Originally by: SencneS

---

Edited by: SencneS on 22/05/2008 15:29:52
Meant to get to this yesterday but found myself with the kids :)

1) A new column in the Market called "Seller" - Can list name, corp, or alliance I really don't care.
2) When click on an order and select buy - I want to buy from that person, not from the cheapest at the station.
3) Introduce discounts and surcharges according to personal standing for personal orders, Corporate standing for Corporate orders.

These three things would take market PVP to a whole new level, because lets face it, with 0.01 being one of our only few options for hard core market PVP, it needs a buff.

---

Originally by: Seb Balaak

---

There's a reason why you can't exactly see who the bidders and sellers are in real life exchanges (and other rules/laws in place). I won't go into details but suffice it to say it will turn the market into chaos and ruin EVE-playability for the largest portion of eve-players and will only benefit a few (those with connections) for a short period of time (until the market is so chaotic it will destroy itself).

In short - a VERY VERY bad idea from an economic point of view (coming from a 12-year long options/futures trader)

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Originally by: Seb Balaak

---

There's a reason why you can't exactly see who the bidders and sellers are in real life exchanges (and other rules/laws in place). I won't go into details but suffice it to say it will turn the market into chaos and ruin EVE-playability for the largest portion of eve-players and will only benefit a few (those with connections) for a short period of time (until the market is so chaotic it will destroy itself).

In short - a VERY VERY bad idea from an economic point of view (coming from a 12-year long options/futures trader)

---

Interesting post.

I'm wondering about 1 thing. Do you think majority of players won't just buy from the cheapest order? I think it's only a minority who wouldn't.

---

Originally by: Letrange

---

Oh just thought of an other one:

- The ability to destroy shares by vote. There are a few reasons to do this. From correcting an "oops" to the folding down of part of a project.

---

Originally by: SencneS

---

Lastly Interbus... with a twist.
A while ago I saw a Development thread somewhere about Interbus. I though, OK SWEET, but then I though, wait a second, that's the death of the Freighter pilot. Which is possibly why CCP has not put it in game just yet.

I would propose Interbus be added, but the "user" be given the option to allow Pod Pilot transportation. For example

I want to move 100 mil units of Trit, I click on the option "Allow POD Pilots" and I pay Interbus x amount of ISK whatever they choose to charge. Now Interbus is slow really slow. Without the Allow POD Ps. it will take 24 hours (After reboot) to get my stuff. This gives players the chance to move it. They pay Interbus the retaining fee, Interbus pays them a % of the fee I paid.

This will open up real NCP courier missions, still is a smaller ISK sink, and gives freighter pilots a "Bonus" by increasing their Interbus standings etc.

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Originally by: Seb Balaak

---

There's a reason why you can't exactly see who the bidders and sellers are in real life exchanges (and other rules/laws in place). I won't go into details but suffice it to say it will turn the market into chaos and ruin EVE-playability for the largest portion of eve-players and will only benefit a few (those with connections) for a short period of time (until the market is so chaotic it will destroy itself).

In short - a VERY VERY bad idea from an economic point of view (coming from a 12-year long options/futures trader)

---

Interesting post.

I'm wondering about 1 thing. Do you think majority of players won't just buy from the cheapest order? I think it's only a minority who wouldn't.

---

Originally by: Letrange

---

Insurance - remove NPC based insurance make it mostly player based.

---

Originally by: Cpt Fina

---

6. Improve the means to read market statistics. Like a 60 days moving average price and the ability to watch trends in a 3-4 years retrospective.

---

Originally by: Ben Bitdiddle

---

Oh and also:

6) When you sort the sell orders by "distance", have it sort by "distance" and THEN by price (lowest first). I'm tired of having to sort only by one or the other and then scanning the list for the close/cheap order.

---

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

To Shar -verb:
 1 - To say what you mean.
 2 - To say what it means.
 3 - To say something mean.

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

[justify]

Originally by: Letrange

---

- The ability to destroy shares by vote. There are a few reasons to do this. From correcting an "oops" to the folding down of part of a project.

---

Trim this down to "destroy shares in possession" and you have a winner. "By vote" could be used punitively. However as the owner of the shares, possession being the major factor, you have every right to sell or destroy the shares in question.

For the example you showed, just transfer the extra you accidentally voted into existence to yourself and destroy them.

---

Originally by: Athre

---

Originally by: Ben Bitdiddle

---

Oh and also:

6) When you sort the sell orders by "distance", have it sort by "distance" and THEN by price (lowest first). I'm tired of having to sort only by one or the other and then scanning the list for the close/cheap order.

---

I would like to see this as well, multiple sort not just one.

---

Originally by: Shar Tegral

---

Some form of secure shares sale/transfer. Even if it is something as simple as making shares an item and being able to bundle them into a contract.

---

Originally by: Seb Balaak

---

There's a reason why you can't exactly see who the bidders and sellers are in real life exchanges (and other rules/laws in place).

---