Beranzen Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I think that is a fair interpretation. It is "gaming" the market, something normal in economics. Sellers will ALWAYS try to buy low and sell high. That doesn't mean some of the proposed changes would not be good for all. There is no way that sellers would be harmed by any of the changes proposed IMO...they would still be able to post any price they wish. that i can agree with, and as a person who has lost a few million here and there over the years in swtor, the gtn could use some fine tuning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technohic Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 People are too lazy to pay attention and they confuse 999,999 in the unit price column for 999.99. Basically, we have a bunch of insanely stupid and inattentive people who are too proud to just admit they goofed and move on trying to make themselves feel better by calling what happened to them a scam. Its not. Its just people who cant be bothered to pay attention getting mad when it bites them in the ***. Oh, so its in the unit price that is calculated where it shows the decimal. I get ya. I don't know how you could be so quick to purchase looking at that to not look at the total price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNahash Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 You're right, it is his fault...but he was scammed...scammers actively look for ways to trick people. I believe it is on Bioware to police these types of things when it's intentional (and you can tell when it's intentional) and refund $ if something goes wrong...hell, even a 1-hour sell back would be fine...the credits don't transfer for 1-hour, make the item refundable for that length of time too. Here's an easy way to exploit what you just suggested. You and I are both selling something valuable which people want to buy. We're both online and both put it up for sale. I go offline. You buy mine and wait 55 minutes before selling it back. That gives you 1 hour (+ how many hours it will take me to log back in) to be the only one selling that item. You see the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddballEasyEight Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Ugh. [begin Rant] I really hate it when people use this example as if the famous lawsuit was somehow frivolous. The coffee in question was way, WAY, WAAAAAY too hot. The person it spilled on received third-degree burns and had to have skin grafts applied to her mutilated genitals. Please use a different example, because in this particular case the lawsuit was completely justified. [End Rant] That's actually happened? HAH! Did not know that. Oh well, in that case I guess it'd be justified, but in my example I was simply thinking of regular (but, you know, piping hot, as it should be) coffee. What case was that? I'm curious now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordArtemis Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Considering the case in question was actually because the company selling the coffee was keeping the coffee at a piping hot 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) and caused 3rd degree burns requiring multiple years of medical treatment, I think it was legitimate. At no point was anyone rewarded for the spilling of coffee Yea, if I remember right the temperature was 30 degrees above normal hot beverage temperature for the industry, in an effort to keep the coffee hotter longer. Naturally that temperature increase makes a HUGE difference in whether or not it can cause injury. Hot coffee based on normal hot temperature of 150 - 160 degrees would cause 1st degree burns at most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanagosTsok Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) Let's hope that this copmletely logical and expected answer will stop ppl from making another 100 threads over this non-issue. But i highly doubt it since, you know........http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X0003D60E/ Edited November 10, 2014 by PanagosTsok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Here's an easy way to exploit what you just suggested. You and I are both selling something valuable which people want to buy. We're both online and both put it up for sale. I go offline. You buy mine and wait 55 minutes before selling it back. That gives you 1 hour (+ how many hours it will take me to log back in) to be the only one selling that item. You see the problem? Fine, make it 3 refunds per year. That'll slow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagikFingerz Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 There has been a lot of chatter this weekend in General Discussion around how players are posting on the GTN, specifically around use of decimals/commas, and whether we feel it is an exploit or not. For starters, we definitely don't want to see any players scammed out of their hard earned credits and we will work to stop those situations wherever possible. Unfortunately, this is not one of those scenarios. To be fair it's my interpretation of the above quote, that has me saying the official response for this GTN practice is not a scam. I agree, and I don't see how that can be interpreted in any other way. Allow me to slightly rephrase his sentences to clarify if anyone still can't see it: "...this is not one of those scenarios [where] players [are] scammed out of their hard earned credits". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddballEasyEight Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Lol- it's funny you bring this up because a friend and I backtracked to a point where things turned for the worse in our society and we agreed on that mcdonalds customer winning this ridiculous lawsuit and the vermin trial attorneys who troll for these types of cases to be one of the primary examples It was McDonalds??? But their coffee is luke-warm at best. Or is that another consequense of that lawsuit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CmdrShpd Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) That's actually happened? HAH! Did not know that. Oh well, in that case I guess it'd be justified, but in my example I was simply thinking of regular (but, you know, piping hot, as it should be) coffee. What case was that? I'm curious now. I don't remember the lawsuit's name off the top of my head, but I believe it occurred in the 90's. It has since become famous in the U.S. as an example of a ridiculous, frivolous lawsuit (edit: see Daxy's ridiculous, unfounded post above as an example), but that reputation is completely unjustified. Sorry, I assumed you were actually referencing that particular case, not a hypothetical. Didn't mean to bite your head off. Edited November 10, 2014 by CmdrShpd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orizuru Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 So, again, how exactly did you lose those 50 mil? Or don't you want to tell us because it's very obviously your own fault, but you really don't want to admit that? I bet he thought he was buying traditional Jedi robes, but when he got home and