These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Market Scamming is an Exploit

First post First post
Author
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#101 - 2013-07-08 13:12:55 UTC
Inokuma Yawara wrote:


Your comment adds no value to this conversation. Nothing you said added to my education of this, most intriguing, discussion.


This entire discussion adds no value to anything, so that's par for the course. You must be incredibly new here, since this topic has come up at least once per month since I have been playing, with exactly the same discussion and results.

FFS, the entire process of the margin trading scam and how to avoid it is detailed on the Evelopedia of all ******, outdated things.

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#102 - 2013-07-08 13:20:02 UTC

First, IRL law have really no direct effect on what ahppens in EVE. The laws are made by CCP in game. Contractual laws are just as meanigless as criminal laws.

Second, having the buyer lose his escrow if his buy order fails because he does not have the ISK to complete it can probably close the loop-hole of geneating "dupe isks" but I am pretty sure people would find a way to use the system in a new way to benefit from it and make people e-rage at it again.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#103 - 2013-07-08 13:24:26 UTC
Utzam wrote:
contract contract contract


You keep using this word.

Contracts and buy/sell orders are two completely different mechanics in EVE.

A contract is a direct agreement between players, and allows for a whole host of scamming, almost all of which is totally and completely legal in game.

Buy and sell orders are market mechanics, neither of which is an explicit direct agreement between any two players. It allows for almost no direct scamming at all.

In either case, each type of available scam relies not upon breaking any rules or bending any mechanics, but upon players being naive, stupid, greedy, or unable/unwilling to read and research what it is they are buying.

What you people want is for EVE to save people from themselves. It's not that kind of game. It provides all the warnings you need, but it's not going to stop you clicking the button.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#104 - 2013-07-08 13:24:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Utzam wrote:
Yes, your making a great case for their being a problem. No-one getting hurt is a relative distinction based on your assumption that the buyer can walk away from their buy order after the seller accepts.
…so what's the problem? And yes, no-one gets hurt: everyone leaves with their assets intact. At most, the buyer's assets are less than they should be, but that's part of the risk he assumes in setting up the order.

Quote:
The current implementation in Eve is incomplete.
No. It is just not emulating its namesake.

Quote:
False. If the buy order defaults
No, it's entirely correct. You can't default in EVE. The mechanics don't allow for it because it would create massive ISK duping exploits. If the buyer has no more money after the escrow amount is exhausted, the order is trashed. The key here is that the entire escrow amount has been paid out, just like you asked. There is no more money in escrow. The buyer has already lost it all to the broker who has already transferred it all to the seller. The order is not closed until the escrow amount has been exhausted.

So again, you're showing that you're not familiar with the mechanics involved. You can keep claiming that you are, but then you belie this claim with your suggestions. If you're familiar with the mechanics, why do you keep saying things that aren't true? Why do you ask them to implement measures that are already in place?

Quote:
exploit
n.
to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc.), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends the use of a bug or glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.
Fixed. So no, there is no exploit.

Quote:
con·tract
n.
An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.  Contracts is a new system, where you can trade your items in various fashions with other players or corporations.
…but we're talking about buy orders, not contracts. The rule against impossible-to-complete contracts deal with certain bugs that allowed you to set up contracts for e.g. stacks of unstackable items.
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2013-07-08 13:30:47 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
What you people want is for EVE to save people from themselves. It's not that kind of game. It provides all the warnings you need, but it's not going to stop you clicking the button.


It is. Take out insurance, and all these warning boxes, and you'll have a point. Otherwise, it's built into this game all about ganking and "toughness".

If it's already there, might as well use it. Idea

_"In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." _ ~George Orwell

Ra Jackson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2013-07-08 13:39:42 UTC
Kalliel Egnald wrote:
Molic Blackbird wrote:
Working as intended. The game has managed to work just fine with the margin skill in place. If you think it is soooo easy to manipulate the Tritanium market upwards using the margin trade skill, do it yourself and reap the billions upon billions of profit in the process.


that sounds like an interesting enough experiment.
i shall try it.


That clearly shows that you did not understand the scam. It works only with very low volume items. Pretty much the opposite of Tritanium.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-07-08 13:42:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…but we're talking about buy orders, not contracts. The rule against impossible-to-complete contracts deal with certain bugs that allowed you to set up contracts for e.g. stacks of unstackable items.


One could argue that orders on the market are outstanding contracts with the broker. But that still does not mean we have to follow real life rules with them so meh.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#108 - 2013-07-08 13:42:03 UTC
Ace Uoweme wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
What you people want is for EVE to save people from themselves. It's not that kind of game. It provides all the warnings you need, but it's not going to stop you clicking the button.


It is. Take out insurance, and all these warning boxes, and you'll have a point. Otherwise, it's built into this game all about ganking and "toughness".

If it's already there, might as well use it. Idea


Providing warning signs doesn't save anyone from themselves.

If it did, I would have never sold my first 100 million ISK Firetail, to say nothing of those that followed.

If it did, greedy people would not be 'scammed' by paying far too much for items on the marketplace.

All the warning signs in the world will not save someone if they are determined to click the button anyway.
Krete
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#109 - 2013-07-08 13:47:09 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Utzam wrote:
contract contract contract


You keep using this word.

Contracts and buy/sell orders are two completely different mechanics in EVE.

A contract is a direct agreement between players, and allows for a whole host of scamming, almost all of which is totally and completely legal in game.


Not everyone agrees with you.


Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#110 - 2013-07-08 13:52:11 UTC
Krete wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Utzam wrote:
contract contract contract


You keep using this word.

Contracts and buy/sell orders are two completely different mechanics in EVE.

A contract is a direct agreement between players, and allows for a whole host of scamming, almost all of which is totally and completely legal in game.


Not everyone agrees with you.




CCP agrees with me, and they're the only ones who actually matter in this case. Until and unless they deem that these things are exploits, they are not.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#111 - 2013-07-08 13:54:37 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No. People not knowing what stuff is worth is not an exploit.


Not knowing may not be an exploit but using the mechanic on purpose should be. This should be simple enough to prove. If the person places the buy order and then cleans out the wallet (easily seen by ccp) then I would have to say this act in itself is an admission of knowing.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#112 - 2013-07-08 13:59:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Utzam wrote:
Yes, your making a great case for their being a problem. No-one getting hurt is a relative distinction based on your assumption that the buyer can walk away from their buy order after the seller accepts.
…so what's the problem? And yes, no-one gets hurt: everyone leaves with their assets intact. At most, the buyer's assets are less than they should be, but that's part of the risk he assumes in setting up the order.

[
Quote:
False. If the buy order defaults
No, it's entirely correct. You can't default in EVE. The mechanics don't allow for it because it would create massive ISK duping exploits. If the buyer has no more money after the escrow amount is exhausted, the order is trashed. The key here is that the entire escrow amount has been paid out, just like you asked. There is no more money in escrow. The buyer has already lost it all to the broker who has already transferred it all to the seller. The order is not closed until the escrow amount has been exhausted.

So again, you're showing that you're not familiar with the mechanics involved. You can keep claiming that you are, but then you belie this claim with your suggestions. If you're familiar with the mechanics, why do you keep saying things that aren't true? Why do you ask them to implement measures that are already in place?

Quote:
exploit
n.
to take advantage of (a person, situation, etc.), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends the use of a bug or glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.
Fixed. So no, there is no exploit.

Quote:
con·tract
n.
An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.  Contracts is a new system, where you can trade your items in various fashions with other players or corporations.
…but we're talking about buy orders, not contracts. The rule against impossible-to-complete contracts deal with certain bugs that allowed you to set up contracts for e.g. stacks of unstackable items.

Drawing a line thru a definition doesnt fix or change that definition. At least not for the majority of us grounded in reality.
Utzam
State War Academy
Caldari State
#113 - 2013-07-08 13:59:14 UTC
Tippia wrote:

So again, you're showing that you're not familiar with the mechanics involved. You can keep claiming that you are, but then you belie this claim with your suggestions. If you're familiar with the mechanics, why do you keep saying things that aren't true? Why do you ask them to implement measures that are already in place?


It's quite accurate to refer to this situation as a default. That the process of a default is not fully implemented by Eve does not negate that categorization.

Tippia wrote:

The key here is that the entire escrow amount has been paid out, just like you asked. There is no more money in escrow. The buyer has already lost it all to the broker who has already transferred it all to the seller. The order is not closed until the escrow amount has been exhausted.


False. You can't have it both ways. Also, consider we're talking about margin trade scams where the minimum buy amount is often equal to the total quantity on the buy order.

The seller absolutely does not receive the escrow amount since the game will cancel out the order prematurely due to the buyer not having sufficient ISK for the full trade.

As the seller I expect to receive the entire amount in escrow (e.g. if they are selling something at $2M that normally costs $1M and have 50% in escrow on a buy order for 1000 units where they can only pay for 500 based on the current escrow, the seller exchanges 500 units at the $2M unit cost for the full amount in escrow).

If I as the seller have 1000 units and meet the requirements for the order, I should walk away with $1B and still have 500 units left over.

Tippia wrote:

So again, you're showing that you're not familiar with the mechanics involved. You can keep claiming that you are, but then you belie this claim with your suggestions.


You're troll has no power here.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#114 - 2013-07-08 14:00:12 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
One could argue that orders on the market are outstanding contracts with the broker.
No, you couldn't, because market trading does not make use of the contracting mechanics in any way.

Ace Uoweme wrote:
It is. Take out insurance, and all these warning boxes, and you'll have a point.
Incorrect, as always. None of those save people from themselves. In fact, those are good examples of what he's talking about: warnings, not preventions.
Krete
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2013-07-08 14:00:51 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Krete wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Utzam wrote:
contract contract contract


You keep using this word.

Contracts and buy/sell orders are two completely different mechanics in EVE.

A contract is a direct agreement between players, and allows for a whole host of scamming, almost all of which is totally and completely legal in game.


Not everyone agrees with you.




CCP agrees with me, and they're the only ones who actually matter in this case. Until and unless they deem that these things are exploits, they are not.


Citation needed.

And that doesn't change that not everyone agrees with you.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#116 - 2013-07-08 14:05:24 UTC
Krete wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Krete wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Utzam wrote:
contract contract contract


You keep using this word.

Contracts and buy/sell orders are two completely different mechanics in EVE.

A contract is a direct agreement between players, and allows for a whole host of scamming, almost all of which is totally and completely legal in game.


Not everyone agrees with you.




CCP agrees with me, and they're the only ones who actually matter in this case. Until and unless they deem that these things are exploits, they are not.


Citation needed.

And that doesn't change that not everyone agrees with you.


I don't need to cite anything.

Cite where CCP has deemed this to be an exploit. Because you cannot, it is not, regardless of who disagrees with me.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#117 - 2013-07-08 14:07:54 UTC
Utzam wrote:

As the seller I expect to receive the entire amount in escrow


Why would you receive anything? Under the indicated conditions, the buy order failed and no transaction took place; you still have your product. If you cannot then sell it for a profit elsewhere, the problem lies with you for having made a bad purchase.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#118 - 2013-07-08 14:19:39 UTC
Margin Trading. A host of legitimate trading applications, that allow you to spread your isk farther than it would normally go, and invest yourself in numerous different markets simultaneously. A pillar of the economy.

And we are supposed to believe that because one of it many, many applications can be used to scam morons out of money, that the skill itself in an exploit?

Not buying it. (which, also, is the ultimate defense against Margin Trading scams, just don't buy it. )

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#119 - 2013-07-08 14:20:21 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Not knowing may not be an exploit but using the mechanic on purpose should be.
No, it really shouldn't. Exploits deal with bugs in the game and unintended effects. People not knowing the mechanics and making mistakes because of it does not qualify as either of those.

Quote:
Drawing a line thru a definition doesnt fix or change that definition.
No, but it highlights the part of the suggested definition that is irrelevant for the context.

Utzam wrote:
It's quite accurate to refer to this situation as a default.
…you mean aside from sharing none of its characteristics. So it seems rather odd to categorize it as a default when all requirements have been fulfilled.

Quote:
False. You can't have it both ways.
What two ways, and what's false about it?
The seller receives any amount of money in escrow until those funds have been depleted. As the seller, you receive the full amount in escrow if your sale amounts to that much. What's confusing you is that you're not fully familiar with the mechanics of how margin trading works in EVE: it lowers the amount of money you need to put into escrow in order to set up a buy order. The money in escrow is still being paid out, in full, to anyone who fulfils the requirements for the order as long as there is enough ISK to complete the transaction.

Quote:
As the seller I expect to receive the entire amount in escrow (e.g. if they are selling something at $2M that normally costs $1M and have 50% in escrow on a buy order for 1000 units where they can only pay for 500 based on the current escrow, the seller exchanges 500 units at the $2M unit cost for the full amount in escrow).

If I as the seller have 1000 units and meet the requirements for the order, I should walk away with $1B and still have 500 units left over.
…which is exactly what happens. At least unless someone else has a cheaper order on the market, in which case they get the money, or unless there is too little cash in escrow to complete the transaction.

Pointing out that someone is wrong is not trolling. The simple fact of the matter is that you're wrong: what you're asking for is already in the game.
Rogue Aspire
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
#120 - 2013-07-08 15:05:03 UTC
It's only an exploit because you want it to be.

If it was going to crush the market then it would have happened many years ago.