These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Feedback Request - Margin trading and accurate market UI

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Odoman Empeer
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#521 - 2014-02-21 16:03:07 UTC
He doesn't want anyone to mess with his marginal trading scams.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#522 - 2014-02-21 16:10:20 UTC
Odoman Empeer wrote:
He doesn't want anyone to mess with his marginal trading scams.

Well perhaps a change will allow him the opportunity to actually learn how to buy and sell without a 'Ringer' in the queue.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#523 - 2014-02-21 23:44:51 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
How about we try a different angle, when something is paid for it leaves the shelf and becomes the buyers property. If you want to buy something you put up the cash and make an advert, when the item comes to you the cash goes to them. If your doing a Margin Trading scam you have no intent to buy the advertised item and therefore the rest of us don't need to see the advert.

So remove items that have no valid financial backing.


Well, this would require the ability to read intent, which we can't do, because both a "legitimate" and an "illegitimate" order made with Margin Trading will fail for the same exact reason. Not having enough to immediately cover the order does not represent the intention to see it fail. You're making a logical leap, the ramifications of which will hurt a far greater number of legitimate traders than scammers.

And by the way, no, I don't and never have run the Margin Trading scam. I do, however, use Margin Trading for legitimate purposes in my trading, placing large speculative orders that could take months to fill based on when prices happen to swing down low enough for a particular item.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#524 - 2014-02-22 05:01:46 UTC
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
How about we try a different angle, when something is paid for it leaves the shelf and becomes the buyers property. If you want to buy something you put up the cash and make an advert, when the item comes to you the cash goes to them. If your doing a Margin Trading scam you have no intent to buy the advertised item and therefore the rest of us don't need to see the advert.

So remove items that have no valid financial backing.


Well, this would require the ability to read intent, which we can't do, because both a "legitimate" and an "illegitimate" order made with Margin Trading will fail for the same exact reason. Not having enough to immediately cover the order does not represent the intention to see it fail. You're making a logical leap, the ramifications of which will hurt a far greater number of legitimate traders than scammers.

And by the way, no, I don't and never have run the Margin Trading scam. I do, however, use Margin Trading for legitimate purposes in my trading, placing large speculative orders that could take months to fill based on when prices happen to swing down low enough for a particular item.

See, you lost me. I buy and sell a couple hundred bil a month, from the way your arguing I would assume you do the same, yet if my wallet falls below the means to fulfil an order I have no problem with that order being removed from the market UI. Yet you seem to think leaving 'Guaranteed to fail' orders up on the UI is a good thing.

How is it we supposedly do the same thing yet differ on this?

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#525 - 2014-02-22 06:26:26 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
See, you lost me. I buy and sell a couple hundred bil a month, from the way your arguing I would assume you do the same, yet if my wallet falls below the means to fulfil an order I have no problem with that order being removed from the market UI. Yet you seem to think leaving 'Guaranteed to fail' orders up on the UI is a good thing.

How is it we supposedly do the same thing yet differ on this?


The system has no way of knowing that the order in question is "guaranteed to fail" unless we break Margin Trading in order to force an erroneous definition of that term (not having enough cash in the wallet to fulfill the order at this immediate moment) into prominence. In other words, if we want to dig into the realm of intent, we have to hardcode the aforementioned condition into how the skill works. This of course means lumping the majority with good or neutral intentions in with an extreme minority whose intentions are bad.

Margin Trading is working just fine for its key constituency right now. If, as I've argued exhaustively up to this point, Margin Trading is not what scams the victim, why should it be the target of any changes? You still have yet to convincingly make that case.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#526 - 2014-02-22 06:59:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
See, you lost me. I buy and sell a couple hundred bil a month, from the way your arguing I would assume you do the same, yet if my wallet falls below the means to fulfil an order I have no problem with that order being removed from the market UI. Yet you seem to think leaving 'Guaranteed to fail' orders up on the UI is a good thing.

How is it we supposedly do the same thing yet differ on this?


The system has no way of knowing that the order in question is "guaranteed to fail" unless we break Margin Trading in order to force an erroneous definition of that term (not having enough cash in the wallet to fulfill the order at this immediate moment) into prominence. In other words, if we want to dig into the realm of intent, we have to hardcode the aforementioned condition into how the skill works. This of course means lumping the majority with good or neutral intentions in with an extreme minority whose intentions are bad.

Margin Trading is working just fine for its key constituency right now. If, as I've argued exhaustively up to this point, Margin Trading is not what scams the victim, why should it be the target of any changes? You still have yet to convincingly make that case.

The system does know when an order is 'guaranteed to fail', it fails.

Any time an order is placed (Buy or Sell) the wallet is checked, if the funds are there the order is processed. Setting an order up then removing the funds to cover it would cause the order to fail and therefore be removed from the UI. Setting up orders for quantities of 1 is where the obvious scam is, if you want to buy one item you should have the ISK to buy that item or don't place the order. When I set up an order for 200mil units of Trit or 400 Expanded Cargohold II, I have the funds to buy 1/4th of them and expect to have the funds to buy the rest before the order is filled, if I get 1/4th of them and haven't funded my wallet to buy more, (Escrow Depleted) then my order should be automatically removed to make way for the next best legitimate order.

