i agree
im fairly unwilling to trade with anyone i dont know for fear of not receiving the agreed upon price/item
While i'm not against the idea, I don't think the email system is intended to be a way to bypass Market transactions.
I also see no reason why you couldn't set up an in person trade with whoever you have business with.
Quote:
Two people, two servers.|
Originally Posted by DMystic
While i'm not against the idea, I don't think the email system is intended to be a way to bypass Market transactions.
I also see no reason why you couldn't set up an in person trade with whoever you have business with. |
I suppose you could temporarily create a toon on one server and do a face-to-face, which will more likely than not result in a toon being left on that server for no reason.
Probably not harmful unless you happened to get a great name (and would then be out of circulation) but it is a large amount of kludge.
And remember, the Market is completely 100% voluntary - players should not be forced to use it, nor should that enter into the thought process, IMO.
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
I like this idea on the surface, C.O.D. email trading makes good sense. I am not too liking of the possibility of cross server trade though.
My only concern is that I would assume that they went with a double blind auction for specific economic reasons, and this directly gets around that.
Now, the exact same ability exists in game (trading face to face) but they may be reluctant to implement this for the same reasons they chose to go with a double blind auction instead of a "seller sets the price" method of sales.
I have no idea what those reasons are, mind you. But Im sure that they existed.
Quote:
Cross server trade has been in the game since I9|
Originally Posted by Remaugen
I like this idea on the surface, C.O.D. email trading makes good sense. I am not too liking of the possibility of cross server trade though.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by enrious2
Two people, two servers.
I suppose you could temporarily create a toon on one server and do a face-to-face, which will more likely than not result in a toon being left on that server for no reason. Probably not harmful unless you happened to get a great name (and would then be out of circulation) but it is a large amount of kludge. And remember, the Market is completely 100% voluntary - players should not be forced to use it, nor should that enter into the thought process, IMO. |
If you want extra security for your trades, you may need to consider extra measures to ensure that security.
But again I don't really have anything against the idea, it may not be implemented because email isn't supposed to bypass the market. Don't forget that the market also serves an an inf sink, so ways to bypass that sink may go against the dev wishes and would be unlikely to get implemented.
Quote:
Thank you, I did not know that! My concern was spawned by last winters market cornering attempts on Champion in which certain items were artificially shortened by profit takers. My fear was that if cross server trade were allowed to happen it could get even worse. . .|
Originally Posted by DMystic
Cross server trade has been in the game since I9
|
If it has been around since I9 though then I guess it is not too likely to be an issue after all.
Quote:
I can almost guarantee that there would be a fee for BOTH parties (or at the very least the seller) IF they devs ever implemented this. Mostly for the reasons you just stated.
|
Originally Posted by DMystic
Cross server trade has been in the game since I9
As is the invention system, as is the e-mail system. If you want extra security for your trades, you may need to consider extra measures to ensure that security. But again I don't really have anything against the idea, it may not be implemented because email isn't supposed to bypass the market. Don't forget that the market also serves an an inf sink, so ways to bypass that sink may go against the dev wishes and would be unlikely to get implemented. |
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
I think, having played other games that use a true auction house, that the consignment method in this game is both better and friendlier, once you understand that it isn't an auction house.|
Originally Posted by opprime28
My only concern is that I would assume that they went with a double blind auction for specific economic reasons, and this directly gets around that.
Now, the exact same ability exists in game (trading face to face) but they may be reluctant to implement this for the same reasons they chose to go with a double blind auction instead of a "seller sets the price" method of sales. I have no idea what those reasons are, mind you. But Im sure that they existed. |
Perhaps that was their thinking.
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
Quote:
Except, as has been mentioned above, there are already ways to avoid that inf sink (and have been in since virtually the beginning).|
Originally Posted by DMystic
But again I don't really have anything against the idea, it may not be implemented because email isn't supposed to bypass the market. Don't forget that the market also serves an an inf sink, so ways to bypass that sink may go against the dev wishes and would be unlikely to get implemented.
|
Sure, there's a small amount of work but easily worked around.
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
Quote:
Considering that even before i18, there was no such thing as a "Champion" market, no this would be no new issue.|
Originally Posted by Remaugen
Thank you, I did not know that! My concern was spawned by last winters market cornering attempts on Champion in which certain items were artificially shortened by profit takers. My fear was that if cross server trade were allowed to happen it could get even worse. . .
If it has been around since I9 though then I guess it is not too likely to be an issue after all. |
The market you saw last winter was the same market all players (of that faction) saw on all servers, because there were only two markets, hero and villain - there were no server-specific markets.
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
Quote:
Maybe. To be honest, I couldn't see this accounting for even 1% of the market transactions that occur (the market is just way too convienent for the volume), but more of someone in a global or /sg saying they have something and offering it up to that audience before listing it on the market.|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
I can almost guarantee that there would be a fee for BOTH parties (or at the very least the seller) IF they devs ever implemented this. Mostly for the reasons you just stated.
|
If you make a fee to be equal to what the market does, then I sincerly doubt this being used at all, which would mean a waste of programming effort.
But this sorta gets off point - the suggestion is there, aside from hearing speculation as to what the devs will do or will not do with it, I'm not seeing any real negative feedback or things I've overlooked.
Surely they exist?
I grant the worry about the inf sink and it is a fair point. I could be completely wrong with the volume of C.O.D. traffic that would be generated if this went through. I personally wouldn't be opposed to them putting in a fee of some sort or saying up front that they will datamine like crazy and may later put in a fee if they deem it warranted; I get the issue of paying for convience.
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
Quote:
Having run into this kind of problem, there is something folks should be wary of ; that you cannot send emails with attached money/items until level 10. So any toon you create as a mule, will also need to be played till at least that level before they become useful.|
Originally Posted by enrious2
Two people, two servers.
I suppose you could temporarily create a toon on one server and do a face-to-face, which will more likely than not result in a toon being left on that server for no reason. Probably not harmful unless you happened to get a great name (and would then be out of circulation) but it is a large amount of kludge. And remember, the Market is completely 100% voluntary - players should not be forced to use it, nor should that enter into the thought process, IMO. |
to the OP, I think this kind of functionality has merit.
I agree with enrious2 that the market is optional, so I don't think there would be any particular reason that the Devs would not want this, other than code-time constraints.
BIOSPARK :: DARKTHORN :: SKYGUARD :: WILDMAGE
HEATSINK :: FASTHAND :: POWERCELL :: RUNESTAFF
Quote:
Well, except for the fact that they probably don't want emails used in such a way. It probably wouldn't be TOO difficult to code, but since we didn't get this feature with the global email feature, I would surmise that they didn't have any intention of email being used to bypass the market, since it would pretty effectively eliminate the inf sink that market fees provide. |
Originally Posted by Biospark
.
I agree with enrious2 that the market is optional, so I don't think there would be any particular reason that the Devs would not want this, other than code-time constraints. |
I would say that if you choose to use the email system to bypass the market, you will have to continue to do so at your own risk.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Have to aggree with Claws. Adding the ability to send things by email was not meant to be a way to bypass the markets. If you want to do so, do it at your own risk. The only way I could support this is if there were a 10% of the COD fee paid by each party.
Quote:
Except that you don't know that. Maybe they plan on implementing it, maybe they haven't thought of it, maybe they have thought of it but decided not to implement it.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Well, except for the fact that they probably don't want emails used in such a way. It probably wouldn't be TOO difficult to code, but since we didn't get this feature with the global email feature, I would surmise that they didn't have any intention of email being used to bypass the market, since it would pretty effectively eliminate the inf sink that market fees provide.
I would say that if you choose to use the email system to bypass the market, you will have to continue to do so at your own risk. |
You essentially sum up all of the arguments (save one) put forth in opposition to this - "Papa knows best."
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
Quote:
Did I miss a dev statement to this effect somewhere? Or are you merely speculating?|
Originally Posted by HelinCarnate
Have to aggree with Claws. Adding the ability to send things by email was not meant to be a way to bypass the markets.
|
[/quote]The only way I could support this is if there were a 10% of the COD fee paid by each party.[/QUOTE]
As mentioned above if they spend the effort in implementing a system no one uses, it's idiocy on their part - putting in a 10% fee for both would be just such an example.
Thankfully whether or not it would be implemented and in what form is up to neither you nor me.
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
Quote:
Different servers provides a challenge to the second point here, but that isn't even tru as, you could email yourself the item to a character on the same server to do a face to face trade. So an un-needed feature.|
Originally Posted by DMystic
While i'm not against the idea, I don't think the email system is intended to be a way to bypass Market transactions.
I also see no reason why you couldn't set up an in person trade with whoever you have business with. |
Frankly the Market is the intended answer to this sort of thing.
And, no AFAIK there was no clear statement to this effect, but come on, the market is designed the way it is for a reason - transaction fee, blind posting, equal chance for all to bid on available loot....
City of Heroes was my first MMO, & my favorite computer game.
R.I.P.
Chyll - Bydand - Violynce - Enyrgos - Rylle - Nephryte - Solyd - Fettyr - Hyposhock - Styrling - Beryllos - Rosyc
Horryd - Myriam - Dysquiet - Ghyr
Vanysh - Eldrytch
Inflyct - Mysron - Orphyn - Dysmay - Reapyr - - Wyldeman - Hydeous
Quote:
To be countered with emailing to yourself on an alt server and doing a face to face trade, facilitated via a global channel.|
Originally Posted by Chyll
Different servers provides a challenge to the second point here, but that isn't even tru as, you could email yourself the item to a character on the same server to do a face to face trade. So an un-needed feature.
Frankly the Market is the intended answer to this sort of thing. And, no AFAIK there was no clear statement to this effect, but come on, the market is designed the way it is for a reason - transaction fee, blind posting, equal chance for all to bid on available loot.... |
Do all of you seriously think this doesn't happen now?
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by enrious2
To be countered with emailing to yourself on an alt server and doing a face to face trade, facilitated via a global channel.
Do all of you seriously think this doesn't happen now? |
Right, I outlined that option in my comment. And I know it happens now...
So let it keep happening. Devoting more coding and overhead to the chat/email system to write a second 'mini-market' app seems pointless.
City of Heroes was my first MMO, & my favorite computer game.
R.I.P.
Chyll - Bydand - Violynce - Enyrgos - Rylle - Nephryte - Solyd - Fettyr - Hyposhock - Styrling - Beryllos - Rosyc
Horryd - Myriam - Dysquiet - Ghyr
Vanysh - Eldrytch
Inflyct - Mysron - Orphyn - Dysmay - Reapyr - - Wyldeman - Hydeous
Quote:
it does happen. Nobody is saying it doesn't.|
Originally Posted by enrious2
To be countered with emailing to yourself on an alt server and doing a face to face trade, facilitated via a global channel.
Do all of you seriously think this doesn't happen now? |
One of the issues here, the developers do consider players who bypass the market and personal wealth limitations by off the market trading to be... get this... abusing the system. That much has been flat out stated. Players who charge more than the personal player wealth cap for an item are considered to be in violation of the game's terms of service.
Another issue is the anti-real-money-trader issue. Many of the existing restrictions on item transfer capabilities implemented in the game are done so to prevent Real Money Traders from leveraging the system. One of the catastrophically large problems with your Inf.On.Delivery. cross-server-trade trade idea is that it removes a rather large time barrier from the R.M.T.'s.
Right now, R.M.T. item suppliers are largely constrained. In order to deliver purchased services and goods in games, R.M.T. players have to have avatars across multiple servers, which increases their log visibility, and makes identifying them much easier for the Game-Moderators. R.M.T. players also have to have each of these server avatars at a specific level. This means that an R.M.T. player has to sink a considerable amount of time into each server they wish to sell on. This combination of suken-time and log visibility makes life difficult for the R.M.T. player, but really doesn't have a direct impact on the normal player who is not trying to abuse the market system and terms of service.
I'm going to be blunt. What you want Enrious is a Real Money Trader Player's Wet Dream.
What you want is the ability to directly charge for and send items across servers. This would allow R.M.T. players to focus on one server only, and then they could simply email items / services with wild abandon.
Yes, the developers could monitor all private trades, and it would be possible to eventually track down the R.M.T. players even with an Inf.on.demand cross-server trade platform.
Short version is: Our. Developers. Are. Not. Stupid.
Inf.On.Demand cross-server trades are simply a bad idea that is only going to benefit two classes of players.
Those who are Real Money Traders.
Those who are already in violation of terms of service.
Our devs realize that. Our devs are not going to cater or do anything to help those two classes of players.
Period. Stop. That's it.
Quote:
I understand your point and as noted above I couldn't see this proposal making any noticeable impact on the market - how it functions nor it's importance.|
Originally Posted by Chyll
Right, I outlined that option in my comment. And I know it happens now...
So let it keep happening. Devoting more coding and overhead to the chat/email system to write a second 'mini-market' app seems pointless. |
In practical use, I see it basically limited to people who advert in a global of an item they have to sell, before they put it on the market - it's moot among friends and it's moot among the people who likely account for most of the market traffic as they know they can get anything they want cheaper than what someone in a global channel advertises.
And call me crazy, but if they're going to waste dev resources on a for-purchase pack of emotes, may as well redirect that energy into something people will actually use.
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by je_saist
it does happen. Nobody is saying it doesn't.
One of the issues here, the developers do consider players who bypass the market and personal wealth limitations by off the market trading to be... get this... abusing the system. That much has been flat out stated. Players who charge more than the personal player wealth cap for an item are considered to be in violation of the game's terms of service. Another issue is the anti-real-money-trader issue. Many of the existing restrictions on item transfer capabilities implemented in the game are done so to prevent Real Money Traders from leveraging the system. One of the catastrophically large problems with your Inf.On.Delivery. cross-server-trade trade idea is that it removes a rather large time barrier from the R.M.T.'s. Right now, R.M.T. item suppliers are largely constrained. In order to deliver purchased services and goods in games, R.M.T. players have to have avatars across multiple servers, which increases their log visibility, and makes identifying them much easier for the Game-Moderators. R.M.T. players also have to have each of these server avatars at a specific level. This means that an R.M.T. player has to sink a considerable amount of time into each server they wish to sell on. This combination of suken-time and log visibility makes life difficult for the R.M.T. player, but really doesn't have a direct impact on the normal player who is not trying to abuse the market system and terms of service. I'm going to be blunt. What you want Enrious is a Real Money Trader Player's Wet Dream. What you want is the ability to directly charge for and send items across servers. This would allow R.M.T. players to focus on one server only, and then they could simply email items / services with wild abandon. Yes, the developers could monitor all private trades, and it would be possible to eventually track down the R.M.T. players even with an Inf.on.demand cross-server trade platform. Short version is: Our. Developers. Are. Not. Stupid. Inf.On.Demand cross-server trades are simply a bad idea that is only going to benefit two classes of players. Those who are Real Money Traders. Those who are already in violation of terms of service. Our devs realize that. Our devs are not going to cater or do anything to help those two classes of players. Period. Stop. That's it. |
Huh?
RMT transaction: you pay x dollars on their web site they log in on any server and email inf to you
How would a COD system change that?
Also where does it say selling off market for more then cap is against ToS?
"Play Nice and BEHAVE! I don't want to hear about any more of your shenanigans brought up in our meetings at Paragon"-Ghost Falcon @Tritonfree @Philly's 2nd Convenient CIGAL BoBC/INOANN Arts&Crafts Sporks
Average Joes FAP THE MENTOR PROJECT Justice Events
Quote:
Source? Reasoned argument based upon evidence? Tell you what, I'll be happy to sell an item to another player for more than the wealth cap for the item and then have myself reported.|
Originally Posted by je_saist
One of the issues here, the developers do consider players who bypass the market and personal wealth limitations by off the market trading to be... get this... abusing the system. That much has been flat out stated. Players who charge more than the personal player wealth cap for an item are considered to be in violation of the game's terms of service.
|
Quote:
| Another issue is the anti-real-money-trader issue. Many of the existing restrictions on item transfer capabilities implemented in the game are done so to prevent Real Money Traders from leveraging the system. One of the catastrophically large problems with your Inf.On.Delivery. cross-server-trade trade idea is that it removes a rather large time barrier from the R.M.T.'s. |
Quote:
| Right now, R.M.T. item suppliers are largely constrained. In order to deliver purchased services and goods in games, R.M.T. players have to have avatars across multiple servers, which increases their log visibility, and makes identifying them much easier for the Game-Moderators. R.M.T. players also have to have each of these server avatars at a specific level. This means that an R.M.T. player has to sink a considerable amount of time into each server they wish to sell on. This combination of suken-time and log visibility makes life difficult for the R.M.T. player, but really doesn't have a direct impact on the normal player who is not trying to abuse the market system and terms of service. |
Did you miss the i18 patch notes? Players can now email to one another and attach an item or up to 999,999,999 inf - to a toon on any server and on any side!. Cool, huh?
Oh, and here's the barrier of entry - maybe 30 mins of time to get to lvl 10.
But go on, pray be as lucid as all of your other posts.
Quote:
| I'm going to be blunt. What you want Enrious is a Real Money Trader Player's Wet Dream. |
Quote:
| What you want is the ability to directly charge for and send items across servers. This would allow R.M.T. players to focus on one server only, and then they could simply email items / services with wild abandon. |
I'm trying to attribute to ignorance of how the game works instead of other causes.
Quote:
| Yes, the developers could monitor all private trades, and it would be possible to eventually track down the R.M.T. players even with an Inf.on.demand cross-server trade platform. |
Quote:
| Short version is: Our. Developers. Are. Not. Stupid. |
Sorry, milk came out my nose.
You gotta warn me before you insert intended humor in your posts.
Quote:
|
Inf.On.Demand cross-server trades are simply a bad idea that is only going to benefit two classes of players. Those who are Real Money Traders. Those who are already in violation of terms of service. Our devs realize that. Our devs are not going to cater or do anything to help those two classes of players. |
You con grey.Quote:
| Period. Stop. That's it. |
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.
The proposal: Add an option for email to be sent C.O.D., where the recipient must pay the amount of the C.O.D charge or Return the email.
The reason: To allow for guaranteed transfer of items at the agreed-upon price.
As it is, if two players agree to a sale of an item, then one of them is at the mercy of the other in the scenario, either the item gets sent expecting a return email with the payment or the payment is sent expecting a return email with the item.
Implementing this would allow for the item to be sent first, with the C.O.D. amount being the purchase price of the item. The recipient can then verify that the requested amount is correct and pay, or can simply return the item without charge. Should the C.O.D. charge be accepted, then a return email would be automatically sent to the original sender with the payment (and the payment deducted from the recipient). The recipient would then be able to claim the item as they can now.
This would guarantee a safe and secure method of exhanging inf for items via email.
Support the Mentor Project - http://tinyurl.com/citymentorproject
[JFA2010]Mod08: And I will strike down upon thee (enrious) with great vengence and .... oh wait wrong script
@enrious, @sardonicism, @MyLexiConIsHugeSon
If you haven't joined a global channel, you're not really looking for team.