saw them in better light he realized they were only knock-offs with short sleeves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 It was McDonalds??? But their coffee is luke-warm at best. Or is that another consequense of that lawsuit? Now you know why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beranzen Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I don't remember the lawsuit's name off the top of my head, but I believe it occurred in the 90's. It has since become famous in the U.S. as an example of a ridiculous, frivolous lawsuit (edit: see Dax's ridiculous, unfounded post above as an example), but that reputation is completely unjustified. Sorry, I assumed you were actually referencing that particular case, not a hypothetical. Didn't mean to bite your head off. http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddballEasyEight Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I don't remember the lawsuit's name off the top of my head, but I believe it occurred in the 90's. It has since become famous in the U.S. as an example of a ridiculous, frivolous lawsuit, but that reputation is completely unjustified. Sorry, I assumed you were actually referencing that particular case, not a hypothetical. Didn't mean to bite your head off. Well, I'm from Sweden so I didn't know. All I know is that frivolous lawsuits are rampant in the US. In sweden we almost never sue. Because in the case of that woman, if that had happened in sweden, she'd probably had her medical bills covered (which already are extremely low compared to the US), a refund on her coffee and possibly a few thousand bucks for pains and suffering. And that's if the coffee was indeed too hot like it was there. If it had not been, all she would have gotten would be a stern "well don't drop the coffee in your lap then" comment from the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNahash Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Fine, make it 3 refunds per year. That'll slow it. That wouldn't work for the same reason the most obvious answer (which is, to actually pay attention on what you're buying) doesn't seem to work: because people are so used to being policed and held by their hand through everything, that the 3 refunds would be nothing. I can guarantee you that someone would use up their 3 refunds really quick on items that are not really that expensive and then complain that Bioware is deliberately limiting them or something equally stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordArtemis Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Lol- it's funny you bring this up because a friend and I backtracked to a point where things turned for the worse in our society and we agreed on that mcdonalds customer winning this ridiculous lawsuit and the vermin trial attorneys who troll for these types of cases to be one of the primary examples You can go all the way back to the 1860s when that sort of strange claim got it's start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddballEasyEight Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I bet he thought he was buying traditional Jedi robes, but when he got home and saw them in better light he realized they were only knock-offs with short sleeves. I know I shouldn't but... *snicker* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordArtemis Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Let's hope that this copmletely logical and expected answer will stop ppl from making another 100 threads over this non-issue. But i highly doubt it since, you know........http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X0003D60E/ Yea, that is certainly not a safe bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagikFingerz Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 You're right, it is his fault...but he was scammed...scammers actively look for ways to trick people. I believe it is on Bioware to police these types of things when it's intentional (and you can tell when it's intentional) and refund $ if something goes wrong...hell, even a 1-hour sell back would be fine...the credits don't transfer for 1-hour, make the item refundable for that length of time too. Nope. Try getting a man convicted because you "can tell he had bad intentions". It may be "obvious" in some cases, but there is no way of proving it (which is exactly what Eric said). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CmdrShpd Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec_Fortescue Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Let's hope that this copmletely logical and expected answer will stop ppl from making another 100 threads over this non-issue. But i highly doubt it since, you know........http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X0003D60E/ People were making threads about it for fun, not because it was an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyVix Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I find it amusing that so many people here will say "take your time," but if you're in a flashpoint together with them they're the ones screaming "Spacebar!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/the-mcdonald-s-coffee-cup-case-separating-mcfacts-from-mcfiction.html Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants Interesting Good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddballEasyEight Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 People were making threads about it for fun, not because it was an issue. Still not telling us how you lost those 50 mil I see. I guess we'll all assume it was your own fault and that you're just petty and angry at the CS for not giving you money for being foolish then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grayseven Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Gettting rid of fractional currency would not have that effect. Fractional currency is the currency past the decimal, as in 3742.08. It is created by the system when the price per unit calculator provides the proper divisional price based on the whole price. The game does not use fractional currency, nor do you ever receive fractional currency. Therefore the display of it is unnecessary. Removing it's display would not change the price. It would simply change how the price per unit is displayed. And it would not be correctly displaying the cost per unit if the fractional decimal places were not there. You can't idiot proof the game because some people can't tell the difference between two places after a decimal and three after a comma. Instead of a QoL change of removing the decimal for the observational impaired it would be much better to have drop downs that allow us to set the GTN interface to display low to high unit price instead of relying on the up or down arrow...and having that choice stick until changed. I'd also like to be able to /ignore certain sellers on the GTN if only to decrease the clutter of some of the jackanapes that like to post 50 resources in singles instead of one stack...being able to ignore people putting Desh up for 1 million credits would just be a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts