These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#541 - 2014-02-23 08:32:36 UTC
In the last 5 pages 26 people have discussed a way to legitimize Margin Trading, and 4 people have used every misleading argument in their repertoire to derail the conversation or legitimize the current abuse of the Market UI.

Good thing you're not in the majority here guys, or someone might think there's some personal bias involved. :)

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
#542 - 2014-02-23 09:52:21 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
In the last 5 pages 26 people have discussed a way to legitimize Margin Trading, and 4 people have used every misleading argument in their repertoire to derail the conversation or legitimize the current abuse of the Market UI.


A suggestion thread that is virtually dead in the water, by the way. I'm only arguing for the sake of posterity at this point.

Quote:
Good thing you're not in the majority here guys, or someone might think there's some personal bias involved. :)


"You must be a scammer" is one of the lowest forms of conversation in EVE, next to "We should change this because it isn't realistic."
Mag's
Azn Empire
#543 - 2014-02-23 10:25:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Goldiiee wrote:
In the last 5 pages 26 people have discussed a way to legitimize Margin Trading, and 4 people have used every misleading argument in their repertoire to derail the conversation or legitimize the current abuse of the Market UI.

Good thing you're not in the majority here guys, or someone might think there's some personal bias involved. :)
Still couldn't answer the question I see.

But hey why answer a simple question, when you can throw logical fallacies at it instead? Blink

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
#544 - 2014-02-23 10:57:14 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
In the last 5 pages 26 people have discussed a way to legitimize Margin Trading, and 4 people have used every misleading argument in their repertoire to derail the conversation or legitimize the current abuse of the Market UI.

Good thing you're not in the majority here guys, or someone might think there's some personal bias involved. :)
Still couldn't answer the question I see.

But hey why answer a simple question, when you can throw logical fallacies at it instead? Blink

I didn't answer it because I thought you were trolling; The UI is how we interpret EVE, we rely on it to tell us distances, speed, size, friend or foe and yes even market prices, so it should follow that the UI gives up factual information not the whim of whatever anyone wants to put up there.

But yeah lets go with your idea? leave it as is because it's always good to leave out relevant UI information in a game all about UI information.

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.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#545 - 2014-02-23 11:06:43 UTC
Mu-Shi Ai wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
In the last 5 pages 26 people have discussed a way to legitimize Margin Trading, and 4 people have used every misleading argument in their repertoire to derail the conversation or legitimize the current abuse of the Market UI.


A suggestion thread that is virtually dead in the water, by the way. I'm only arguing for the sake of posterity at this point.

Quote:
Good thing you're not in the majority here guys, or someone might think there's some personal bias involved. :)


"You must be a scammer" is one of the lowest forms of conversation in EVE, next to "We should change this because it isn't realistic."

Not dead, I am pretty sure every reasonable reader has given up arguing with the four year old that doesn't like other people playing with his toys. I keep reading and trying to get the simplest point over to you, 'EVE is about what we ant it to be about.' and your voice alone is not enough to convince me or anyone else that making the UI not lie to us, is a bad thing.

And really, scammer? I didn't say 'scammer' I just suggested there might some bias, as of yet you have professed to be a marketer, not a scammer, were you lying then or now?

I have no doubt there will always be a scam, as long as people can PLEX their account there will be someone too lazy to figure out how to earn it, and will resort to stealing it. I just don't personally think setting the game up to promote this type of play is as beneficial as promoting other play styles.

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
#546 - 2014-02-23 11:59:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Goldiiee wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
In the last 5 pages 26 people have discussed a way to legitimize Margin Trading, and 4 people have used every misleading argument in their repertoire to derail the conversation or legitimize the current abuse of the Market UI.

Good thing you're not in the majority here guys, or someone might think there's some personal bias involved. :)
Still couldn't answer the question I see.

But hey why answer a simple question, when you can throw logical fallacies at it instead? Blink

I didn't answer it because I thought you were trolling; The UI is how we interpret EVE, we rely on it to tell us distances, speed, size, friend or foe and yes even market prices, so it should follow that the UI gives up factual information not the whim of whatever anyone wants to put up there.
I answered why it should be allowed and asked you why it shouldn't. and you thought that was trolling? Roll

The UI in this regard is no different to all other orders, as none of them are guaranteed. None. Why should market trading orders be different?

Are you suggesting that a single buy order, should be a guarantee of the true value of an item? That a buy order should be guaranteed, in order for this to be the case?

Goldiiee wrote:
But yeah lets go with your idea? leave it as is because it's always good to leave out relevant UI information in a game all about UI information.
I find it odd you claim I say leave it as it is, because the link I posted to my idea quite clearly shows that was not what I said.

Goldiiee wrote:
Not dead, I am pretty sure every reasonable reader has given up arguing with the four year old that doesn't like other people playing with his toys.
And here you are, suggesting I am the one trolling, whilst posting these little gems. Roll

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
#547 - 2014-02-23 12:10:41 UTC
Here Mag's I will simplify it further; CCP should not allow game design to allow for false information.

All the other UI interfaces show a true to the second representation of what you are up against, the market UI should be no different. Failing to fix this is just like leaving a broken part in a machine. Fix the damn machine.

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
#548 - 2014-02-23 12:17:21 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Here Mag's I will simplify it further; CCP should not allow game design to allow for false information.

All the other UI interfaces show a true to the second representation of what you are up against, the market UI should be no different. Failing to fix this is just like leaving a broken part in a machine. Fix the damn machine.
How is it false? There is an order and you can see it. It was legitimately set up and exists. But like every other order, it's not guaranteed.

So I'll ask again.

Why shouldn't those orders be allowed?
Are you suggesting that a single buy order, should be a guarantee of the true value of an item? That a buy order should be guaranteed, in order for this to be the case?

I'll also point out again, that the seller does not lose out when the order fails. He does not lose his items and he does not get charged.

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
#549 - 2014-02-23 13:23:12 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Here Mag's I will simplify it further; CCP should not allow game design to allow for false information.

All the other UI interfaces show a true to the second representation of what you are up against, the market UI should be no different. Failing to fix this is just like leaving a broken part in a machine. Fix the damn machine.
How is it false? There is an order and you can see it. It was legitimately set up and exists. But like every other order, it's not guaranteed.

So I'll ask again.

Why shouldn't those orders be allowed?
Are you suggesting that a single buy order, should be a guarantee of the true value of an item? That a buy order should be guaranteed, in order for this to be the case?

I'll also point out again, that the seller does not lose out when the order fails. He does not lose his items and he does not get charged.

How about a parody;
You accept a combat mission, warp to the site and lo and behold you have 30 red flashing Battleships that are in need of killing but every time you lock one up and shoot it disappears. If that's the way mission worked would they leave it alone, I mean nobody losses anything for locking up and shooting nothing.

Or how about PVP, you warp to a scanned down ship only to find 10 of them there, and as soon as you start to lock them up they disappear.

Roids, lets make one in 5 of them not actually give any ore but wait till the first cycle completes to have it disappear, not like the roids feeling are getting hurt.

Just because you don't see the idiocy of having something that doesn't actually exist in the UI doesn't mean it makes sense either.

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
#550 - 2014-02-23 14:01:13 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
I didn't answer it because I thought you were trolling; The UI is how we interpret EVE, we rely on it to tell us distances, speed, size, friend or foe and yes even market prices, so it should follow that the UI gives up factual information not the whim of whatever anyone wants to put up there.


The UI is telling us facts. It is saying "Hey, this buy order is here." What it isn't saying--nor should it be--is that any particular buy order is yours to fill.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#551 - 2014-02-23 14:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mu-Shi Ai
Goldiiee wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Goldiiee wrote:
Here Mag's I will simplify it further; CCP should not allow game design to allow for false information.

All the other UI interfaces show a true to the second representation of what you are up against, the market UI should be no different. Failing to fix this is just like leaving a broken part in a machine. Fix the damn machine.
How is it false? There is an order and you can see it. It was legitimately set up and exists. But like every other order, it's not guaranteed.

So I'll ask again.

Why shouldn't those orders be allowed?
Are you suggesting that a single buy order, should be a guarantee of the true value of an item? That a buy order should be guaranteed, in order for this to be the case?

I'll also point out again, that the seller does not lose out when the order fails. He does not lose his items and he does not get charged.

How about a parody;
You accept a combat mission, warp to the site and lo and behold you have 30 red flashing Battleships that are in need of killing but every time you lock one up and shoot it disappears. If that's the way mission worked would they leave it alone, I mean nobody losses anything for locking up and shooting nothing.

Or how about PVP, you warp to a scanned down ship only to find 10 of them there, and as soon as you start to lock them up they disappear.


First off, PVE is a bad analogy, because you're dealing with real players on the market.

As for your PVP analogy, a better one would be that you warp onto a grid and find an apparently solo pilot. You lock him up, and as soon as you start shooting, 5 of his pals warp in and own you. There was no lie in what happened here, even if it was unanticipated on your part. And the reason why this analogy is more apt than the one you provided is because it highlights that all of this is about doing legwork and assessing risk. Just like you could ostensibly figure out that this guy has 5 of his pals waiting in the wings to jump you, anybody can discover a Margin Trading scam in the works. The story of how this scam happens is so similar every time: a self-evidently inexperienced player sees a "great deal," makes a rash purchase of overpriced goods, and has the rug pulled out from under him. Not everybody falls for this scam, just like not everybody runs headlong into a PVP ambush.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#552 - 2014-02-23 14:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Goldiiee wrote:

How about a parody;
You accept a combat mission, warp to the site and lo and behold you have 30 red flashing Battleships that are in need of killing but every time you lock one up and shoot it disappears. If that's the way mission worked would they leave it alone, I mean nobody losses anything for locking up and shooting nothing.

Or how about PVP, you warp to a scanned down ship only to find 10 of them there, and as soon as you start to lock them up they disappear.

Roids, lets make one in 5 of them not actually give any ore but wait till the first cycle completes to have it disappear, not like the roids feeling are getting hurt.

Just because you don't see the idiocy of having something that doesn't actually exist in the UI doesn't mean it makes sense either.
I see you've again, avoided answering my questions. But again, I'll answer yours.

Missions. No, it's more like players are given the opportunity of creating missions, but just like orders, you are not guaranteed to get them. So the comparison ends with trying to accept it.

Scanning. The comparison is more about whether or not you get a good signal to warp to. Or the analogy Mu-Shi Ai gave. Again, nothing is guaranteed.

Roids. You start shooting one and before the cycle ends, the roid goes. This happens already.

So again.

Why shouldn't those orders be allowed?
Are you suggesting that a single buy order, should be a guarantee of the true value of an item? That a buy order should be guaranteed, in order for this to be the case?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mitchel Rei
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#553 - 2014-02-24 11:20:13 UTC
I'm late to the party on this topic, but here is my feedback:

There must be some penalty enacted if a trade allowed by margin trading fails.

Margin trading is essentially using borrowed money. The ability to borrow money is essentially tied to reputation.

I propose failed trades incur both loss of escrow to the NPC station owner and a negative standings hit for the NPC entity for each infraction.

This would more precisely match the sort of consequences facing a real life failure to meet a margin call.

- MR
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#554 - 2014-02-24 11:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
The margin trading scam is really a form of griefing new players as everyone more than a month old in game has heard about it. I would say the "contract where you give back the item you just bought " falls into that category as well.

Firstly there need to be margin calls to maintain the ratio of escrow to outstanding buy orders (pretty sure this does not occur at the moment) as this is how real life margin trading operates.

Secondly if a buy fails due to lack of assets the seller should have the option to sell up to the amount the buyer has ISK for even if that means going below the buyers declared "minimum" number of items.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#555 - 2014-02-24 22:45:02 UTC
Mitchel Rei wrote:
There must be some penalty enacted if a trade allowed by margin trading fails.


There already is a penalty. The buyer loses the broker's fee.

Quote:
Margin trading is essentially using borrowed money. The ability to borrow money is essentially tied to reputation.


Margin Trading, in EVE, doesn't use "borrowed money." Never, at any point, does the buyer get a single item from a seller without ponying up the full cost of that item. The only thing Margin Trading does is delay the ponying up, as it were, until the point of sale. If there isn't enough in the wallet at that point, the transaction fails and the order is canceled. There is no borrowed money in this equation.

Quote:
I propose failed trades incur both loss of escrow to the NPC station owner and a negative standings hit for the NPC entity for each infraction.


So, in essence, make Margin Trading a completely useless skill. Why not just remove it from the game entirely, then?

Quote:
This would more precisely match the sort of consequences facing a real life failure to meet a margin call.


EVE is not real life. The Margin Trading skill is not designed to emulate the precise workings of that real-world mechanism.
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#556 - 2014-02-24 22:51:54 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
The margin trading scam is really a form of griefing new players as everyone more than a month old in game has heard about it. I would say the "contract where you give back the item you just bought " falls into that category as well.

Firstly there need to be margin calls to maintain the ratio of escrow to outstanding buy orders (pretty sure this does not occur at the moment) as this is how real life margin trading operates.

Secondly if a buy fails due to lack of assets the seller should have the option to sell up to the amount the buyer has ISK for even if that means going below the buyers declared "minimum" number of items.


No, it isn't griefing. Look at any story of the Margin Trading scam, and the key is always that the player was an inexperienced newbie making assumptions about a system they didn't adequately understand yet (the market), and otherwise engaging in starry-eyed wishful thinking about some amazing deal they'd just found. The Margin Trading skill isn't what scams you. One's own ignorance does that job just fine on its own.
Alexia Marhx
The Witch's Den
#557 - 2014-02-25 03:13:37 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
In the last 5 pages 26 people have discussed a way to legitimize Margin Trading, and 4 people have used every misleading argument in their repertoire to derail the conversation or legitimize the current abuse of the Market UI.

Good thing you're not in the majority here guys, or someone might think there's some personal bias involved. :)



I second that, especially with the latest comments... The margin trading skill was intended for bulk buyers, to avoid them having their funds uselessly frozen for weeks/months... It was NOT intended as a way to fool honest sellers... So, like I keep suggesting, the very simple way to solve this issue is to enable negative wallet balance. Period.

Now, I guess the ones misusing it will go on arguing against that idea...
Mu-Shi Ai
Hosono House
#558 - 2014-02-25 06:28:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Alexia Marhx wrote:
I second that, especially with the latest comments... The margin trading skill was intended for bulk buyers, to avoid them having their funds uselessly frozen for weeks/months... It was NOT intended as a way to fool honest sellers... So, like I keep suggesting, the very simple way to solve this issue is to enable negative wallet balance. Period.


What you're arguing is that a person retains some sort of ownership over a buy order, and must be guaranteed permission to successfully fill it, just because he/she noticed its existence. That's not how the market has ever worked, nor does the market ever purport to work that way.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#559 - 2014-02-25 06:36:54 UTC
Bump

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#560 - 2014-02-25 06:54:54 UTC
How has this not been locked yet?

"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.