that said you have to give people a chance, at least...thats the way I feel =p
|
Raeff
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:41:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Raeff on 22/01/2007 16:41:32
it is a very confusing system
if you use it everyday and have already figured it out you should not be posting in this thread .. period
if you can not see how this can be confusing to people who have never used the new system then i'm happy for you, but your in the minority
if ive been playing the game for 3+ years and it happened to me then it can happen to anyone .. first time to use the new contract system
needs to be fixed asap!
|
Xiaodown
Dragons Of Redemption
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 16:43:00 -
[101]
Decarus makes an excellent point. If there's already code in the game such that
if (quantity > 1) then
display "$item x $quantity)
end
if (quantity = 1) then
display "$item"
end
Then they could have also changed it so that
if (quantity = 1) then
display "$item"
change ("offered Items" to "offered item")
end
so that it would be singular and not plural. The fact that they already have a check in the game that can determine it would seem like it's just a simple bug.
Now, if it said "offered item(s)", then I'd say "man up nancy, don't get scammed". The "items" plural, though is what makes all the difference to me. |
Wyehr
Shadow Of The Light
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 17:20:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Dai007
Im not even gonna bother reading the posts here. If you cannot read the contract then maybe you should seek help from an optician.
It is VERY simply, look at ebay.. they don't say Selling 1 X Camera do they?? no. If there is no "quantity" then it is ONE, SINGLE, ITEM!.
If there is MORE THAN ONE, then it is given a quantity.
Jesus.
Ever buy salt for a water softener? Or do any landscaping and buy dirt, sand or gravel?
If you can't tell the difference between a bulk product, like salt, sand, or megacyte, and a product sold in discrete units, like a camera, I doubt there is much point debating this with you.
Considering that we can't haul people to court on fraud charges for making these contracts, maybe putting the quantity indication on all contracts is a good idea. There will still be plenty of contract scams available, this one is just stupid.
|
Idami Raptor
|
Posted - 2007.01.22 19:31:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Idami Raptor on 22/01/2007 19:30:11
I have to say, some very bad faith posters in here. This being controversial is, frankly, absurd.
Fact of the matter is, the 'tutorial' about the contract system is EXTREMELY brief and uninformative. It basically just lists what different kinds of contracts are, and some basic details about how they are set up. Note that this tutorial was never once automatically triggered in my case and instead had to be manually activated.
It says nothing about descriptions, item amounts, or potential scams.
The only in-depth tutorial new players get about buying and selling items is via the market, where amounts are displayed automatically.
A new player, otherwise uninformed about the contract system, could easily be led to believe that because the name of the contract lists a quantity, and the 'items offered' lists the proper item, they can expect to receive the quantity advertised.
The problem isn't so much that it displays no quantity for a quantity of 1 item, that's merely an aesthetic choice. The problem is that the fact that descriptions are player set and not necessarily accurate isn't actually stated anywhere. New players have to find it out for themselves, either from the forums, another player, or falling victim to this.
Fact is, this scam, as stated, is easily avoided...if and only if you know that 'no quantity means a quantity of one'. That much is true. The only reason this scam works at all is the simple fact that it is possible, and indeed likely, for someone with little or no experience with the contract system to have never found out that one simple fact.
The fact that the confirmation window(which DOES very plainly state what you're paying and what you're getting) can be turned off renders it pretty much an invalid instrument. By its nature, it needs to be there every time unless all the information it provides is both clearly and obviously visible to anyone, regardless of prior experience with or knowledge of the contract system.
There are three available, equally valid solutions. an auto-activating, in-depth tutorial for the contract system(possibly even included in the main tutorial) that covers the scam potential of it. Or make it so the final confirmation dialog cannot be disabled. Or simply make it so that it always displays the quantity of each item. that little 'x1' would make it so ANYONE, regardless of experience or knowledge could plainly see if they looked that they were getting scammed. In that case if they get scammed its their own fault, and even Blizzard would agree.
I might add, there are scammers on WoW as well. Some are punished, some are not. For example, trying to sell someone an expensive item that's really a crappy one wrapped up in a present box(so it cannot be seen what it is), is punishable, as is trying to get a CoD for a present box. Posting a series of auctions for a commonly used item at the same price, except for one which is a factor of 10 higher(IE: 10 gold instead of 10 silver), is not. The second is very common, and people do actually fall for it(it used to sort items by bid price, not by buyout, so it would show up in the middle of the stack of same priced items.) Blizz's response was to implement a non-skippable confirmation window, and if you clicked 'ok', it was your fault for not reading closely enough.
The problem here is one of a lack of education and a poorly designed interface allowing new players to get scammed. It's an easy, 10 second fix, and there is absolutely no valid reason for not doing so.
|
Malicia Skirj
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 00:51:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Malicia Skirj on 23/01/2007 00:48:57
Originally by: Idami Raptor
Edited by: Idami Raptor on 22/01/2007 19:30:11
The fact that the confirmation window(which DOES very plainly state what you're paying and what you're getting) can be turned off renders it pretty much an invalid instrument.
It's an easy, 10 second fix, and there is absolutely no valid reason for not doing so.
Yes, it can be shut off by anyone that doesn't care to know exactly what they're getting. Those people probably wouldn't be in this thread, though...as that'd be kinda foolish.
"Hi...I had a chance to be warned about this contract being a scam, but I shut it off. Can we add a few more chances so I can't possibly ignore them all regardless of how lazy and impatient I am?"
What would you like? A huge, pink neon sign??
As far as your 10 second fix there's no valid reason FOR doing it, either, as the instrument is already in place to make people aware of exactly what they're getting in the contract. If they really wanted to know they wouldn't have shut it off. If they didn't, this thread really has no meaning for them..'cause they don't want to know.
Oh...and post the 10 second fix.
|
Xiaodown
Dragons Of Redemption
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 01:22:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
[...blah de blah...]
Oh...and post the 10 second fix.
There's already a check in the code something along the lines of
if ($quantity > 1) {
echo "$itemname x $quantity";
else
echo "$itemname";}
Taking out the check to see if quantity is greater than one (in order to add the x 28932 after the name of the item) will fix the scam.
So, my 10 second fix is:
cd /path/to/contract/code && sed 's/\$quantity/2/g' contract_display && sleep 9;
I'm not a programmer by trade, so my syntax isn't correct, but I mean, how hard is that?
~X |
Dai007
Caldari
Crabbs
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 01:30:00 -
[106]
Its NOT a scam. Jesus.
Get over it. Set the filter to Simple View and you have NO problems!. Another 50,000 topics on this subject YAY!.
|
AvatarADV
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 01:40:00 -
[107]
I just want to know - what's the case for not fixing it such that the quantity "x1" is displayed if there's only one item? Yes, yes, fair game and all that, not saying that everyone who has done it should be banned and their ships given to me. But seriously, is there any purpose to not listing a "1" for quantities of one aside from allowing people to rip off the inattentive?
Basically, what I mean is, why argue that it shouldn't be fixed?
|
Ka'non
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 13:22:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Malicia Skirj
"Hi...I had a chance to be warned about this contract being a scam, but I shut it off. Can we add a few more chances so I can't possibly ignore them all regardless of how lazy and impatient I am?"
What would you like? A huge, pink neon sign??
The warning is not specific to contracts, most players come across it when buying Items which are all plainly listed with price and quantity and that's where most players who trade regularly or hate having to OK something they already double checked twice will turn it off.
The problem is this then carries over to contracts where this information, unlike NORMAL Market purcahses, doesn't have all the neccesary information UP FRONT for people who DON'T KNOW BETTER to be able to spot a problem.
I'm going to be trading lots and would certainly turn this off, not knowing that it would set me up for being scammed later as I didn't know better.
Again it's no defence for not fixing this problem.
|
Apis Dorsetta
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 13:46:00 -
[109]
I think that the OPs original point is that it could be less confusing, anyone new to the Contract system ie. me 2 days played or ya know by the sounds of it, pretty much everyone, could easily make this mistake. I had just been introduced to the contract system by a friend and thought hmm, I am going to be using a lot of small ammo so why not buy a bulk of 10K ...this looks about half price, maybe someone is trying to be nice to newbies. Imagine my confusion when after finishing what was a relatively complex process for someone that is still getting used to the interface of everything I then pootle off to get my ammo and find I am the proud owner of 1 Phased Plasma S. "Where the hell did all my ammo go?" I ask myself. Turns out I didnt buy 'all that ammo' and it was pretty much the end of the bad day, I was actually unaware of the forums up to that point. So yeah, Props to the OP for making people aware of this, if EVE had even a small tutorial note on contracts about this I could have saved myself a costly mistake.
|
Rab
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 14:15:00 -
[110]
Whats really amazing about this post is that about 75%+ of replies are against making it clearer.
Why are these people so allergic to a X 1 added to the items on contract? why is clarity bad?
If CCP wanted to leave it pure scam central they would have copied the original escrow style, instead they tried to make it clearer whats for sale. And missed a small piece of that improvement.
- In an infinite universe, everything is definite. - |
Decarus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 14:28:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Rab
Why are these people so allergic to a X 1 added to the items on contract? why is clarity bad?
I can't speak for the others ofcourse but I can give you my take on things.
I don't want the 'x 1' added because:
a) It doesn't add clarity at all.
b) It's redundant.
Now this is because it comes naturaly to me to assume a unit representation of anything implicitly contains a single unit. Similarly a Unit representation of something multiplied by a number X indicates a quantified unit. Now, quantifying a unit representation with the 'quantity' of 1 is just wrong in my opinion. I get that people don't agree with me but I believe it comes down to an aesthetical decission. Some people would say 'Have an apple' where as others would want to say 'Have one apple' (apparently, makes no sense to me as 'an' infers the unit).
I also oppose people trying to blame their own rashness on the developers. Even if their argument holds it doesn't explain why they'd accept the contract when there is no indication of quantity. Even if God dictates that unit representations should come with a quantifier when they are representing a unit it still doesn't explain why someone would look at [picture] (which obviously should be [picture] x 1 seeing as God says so) and decide it represents some arbitary quantity, just because the title says so.
I believe people should assume responsibility for their actions rather than search franticly for somthing obscure to pass the blame onto. I'm not trying to be an elitist jerk when I say this but: 'I honestly never ever had a problem with the contract system, before I started trusting it I browsed the mutlitude of contracts to familiarise myself with it. I've got no complaints and I like it alot better than Escrow'. So there you have it, the reason for my opposition.
~Decarus,
DANGER! Highly corrosive chemical material. Contact may cause severe irritation, burns or poisoning. Keep away from children. |
Apis Dorsetta
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 14:40:00 -
[112]
My point is that would it be any more confusing for anyone to have x 1 at the end? No
Would it make it less confusing some people for there to be a x 1 at the end? Yes
Why is there any reason not to if this is the case?
|
Rab
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 15:21:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Decarus
I can't speak for the others ofcourse but I can give you my take on things.
I don't want the 'x 1' added because:
a) It doesn't add clarity at all.
b) It's redundant.
Redundancy forms a fundamental part of checking anything. are you sure? you are bidding 10,000,000 (10 million) for this item. and yes, honestly, truly, it would add clarity. its been a standard business practice to put 1 off or x 1 to every order just for exactly that clarity, and to convert a pure number into written words. To save any misunderstanding even if none is likely.
Originally by: Decarus
Now this is because it comes naturaly to me to assume a unit representation of anything implicitly contains a single unit. Similarly a Unit representation of something multiplied by a number X indicates a quantified unit. Now, quantifying a unit representation with the 'quantity' of 1 is just wrong in my opinion. I get that people don't agree with me but I believe it comes down to an aesthetical decission. Some people would say 'Have an apple' where as others would want to say 'Have one apple' (apparently, makes no sense to me as 'an' infers the unit).
Well, apart from anything, many languages have the word 'an' translate directly to 'one' so basically it comes down to 'you think that its prettier'. Perhaps we should petition CCP to add a poet to their programmers so they can stick some iambic pentameter or perhaps a contracts haiku into the contracts system too, really go for aesthetic ? :)
Originally by: Decarus
I also oppose people trying to blame their own rashness on the developers. Even if their argument holds it doesn't explain why they'd accept the contract when there is no indication of quantity. Even if God dictates that unit representations should come with a quantifier when they are representing a unit it still doesn't explain why someone would look at [picture] (which obviously should be [picture] x 1 seeing as God says so) and decide it represents some arbitary quantity, just because the title says so.
I believe people should assume responsibility for their actions rather than search franticly for somthing obscure to pass the blame onto. I'm not trying to be an elitist jerk when I say this but: 'I honestly never ever had a problem with the contract system, before I started trusting it I browsed the mutlitude of contracts to familiarise myself with it. I've got no complaints and I like it alot better than Escrow'. So there you have it, the reason for my opposition.
Well, I can speak for myself and say that I have seen many scam contracts and escrows, and never fallen for any, and double triple check every one I make or accept, and I still believe that falling for one does not make you an idiot. It makes you human. And as such, it would be nice that confirmations and CLARITY is added to this situation. it would harm nothing except perhaps the aesthetics apparently :P
just my opposition to your opposition.
