| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
   |
Posted - 2008.01.25 18:18:00 -
[1]
I have never understood why we cannot see who it is we are buying something from within the market interface.
Escrow and Contract interface allows you to see who you are buying or contracting from. Why cant the market interface reveal that info also?
We should be able to make "political" statements with our wallets and make informed decisions on who (individual, Corp or Alliance) we are buying items from in the market.
When you order something online in RL (which is the closest analogy I can find for how the current market works), do you order items from "anonymous vendors"? Definately not.
We should have the same ability within Eves market.
Thanks in advance for consideration of this idea.
Cheers,
|
Your Host
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 02:41:00 -
[2]
very true. also, I dont like buying items from my enemies during times of war.
|
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.01.26 03:16:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Prodigal on 26/01/2008 03:17:27
Just to add to those thoughts..........
CCP, you are in the process of re-invigorating the Council of Stellar Managment. From what I have read, most of you are very interested in how the community interacts and "regulates" each other.
Is there any better way to make a political statement or decision by, as they say: "put your money where your mouth is"?
Let us decide who we are going to buy items from in the market.
From the vendors point of view, availability of inventory and having a strong brand to market should be factors that affect the market. Allow vendors to "place a brand to their products", allow vendors to show who they are in a sell order.
Cheers,
|
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 20:45:00 -
[4]
Another bump for the day.........
Come now everyone, dont you want to be able to buy things from the Corp or vendor you like or want to support?
As a vendor, wouldnt you want to build up a reputation and actually be able to market your Brand?
|
Kiithnaras
Minmatar
OVER-DOSE
Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.01.27 20:57:00 -
[5]
/signed
|
Chomin H'ak
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 16:24:00 -
[6]
I agree completely.
I would think that it would open the way for price wars and bring a stronger sense of competition in the market. I would even think that corporate names would become household brands.
"The Trivenerate - who's building YOUR wallet?"
|
Salpad
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 16:38:00 -
[7]
No.
This is exactly why brokers are used when doing deals on the market. I don't sell my stuff to you. I sell my stuff to you, to guard my anonymity against any possible bias that you might have, which might cause you to bypass my product and buy from someone else even though this someone else wants a 1% or 2% higher price.
That's exactly how the Market differs from Contracts. No need to change that.
|
Kiki Arnolds
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 16:50:00 -
[8]
There are many reasons that someone may not want thier identity known, paticularly that they don't want others to be able to track thier market activities and come in to compete...
Though if the system let you voluntarily reveal your identity on orders it would be great...
ç¦ |
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 18:38:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Salpad
No.
This is exactly why brokers are used when doing deals on the market. I don't sell my stuff to you. I sell my stuff to you, to guard my anonymity against any possible bias that you might have, which might cause you to bypass my product and buy from someone else even though this someone else wants a 1% or 2% higher price.
That's exactly how the Market differs from Contracts. No need to change that.
This is like saying:
"Oh I love to pvp - pvp is great, as long as I can STAY CLOAKED all the time"
Ridiculous, plain and simple.
Cheers,
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 19:09:00 -
[10]
Aren't there already enough Trading alts? The whole argument for seller verification/white lists/black lists is null when dealing with someone's 3rd character who was trained just enough to buy and sell anonymously anyway.
Marketeers pay a broker's fee for every transaction. When you buy or sell on the market, you're not buying/selling with other players, you're going through that broker. Yeah, you get to see who the eventual client is in your journal, but IMHO you shouldn't even be seeing that.
|
Andreya
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2008.01.30 20:22:00 -
[11]
90% of sales are from alts you guys.... war or not. who you like and who you dont doesnt matter.... its always sold on alts that stay in trade hubs. while the gusy you dont like are in your home system kicking your arse
_________________________________________________________
Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything.
|
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 21:38:00 -
[12]
HELLO....
I understand how the market works currently (ie the market uses brokers - hence the fees)
But if buyers could make an informed decision of whom they are buying from, then real "market pvp" could unfold.
As consumers, we all have the RIGHT to know who we are buying from. We should not have to wait to check out the wallet logs to see whom we buy a Raven or module from.
There should be REAL in game consequences on the market for the alliance or Corp you chose, or do not chose for that matter.
This could also open more gamestyle play avenues for the role players. Consumers could make choices based on faction, or geographical location, etc....
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 21:55:00 -
[13]
Prodigal you are ignoring the fact that most trades are done by the proxy of an alt or dummy corp and the only way to impliment your idea is to remove the two extra character slots from EvE which the developers would not do. Even then you still have to contend with the fact that a large number of players in eve have atleast 2 accounts and they can simply use that second account to sell their wares and still be the pirate or evil empire manager that they are on their main.
The only way to decide who gets what is to make deals with other players and corp to sell your goods to or sell your goods several regions away from where you "live" so that any political situation in that area doesnt have a direct effect on you.
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 22:15:00 -
[14]
Give us some options to set selling/buying filters. Some of these should be less "in-game ish". Like "Don't allow sales to characters in NPC corps" or a value of how many members the corporation buying the stuff needs to have for the trade to be accepted. Also make us blacklist certain groups and orgs from the same settings (a block for example).
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 22:47:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Jacob Mei on 31/01/2008 22:51:40
Originally by: Thargat
Give us some options to set selling/buying filters. Some of these should be less "in-game ish". Like "Don't allow sales to characters in NPC corps" or a value of how many members the corporation buying the stuff needs to have for the trade to be accepted. Also make us blacklist certain groups and orgs from the same settings (a block for example).
Work around for idea one: player puts character in one man dummy corp that never undocks. Buys goods, trades them to main.
Work around for idea two: The group you are targetting against creates an entire dummy corp of 30+ individuals or so to use to buy the stuff from you. Same result as work around for idea one.
Im not trying to be a jerk here but you guys have to realize that when it comes to trading the average player have 2 empty slots at hand that would easyly work around these game mechanics your proposing. I myself am a major trader and I know that there is a very real potental for my goods to be used against me. The best thing I can tell you guys is to sell your goods in areas that you dont work in to minimize this risk. Further more the ideas your proposing is self distructive as you will be denying potental customers your wares. That doesnt hurt the customer, that hurts you.
Alternatively, I see something like this happening:
In Oursauart
PlayerA: Hey corp B is blocking me from buying there stuff. Ill pay 10% of the total value of my purchase to the guy who buys the stuff for me.
PlayerB: Ill do it!
PlayerC: Ill do it!
PlayerD: Ill do it!
PlayerE: Ill do it!
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 23:07:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Thargat on 31/01/2008 23:09:03
I was thinking about this a few weeks back and this thread brought an old idea back in my mind.
Since there's far to many threads going around on this forum I'll post it here.
It's not directly related, but combined with the suggestions I made earlier it could be used in a way I haven't thought of previously. (Thanks Jacob Mei for bringing it back from my goldfish-like brain) 
Trackers
For a cost (and possibly a skill) a tracker can be placed on a Item in a contract or market order. Depending on the price (or possibly skill level) the tracker lasts for a fixed period of time before it's lost.
The tracker allows the pilot to track a unique item as it changes hands through eve (until the timer runs out or the item is destroyed, by processing or destruction).
This tool could be used for in-depth market forecasts and could also be used to check if you'r sales are landing in the hands of your worst enemy. It would also enable industrious players to find potential customers and make proper market/customer targeting and analasys.
It would also be a very powerful tool to map out altcorps and be a steppingstone to more advanced economical warfare.
There are several issues with this suggestion. But since I'm quite sure there's already a system like this implemented in the code already (unique object Id's) it's a matter of bringing that function to the players and implementing a system to manage it.
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Stakhanov
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 23:26:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Prodigal
This is like saying:
"Oh I love to pvp - pvp is great, as long as I can STAY CLOAKED all the time"
Ridiculous, plain and simple.
Cheers,
But it's true... gank someone with a force recon or stealth bomber , recloak and enjoy your impunity 
Whenever some game mechanic can be used to draw intel , people use alts. For bulk sales , you can already identify your supplier or competitor by buying or selling 1 item.
What difference does it make anyway ? Even if you trade stuff with close friends , how do you know they won't exchange it with your enemies without paying attention , anyway. If you want a closed market , use alliance wide contracts available in 0.0 outposts.
Originally by: ivan draco
we didnt want your post anyway
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 23:42:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Thargat
Edited by: Thargat on 31/01/2008 23:09:03
Trackers
For a cost (and possibly a skill) a tracker can be placed on a Item in a contract or market order. Depending on the price (or possibly skill level) the tracker lasts for a fixed period of time before it's lost.
The tracker allows the pilot to track a unique item as it changes hands through eve (until the timer runs out or the item is destroyed, by processing or destruction).
This tool could be used for in-depth market forecasts and could also be used to check if you'r sales are landing in the hands of your worst enemy. It would also enable industrious players to find potential customers and make proper market/customer targeting and analasys.
It would also be a very powerful tool to map out altcorps and be a steppingstone to more advanced economical warfare.
There are several issues with this suggestion. But since I'm quite sure there's already a system like this implemented in the code already (unique object Id's) it's a matter of bringing that function to the players and implementing a system to manage it.
This idea is good for tracking without the intention of using said information against your enemies. However the moment your enemies suspect that their alts are being blocked or something similar they will just make a new alt, buy the item, and then hold the item in the alts hanger for the max amount of time said tracker remains active.
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.31 23:51:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Jacob Mei
Originally by: Thargat
Edited by: Thargat on 31/01/2008 23:09:03
Trackers
For a cost (and possibly a skill) a tracker can be placed on a Item in a contract or market order. Depending on the price (or possibly skill level) the tracker lasts for a fixed period of time before it's lost.
The tracker allows the pilot to track a unique item as it changes hands through eve (until the timer runs out or the item is destroyed, by processing or destruction).
This tool could be used for in-depth market forecasts and could also be used to check if you'r sales are landing in the hands of your worst enemy. It would also enable industrious players to find potential customers and make proper market/customer targeting and analasys.
It would also be a very powerful tool to map out altcorps and be a steppingstone to more advanced economical warfare.
There are several issues with this suggestion. But since I'm quite sure there's already a system like this implemented in the code already (unique object Id's) it's a matter of bringing that function to the players and implementing a system to manage it.
This idea is good for tracking without the intention of using said information against your enemies. However the moment your enemies suspect that their alts are being blocked or something similar they will just make a new alt, buy the item, and then hold the item in the alts hanger for the max amount of time said tracker remains active.
Yup, as I said it's not an entirely relevant idea.
Although combined with the previous suggestion I made it would require alot more effort to set up "fronts" for your trading. Always running the risk of revealing your altcorps. It would also enable more economical warfare options.
Eve was never supposed to be easy.
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 00:03:00 -
[20]
True it would make things more difficult for your enemies, but is that a good thing? The problem with economic embargos is that eventually something has to give and that ussually results in the embargoed attacking the embargoer. While it can be argued that the likelyhood of it reaching that point in eve is realitivly slim you have to consider that a pvp corp may very well focus their attention on you spesificly for making their lives a little harder. This of course leads to a rather ironic reverseal in that if one were in that situation in which the pvp corp was parked outside your stations you wouldnt be able to go about doing your work to produce goods.
The question really comes down to whats the better economic situation for you. Do you really want to run the risk of ticking off your enemy to the point that they focus their attention on you until you break?
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 00:14:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jacob Mei
True it would make things more difficult for your enemies, but is that a good thing? The problem with economic embargos is that eventually something has to give and that ussually results in the embargoed attacking the embargoer. While it can be argued that the likelyhood of it reaching that point in eve is realitivly slim you have to consider that a pvp corp may very well focus their attention on you spesificly for making their lives a little harder. This of course leads to a rather ironic reverseal in that if one were in that situation in which the pvp corp was parked outside your stations you wouldnt be able to go about doing your work to produce goods.
The question really comes down to whats the better economic situation for you. Do you really want to run the risk of ticking off your enemy to the point that they focus their attention on you until you break?
That's the beuty of it. Corps could actually create cartels to put embargoes on entitys in the game. Small corps could work together to punish larger entitys economicly. We have great PvP in this game, but I keep reading threads that there's too little for other people to do. By introducing tools to help wage economical wars we would get an entirely new dimension added to the game.
But there's probably alot of oppinions on this subject.
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Vested Interest
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 01:09:00 -
[22]
I cannot support this. The market is blind. You don't have a choice but to buy from the guy with the best price out there. Even if you could see the seller's name in the list, you can't skip over the guy with the best price.
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 01:34:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Thargat on 01/02/2008 01:34:12
Originally by: Vested Interest
I cannot support this. The market is blind. You don't have a choice but to buy from the guy with the best price out there. Even if you could see the seller's name in the list, you can't skip over the guy with the best price.
I somehow get the feeling you'r an alt char. =)
Would you ming posting something constructive aswell or explain your POV?
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Vested Interest
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 02:15:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Thargat
Edited by: Thargat on 01/02/2008 01:34:12
Originally by: Vested Interest
I cannot support this. The market is blind. You don't have a choice but to buy from the guy with the best price out there. Even if you could see the seller's name in the list, you can't skip over the guy with the best price.
I somehow get the feeling you'r an alt char. =)
Would you ming posting something constructive aswell or explain your POV?
I thought I already did. You don't have a choice who you buy from on the market. If you want that luxury go to contracts.
Let's say they added a column in the market showing the owner of the orders. Your arch-enemy has what you want, where you want it, at the best price.
How do you propose to alter the current market mechanics that don't allow you to skip the lowest price bidder without introducing market and economy-breaking problems?
This thread, page 7, gets into it in some detail, I'd start at post 193 and move forward.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=690395&page=7
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 02:44:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Thargat
That's the beuty of it. Corps could actually create cartels to put embargoes on entitys in the game. Small corps could work together to punish larger entitys economicly. We have great PvP in this game, but I keep reading threads that there's too little for other people to do. By introducing tools to help wage economical wars we would get an entirely new dimension added to the game.
But there's probably alot of oppinions on this subject.
Im all for people having other things to do but is it going to be a matter of doability and fezability that the developers need to look at.
The problem with an economic war is that it always relys on the imposers ability to back it up with military force. Embargos placed by small buisness corps would be ignored in part or in whole as alts, proxies, dummy corps and what not would be set up to circumvent said embargos or alternatively you would draw the attention of your enemies military might which would ironicly force the very same economic war on you as they would be sitting outside your station that holds your hulks and manufactoring blue prints.
You have to realize that in a large economic situation such as what eve has it is very hard to not get what you want as there is always someone willing to buy and someone willing to sell nearly anything and everything. By denying a customer what you have you infact generate new customers for the other guy.
If you really dont want your enemies to get your goods you sell the goods in an area they are not likely to operate in. Ironiclly this is its own form of economic warfare and perhaps the best choice you would have in EvE as you deny your goods to your enemy but can still sell them in another region.
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 03:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Vested Interest
I thought I already did. You don't have a choice who you buy from on the market. If you want that luxury go to contracts.
Let's say they added a column in the market showing the owner of the orders. Your arch-enemy has what you want, where you want it, at the best price.
How do you propose to alter the current market mechanics that don't allow you to skip the lowest price bidder without introducing market and economy-breaking problems?
This thread, page 7, gets into it in some detail, I'd start at post 193 and move forward.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=690395&page=7
Ah yes I remember that thread now.
I don't suggest that we revamp the current mechanics, just that CCP add some optional settins for traders. In effect this would mean that a particular setting would act as a new "invisible" or meta market (like a different station, system or region in the current system) not actually visible to the players.
The only market orders excluded are the ones that are on the "block" list (maybe the settings can only be applied by corporate trade officers?). I know there are some serious balancing issues that could arise with this (one would be that the market could, in worst case scenario like say several large alliances being excluded by a large number of the active daytraders, be more sluggish to adjust price wise to a sudden rise in supply, or demand). On the positive side I belive it would also serve to create more diverse regional markets, since different entities concentrate their efforts in different regions (wich in turn would make hauling and transporting goods more profitable).
You might belive the suggestion to be market or economy-breaking, but the if main market mechanics would stay the same I'd guess that the impact would be minmal on the galactic economy as a whole. The option to exclude certain corps, alliances and individuals would be just that... optional.
This would also be in line with the comming expansion with ambulation (where CCP have hinted of corporate owned stores, wich I figured will work like some kind of selective escrow system).
There are probably several other weak points in the suggestions made by me and others. But I really feel that aside from pvp the economy of eve is one of the few things that makes this game unique and CCP should do all they can to develope it further. Hence the need for discussions like this.
I'd appreciate further inputs.
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 03:41:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Jacob Mei
The problem with an economic war is that it always relys on the imposers ability to back it up with military force. Embargos placed by small buisness corps would be ignored in part or in whole as alts, proxies, dummy corps and what not would be set up to circumvent said embargos or alternatively you would draw the attention of your enemies military might which would ironicly force the very same economic war on you as they would be sitting outside your station that holds your hulks and manufactoring blue prints.
Yes. Embargoes are useless unless a large number of organisations participate in them. Here's when diplomacy and Alliances would come into play. There are already invisible cartels in this game working to manipulate the market. And many of them are hidden extensions of the larger alliances.
Originally by: Jacob Mei
You have to realize that in a large economic situation such as what eve has it is very hard to not get what you want as there is always someone willing to buy and someone willing to sell nearly anything and everything. By denying a customer what you have you infact generate new customers for the other guy.
I do realise that. And I feel that's one of the stronger arguments FOR such a system.
Since alot of established organisations have streamlined production (some corps have had years to sharpen their industrial efficency) there's little room for newcomers to actually compete. If "the other guy" is getting customers because alliance A has calculated that it's worth the effort of blockading alliance B then I'd say CCP is actually enhancing the gaming experience, immersion and awe-factor of the game.
quality discussion from your part tbh.
Keep the thread going and we might get somewhere =)
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Caleese
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 10:14:00 -
[28]
I had the exact same idea a while back but didn't bring it up for the main reason that once my name is against my sell orders, can you imagine the eve mail I'd get from people angry that I keep undercutting them all the time.
My eve mail already fills up with enough ISK seller and agent spam, I don't need random pubbies upset I undercut them
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.01 11:06:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Thargat on 01/02/2008 11:07:22
Originally by: Caleese
I had the exact same idea a while back but didn't bring it up for the main reason that once my name is against my sell orders, can you imagine the eve mail I'd get from people angry that I keep undercutting them all the time.
My eve mail already fills up with enough ISK seller and agent spam, I don't need random pubbies upset I undercut them
Raise your CSPA and earn ISK out of it
It works great for pvp.
A difference with ship pvp from eco-pvp though is that in ship pvp people get killrights on me, my sec-status loweres and I'm blinking red to everyone. If I scramble or shoot at someone I'm mostly easily identifieble and people can retaliate. Why should eco-war be less risky than ship to ship combat? I'm talking rISK vs reWARd here.
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.02.02 19:13:00 -
[30]
Some good arguments going back and forth here.
Thanks all for those supporting the ideas brought up from the start.
We need to keep this topic open for CCP to acknowledge.
Cheers,
|
Miyamoto Mushasi
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 00:04:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Miyamoto Mushasi on 03/02/2008 00:05:05
they make it so you can see who you are purchasing from ... then my corp war dec's your corp and you decide not to buy from me ... but my alt isnt in that corp and you buy my goods anyways ... really this knowledge is IMO unneccessary, the combat pilots you are facing in war probably arent the characters you are buying goods from, if it is them, it is probably on an alt, and in the end, if you want to shoot back bad enough, you'll buy the ammo anyway regardless of who's selling it. it's a nice concept i agree, but with all the alts out there its application would be pointless is all i'm saying. if i could really KNOW i wasn't buying from an enemy, then it'd get a /signed and i'd move on, but i can't and neither can any of you.
|
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:44:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Miyamoto Mushasi
Edited by: Miyamoto Mushasi on 03/02/2008 00:05:05
they make it so you can see who you are purchasing from ... then my corp war dec's your corp and you decide not to buy from me ... but my alt isnt in that corp and you buy my goods anyways ... really this knowledge is IMO unneccessary, the combat pilots you are facing in war probably arent the characters you are buying goods from, if it is them, it is probably on an alt, and in the end, if you want to shoot back bad enough, you'll buy the ammo anyway regardless of who's selling it. it's a nice concept i agree, but with all the alts out there its application would be pointless is all i'm saying. if i could really KNOW i wasn't buying from an enemy, then it'd get a /signed and i'd move on, but i can't and neither can any of you.
Sure, just like in real life. If someone can't buy something for whatever reason, they can always have someone else buy it for them. It's just a matter of how much work you'r willing to invest in getting those goods. With trackers and other tools to keep track of goods you could make it harder for someone to aquire your goods, or atleast make sure you'r not supporting your worst competitor or enemy with your hard earned ISK. If we take alliances, sec-status and docking rights into account then it get's even trickier to handle those alts (since they need dockingrights, standings and so forth). With options to block chars from NPC corps from buying your stuff in certain stations or areas and other options to block certain corps you'd make it HARDER for your enemy to aquire those goods. The enemy could instead turn to a legit run playercorp and ask them to act as a middle man (wich in turn will run the risk of being blocked themselves). But it creates more trade and the middle-man-corp will probably add a few ISK to the price (if they'r smart).
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 17:43:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Miyamoto Mushasi
Edited by: Miyamoto Mushasi on 03/02/2008 00:05:05
they make it so you can see who you are purchasing from ... then my corp war dec's your corp and you decide not to buy from me ... but my alt isnt in that corp and you buy my goods anyways ... really this knowledge is IMO unneccessary, the combat pilots you are facing in war probably arent the characters you are buying goods from, if it is them, it is probably on an alt, and in the end, if you want to shoot back bad enough, you'll buy the ammo anyway regardless of who's selling it. it's a nice concept i agree, but with all the alts out there its application would be pointless is all i'm saying. if i could really KNOW i wasn't buying from an enemy, then it'd get a /signed and i'd move on, but i can't and neither can any of you.
The whole point here is that the consumer would still have a CHOICE in WHO he/she is buying from.
Who cares how many alts are wasted for placement in Jita. Politically minded Eve Citizens could choose to only purchase from KNOWN Vendors, not nameless retail/trade alts.
CHOICE is the key word here.
In a free world market, CONSUMERS deserve and are entitled to a CHOICE.
|
Vested Interest
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 19:26:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Vested Interest on 03/02/2008 19:28:28
well the forum seems to have eaten my longer reply  oh it was in the Market Discussion thread.
You need corporate storefronts, leave the market as-is.
Corporate storefronts would come with, or be an option on an office rental. Anything you could list on the market, you could put up orders for in your corp market. The broker would be cut out of the deal too.
Then the trick becomes getting people to check it out, keeping it stocked, etc, along with keeping your prices comparable to the public market's.
Said storefronts would have access controls so you could allow/disallow whomever.
But basically yeah you're making some sweeping declarative statements about "the market" that I just don't see as applicable. You're just not making a good case for removing brokers and opening up the public market. It works fine.
|
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 21:45:00 -
[35]
Lets not let this one get buried either.
Cheers,
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 22:53:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Salpad
No.
This is exactly why brokers are used when doing deals on the market. I don't sell my stuff to you. I sell my stuff to you, to guard my anonymity against any possible bias that you might have, which might cause you to bypass my product and buy from someone else even though this someone else wants a 1% or 2% higher price.
That's exactly how the Market differs from Contracts. No need to change that.
YES!
it should be 100% your own decision if you set it on "show seller" then people can see it is you or "anonymous" then you're as you are now..
so then people can decide if they want to buy from some one they don't know or buy from some one they KNOW is valid and they want to support, anything else i stupid and very unrealistic.
I declare war on stupidity |
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 22:59:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Miyamoto Mushasi
Edited by: Miyamoto Mushasi on 03/02/2008 00:05:05
they make it so you can see who you are purchasing from ... then my corp war dec's your corp and you decide not to buy from me ... but my alt isnt in that corp and you buy my goods anyways ... really this knowledge is IMO unneccessary, the combat pilots you are facing in war probably arent the characters you are buying goods from, if it is them, it is probably on an alt, and in the end, if you want to shoot back bad enough, you'll buy the ammo anyway regardless of who's selling it. it's a nice concept i agree, but with all the alts out there its application would be pointless is all i'm saying. if i could really KNOW i wasn't buying from an enemy, then it'd get a /signed and i'd move on, but i can't and neither can any of you.
unless you have a trader alt, wish is not linked or found out to be linked with your main, yer sure, but those things comes out now and then and well at least you can't sell anything with the corp wallet and it is VERY annoying for you to give everything to your alt etc.. and the corp need to trust you a lot more to let you have all the things on a alt, which means the ceo needs to do everything in this spectra, which ones again is very time taking and annoying for them..
and better yet it should be optioned if you want to sell to a specific corp/alliance/person, so you can write in people that can't see your orders or at least they shows up in red as not available for you.
would give clear industrial alliance the power that major cooperations have irl, it's not because they have a army or can hire one that people don't **** them of, but because they have a enormous influence, so lets bring this aspect to eve thank you
I declare war on stupidity |
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 20:07:00 -
[38]
bummer,
I was hoping to get more dialog on this topic.
Still refusing to let it die......
Cheers,
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 22:12:00 -
[39]
After giving this some thought, in a way you already have this. When you think about it, a ship is ussually the least bought item by an individual when compared to modules and ammo, even for pvpers the ratio is quite drasticly in the favor of things that can be considered consumable. All one has to do is buy a single round of ammo or something from an individual, check their wallet, if it belongs to a name you dont like you go else where. For a ship, you either take a chance or have someone build it for your or you your self build it.
Ultimately what you are asking I guess would make things easyer, but right now it is doable to avoid buying from those you dont want to buy from.
|
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 21:52:00 -
[40]
Not gonna let this one go.
Bump.
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:06:00 -
[41]
This just seems like a way to try and cut people out of the market.
You open a buy or sell order, see who it is, then figure out a way to cut them off or buy them out or something.
:\
Cmon, this is pretty transparent. If you want to know who has something on the market and is competing with you, buy a unit or sell a unit. If it's something expensive, you can always resell it.
I do everything with my main. EVERYTHING. I don't care about all these trade alts, while others do. It makes no real sense to me why people are so bat**** about this sort of thing.
_________________
Burn.
Devs, ISD and GMs mod my sig for cake! \o/
CCP Navigator was here and left some green text and bars _____________
_____________ |
Prodigal
Caldari
New Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 18:41:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa
Cmon, this is pretty transparent. If you want to know who has something on the market and is competing with you, buy a unit or sell a unit. If it's something expensive, you can always resell it.
Transparency is EXACTLY what it is I am looking for here with the market. Why the hell should I waste 100m on a BS just to see who used the broker?
Why should people "hide" behind brokers? I understand its an isk sink for the economy, but there are other ways to achieve this. (HELLO! Increase Sales Tax)
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |