The Scam/Not a Scam debate storyline

[EvenHardNiner]

You keep living in denial after a majority of other users proved you wrong including myself. Just let it go already.

 

You seem to be very desperate because you keep continuing the discussion. It's okay to be wrong Reno, you just need to keep telling yourself that. I've proven you wrong countless times but still your desperation is growing. You have no argument left.

Edited November 11, 2014 by EvenHardNiner

[LordArtemis]

Ahh, but this is where you might be mistaken...

 

This isn't business, this is a game... that people pay for... that Bioware/EA makes money from...

 

If enough paying customers get upset over this, at some point, your statement becomes invalid. If you were in Bioware's shoes, how many customers would you be prepared to lose before changing that tune?

 

The statement remains valid. It is not a statement that stands against any efforts that are made.

 

Again, I will clarify two things.

 

Nothing can be done that will work.

Dishonorable activities will continue no matter what is done.

 

THAT SAID.....

 

This is not presented as a reason to refrain from making changes. it is simply a statement of fact, IMO. Changes will likely occur in the future IMO, and perhaps they will be made based on player concerns.

 

But I stand to those two points.

[idnewton]

If enough paying customers get upset over this, at some point, your statement becomes invalid. If you were in Bioware's shoes, how many customers would you be prepared to lose before changing that tune?

All I gotta say is, if a player would actually quit the game because he/she did not take the time to look at the price of an item before buying, that is a sad, sad person, with mental issues that will extend far beyond any game. Edited November 11, 2014 by idnewton

[Heal-To-Full]

It doesn't really matter if it is a "scam" or not.

Something being a scam or not depends on the intent, not on how complicated it is.

 

However, while a small minority of the scammers might be regular human players, for all I've seen, their pattern of operation is not human. Listing different items for different prices within a second of one another, faster than a human can type; relisting within a minute of when it runs out; random names - all indicates scripted bot operation.

 

The accounts used for this, ones I found, are dedicated. They don't have any high levels, any achievements, except for 1 mil credits, nothing, so it's clear where the money goes - they're operated by credit sellers, that's their credit farming operation. Bots are against the TOS, gold selling is against the TOS.

 

 

The past is the past, going forward, this needs to be forbidden behavior.

That is unfortunately difficult to forbid. Although, if you actually ban the bots and the credit sellers, which almost all of these are, there will be very few listings left.

 

What can be done, practically, is making the interface less susceptible to scams:

* Remove decimals. (If you disagree, find one situation where your buying decision depend on what the decimals say)

* Automatically sort by lowest price.

* Allow for cancellation within the first hour, while the seller still hasn't been sent the credits, by clicking "return" on the mail message.

[LyraineAlei]

In my opinion, if BW does choose to add something to further protect the buyer from their own foolishness and inattentiveness and buys some for a price they did not mean to then BW also needs to put in something to protect the other end of the spectrum: the foolish and inattentive seller who mistakenly misprices an item for a price they did not mean to.

 

I don't see a scam, because we have all of the tools we need, and while it does suck to lose tons of credits for a small number items or something, it was our own fault. Much like it would be our own fault if we bought items from a furniture store with a 12-month interest free payment program, and then didn't pay off the items in that 12 months. Or 26 months. Or whatever number of months the stores are using right now.

[LordArtemis]

Again, it doesn't matter who the victim is here. There is plenty of blame, as far as who will not admit fault on BOTH sides.

 

- Buyers that will not take responsibility for their mistake.

 

- Sellers that will not own up to the fact that they know what they are doing, that it is dishonorable, and that they want to keep doing so.

 

THAT is what bugs me about the back and forth.

 

The ONLY discussion we should be having, in my view, is the merits or pitfalls of each suggestion made.

 

Let us talk about the suggested changes, and see if we can agree on some that will benefit all of us.

 

Its time to drop the tennis match.

 

Here is the display of the suggestions again, I added a new one.

1) The ability to ignore a character name on the GTN, so the items sold by that character are not shown in searches.

2) The ability to place a red flag on sellers you do not like, green flag on ones you prefer, and a sort function to move red flags to the bottom of a search, green flags to the top. Only you would see the flags you apply.

3) Remove the ability for the system to display fractional currency in the "price per unit" field.

4) Have the formatting right justified instead of left justified.

5) Have the ignore list also apply to the GTN.

6) Add a price per unit option for posting items for sale.

7) Default the GTN to sorting by lowest price first, or lowest per unit price.

8) Larger text for the price display.

9) Add a toggle to display or hide fractional currency in the "price per item" column.

 

I support 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9. I really like 6 and 9.

 

Let me know if I missed any. Do not bother to suggest any "ban" or "punishment" suggestions, other than the flag suggestion, because that is just ridiculous IMO.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[idnewton]

* Remove decimals.

Yup.

 

* Automatically sort by lowest price.

Yup.

 

* Allow for cancellation within the first hour, while the seller still hasn't been sent the credits, by clicking "return" on the mail message.

Ah, I'm not too sure about this one. I do like the idea, but most likely the player would realize a problem only after the player has taken the items out of the mailbox. The problem arises when the devs would try to design a system to return the items to the seller *after* the item has been retrieved from the mailbox. If it could only be returned while still in the mail message, it wouldn't serve much of a purpose at all.

 

Also, another possible problem is that players could harass certain sellers if they so chose. If there is someone on a server who is generally disliked by players, and he/she lists items on the GTN, another player could theoretically buy the item off the GTN and then return it at 59 minutes, therefore taking it off the GTN and denying the seller of his/her money. This could be done over and over again with virtually no defense at all against it. I feel this is a far worse problem than the GTN 'scam'.

 

Also, honestly, this last change really isn't necessary. It's essentially just an extra failsafe if all else fails. But your first two points cover all the exploits. There's nothing left to catch!

[LordArtemis]

Allow for cancellation within the first hour, while the seller still hasn't been sent the credits, by clicking "return" on the mail message

 

This one is actually interesting, and could be a pretty good convenience feature...I wonder if something like a reject or return item could be added to the mail, like it is for COD i believe, that would return the item.

 

My only concern about this is how it could be gamed by sellers that want to remove competition by buying up a bunch of items and then returning them to get them off the GTN.

 

Yea, now that I think about it this might not be a good idea.

 

I don't think it would be wise to add this one to the list.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[idnewton]

1) The ability to ignore a character name on the GTN, so the items sold by that character are not shown in searches.

2) The ability to place a red flag on sellers you do not like, green flag on ones you prefer, and a sort function to move red flags to the bottom of a search, green flags to the top. Only you would see the flags you apply.

3) Remove the ability for the system to display fractional currency in the "price per unit" field.

4) Have the formatting right justified instead of left justified.

5) Have the ignore list also apply to the GTN.

6) Add a price per unit option for posting items for sale.

7) Default the GTN to sorting by lowest price first, or lowest per unit price.

8) Larger text for the price display.

9) Add a toggle to display or hide fractional currency in the "price per item" column.

 

Alright, so lets talk suggestions.

1) Obsolete, replaced by #2, a better version.

2) Agree

3) Obsolete, replaced by #9, which toggles the function.

4) Semi-agree. This should not be a forced change, it should be a checkbox that players can choose either to enable or disable.

5) Disagree. A worse version of #1 which is in turn rendered obsolete by #2. If anything, this would be a checkbox toggle, and even then, who would it benefit? Even if someone is a jerk in chat, they might still have the best prices on GTN.

6) Heck yeah.

7) Agree, specifically price per unit. The only reason I don't suggest this as a checkbox is because the current setup has no rhyme or reason. Literally when you search for an item on the GTN, the initial results that appear are not sorted by any visual option. There is no system here to preserve, only the opportunity to implement a new one. Fully agree.

8) Again, semi-agree. It's a matter of personal preference, but will still benefit some players, therefore should be implemented as a checkbox toggle and not a forced change.

9) Agree.

[idnewton]

My only concern about this is how it could be gamed by sellers that want to remove competition by buying up a bunch of items and then returning them to get them off the GTN.

I was more concerned that it could be used to harass specific individuals, but that is a good point as well, and honestly a lot more realistic to the GTN shenanigans that go on. Most people using the GTN aren't there to harass, but everyone using the GTN is doing so to make money. I could easily see your concern become a reality.

Edited November 11, 2014 by idnewton

[LordArtemis]

You see...this is a better conversation, wouldn't you agree? I think I agree with you points. I am the one that suggested the flag, im tired of having a hand written list for the sellers I like to avoid (24 of them) and sellers I like to give my business (4 of them).

 

Would be nice if I could personally rate the sellers I see, and only I would see the ratings. This way no one can grief anyone with it.

Edited November 11, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Heal-To-Full]

Ah, I'm not too sure about this one. I do like the idea, but most likely the player would realize a problem only after the player has taken the items out of the mailbox.

From what I hear in the thread, the players hit by this the hardest bought multiple listings and realized they were out of cash while still in the GTN interface.

 

Also, another possible problem is that players could harass certain sellers if they so chose.

I guess yes, there are too many ways to exploit this for GTN advantage. This should never become a normal unlimited option.

 

 

On the other hand, some option to correct purchase errors isn't only useful for this. Something like a hard limit on the number of times a player can do that could work, like how WoW has a restriction on its Item Restoration, once per account per month.

 

That would be harder to implement than a simple "return mails", but a similar restriction (can return multiple mails at once, but only once per account per month) would put a very severe limit on one's ability to interfere with the GTN this way, while providing some protection from both scams and honest mistakes.

 

Anyway, that's certainly something that can take time. Removing decimals and auto-sorting by lowest price on any list refresh or any first click on the column is a straightforward client-side UI fix.

Another useful UI change could be putting the Price and Unit Price column's names in red if the player intentionally sorts by highest price - no loss of functionality, just an extra warning light.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Heal-To-Full

[idnewton]

You see...this is a better conversation, wouldn't you agree? I think I agree with you points. I am the one that suggested the flag, im tired of having a hand written list for the sellers I like to avoid (24 of them) and sellers I like to give my business (4 of them).

 

Would be nice if I could personally rate the sellers I see, and only I would see the ratings. This way no one can grief anyone with it.

 

I agree. I tried to evaluate them based on usefulness, but I wouldn't use all of the ones I agreed with. Example, I agreed with 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9:

2) The ability to place a red flag on sellers you do not like, green flag on ones you prefer, and a sort function to move red flags to the bottom of a search, green flags to the top. Only you would see the flags you apply.

4) Have the formatting right justified instead of left justified.

6) Add a price per unit option for posting items for sale.

7) Default the GTN to sorting by lowest price first, or lowest per unit price.

8) Larger text for the price display.

9) Add a toggle to display or hide fractional currency in the "price per item" column.

But I would only personally benefit from 2, 6, 7 and 9:

2) The ability to place a red flag on sellers you do not like, green flag on ones you prefer, and a sort function to move red flags to the bottom of a search, green flags to the top. Only you would see the flags you apply.

6) Add a price per unit option for posting items for sale.

7) Default the GTN to sorting by lowest price first, or lowest per unit price.

9) Add a toggle to display or hide fractional currency in the "price per item" column.

I would benefit from 9 not because I've ever been scammed, but rather because I haven't. I haven't been scammed because I pay close attention to the listing prices and make sure that I'm buying the lowest price and not the highest price. However, while effective, this is a little bit time-consuming, and I'd appreciate not having to worry about it.

[idnewton]

From what I hear in the thread, the players hit by this the hardest bought multiple listings and realized they were out of cash while still in the GTN interface.

 

 

I guess yes, there are too many ways to exploit this for GTN advantage. This should never become a normal unlimited option.

 

 

On the other hand, some option to correct purchase errors isn't only useful for this. Something like a hard limit on the number of times a player can do that could work, like how WoW has a restriction on its Item Restoration, once per account per month.

 

That would be harder to implement than a simple "return mails", but a similar restriction (can return multiple mails at once, but only once per account per month) would put a very severe limit on one's ability to interfere with the GTN this way, while providing some protection from both scams and honest mistakes.

 

Anyway, that's certainly something that can take time. Removing decimals and auto-sorting by lowest price on any list refresh or any first click on the column is a straightforward client-side UI fix.

Another useful UI change could be putting the Price and Unit Price column's names in red if the player intentionally sorts by highest price - no loss of functionality, just an extra warning light.

 

Eh, in the end, I stand by this:

honestly, [it] really isn't necessary. It's essentially just an extra failsafe if all else fails. But your first two points cover all the exploits. There's nothing left to catch!

In essence, I don't think this last idea is worth implementing because for all the trouble it would be to put in the game, it would only help against scams. Your two other points fix both of those scams. Literally, there would no longer be any mistaken purchases to refund.

 

Now, if there's another method of scamming that hasn't been addressed yet, by all means, say so, and hopefully we'll be able to figure out a solution to that as well. But as it stands, I don't see the GTN purchase refund as necessary as long as your two other points are implemented.

[Ratajack]

Here's an example of a snippet that will protect GTN buyers a little more:

 

If the purchase price is 1M credits or more, pop up the Purchase Confirmation.

.

 

You know there is ALREADY a PRICE RANGE option which allows you to set the CAP at whatever level you choose, right? If a player does not want to spend more than a million credits, they can set the price range to one million or less.

[anonnn]

You know there is ALREADY a PRICE RANGE option which allows you to set the CAP at whatever level you choose, right? If a player does not want to spend more than a million credits, they can set the price range to one million or less.

 

It's highly unlikely that ANYONE is ever going to get into the habit of typing a maximum price into the GTN every time they're doing a GTN search. Not even 1 person. That's far too much of a hassle.

 

Solutions for preventing mistaken GTN purchases will take the form of "always-on" protections. You know, like traffic signals for pedestrians that keep them from being killed by moving vehicles while walking through a busy intersection.

[robertthebard]

I sense a comment here, and I'm dead blind to the Force. Was there a comment, or are you just expressing your exasperation as to how long this topic has gone on?

 

It's the "I have to see my name in print" syndrome. They truly want a thread to die, but are constitutionally unable to not post in it, thereby preventing it from dying. It's like the "it's not an issue" crowd. Had they just left the threads alone, they'd never have grown to the proportions they have, but again, they have to get their bash on.

[anonnn]

Modifying the Purchase Confirmation slightly will fix the entire problem, by simply preventing people from finalizing purchases for the WRONG ITEM !

 

It's exactly like what happens when someone shops in an online store. Just before you get to the point where you finalize your purchase, there's a review screen that shows you all the items you're purchasing and has a "Confirm Purchase" button somewhere on the screen. You're forced to hunt for the "Confirm" button anyway, so any rational person goes ahead and reviews the items they're purchasing before finding and clicking it.

 

The main objective with the solution should be to prevent mistaken purchases for GTN items that are particularly expensive, with a price of 1M credits or more. I doubt anyone can think up a solution any simpler than this one.

[anonnn]

No, pay attention. It's that simple.

 

Paying close enough attention to not make any mistaken GTN purchases is generally what someone does AFTER they've already made a bad mistake.

 

The entire point of buyer protection is to prevent as many GTN mistakes as possible so no one has to go through painful GTN experiences. So, any solution you suggest is going to have to be angled towards REALISTICALLY preventing 99.99% of GTN mistakes from actually happening.

[azudelphi]

Paying close enough attention to not make any mistaken GTN purchases is generally what someone does AFTER they've already made a bad mistake.

 

The entire point of buyer protection is to prevent as many GTN mistakes as possible so no one has to go through painful GTN experiences. So, any solution you suggest is going to have to be angled towards REALISTICALLY preventing 99.99% of GTN mistakes from actually happening.

 

What? Paying close enough attention to not make mistaken GTN purchases is generally what someone does to prevent the mistake from ever happening...

 

Nothing you've suggested helps anyone that doesn't pay attention. Something being yellow is irrelevant to the fool who doesn't read... that's the problem. Really, all your suggestion does is make it less likely for someone to complain that they've been screwed because they should be ashamed that despite alerts, they still didn't read...

 

To which I beg the question, why isn't that the case now?

[Gomla]

Paying close enough attention to not make any mistaken GTN purchases is generally what someone does AFTER they've already made a bad mistake.

 

Actually, it's what a lot of us have done in MMO's for years to stop us BEFORE we make a mistake.

 

Never, not once, in 18 years of MMO's have I ever lost money to a "scam" and neither have quite a lot of other people.

 

Common sense, that's all it takes.

[Cidanel]

Huh?! Where is this logged exactly?!

 

You do realize you can see how many matches you have won/lost, right?

[Cidanel]

Paying close enough attention to not make any mistaken GTN purchases is generally what someone does AFTER they've already made a bad mistake.

 

The entire point of buyer protection is to prevent as many GTN mistakes as possible so no one has to go through painful GTN experiences. So, any solution you suggest is going to have to be angled towards REALISTICALLY preventing 99.99% of GTN mistakes from actually happening.

 

No...some of us pay attention because it is just common sense.

 

If you lose credits by not paying attention, you deserve to lose credits.

[Pirana]

No...some of us pay attention because it is just common sense.

 

If you lose credits by not paying attention, you deserve to lose credits.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

This is basic fundamental skills people, it's not hard.

[Reno_Tarshil]

Paying close enough attention to not make any mistaken GTN purchases is generally what someone does AFTER they've already made a bad mistake.

 

The entire point of buyer protection is to prevent as many GTN mistakes as possible so no one has to go through painful GTN experiences. So, any solution you suggest is going to have to be angled towards REALISTICALLY preventing 99.99% of GTN mistakes from actually happening.

 

No your hand does not need to be held when you already have mistake prevention tools at the gtn already...