- In an infinite universe, everything is definite. - |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 15:25:00 -
[114]
I got a corp member who abuses this. Should be fixed and tantamount to a spoloit.
----------------------------------------
Friends Forever
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 15:29:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Decarus
Are you honestly going to try and pin the fact that you got scammed fair and square on CCP by maintaining that your logical facilities cannot disassociate the 'Contract Creation' view from the 'View Contract' view? The argument that "Seeing as the create contract view shows [unit] x [quantity] even when [quantity] = 1 then the view contract view should follow suit!" doesn't even apply here! If your brain is unable to view these two views as seperate things who might have different characteristics then it still doesn't make sense that you'd assume that [unit] x [void] is anything (void here stands for the lack of 'x 1' when dealing with a quantity of one)! Especially not a million units of whatever just because the title says so.
What I'm saying is that, even in the case of you being right and a redundant 'x 1' should be applied to all units, it does not explain why you'd assume things who have no multiplication sign by them can be substituted with 'x 100.000.000' (or whatever number the title implies)? The way I see it, if you maintain that there should always be a 'x 1' there it should be even easier for you to notice that it's lacking and thus realise that not only is the system faulty as it doesn't show your desired 'x 1' but the person who is claiming to be selling Y units of whatever is lying as there's no 'x Y' there.
Secondly, this isn't a bug. Bugs aren't the consequences of developers having different opinions than you. Bugs are unforseen behaviours, there's nothing unforseen about 'x 1' being omitted when the devs obviously decided to do it.
Also, it's kinda silly to ask people to show you a stack (unpackaged item) which doesn't show it's quantity, don't you think. Stacks by nature have a quantity where as unit representations usualy signify a single unit. Now stop assuming that the pretty pictures in the contracts are stacks (as nothing indicates that) and start assuming they are unit representations of said item (which the lack of 'x 1' indicates they are)... or you can just go on blaming everyone else for your misfortune.
Look idiot. If you disable the final confirmation window, you'll never have an oppurtunity to check something soo critical as the item #.
So get off you perfect horse you fricking loser and realize that this is a little cheap, esp. since people like my corpmate have made 2bills off this very scam in a very short time.
Im curious how much ISK you've swindled, since you're defending it so viciously?
----------------------------------------
Friends Forever
|
Bill Andrex
Caldari
The Dark Horses
Unbrella Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 16:21:00 -
[116]
Fair play to the OP for posting this and making the community aware of this "feature" in the contracts system. This should be a Sticky!
The current contacts system is a little unclear alright & I can see how players could be confused as to whats on sale, but happy to say I don't use the contracts system much as I've heard how bad all the scams are recently, hence I haven't been suckered for this one yet.
I hope CCP makes the system a little more streamlined and obvious in the near future, thumbs up to them thou for dumping Escrow, only thing its a shame not to be able to view all the contracts in the game, but I'm sure thats down to CPU loading.
|
Erfnam
Time Cube Syndicate
Daikoku Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 18:33:00 -
[117]
I haven't been caught by this, but it has resulted in me no longer using contract system for purchasing. No point since a majority of contracts are scams. The contract system was put in place to reduce lag and make it easier to find items for sale. Lag has gone down, but CCP has failed on the second part.
This is a really useful thread. I read through it and will do my best to not do business with any player or corp that defends the lack of GUI consistency. Even if this results in me paying more or selling items for less.
TCSyn is recruiting |
CrestoftheStars
Deviance Inc
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 20:54:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Ariel Stardust
This is not an exploit, coming straight from the dev team.
Stop whining and posting the same garbage 10 times over.
you shouldnt make a statement like this without a link to confirm it...
as i can see it is a bug, but if people use it to scam others, they should be punished for scamming... but well i gues ccp love having the "whine-online" and the "ass.hole get-to-gether"... have never tryid a game with so many idiots as in this game, simply because the GM and ccp arn^t using any resourches on stopping *******s and idiots from the game... sadly enough
___________________________________________
come on..
stop thinking about YOU.
and start thinking about All of us... how do we get a more fun and enjoyable game for all of us. |
CrestoftheStars
Deviance Inc
|
Posted - 2007.01.23 20:56:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Dai007
Im not even gonna bother reading the posts here. If you cannot read the contract then maybe you should seek help from an optician.
It is VERY simply, look at ebay.. they don't say Selling 1 X Camera do they?? no. If there is no "quantity" then it is ONE, SINGLE, ITEM!.
If there is MORE THAN ONE, then it is given a quantity.
Jesus.
ebay will not allow you to scam people, writing 100Xcamera¿s and then delievering 1 and keeping your money... they would press charges against you if you did... this is the difference...
___________________________________________
come on..
stop thinking about YOU.
and start thinking about All of us... how do we get a more fun and enjoyable game for all of us. |
Lady Branwen
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.01.24 00:52:00 -
[120]
Originally by: AvatarADV
I just want to know - what's the case for not fixing it such that the quantity "x1" is displayed if there's only one item? Yes, yes, fair game and all that, not saying that everyone who has done it should be banned and their ships given to me. But seriously, is there any purpose to not listing a "1" for quantities of one aside from allowing people to rip off the inattentive?
Basically, what I mean is, why argue that it shouldn't be fixed?
Because the people that lack the brains to actually earn isk will squeel like stuck little piggies is my best guess 
|
Decarus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.01.24 13:32:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg
Look idiot. If you disable the final confirmation window, you'll never have an oppurtunity to check something soo critical as the item #.
So get off you perfect horse you fricking loser and realize that this is a little cheap, esp. since people like my corpmate have made 2bills off this very scam in a very short time.
Im curious how much ISK you've swindled, since you're defending it so viciously?
If you disable the conformation window you're an idiot. Not calling you an idiot as I have no knowledge of you (and I like faking moral superiority by not behaving like a child in a tantrum fit when dealing with one) just saying that you shouldn't disable that window unless you're 110% sure of everything.
I'm not claiming my horse is perfect and I object to being called a loser without substantiation. If you read my second post on page 4 you'll notice that I don't claim this to be the absolutely and only right way to do things but an aesthetical matter and I'm going to stick to my aesthetics thank you.. even thought you present the compelling argument that I'm both an idiot and a loser in your eyes.
And I haven't made a single solitary ISK from other peoples rash decissions. However, the more I read through these topics the more I realise that I probably could quit my current endavours and do just that.. seems to be alot of sillies out there who turn of the confirmation window or dont bother to read it.
So, for the thrid time in this topic:
This is an aesthetical matter. There is no right and wrong when it comes to aesthetics, only opinions. CCP apparently shares my opinion so for the time being: 'I win!'. Doesn't mean my decission is superior to yours (as I've never said that) just like people who vote for party A aren't wrong in their opinions when party B wins the elections.
However, what I object to is people blaming their own stupidity on aesthetics. If the interface confuses you to believe you are getting something which you aren't getting.. well then I'm going to claim superiority over you because I understand it completely. I don't know what on earth posesses people to trust the title alone and explicitly declare that they don't want to see the confirmation window so they can't double check but it certainly isn't flaming intelligence. Nuff said. I also don't understand peolpe who claim that they wouldn't have fallen for this if the interface would display a 'x 1' because regardless of that the interface doesn't display 'x <whatever number the title says>'.
Now, I know you're passionate about this. You're either hurt because you've lost some money or you've decided to 'do the right thing' and go on a crusade to fix some henious error CCP has included in their game. That still doesn't allow you to say my aesthetics are an idiots point of view as the whole thing is relative. Why don't you argue that you shouldn't be able to disable the confirmation window.. I think that would do alot more for people.
P.S. Like I said I've never scammed anyone. However, the appealing thing about EvE is the fact that you can do whatever you want. If you want to swindle people like that you can do it and I hold no grudge against anyone who makes money of other people as long as the final choice to be conned rests with the scamee.
~Decarus,
DANGER! Highly corrosive chemical material. Contact may cause severe irritation, burns or poisoning. Keep away from children. |
Pete Higgs
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 15:59:00 -
[122]
I'm sorry, CCP's logic on allowing this makes absolutely no sense to me.
Don't get me wrong, I love the "hands off" approach to scamming in general. To protect themselves, everyone in eve must:
1. Be careful who they trust
2. Band together with other community members to punish those who run scams (well, if they feel like it)
Now, with this particular contract scam there is nothing the community can do to protect itself. As far as being careful, is everyone supposed to only buy from people they really trust? When you use regular buy and sell orders, do you research every person you buy from? Of course not, because the buy/sell system sets up an enforceable contract and you know exactly what you are getting. The contract system should work the same way, it should be clear what you are getting.