That's how Margin Trading works and should continue to work. This is a small change that only effects people that are trying to manipulate a sell and buy orders to profit on ignorance, it would have no effect on people trying to maximize their buying power. If they become overextended then they start to lose standing orders, simple as that.

If Margin trading was working fine then why would it be getting a visit from the 'Powers that be'. Because it is in need of a tweak to make the market a true value rather than a perceived value with no relevant proof.

Or we can go back to my earlier suggestion; Fail an order, Lose a trained lvl. Hell CCP could even put in a failsafe to warn marketers that they are dangerously close to losing a trained lvl. The scam would still work but it would require retraining 9 days to get Margin trading V back to repeat the process.

This is 'Don't write checks you can't cover' argument; the punishment for writing back checks is harsh from the bank and should be harsh in EVE as well.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#527 - 2014-02-22 07:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mu-Shi Ai
Goldiiee wrote:
That's how Margin Trading works and should continue to work. This is a small change that only effects people that are trying to manipulate a sell and buy orders to profit on ignorance, it would have no effect on people trying to maximize their buying power. If they become overextended then they start to lose standing orders, simple as that.


What is the difference between this and waiting for somebody to sell to the order before it fails? If you haven't purchased a bunch of goods for a heavily-inflated price, then you have nothing to worry about if some ordinary buy order fails. You can sell it to the next guy, or sell it easily at a later date. I direct you back to my previous example: the only reason why the "margin scam" seller is angry is because of what he bought and the price he bought it at. Everything else, compared to the "legit" case is exactly the same. The order failed for the same reason. It's the state of the seller's commodities that are the problem. And again, that's a problem that the seller needs to deal with by researching prospective investments.

You're still not explaining why legitimate traders should have to suffer a more restrictive Margin Trading skill, given that what I've said is the case.

Quote:
If Margin trading was working fine then why would it be getting a visit from the 'Powers that be'. Because it is in need of a tweak to make the market a true value rather than a perceived value with no relevant proof.


The impression I got from the OP is that tweaks to the Margin Trading skill have pretty much been swatted down as a likely possibility. Most of the input was focused on the idea of doing something to the market interface.

Quote:
Or we can go back to my earlier suggestion; Fail an order, Lose a trained lvl. Hell CCP could even put in a failsafe to warn marketers that they are dangerously close to losing a trained lvl. The scam would still work but it would require retraining 9 days to get Margin trading V back to repeat the process.


That's a horrible suggestion, and I've already argued vehemently against it. In lieu of extending my argument any further, I'll rest on the assumption that CCP wouldn't dare implement anything like this.

Quote:
This is 'Don't write checks you can't cover' argument; the punishment for writing back checks is harsh from the bank and should be harsh in EVE as well.


An order set up with Margin Trading is not the same thing as a check. If, when my order failed, I still received the goods "sold" to me (but not paid for), your analogy would be valid. But that's not what happens, so your analogy is flawed.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#528 - 2014-02-22 07:36:17 UTC
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
A demonstrated complete lack of understanding in commodities and services.

You still don't get it. If the order does not have the ISK to back up 'one unit' it gets removed. Margin scams gone, all other legitimate traders still there, Win Win, Well except for the guy PLEX'ing his account on the ignorance of others.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#529 - 2014-02-22 07:52:35 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
You still don't get it. If the order does not have the ISK to back up 'one unit' it gets removed. Margin scams gone, all other legitimate traders still there, Win Win, Well except for the guy PLEX'ing his account on the ignorance of others.


An order for which one unit can't be backed up right now could be backed up before someone attempts to fill it. There is no difference between cancelling it now (before someone even attempts to sell to it) and cancelling it upon attempted sale, except that the former assumes everything is a scam waiting to happen, when that's anything but the case.

And the reality is that no one, except the ranks of purely ignorant people who don't think they should have to learn anything about the goods they're attempting to trade, benefits from this. Neither legit buyers nor legit sellers see any appreciable gain out of it.

So what you're asking for is a change which embeds the propagation of ignorance into the game's DNA, while squeezing legitimate traders. And CCP isn't even going to do this, thankfully, so it's a moot point.
Odoman Empeer
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#530 - 2014-02-22 14:47:31 UTC
If you cannot fulfill the minimum quantity you are trying to order, why should the order be on the market?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#531 - 2014-02-22 17:07:11 UTC
Odoman Empeer wrote:
If you cannot fulfill the minimum quantity you are trying to order, why should the order be on the market?


Why shouldn't it be? It doesn't harm the seller if it fails. I fail to see your reasoning, as no order is ever guaranteed.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#532 - 2014-02-22 18:50:10 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Odoman Empeer wrote:
If you cannot fulfill the minimum quantity you are trying to order, why should the order be on the market?


Why shouldn't it be? It doesn't harm the seller if it fails. I fail to see your reasoning, as no order is ever guaranteed.

Why should it be? That's a better question. If it is useless then get rid of it, it's not benefiting anyone

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#533 - 2014-02-22 19:00:11 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Odoman Empeer wrote:
If you cannot fulfill the minimum quantity you are trying to order, why should the order be on the market?


Why shouldn't it be? It doesn't harm the seller if it fails. I fail to see your reasoning, as no order is ever guaranteed.

Why should it be? That's a better question. If it is useless then get rid of it, it's not benefiting anyone
Because it helps many traders and works well. It also does not hurt the seller. I'm seeing no down side.

So again, why shouldn't those orders be allowed?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#534 - 2014-02-22 19:47:50 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Odoman Empeer wrote:
If you cannot fulfill the minimum quantity you are trying to order, why should the order be on the market?


Why shouldn't it be? It doesn't harm the seller if it fails. I fail to see your reasoning, as no order is ever guaranteed.

Why should it be? That's a better question. If it is useless then get rid of it, it's not benefiting anyone
Because it helps many traders and works well. It also does not hurt the seller. I'm seeing no down side.

So again, why shouldn't those orders be allowed?

I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Why should orders that don't actually exists still be posted? Is that what you're asking?

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#535 - 2014-02-22 20:27:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Goldiiee wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Because it helps many traders and works well. It also does not hurt the seller. I'm seeing no down side.

So again, why shouldn't those orders be allowed?

I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Why should orders that don't actually exists still be posted? Is that what you're asking?
They do exist and they were allowed to be posted. Just because they fail once an attempt is made to sell to them, does not mean they don't exist. The broker checks at the point of someone trying to sell to them, sees that there is insufficient funds to buy what is being offered and cancels the buy order. The seller does not lose any items and is not charged for it's failure.

When so many traders use this on a regular basis, why should those orders not be allowed?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#536 - 2014-02-22 20:59:55 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Because it helps many traders and works well. It also does not hurt the seller. I'm seeing no down side.

So again, why shouldn't those orders be allowed?

I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Why should orders that don't actually exists still be posted? Is that what you're asking?
They do exist and they were allowed to be posted. Just because they fail once an attempt is made to sell to them, does not mean they don't exist. The broker checks at the point of someone trying to sell to them, sees that there is insufficient funds to buy what is being offered and cancels the buy order. The seller does not lose any items and is not charged for it's failure.

When so many traders use this on a regular basis, why should those orders not be allowed?

In the OP.

'This isn't about scamming or whether or not it's okay for people to trick other people, which is obviously extremely EVE and we have no problem with. The issue here is that the client (via the market interface) is essentially lying to the player by showing an order which can't actually be filled.'

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#537 - 2014-02-22 22:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Goldiiee wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Because it helps many traders and works well. It also does not hurt the seller. I'm seeing no down side.

So again, why shouldn't those orders be allowed?

I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Why should orders that don't actually exists still be posted? Is that what you're asking?
They do exist and they were allowed to be posted. Just because they fail once an attempt is made to sell to them, does not mean they don't exist. The broker checks at the point of someone trying to sell to them, sees that there is insufficient funds to buy what is being offered and cancels the buy order. The seller does not lose any items and is not charged for it's failure.

When so many traders use this on a regular basis, why should those orders not be allowed?

In the OP.

'This isn't about scamming or whether or not it's okay for people to trick other people, which is obviously extremely EVE and we have no problem with. The issue here is that the client (via the market interface) is essentially lying to the player by showing an order which can't actually be filled.'
So you still couldn't answer the question? I guess you can't.

As far as your quote is concerned, even though it is now a moot point, I have already given a response and idea to solve the actual problem here. Post 434.

I say moot point because as far as I know, CCP have dropped this idea and unstickied the thread. They did this quite some time ago, due in no small part to the CSM I might add. It's dead in the water. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#538 - 2014-02-22 23:29:53 UTC
Odoman Empeer wrote:
If you cannot fulfill the minimum quantity you are trying to order, why should the order be on the market?


Because you have the Margin Trading skill and may be able to cover the order before anybody tries to fill it. Not a single seller is hurt by this unless they are operating way outside of standard prices and are relying on your specific order--which could elude their grasp for any number of reasons--in order to get their wallet right again.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#539 - 2014-02-22 23:34:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mu-Shi Ai
Goldiiee wrote:
In the OP.

'This isn't about scamming or whether or not it's okay for people to trick other people, which is obviously extremely EVE and we have no problem with. The issue here is that the client (via the market interface) is essentially lying to the player by showing an order which can't actually be filled.'


Well, Rise is simply wrong, for reasons that I've gone over exhaustively at this point. If you want to lean on his interpretation, that's fine, but just know that some of us completely disagree with it, and have stated our reasons for doing so.

The interface is not "lying" to anybody. An order is simply posted, not guaranteed to belong to you and you alone once you set eyes on it. Buy orders are not on the market to save your day, fulfill your deepest desires, or make your wallet whole again. They never claim to be that, and therefore they are not "lying" to players who feel that those things should be true.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#540 - 2014-02-23 07:57:41 UTC
What Mu-Shi Ai said.

No order is guaranteed, absolutely none. So why should Margin trading orders be singled out, as ones that need to fit that term?

Why should those orders not be allowed?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.