create a new 'Purchase Alert' to protect GTN buyers

[anonnn]

1. Stop pulling statistics out of your fourth point of contact.

 

Are you referring to the '98%' in the original post? Did you miss the adjective "probably" immediately preceding that number? And are you suggesting you can make an accurate determination of that statistic? How much of an obnoxious troll do you want to be here?

 

2. ALL failures are a direct result of the buyer not paying attention to what they are doing and this is in NO way Bioware's problem.

 

Your #2 doesn't constitute any sort of argument whatsoever against this suggestion. Protection of the game populace has to be enacted regardless of whether blame for the event can be determined to any level of certainty or clarity. Your assignment of blame is entirely subjective, and in reality your opinion on the topic is tainted by your severe animosity towards others.

 

If the game developer were as careless towards others as you are, there wouldn't be ANY purchase confirmation mechanism. Thank the stars they're not like you ...

 

The inarguable truth is that IF players are still ending up making mistaken purchases on the GTN and losing very large amounts of hard-earned credits, then it IS a problem. Whether to call it BioWare's problem is only meaningless rhetoric and doesn't constitute an argument one way or the other.

 

Because IF there's a problem, AND that problem is a serious problem, then BioWare has at least a small obligation to do something (real) about it. And BTW it's a serious problem.

 

I'll just re-iterate to make sure the point sticks... the idea of 'fault' has no relevance to this issue.

[gbrumback]

Just a objective business view to consider here. The bulk of the posts here appear to disagree with the OP's suggestion. So, as a business, would it make sense to implement something that would anger 10 loyal customers for every 1 that it makes happy? The answer, I think most will agree, is no.

[anonnn]

Take into account the tone of voice and the level of rationale of the posts, and you have no choice but to support only my point of view and thus the implementation of my suggestion.

 

Not to mention, any opposition or support aside, if you consider the fact that my suggestion would solve the core of this problem with only a slimline edit of the source code, then you've no choice but to consider it a wise and enticing feature upgrade.

 

All of the 'multitude' of opposition to this thread is not actually all that numerous, and besides it all falls into pretty much the same bucket.

[gbrumback]

You completely skipped over my point. It doesn't really matter if the opinions of the customers are logical or rational. What matters to the business is keeping them as customers. For the sake of argument, let's say I'm siding with you. Is losing 10 irrational, paying, customers worth keeping 1 rational, paying, customer? Rational, irrational, logical, illogical, what matters to the company is their bottom line. I'm willing to bet they will not sacrifice 10 customers to make 1 happy. I may be wrong on that, but it would not make good business sense fiscally.

[anonnn]

The more over-opinionated someone is, and the more lacking of logic their arguments, the less indicative of future course of action their attitudes will be.

[gbrumback]

Huh? That made almost no sense, and again just evaded my question. It is quite clear to me that you have no interest in debating, discussing, or brainstorming this topic. You merely wish to dictate your opinions as the only only solution. But here is the rub, your premise is based on opinion, not fact. And a problem that affect a tiny population of the game does not warrant a massive inconvenience to the majority. This is a mentality that I abhor, and is becoming far to common. I do not need someone to protect me from myself. There is something called personal responsibility, and in my opinion, people need more of it. Have I made bad purchases on the GTN? Yep. Do I need someone to hold my hand to make certain it doesn't happen again? Nope. Why not? Because, as an intelligent and rational being, I learned from my mistakes. As has be stated multiple times, there are multiple features already built into the GTN to help protect buyers. If you choose not to utilize those features, that is completely your fault. It was not an accident, a mistake, or a scam. If you are aware of the features and do not use them, then that was your decision. And the majority of the population should not be forced to suffer an inconvenience because of your bad decisions.

[anonnn]

Your question wasn't evaded, I undermined your perceived validity of your very question. And trying to appease the masses is the reason the Purchase Alert was designed in way that ends up ineffective in the first place. So you can imagine the irony of the loud arguments against making the Purchase Alert finally an effective buyer protection.

 

Basically you're saying you're fine with the lemming effect ... that time and time again another player will fall prey to the pitfall of making an accidental major GTN purchase and losing some huge number of credits that took many hours to earn, and will "learn their lesson". And some of (or perhaps the majority of) those major GTN accidents are the result of deliberate scam pricing by dishonest players that's meant to evoke the GTN accidents literally exactly as it ends up occurring.

 

Well that's not very thoughtful, and not very considerate. And exactly zilch on the cleverness and ingenuity.

 

What you've done is provide another piece of solid data that you remember making an accidental purchase on the GTN. You didn't provide the amount of credits it cost you or the nature of the purchase you accidentally made, but that hardly matters. You had a GTN accident. No doubt many many others have as well. Strip away all the subjective opinions, exaggerations, and pseudo-arguments, and you're left with cold hard facts. Lots of people have GTN accidents. It's just not reported anywhere so it's being pretended that it doesn't happen. Thank you for helping to establish fact.

 

All you've done is try to spin your limited perspective on the issue the same as others have in this thread. It's the same blind method of exaggeration and ignorant self-promotion, declaring that any sort of tradeoff required by this solution is just SO unfair. The truth is that the tradeoff is very minimal, and has been tuned to be even more minimal over the course of this thread's discussion. Anyone managing to eek a loud argument against this suggestion is only succeeding in declaring how selfish they are.

 

And consider this... what are the odds that the group of people who've voiced loud over-opinionated opposition to this suggestion are the exact group of people who are posting the GTN items with scam pricing and stealing the millions of credits that has players upset? Taking everything at face value, I'd say it's quite possible they're ALL scammers... now do you feel like arguing a little more loudly about the issue? The game developer would be wise to determine the set of characters of every opposing poster in this thread, and go check whether the GTN items posted by that set of characters happens to be the GTN items with 'odd' pricing. Or, they can continue to be naive, negligent, and disinterested in protecting the playerbase from predatory players. Given the consistency with which opposition to this suggestion involves glossing over the fact that players lose an extraordinarily and painfully large amount of credits, I'd say it's valid (and basically required) to suspect every single one of you of being price-scammers.

 

An intelligent game designer would boost the level of GTN buyer protection to the level that will prevent GTN accidents that cost the players huge numbers of credits.

[Phyltr]

The entire premise is still entirely flawed. BioWare is under no obligation to protect people from themselves just like a grocery store is under no obligation to to stop you from buying cigarettes or 100 packages of twinkies, or 100 liters of vodka. BioWare is under no obligation to protect people from themselves and to claim otherwise is just trying to offload personal responsibility to someone else as to avoid accepting the ramifications of your actions. The owner of the parking lot a farmer's market is held in is under no obligation to stop a shady vendor from selling you "magic beans".

[anonnn]

The entire premise is still entirely flawed. BioWare is under no obligation to protect people from themselves just like a grocery store is under no obligation to to stop you from buying cigarettes or 100 packages of twinkies, or 100 liters of vodka. BioWare is under no obligation to protect people from themselves and to claim otherwise is just trying to offload personal responsibility to someone else as to avoid accepting the ramifications of your actions. The owner of the parking lot a farmer's market is held in is under no obligation to stop a shady vendor from selling you "magic beans".

 

You're still BS'ing with the phrase "protect them from themselves" when it's already been stated that that's a non-objective point of view and fault has nothing to do with this issue. You're also ignoring the fact that some if not most of these major GTN accidents (causing the loss of millions of credits) are the result of predatory scam pricing that's deliberately meant to confuse the person viewing the price listings into buying something thinking it was 1000 times cheaper per-unit than it really was. The PROOF of this fact is the deliberate postings of singular units of materials for the impossible-to-miss price of 1 billion credits which prevents anyone from falling for the pricing scams.

 

In short, every time you post you're discrediting yourself.

 

Obligation is yet another moot concept. The question is whether there IS a problem of GTN accidents occurring on a continuous basis. Because if these GTN accidents are ongoing, then regardless of any concepts of fault or obligation, something SHOULD be done to fix the problem. No one's debating whether a problem exists, because clearly there's a problem. Debating that the developer shouldn't fix the problem has become nothing more than a favorite troll topic.

 

Opposition to this thread has amounted to nothing more than "I don't want obligatory Purchase Confirmation popups" and a lot of ridiculous mileage has been eked out of that one singular objection. I'd also prefer to not have obligatory confirmation popups, however I'm intelligent enough to recognize that the only way to ACTUALLY protect GTN buyers is to make the Purchase Confirmation guaranteed for high-priced items. I'm willing to set aside my personal concerns in order to better protect GTN buyers, because I'm not selfish and I'm willing to accept small tradeoffs for the benefit to be put in place.

[Phyltr]

You're still BS'ing with the phrase "protect them from themselves" when it's already been stated that that's a non-objective point of view and fault has nothing to do with this issue.

 

You claiming something doesn't make it fact. I am claiming it does have plenty to do with the issue and is the root of the problem. So, I guess our claims invalidate one another bringing it back to a neutral point. You aren't the authority on anything, you don't get to make claims and then reference yourself as though it were a supported fact. It is your opinion and that's all and your opinion holds no more weight than mine.

 

Obligation is yet another moot concept. The question is whether there IS a problem of GTN accidents occurring on a continuous basis. Because if these GTN accidents are ongoing, then regardless of any concepts of fault or obligation, something SHOULD be done to fix the problem. No one's debating whether a problem exists, because clearly there's a problem. Debating that the developer shouldn't fix the problem has become nothing more than a favorite troll topic.

 

That's just nonsense. Obligation has everything to do with it. You can claim that smoking kills and yet, which is definitively worse than losing some fake money. Yet, no store owner is under any obligation to stop people from buying cigarettes. There is a problem and they aren't correcting it. Its not even that cut and dry because BioWare isn't even selling you the cigarettes or the "magic beans", they are just facilitating the transaction which gives them even LESS obligation to try and fix the problem. The owner of the land on which a farmer's market is held is under no obligation to police its sellers to determine the validity of their sales, or to stop each seller and ask them "do you really want to buy these magic beans?". There is no obligation there and obligation begets action. If they aren't obligated to protect people, then they don't have to take any action.

 

Your entire premise is that BioWare is obligated to do this and they have to because you said it really loudly and berate and insult anyone who disagrees with you. You're not asking them to do it, you're saying they have to because you're trying to be the loudest voice in the room. In actuality, you're just the vocal minority and a reason BioWare will never implement this.

 

Opposition to this thread has amounted to nothing more than "I don't want obligatory Purchase Confirmation popups" and a lot of ridiculous mileage has been eked out of that one singular objection. I'd also prefer to not have obligatory confirmation popups, however I'm intelligent enough to recognize that the only way to ACTUALLY protect GTN buyers is to make the Purchase Confirmation guaranteed for high-priced items. I'm willing to set aside my personal concerns in order to better protect GTN buyers, because I'm not selfish and I'm willing to accept small tradeoffs for the benefit to be put in place.

 

I am an intelligent person and I subscribe to the theory of personal responsibility and reject this proposition entirely.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Phyltr

[JPryde]

You should stop trolling with these all these B.S. responses you've been posting ...

Some fact IS established, and you're choosing to ignore fact. [...]

anonn please... Could you just stop with accusing anyone of trolling, just cause we do not agree with you?

 

By now you are just making a fool of yourself by your pedantic insistance on a subject that is only made up by yourself. Nowhere was any fact established, that your solution was in any way needed. Just cause you personally feel that way, no matter how strong, does not make it fact.

 

Continuously claiming it without providing any objective facts and without being open for even the slightest change in your idea, just isn't working.

 

You did provide the devs with your idea... Let them decide, what is truely worth their time. Hopefully even you will agree, that the implementation of your idea is not somthing that the games life depends on.

[azudelphi]

You should stop trolling with these all these B.S. responses you've been posting ...

 

Ok, real quick because you keep using that term incorrectly...

 

Trolling is not saying things you disagree with. Trolling is not questioning your premise. Trolling is not the disapproval of your premise. Trolling is not saying the "trade-off" is unacceptable. Trolling is not asking questions you don't want to hear. Trolling is not demonstrating analogies that you disagree with. These things are the nature of putting an idea in a public forum for discussion.

 

Trolling is posting something that has a primary motivation of soliciting a strong emotional response. Yes, you are very passionate about your idea. That does not give you free reign to accuse, dismiss, or insult those who disagree (no matter how invalid you consider the merits upon which they base their disapproval) as trolling. Very little of what those responding to you have written is trolling; it is dissent.