For all normal items, the description field should be completely disabled. There's absolutely no reason for it. Weird items like bookmarks or something (I'm a newb so I don't know what other items you can auction) could still have a description but all other items it should be disabled. Seriously, why do you need to "describe" the commodity items in Eve, when all items of the same type are exactly identical?
It makes no sense from an RP standpoint, either. No legal system in the universe will EVER let you write a contract that says basically, "I'm selling you 1000 widgets (actually it's only 1 widget)". That's not lawerly weasel words or fine print gotcha's, it's outright lying and has no place in a contract.
As for number 2, community enforcement, this is useless in 99% of these cases. Unlike other scams, contract scams can be run by an alt that never ever leaves the safety of a station. There is absolutely nothing the community can do to deter these scumbags.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 16:30:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Ariel Stardust
You apparently dont understand what the word "exploit" means. It means taking advantage of a bug or unintentional design flaw. The difference here is, scamming legal in Eve, and THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL DESIGN ASTHETIC.
Intentional to have a UI that is not consistent? It's a UI bug. Any time a UI does not behave in a consistent manner, it is a bug, plain and simple. If it is the "intention" of CCP to create an inconsistent UI, just so people can scam one another, then we have a different kind of probelem.
Read today's patch notes, it states that snowballs were removed so that some unknowing players would not be tricked into shooting back ... for CCP to then intentionaly create a "scam enabled" UI is inconsistent with that. Which inconsitancey would you like to choose? CCP has strange morals or something was over looked in the UI? I prefer the bug instead of "ass-hat" enablers.
-AS |
Quineverre
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 16:43:00 -
[124]
Newer players dont know about the snowballs since they havent been here when they got introduced and didnt read the forums stating they didnt do damage and concord would not come to blow you up for using them. New players however can read a contract and can read forums telling them abuot freeform contracts. Its not that hard to see its a scam.
Added to that yesterday someone brought to my attention the fact that freeform is a fantastic way for a corp to pay its members for work doneni situations where the normal contracts do not apply. So apparantly they have a use. Dont ask me for specifics cause I didnt bother asking the person for them.
|
Mischa Monroe
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 17:48:00 -
[125]
So much drivel in this thread I can't attempt to sift through it all (I made it to the end of page 2), but a gem from pg1:
Originally by: Semkhet
Some threads definitely smell like diapers...
If understanding that
"no specific amount displayed tacitely means ONE unit"
is soo difficult, then probably the OP has never had to cope with the intricacies of the wording of any contemporary contract you may find in real life.
If this kid ever tries to advertise, say, 1000 units of cheese in a trade mag with the word 'cheese' at the bottom, and then sends the courier to deliver one cheese, he's going to come off pretty badly. I feel a moral obligation to advise our young reader of some finer points of contract law, and indeed of jurisprudence in general. Possibly even the correct spelling of 'tacitly', but sadly again I can't be arsed.
Bottom line folks, you'll find on most of your receipts and contracts it clearly states 'Camembert 1@ ...' or 'Camembert x 1 ...'. This business is clearly just a scammer's heaven. It should be changed.
One thing that I don't quite get though, not being a programmer, is isn't it actually easier to program the machine to always just state 'Description x Amount'? Hasn't extra work been put in to make it drop the "x 1" for unitary quantities?
Well anyway, pretty lame as far as I can tell. And thanks for bringing this to the community's attention OP.
|
Evangeline d'Arcy
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 18:24:00 -
[126]
I don't really care about the scamming aspect itself. Read closely before you buy/bid, it's not that difficult.
What I DO care about are all the bogus contracts the system is spammed with as a result of this, rendering auction listings more tedious to read than they should be. It might not be as annoying if the UI allowed for easier, more extensive filtering of entries (e.g. via a block list similar to what P&P offers), but as it is there's something like half a dozen worthless contracts per page. It's quite bothersome and needlessly puts stress on the DB as well in all likelihood. THAT is why this ought to be fixed, in my opinion.
_________________________
|
Vadimik
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 20:12:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Vadimik on 30/01/2007 20:09:11
Rise & Shine, people, already fixed as well as I can tell.
|
Nadarius Chrome
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.01.30 20:14:00 -
[128]
End of discussion. Bug/feature/exploit/inconsistency, whatever you want to call it, it's FIXED!
http://acorpse.orcon.net.nz/contract1unit.jpg
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |