These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Updating market orders... CCPlease halp

Author
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1 - 2016-02-22 12:12:22 UTC
Dear CCP
Please make a little button in the market "my orders" window that says "Yes, I want to keep all of these order active for yet another 90 days and do not wish to change the prices or individually click on every order until I get RSI so bad my arm falls off". Text can be shortened as needed. Feel free to charge me the 100 isk fee for each item that is affected (but only when I click the button, not when everyone else clicks it, they can pay their own fees).

Seriously though, it's a pain in the backside that only really affects people trying to run market orders in low population areas (*hint* a good economy helps make them more populated) and it's annoying that not only do you have to do each item in turn, but then my nice round prices have to be changed to being every so slightly not round numbers, which makes me even more sad.

The March release would be perfect.

Thanks!

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2016-02-22 13:27:08 UTC
Is it really hard to 0.01 isk your stack once every three months?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#3 - 2016-02-22 13:31:04 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Is it really hard to 0.01 isk your stack once every three months?
When you have as many orders as it takes to keep a station stocked, yes. 300 is bad enough, but when you have a couple of thousand to update every 3 months it's pretty devastating. It's just one of those silly things that there's no real reason to do and could be simplified without taking away what it's there for (stopping inactive pilots having perpetual market orders).

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#4 - 2016-02-22 13:46:59 UTC
Would be nice especially for items which have a very low turnover. Or a list of orders that expired or were fulfilled.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#5 - 2016-02-22 14:38:55 UTC
First things first: I'm neutral towards the idea.

To raise a counterargument though:
It would make the "expires in"-column of the market window pretty much meaningless safe for spotting NPC orders. I think fooling inexperienced players with "limited time offers" and/or maintaining 300 scams (the other kind of order that takes a long time to be filled) should maybe take some effort. I'd also at least tie it to the range of your daytrading skill so you can't manipulate things at the other end of the universe.

I have yet to read up on the reasoning behind length of an order not factoring into broker cost and why you can extend every order for 100 ISK regardless of price and volume. Seems to me like a huge ISK sinking opportunity was wasted there.


@Rivr Luzade: Yeah, an expired/fulfilled list would be nice.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#6 - 2016-02-22 15:33:40 UTC
Violet Hurst wrote:
I have yet to read up on the reasoning behind length of an order not factoring into broker cost and why you can extend every order for 100 ISK regardless of price and volume. Seems to me like a huge ISK sinking opportunity was wasted there..

I would very much welcome time dependent broker cost. Using 1 day orders to save fees and taxes is nice and does not affect most people because hub trading is done by updating orders every 5 minutes, and long term trading in more barren regions gives higher profit margins to accommodate for the current level of taxes and fees. What it would introduce to the market is some risk: You can have your 1 day orders, but if you fail to update them for whatever reason before that 1 day, you will have to pay taxes and fees again ... and again, depending on your negligence.

What I do not want to see is higher than 100 ISK cost for reducing the price for an order. This would mean a lot of money lost in a very brief time period and no way to compete with another market competitor beyond a certain point. Increasing the price, however, already charges you more than 100 ISK if the increase value exceeds 0.1% of the order value as I have recently found out.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#7 - 2016-02-22 16:27:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Violet Hurst wrote:
First things first: I'm neutral towards the idea.

To raise a counterargument though:
It would make the "expires in"-column of the market window pretty much meaningless safe for spotting NPC orders. I think fooling inexperienced players with "limited time offers" and/or maintaining 300 scams (the other kind of order that takes a long time to be filled) should maybe take some effort. I'd also at least tie it to the range of your daytrading skill so you can't manipulate things at the other end of the universe.

I have yet to read up on the reasoning behind length of an order not factoring into broker cost and why you can extend every order for 100 ISK regardless of price and volume. Seems to me like a huge ISK sinking opportunity was wasted there.


@Rivr Luzade: Yeah, an expired/fulfilled list would be nice.
Most scams move with the times anyway, with the orders being there to bait people over whatever contract you are throwing out there today. I should think far less scammers would be affected than traders operating in areas with lower frequencies of sales. That said, why should scammers not benefit too? Scamming is a completely legitimate part of the game.

The way I see it, it's not just about "effort" it's about how that effort is applied. Like how scanning used to require you to fly around your target dropping probes, then they made it so you can drop probes where you are and drag them around a map, and more recently they've made it so you can launch them in a preset formation and drag them to where you want to scan. Those are good changes, as they've eliminated the mundane "everyone must do this" parts of the task and all the additional input but retained the core parts of the mechanic.

In line with the above, yes, your trade skills should limit this ability. Only orders you could change should be able to be refreshed by clicking the button. I missed that out on the original post, but yeah, that should definitely remain as a limiting factor.

The order price of 100isk is because that's the minimum brokers fee you can be changed for an order. If you were to change the price of your order substantially, you'd pay the same percentage of the brokers fee on the additional amount you are increasing the order price by. To refresh the timer on an order you have to change by 0.01 isk (as you can't modify it to the same price) so you pay the 100 isk. They could I supposed change that to make the length of the order a factor in the brokers fee, but I imagine that would just stop people bothering to post orders for thing they don't think will sell quickly as each time they extended the order they'd be paying another chunk of the margin away. I think that's a bigger change than I'm looking at here though, I'm just looking at a way of decreasing repetitive input.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
I would very much welcome time dependent broker cost. Using 1 day orders to save fees and taxes is nice and does not affect most people because hub trading is done by updating orders every 5 minutes, and long term trading in more barren regions gives higher profit margins to accommodate for the current level of taxes and fees. What it would introduce to the market is some risk: You can have your 1 day orders, but if you fail to update them for whatever reason before that 1 day, you will have to pay taxes and fees again ... and again, depending on your negligence.
As I said above, the problem I see with that is you would be heavily affected the longer your orders were on the market. Effectively it would be punishing players for trading in newer, smaller markets. I'd be much more interested in seeing quite the opposite, seeing fees increase in heavily used markets to drive trade in fresh markets.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2016-02-22 17:12:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
I think this is going to be not so great. Or do you want to relocate your Null sec market every other month into another system?

I do not see punishment for trading in smaller/new markets. As said, the fees/taxes for 3 months orders would stay as they are. And you do not need to change your orders in these markets every 5 minutes to stay on top, reducing fees/taxes for the continuous order updating (even if small, several dozens of 100 ISK change fees can chip away noticeable profit depending on your order size) as well as continuous maintenance to sell anything and not fall out of the first market page after a couple of hours.
I also do not understand the reasoning for market spreading. It's counter to what a market is: a central point to exchange goods for goods or currency. If the bulk of market activity were to switch systems every other week, it would simply be a pain in the back to, first of, move your goods around, and secondly, be left behind because you set up an order in a station that would be abandoned a couple of days later because the station next door has better taxes/fees. This would result in you losing money and reducing your profit (considerably) if you remove your order with clenching teeth and set it up in the new station, lose money on the transport, or lose money/sit on non selling wares because the bulk hub is gone and people do not care about your goods next door, especially if it's a next door that is not on the busy trade route that could make people do a quick pass-by-stop as it's on the way. All in all, this decentralization effort is nothing but a pain in the back and useless, too.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#9 - 2016-02-22 18:05:58 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
I think this is going to be not so great. Or do you want to relocate your Null sec market every other month into another system?
Well that would be the point, wouldn't it? To make people choose between sticking where they are and paying for that privilege or moving for their operation to make a saving. That's the same way the industry system works now with the system indices.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
I do not see punishment for trading in smaller/new markets. As said, the fees/taxes for 3 months orders would stay as they are. And you do not need to change your orders in these markets every 5 minutes to stay on top, reducing fees/taxes for the continuous order updating (even if small, several dozens of 100 ISK change fees can chip away noticeable profit depending on your order size) as well as continuous maintenance to sell anything and not fall out of the first market page after a couple of hours.
I think I misunderstood what you were suggesting then, because it sounded like you were suggesting that the length of time an order is on the market would increase the broker fee, and that refreshing the order would charge you based on the additional time added to the order. If that were the case, longer order would pay more than shorter ones.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
I also do not understand the reasoning for market spreading. It's counter to what a market is: a central point to exchange goods for goods or currency. If the bulk of market activity were to switch systems every other week, it would simply be a pain in the back to, first of, move your goods around, and secondly, be left behind because you set up an order in a station that would be abandoned a couple of days later because the station next door has better taxes/fees. This would result in you losing money and reducing your profit (considerably) if you remove your order with clenching teeth and set it up in the new station, lose money on the transport, or lose money/sit on non selling wares because the bulk hub is gone and people do not care about your goods next door, especially if it's a next door that is not on the busy trade route that could make people do a quick pass-by-stop as it's on the way. All in all, this decentralization effort is nothing but a pain in the back and useless, too.
It would be the same as the industry system. The basis would be that by giving people a good reason to spread out that it would encourage growth in more sectors of space leaving it feeling less empty. It would also allow smaller, more agile traders (and buyers) to leverage better fees in other stations, while behemoths would have to pay extra for staying put. Industry doesn't shift locations every few weeks, so I don't see why the markets would. To be honest, I expect this sort of thing to start happening when they rolls citadels out.

That said, It's all kind of far away from the OP, which is based around just getting a bit of an RSI saving feature in place.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#10 - 2016-02-22 19:40:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Lucas Kell wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
I think this is going to be not so great. Or do you want to relocate your Null sec market every other month into another system?
Well that would be the point, wouldn't it? To make people choose between sticking where they are and paying for that privilege or moving for their operation to make a saving. That's the same way the industry system works now with the system indices.

Except for that it does not in most cases and in particular not in null sec. In High sec, only a select few power builder are affected by that change. I have not changed my production location since before the industry indexes were introduced because I can easily let the index cool down during my lengthy component production time or when I do not feel like producing at all.


Quote:
I think I misunderstood what you were suggesting then, because it sounded like you were suggesting that the length of time an order is on the market would increase the broker fee, and that refreshing the order would charge you based on the additional time added to the order. If that were the case, longer order would pay more than shorter ones.

That is exactly what I was suggesting, but the maximum taxes/fees, ie. those for a 3 month order, would be the same as they are now for any order. With a shorter duration for your order, you would simply pay less taxes/fees than you do now.

Quote:
It would be the same as the industry system. The basis would be that by giving people a good reason to spread out that it would encourage growth in more sectors of space leaving it feeling less empty. It would also allow smaller, more agile traders (and buyers) to leverage better fees in other stations, while behemoths would have to pay extra for staying put. Industry doesn't shift locations every few weeks, so I don't see why the markets would. To be honest, I expect this sort of thing to start happening when they rolls citadels out.

That said, It's all kind of far away from the OP, which is based around just getting a bit of an RSI saving feature in place.

That is not mirroring reality and actual player behavior at all. People buy where they get the most things at one place, the majority of them do not want to travel around to piece together a frig or cruiser, in particular not in Null sec and Low sec. People mostly even ignore noticeably lower prices in systems next door just to not have to move. Such a spreading around mechanism does not make buyers move, it makes sellers lose money.

By forcing people to spread out with their orders or forcing them to fly to different stations/citadels to piece together a ship or gather necessary materials, you introduce a lot more RSI. So, even if your really helpful Renew Order button came; if it was bundled with market taxation increase based on market volume, you would drive out a devil with a satan.We have not moved away from that general topic at all. Big smile

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#11 - 2016-02-22 20:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Akrasjel Lanate
Effort Blink


The 90 day cycle is a non issue

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#12 - 2016-02-22 21:09:02 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Except for that it does not in most cases and in particular not in null sec. In High sec, only a select few power builder are affected by that change. I have not changed my production location since before the industry indexes were introduced because I can easily let the index cool down during my lengthy component production time or when I do not feel like producing at all.
But those powerbuilders don't move. They pay more, and put up with it, while smaller more agile producers benefit from better fees. Just like how smaller traders would benefit if fees increased due to use.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
That is exactly what I was suggesting, but the maximum taxes/fees, ie. those for a 3 month order, would be the same as they are now for any order. With a shorter duration for your order, you would simply pay less taxes/fees than you do now.
So then yes, you are talking about punishing people who don't trade in a hub. If you buy and sell in Jita, you can put up a day or a week order and be relatively certain it will sell, but if you operate in an area with less population you will have to run longer orders. In addition, if your order wasn't fulfilled within the 90 days you would have to pay again on top of that to relist it. People should be incentivised to seed smaller markets, not punished.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
That is not mirroring reality and actual player behavior at all. People buy where they get the most things at one place, the majority of them do not want to travel around to piece together a frig or cruiser, in particular not in Null sec and Low sec. People mostly even ignore noticeably lower prices in systems next door just to not have to move. Such a spreading around mechanism does not make buyers move, it makes sellers lose money.
It's not supposed to mirror reality, and while yes, many players will tend to want to go to one place to buy up their stuff, others will buy locally because it saves them a trip. This is why multiple markets exist and thrive. The way it currently works isn't particularly bad, but more smaller markets helps spread players, give the feeling of home areas and make the game feel more populated rather than clusters of population in an otherwise empty game.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
By forcing people to spread out with their orders or forcing them to fly to different stations/citadels to piece together a ship or gather necessary materials, you introduce a lot more RSI. So, even if your really helpful Renew Order button came; if it was bundled with market taxation increase based on market volume, you would drive out a devil with a satan.We have not moved away from that general topic at all. Big smile
I'm not suggesting people get forced into anything, I simply stated that I'd rather see incentives to spreading markets than to large single markets. I fully expect Jita to exist regardless.

I definitely don't want to see massive economic changes occurring with my original suggestion, since I'd like to see it this side of never, so to be quite honest, just the button would be good.

Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Effort Blink

The 90 day cycle is a non issue
To you, perhaps, but it's a pointless exercise in tedium for people with a large amount of infrequently updated orders. Little QOL improvements like this are easy wins to be honest.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#13 - 2016-02-22 22:18:10 UTC
You can sell multiple items, buy multiple items, but you can't update multiple market orders? Doesn't sound quite right.
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#14 - 2016-02-22 22:39:24 UTC
Hi guys,

I haven't found the answer to why we get free extensions with every price change yet, all I found so far was that at some point you could apparently undercut/overbid people at the same price by having a closer expiration date than them. Meh.

I'd just like to say that if we were to accept that the duration of an order doesn't have any meaning, we could just remove the duration dropdown and replace it with "infinite". I don't really think a dead man's switch is needed then. (1)

The current system doesn't differ too much from that option, yes. If we wanted to give it credit though, we could say that the unbearable clickfest it poses to be for certain trade styles prevents too many people from moving in on those traders' terrain. From what I've heard that works for PI. (2)

However (exclamation mark): The mere existence of the duration dropdown suggests that at some point duration was or was meant to become a meaningful choice. I would like that. The only ways to give it meaning I can think of though are either
a) restricting the cancellation of orders, which I think we can agree on being a bit too draconic and detrimental to the agility of the market or
b) indeed factoring duration into broker fees (and decoupling order extension from price changing). (3)

Well and if we chose option one I just think it'd be even harder for the marketing people to sell this to the playerbase than it is already. If "the button" was implemented in this scenario (3) though, instead of being a dead man's switch it'd become a heart attack trigger. I'm okay with that.




Footnotes:
You two have spent some time discussing the cui bono of the idea and I'm afraid i can't add anything there, since I was of the, maybe slightly naive, opinion that trade styles balance themselves via profit.
Mentioning scams in my previous post might not have been the smartest idea, I just wanted to illustrate that there is a multitude of reasons for an order to fill slowly.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#15 - 2016-02-23 04:22:32 UTC
AFAIK, the duration is there for two reasons:
1. To allow you to set up an order to auto-cancel after a set amount of time unfulfilled
2. To prevent people setting up an order, letting their account go inactive and that order remaining active forever.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#16 - 2016-02-23 07:46:28 UTC
I would love a Mass update button, seeding/selling off gear in SlowHS/Low/NullSec can take a long time, especially if you are seeding the market with skillbooks/other low turn over items.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#17 - 2016-02-23 08:46:17 UTC
For some reason, I am still in the mindset that the market should be more like a market stall - limited storage space, that we can upgrade through skills. ISK fees for renting the stall just like offices have fees.

But then it might just be me, and wishing that a lot of the older systems would be upgraded - not simplifed (The EVE Market is great with what people can do) there just needs to be some more modern control.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs

Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#18 - 2016-02-23 11:07:22 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
AFAIK, the duration is there for two reasons:
1. To allow you to set up an order to auto-cancel after a set amount of time unfulfilled
2. To prevent people setting up an order, letting their account go inactive and that order remaining active forever.


Hey Lucas,

I'm not saying that these might not be the reasons for duration to exist, but none of these make too much sense.

1. would cover two extremely thin cases:
a) Players who are forgetfull enough to not remember their market orders, but who at the same time are always up to date on their assets, since that's the only other place where they could notice that their orders got cancelled.
b) Players who don't need the ISK/item now, but who know in advance that if the order doesn't fill, they'll need it back in exactly 90 or 30 days. If they need it back in 89 or 25 days, they'd still be better off cancelling the order manually.

2. is what I referred to with the dead man's switch. If I was a CCP employee and I anticipated my players to be dodgy enough to let their market accounts expire, I wouldn't give them three months extra time to continue trading. They'd save two thirds of their subscription fees. And in any case they'd have to reactivate that account at some point to pick up the spoils anyway.
I personally haven't let an account with active orders expire yet, so I'll have to admit that I don't know whether or not they get auto-cancelled. Does anybody have a recent member of Doomheim in their wallet history? Then we'd know for sure.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#19 - 2016-02-23 11:19:54 UTC
Violet Hurst wrote:
1. would cover two extremely thin cases:
a) Players who are forgetfull enough to not remember their market orders, but who at the same time are always up to date on their assets, since that's the only other place where they could notice that their orders got cancelled.
b) Players who don't need the ISK/item now, but who know in advance that if the order doesn't fill, they'll need it back in exactly 90 or 30 days. If they need it back in 89 or 25 days, they'd still be better off cancelling the order manually.
I use varied order dates all the time. Quite often it's because you know that you want to buy something at a set price for the short term, but don't want to run the risk of buying over the long term, so you set an order date that limits your exposure to risk. It's not all bout forgetfulness, external factors can come into play which prevent you being able to come on sometimes.

Violet Hurst wrote:
2. is what I referred to with the dead man's switch. If I was a CCP employee and I anticipated my players to be dodgy enough to let their market accounts expire, I wouldn't give them three months extra time to continue trading. They'd save two thirds of their subscription fees. And in any case they'd have to reactivate that account at some point to pick up the spoils anyway.
I personally haven't let an account with active orders expire yet, so I'll have to admit that I don't know whether or not they get auto-cancelled. Does anybody have a recent member of Doomheim in their wallet history? Then we'd know for sure.
Active orders stay active all the time the character is inactive. They obviously get removed if you biomass the character, but being on an unsubscribed account doesn't cancel the orders. If they were to completely remove the timers the market would be filled with 1isk region wide orders for every item in every region, as there would no longer be a cost associated with keeping that order open. As it currently stands you have to pay a plex at least every 90 days to keep at most ~900 orders open.

Either way, I don't see a good reason to remove the time options and it's certainly out of scope of this idea as it has potentially wide reaching repercussions. This idea is simply a way to make it easier for active characters to refresh their active order timers.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#20 - 2016-02-23 12:44:52 UTC
This is what weeds out the weak among us traders
12Next page