 

And honestly, I am surprised this thread is still kicking... didn't it die at the beginning of Feb? Shouldn't this be on page 25 or so?

Edited March 4, 2015 by azudelphi

[azudelphi]

How about this...

 

Anyone wishing to post further disagreement in this thread has

to pay 6 MILLION CREDITS in order to do so.

 

Will you choose to see my point or will you continue trolling?

 

.

 

I will not pay and even if I lost 100 million credits on the GTN I would own my mistake and move on with my life. I see your point, and despite some harsh exchanges between us I will reiterate that I do not agree.

 

As for your past statement: Please review the my previous post regarding the definition of trolling.

Edited March 5, 2015 by azudelphi

[gbrumback]

How about this...

 

Anyone wishing to post further disagreement in this thread has

to pay 6 MILLION CREDITS in order to do so.

 

Will you choose to see my point or will you continue trolling?

 

.

 

Sure, you get the devs to to enforce your 'post tax' and I will be happy to pay it. And, by the way, good luck with that. Not sure what country you are from, but I am in the U.S. and we have this little thing called freedom of speech. As has been pointed out, disagreeing with you is not trolling. If you truly believe we are trolling feel free to report our posts and see if the devs/forum moderators agree with your viewpoint.

 

Next, you did actually skip over my original question. And after a massive rant as to how you answered it, you still haven't. You cannot honestly expect a company to do something that they know will drive consumers away, that is simple business. And losing 10 customers to keep 1 will cause profits to plummet. And the entire point of business is to make a profit.

 

I never said accidents do not happen. What I did say was that if you use the tools Bioware already provides, you can eliminate those accidents. For example: I collect pets, but don't spend absurd amounts of credits on them. Periodically I will go to the GTN and select the category "Pets", then at the bottom I set the max price to 40,000. BAM, I cannot spend absurd amounts of credits on a pet because it will not show me 1 pet over 40,000 credits.

 

What I am most concerned by is the notion that people must be protected from themselves. When the government does this stuff in real life it irritates me to no end, I despise nanny states. To have it done in a video game is completely and totally asinine.

 

You constantly stick your fingers in your ears and shout, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU," every time someone points out anything that even remotely disagrees with your ideas. If you want to have sole decision making power over a feature in the game, save up your real money and buy 51% of EA/BW's stock, until then you may find that compromise is a necessity of life. Even the posters who have said they agreed, if it had an option to turn it off, you called trolls. They AGREED with 95% of your plan and they trolled?

[anonnn]

... It is a tradeoff many of us are unwilling to accommodate, you claiming its a "small" tradeoff doesn't make my, and all the other people posting in this thread, invalid.

...

 

The voice against the tradeoff (that's actually REQUIRED by this suggestion) should never be louder than the magnitude of the tradeoff itself. Remove the tradeoff and the suggestion no longer qualifies as a fix of the problem.

 

The problem here is that people have become so self-elected by their own selfishness that they're unwilling to compromise in even the slightest way and have even the smallest change to their own GTN experience.

 

Unwilling to allow the GTN experience to change... . even though we're talking about the GTN and NOT the actual gameplay, and even though the suggestion would almost surely prevent very close to 100% of major GTN accidents that involve real players losing millions of credits.

 

It looks awfully scant of consideration of other players around these parts ...

[azudelphi]

The voice against the tradeoff (that's actually REQUIRED by this suggestion) should never be louder than the magnitude of the tradeoff itself. Remove the tradeoff and the suggestion no longer qualifies as a fix of the problem.

 

Seriously though... even if not a full fix, if it were optional it would be an acceptable fix to many who disagree with the mandatory nature. Is not a partial fix better than no fix at all?

 

Think of the people who could be saved with a compromise solution as opposed to no solution.

Edited March 5, 2015 by azudelphi

[gbrumback]

The problem here is that people have become so self-elected by their own selfishness that they're unwilling to compromise in even the slightest way

 

Pot, meet Kettle. Any rational and reasonable person who is part of a large community should understand that they are not going to get 100% of what they want.

 

You can please some of the people all the time.

You can please all of the people some of the time.

But you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

 

Are implying that I am a bad person because I expect people to think, pay attention to what they are doing, and take responsibility for their actions? If so, then I am a bad, bad man because I do.

 

As others have said before, we would not beopposed to your suggestion if it had a switch to turn off. Have it on by defualt at character creation, and the user can make the decision to manually turn it off. If, they consciously disable it and then spend too much on an item, that is 10000% their own fault. To quote Ron White, "You can't fix stupid." But, that unfortunately would require compromise on your part Mr. OP.

 

Lastly, the devs have a huge list of REAL problems to fix in this game. Everything from massive bugs in OP's, to problems with armor not displaying properly. I would say that your suggestion ranks somewhere below us getting our asteroid ships for GSF.

[anonnn]

...

Are implying that I am a bad person because I expect people to think, pay attention to what they are doing, and take responsibility for their actions? If so, then I am a bad, bad man because I do.

...

But, that unfortunately would require compromise on your part Mr. OP.

 

Lastly, the devs have a huge list of REAL problems to fix in this game. Everything from massive bugs in OP's, to problems with armor not displaying properly. I would say that your suggestion ranks somewhere below us getting our asteroid ships for GSF.

 

You must digress, the compromise is all yours to be made... the suggestion is here to view and changing it just defeats the function of it. You simply refuse to make even the slightest compromise whatsoever and are over-stating what the impact would be on your gameplay to make it seem compelling to avoid upsetting you by implementing this suggestion.

 

Since the lot of you refuse to compromise even a tiny amount, the conclusion can be made that you'll remain stubborn and completely devoid of logic and consideration of other players.

 

What's more severe? Having to wait an extra 3 seconds on your expensive GTN purchases, or losing MILLIONS of credits in a GTN accident? Stop being so thick-headed and selfish.

[Legolose]

This new feature would be called a 'Purchase Alert' because the objective is to successfully ALERT the GTN buyer when they've clicked to buy an expensive item, rather than how it works now which is an 'OK' button in a popup window that has an identical appearance for all purchases cheap or expensive. The current Purchase Confirmation Dialog gets either switched off or blindly clicked by probably over 98% of GTN buyers, so in the real world it's entirely ineffective.

 

Note on the root cause of GTN accidents:

 

Most (if not all) GTN accidents are due to one of two failures in the purchase process:

.

• the 'Purchase Confirmation Dialog' was switched off entirely in Preferences
  .
  
• the Purchase Confirmation window was dismissed without the buyer genuinely verifying the purchase price
  

 

SO... the only real solution to stop GTN accidents from happening is to make it highly unlikely for either of these two purchase-process-failures to occur.

 

.

The 'Purchase Confirmation Dialog' was switched off entirely in Preferences

To maximize buyer convenience while still providing the necessary improved level of buyer protection, the Preference for 'Purchase Confirmation Dialog' will not be removed entirely. To achieve the improved buyer protection, switching off 'Purchase Confirmation Dialog' in Preferences will not suppress the confirmation popup for expensive items.

 

The Purchase Confirmation window was dismissed without the buyer genuinely verifying the purchase price

For items with a high purchase price, the 'OK' button in the Purchase Confirmation window will only activate after 5 seconds, or after 3 seconds if the Preference for 'Purchase Confirmation Dialog' is switched off. . Also, the price in the Purchase Confirmation window will be changed to a brighter color according to the magnitude of the price, so the buyer will find it difficult to "zone out" and not recognize when they're about to buy a particularly expensive item.

 

 

To successfully alert a GTN buyer that they're purchasing an expensive item, we can modify the old purchase confirmation window to color-code the price and also require purchase confirmation for expensive items:

.

• display the price in an attention-grabbing color at price triggers of:
  . . . . 75,000 . . 250,000 . . 2,000,000 . . 10,000,000
  .
  
• for items costing 250K+, ALWAYS show the Purchase Alert with a 5-second delay on enabling the "OK" button. The delay will be reduced to a 3-second delay if the Preferences checkbox for 'Purchase Confirmation Dialog' is switched OFF.
  

 

.

NOTE: . If the Preferences checkbox for "Purchase Confirmation Dialog" is switched OFF, purchases below 250K credits would not show any 'Purchase Alert' popup at all. . And with "Purchase Confirmation Dialog" switched ON, purchases below 250K credits would show the 'Purchase Alert' but WITHOUT the 5-second delay.

.

.

Side note on objections and feasibility:

 

I realize many people will say they (strongly) dislike mandatory popup windows. Well so do I. However, there's no way to stop the (major) GTN accidents without slightly inconveniencing buyers each time they purchase an expensive item.

 

One of the greatest things about this solution is that it shouldn't require very much effort to implement, since it involves fairly trivial changes to the GTN's current "Purchase Confirmation Dialog" functionality.

 

You know this isn't a bad ideal,, I mean it would help out everyone,,, "Except the seller who IS trying to scam other players" ... I like it Edited March 5, 2015 by Legolose

[anonnn]

Sure, you get the devs to to ...

 

 

Sure, you get the devs to to enforce your 'post tax' and I will be happy to pay it. And, by the way, good luck with that. Not sure what country you are from, but I am in the U.S. and we have this little thing called freedom of speech. As has been pointed out, disagreeing with you is not trolling. If you truly believe we are trolling feel free to report our posts and see if the devs/forum moderators agree with your viewpoint.

 

Next, you did actually skip over my original question. And after a massive rant as to how you answered it, you still haven't. You cannot honestly expect a company to do something that they know will drive consumers away, that is simple business. And losing 10 customers to keep 1 will cause profits to plummet. And the entire point of business is to make a profit.

 

I never said accidents do not happen. What I did say was that if you use the tools Bioware already provides, you can eliminate those accidents. For example: I collect pets, but don't spend absurd amounts of credits on them. Periodically I will go to the GTN and select the category "Pets", then at the bottom I set the max price to 40,000. BAM, I cannot spend absurd amounts of credits on a pet because it will not show me 1 pet over 40,000 credits.

 

What I am most concerned by is the notion that people must be protected from themselves. When the government does this stuff in real life it irritates me to no end, I despise nanny states. To have it done in a video game is completely and totally asinine.

 

You constantly stick your fingers in your ears and shout, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU," every time someone points out anything that even remotely disagrees with your ideas. If you want to have sole decision making power over a feature in the game, save up your real money and buy 51% of EA/BW's stock, until then you may find that compromise is a necessity of life. Even the posters who have said they agreed, if it had an option to turn it off, you called trolls. They AGREED with 95% of your plan and they trolled?

 

 

Your entire post was BS, it's nothing but bad perception and bad contrived perspective. Trying to pose the concept of 'Freedom Of Speech' onto your side of the argument you insist on continuing. Ridiculous.

 

It's the same as other troll posts that people such as yourself keep posting ... a strawman argument, followed by fake threats of players quitting the game, followed by pretending GTN buyer protection is adequate despite major GTN accidents, followed by further inane hyperbole and character assassination. You must really think the game developer is your little puppet. Will you ever stop the complete BS?

 

With ALL this thread's grandstanded objections to such a simple and minimally obtrusive suggestion, the argument against this suggestion amounts to very little. Especially since none of the objections have factored in a consideration for other players or the severity of the problem needing to be fixed.

 

My voice is close to the only voice of reason found here.

[anonnn]

The next thing on the Troll Wheel Of Shame is likely to be

yet more victim bashing. . Wait for it ... !

 

.

[gbrumback]

My voice is close to the only voice of reason found here.

 

That is something else that we could debate for the next century. There are tools in place already to prevent being preyed upon, the only catch is that people have to use them. As the old saying goes, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." The same applies here, 'you can give people the tools, but you can't make them use them." You are NOT a victim if you chose not to use the tools BW provided you. So, therefore, there can be no victim bashing.

 

Buying stuff on the GTN is just like buying it in real life. Don't buy the first one you see, shop just a little. Since we are talking high dollar items, let's use cars. Do you go to just one dealership and buy the car you want? Or, do you go to a couple to see which one will give you the best deal? I'll bet on going to a couple. Do you expect the first dealer to ask, "Are you sure you want to buy this car? It costs a lot of money. Why don't you think about it for a few days and come back." Personally, I would care if they had the best price, they wouldn't get my business at that point.

 

You want protection, I understand that. But if you just use the very, very simply tools BW gave us you WILL be protected. Again, this discussion revolves around personal responsibility. I did say I have made a mistake on the GTN in the past. Did I whine endlessly on the forums? Nope, I went, "Ah shucks, should have paid more attention," and moved on with my life. I took responsibility that I made a mistake, and I learned from said mistake. I am seeing this trend more and more in real life, and it is bleeding into the gaming world. It's not my fault... If someone would've stopped me... and so on. It is never someone's fault, it is always the fault of <insert scapegoat here>. Maybe I am just a little old fashioned, and old, but if you screw up learn from it and move on.

 

McDonald's didn't make you fat.

Coca-Cola/Pepsi did not make you diabetic.

Budweiser/Coors/Jim Beam did not make you an alcoholic.

Verizon/Sprint/AT&T did not make you run over someone while texting and driving.

 

The same is true here, nobody made you buy a thing off the GTN. Nobody stopped you from using the available confirmation box/price limit/price sort. If you overpay for something on the GTN it is YOUR fault. Not mine, not the seller's, not the Dev's, not the President of the United States. It is YOUR fault, plain and simple, end of story.

[azudelphi]

You must digress, the compromise is all yours to be made... the suggestion is here to view and changing it just defeats the function of it. You simply refuse to make even the slightest compromise whatsoever and are over-stating what the impact would be on your gameplay to make it seem compelling to avoid upsetting you by implementing this suggestion.

 

See, this is confusing. You're basically saying, you want all people who disagree with the concept of a mandatory inconvenience to compromise and accept the inconvenience. But when they propose an idea that would allow themselves to opt out manually, you have been unwilling to compromise. At the end of the day, if a player accepts the risks, they should not have an inconvenience forced on them. So, why won't you compromise either? You don't have to assure 100% protection with this suggestion. If it can be implemented in a way that the general player-base accepts through a compromise on your end, then that's a net positive and you should be happy.

 

You know this isn't a bad ideal,, I mean it would help out everyone,,, "Except the seller who IS trying to scam other players" ... I like it

I am fairly confident 99% of players would not be helped. They would merely be annoyed by making a GTN purchase have a wait period they can't avoid.

 

What's more severe? Having to wait an extra 3 seconds on your expensive GTN purchases, or losing MILLIONS of credits in a GTN accident? Stop being so thick-headed and selfish.

 

For the majority of players who will never lose millions of credits in a GTN mistake, they are in no way assisted. They are however, assured to be inconvenienced.

 

So, the "positive" severity of a non-event is obviously less than the "negative" severity of a guaranteed event.

 

The next thing on the Troll Wheel Of Shame is likely to be

yet more victim bashing. . Wait for it ... !

 

Feeling that a player is ultimately accountable for each button press they make in the game is not bashing a victim.

 

A player has to interrupt certain abilities or they will be instantly killed. Does that mean there should be a mandatory pop-up that doesn't allow the player to do anything until they interupt?

A player typically has 6-8 main abilities in their rotation. Does that mean there should be a mandatory pop-up if they use an ability outside their standard rotation?

There are cliffs you can jump off in the game. Does that mean there should be a mandatory pop-up that doesn't allow movement within a few meters of a cliff?

 

The answer to those questions is obviously "No." There are many things a player can do that are considered "mistakes", "accidents", etc that have some form of cost associated with them.

 

If you even try to claim otherwise then you will be revealing this entire thread has been one giant troll.

 

So I beg the question, why is the GTN any different from every other form of gameplay?

Edited March 5, 2015 by azudelphi

[DOHboy]

You know this isn't a bad ideal,, I mean it would help out everyone,,, "Except the seller who IS trying to scam other players" ... I like it

 

sure, its a fix for a problem that doesn't exist. If there is any such problem, it would exist solely between keyboard and chair.

[Daewan]

In a previous, similar thread, I suggested that a Jawa pops up anytime you overpay on the GTN (based on current available prices) and hit you in the head with a giant sign that says "DON'T BE SO STUPID" or something similar. I told a friend about this new thread, and they had a suggestion to improve on that suggestion: If you overpay at the GTN more than once, there should be a chance that a tribe of Jawas appears out of nowhere and kidnaps you, taking you to Tatooine to be sold to a Hutt. This would prevent you from ever spending your own credits ever again.

 

P. S. If the OP really wants to collect the 6 million for posting disagreement, I have characters on Harbinger and both NA RP servers. I'll need 24 hours to get the money together, depending on how inattentive the current buying market is.