Player Features and Ideas Discussion

*Shrug* I said it was a simple and no one would like it, I didn't say it was good :P

But yes, yours is much better lol. I've removed my stupid post though

People often complain that CCP is trying to "dumb EVE down" and I usually ignore them.

This time, I'm not sure there's any way you can change the market interface or the Margin Trading skill that won't result in doing exactly that.

Generally speaking, most people only fall for a margin scam once. Those people either quit the game (and really, if a margin scam makes them quit then there are far worse things they're better off not knowing about) or learn how to see scams and never get scammed again. If anything needs to be changed, the change needs to be that the new player is informed that scams exist, the market cannot be relied upon as 100% guaranteed (nor can contracts for that matter) and that "buyer beware" is in full effect at all times.

The market isn't broken. The Margin Trading skill isn't broken. Neither of these things need to be fixed.

What's broken is that new players are allowed to believe orders are 100% guaranteed and that scams only happen to other people.

I haven't read the thread, sorry. Here's my idea:

Above the buy orders, place a little information box with a triangular yellow hazard symbol . Next to the hazard symbol, a text box notifies players that buy orders are not guaranteed, and without ISK backing they may collapse. A tooltip may give more information.

All the information the player needs to know is right there. They understand that buy orders are not a guarantee. Now they're left to make their own decisions based on that information.

I'd worry that industry threads might bring out the "minerals I mine are free" crowd... but yes, this is probably one of the more cogent balance discussion threads I've seen.

Above all caveat emptor: buyer beware. I agree with all the people that have said "tell the newbs buy orders are not guaranteed."

Secondly, reputation matters. That's why people buy stuff from Amazon.com, Newegg, and the guy you don't know on eBay with a 99% satisfaction rating. I wholeheartedly support some kind of market feedback report for characters and attaching that report to each buy order. To a lesser degree, fines and bans (from a station or all stations owned by an NPC corp) for repeatedly failed buy orders would also be appropriate as well as how a real broker would act. You would also need some sort of mechanic for un-banning.

Lastly, I disagree with all the calls for having isk in your wallet to cover the entire order, as it seems to be to defeat the purpose of margin trading. Instead, perhaps require that the escrow amount be replenished every X hours. And if you're into marking margin orders in the market, also indicate which margin orders have less than x% of the escrow remaining. For legitimate margin traders, perhaps even have an option on the buy order for the seller's items to go into an "item escrow" if the necessary isk is not available in the "isk escrow." After a certain number of days, if isk is not forthcoming, the items are released from escrow. I suppose you'd also have to note that on the buy order as well.

P.S. I know that, in this case, the buyers are also sellers, but I think you get what I mean. I just wanted to use a Latin phrase to make me look smarter, ok.

Buy orders should be guaranteed, that is the job of the broker and why you pay the broker fee to begin with. You don't have a market without binding buy orders. In real life the broker is the actual buyer and the trades that you place as a buyer don't actually "settle" for 2-3 days. The broker's job is to provide that period of float between the time the trade is made and the money changes hands, he guarantees both ends of the transaction. The issue with the game is that there is no recourse because of the ability to generate throw away accounts. Therefore you need a mechanic that holds the character placing the order responsible for the entire order. I like the idea of orders becoming "inactive" once the character's wallet falls below the level required to perform on the largest oustanding order.

They are. If the sale doesn't go through, you pay no fees; all trades are binding so you can never be left without your part of the bargain.

But that's not what the “no guarantees” thing is about, though. There is absolutely nothing to guarantee that, by the time you click the “Sell” button, the order is still around. There is no way to guarantee this without completely breaking the game.

The other party might have cancelled his order.
Someone else might have beaten you to it.
The order may have expired.
The order may have been adjusted to no longer fit what you're accepting.
The entire account might have been deleted and all characters biomassed.
Oh, and the buyer might have ran out of money, but that's ok because you are still being 100% protected and you're not going to lose a dime.

As someone who's intending to sell stuff to buy orders, all the above eventualities are risks you have to account for. If you're buying to something that you stand to make a lot of money from, #1 and #2 are particularly probable — the buyer might not actually have intended it to be such a good deal, and someone else might have been quicker to spot it than you were.

If you want to “fix” the “problem” of people trying to sell to order that might not pan out, all the above needs to be addressed equally since he's equally screwed either way. Of course, the margin trading scam relies on people not bothering to look up the actual trade value of the goods they're investing in so none of the above are even related, and the neither the problem nor the solution has anything to do with the skills or orders involved…

The only solution to this non-issue is if people learn (or, if they absolutely must, are force-fed) the information they need to make the right decisions. Restricting the ability to trade for either party for any reason is wrong-headed since that is not the issue. This is an information and education problem, not anything related to skills or mechanics.

…and 1) this is not real life, but 2) even in real life, if the broker is too slow on the order, he can't complete it. Same as in EVE.

The purpose of this thread is to eliminate the instance where the buyer has an order up that he can't perform on. Everything you listed is part of normal market game play.

There is no logical reason that such an order should exist. And the broker placing the order wouldn't let someone continue to place worthless orders either. That IS the point of the order guarantee, ie the guarantee that the order is legitimate in the first place and can be completed.

No one is looking to guarantee that someone can click a mouse fast enough to get to an order. Jesus, what a straw man argument that is.

As for your nonsense about a broker being "too slow" to complete an order in real life, that is quite comical. This isn't the 1920s. But even if it were or alternatively, there is some market mishap, the broker will cover the other side of the trade and resolve the position for his customer.

…including there not being enough ISK at the other end. So I'm questioning why it needs to be addressed at all since it makes absolutely no difference for the seller why the order failed.

Sure there is: the buyer might be able to get the ISK back in there before anyone tries to sell to it. Again, saying that it shouldn't exist is like saying that an order that the buyer is going to cancel or adjust in very soon should not exist. After all, you won't be able to sell it either, and on your end, it will be the exact same thing.

The problem you're seeing is that the information you should be looking at isn't the one you're looking at. So fix that problem. Don't make arbitrary rules about which failed sales should be burdened with because that just makes the entire market inconsistent and ineffective.

Not really, no. If people start suggesting that they should be guaranteed to sell to any order they see on the market, then it applies equally to all reasons why they might not be able to do so. You may not have fully considered what you were saying, but the ramifications of the kinds of guarantees you're asking for really do go that far.

It's not a straw man — it's explaining to you what you're suggesting. I am fully aware that it's not your intent to suggest that you should be able to sell to orders that no longer exist, but that is still effectively what you're doing. Again, just because you can see an order on the market does not ever mean that you will be able to buy or sell to it. The problem is that people assume that they can — that's the actual knowledge problem that needs fixing. As far as accurate market data goes, it already exists people assume that it is in the order list — that's the other actual knowledge problem that needs fixing.

…and brokers can still be too slow to complete an order. Communication is fast these days, but it isn't instant and it's first come first serve.

They already have that tool, it's called market history.