Make overpaying on the market place fixable.

[Saarthalian2]

1 billion MFing influence lost because of a poorly designed market system from the previous owners of the game. Can we at least get a traceable system involved so we can recover this mis-payed influence? Benefiting off of mechanics that are poorly designed isn't fair to anyone and only leads to pure frustration after a billion influence down the drain. Regardless of the reason (mine is usually latency related thanks to AT&T not being reliable, as in 0's not showing up and not realizing you're lagging)

 

But really. I've paid out way, way too much money to people who haven't earned it and I would really like a way to fix this. I am not a stingy person with my inf as I try to help everyone I can but just giving it away for no reason? I'm not about that.

 

  

Edited March 18, 2020 by Saarthalian2
Picture inclusion

[Outrider_01]

11 minutes ago, Saarthalian2 said:

1 billion MFing influence lost because of a poorly designed market system

 Chill man, game shits out everything you need.  It's easy to replace, takes time.

11 minutes ago, Saarthalian2 said:

I've paid out way, way too much money to people who haven't earned it and I would really like a way to fix this

Neither did you, the rewards are higher than when the game was released on Live.  You had to replace SO every 5 levels so it was next to impossible to gain inf unless you were a fire tank.  At the same time, there was no use for it so it piled up, maybe buying Hami-OS back in the day.

 

Homecoming gives inf away.  The only thing to blame is yourself, if you are lagging get another provider (not likely in most cases) or you can just slow down 2 seconds before you click bid.

[Roderick]

There's a relatively simple solution: We already have a prompt that asks if you're sure before letting you list an item for a high listing fee. Just (Standard Code Rant applies, of course) add an extra prompt that warns you if bidding over a certain amount. If possible, add a slider, so that people can decide at what threshold to be warned.

[Ukase]

I can certainly understand the frustration. I've been on the paying and receiving end at least twice. I like Roderick's suggestion of a slider. 

[Redlynne]

The only way to fix the problem is to "fix" the Players.

Are you REALLY sure that's a good idea ...?

[Zepp]

I overpaid thrice on live but haven't had the issue on HC yet. However, I also use the market more than most. All my toons have at least 2mil (including my level 2). Getting cash is not tough. That being said, I don't think this is a hardware or software issue, this is a wetware issue (aka pebcak). As such a wetware solution is probably the only realistic solution.

 

I understand that not everyone lives in countries with reasonably priced 5-10 Gbps internet options. The US is an example of a country that is far behind the curve on internet access. That being said, nobody is immune from blunders. Don't enter a land war in Asia, don't trust a Sicilian when death is on the line, and check twice, thrice, or frice before bidding on CoX.

[Saarthalian2]

[Removed post.]

Edited March 18, 2020 by Saarthalian2

[Saarthalian2]

2 hours ago, Roderick said:

There's a relatively simple solution: We already have a prompt that asks if you're sure before letting you list an item for a high listing fee. Just (Standard Code Rant applies, of course) add an extra prompt that warns you if bidding over a certain amount. If possible, add a slider, so that people can decide at what threshold to be warned.

This is actually a really good idea. Thank you. - Anything over a certain amount would be ideal. Having a popup every time you want to bid on something is just a retarded expectation for a system.

And unfortunately updating to a 'better provider' isn't possible in my area. Back when I was playing near the peak, I had lost a lot more loss but I'm also saying this for the future of the game in hopes that the HC team gets the rights to it. 

Ideally we really need a better system but that would take time, where as for now a band-aid like that (slider over x amount 10-15m range) could be a good sit-in.

[Outrider_01]

2 hours ago, Saarthalian2 said:

This is actually a really good idea. Thank you. - Anything over a certain amount would be ideal. Having a popup every time you want to bid on something is just a retarded expectation for a system.

And unfortunately updating to a 'better provider' isn't possible in my area. Back when I was playing near the peak, I had lost a lot more loss but I'm also saying this for the future of the game in hopes that the HC team gets the rights to it. 

Ideally we really need a better system but that would take time, where as for now a band-aid like that (slider over x amount 10-15m range) could be a good sit-in.

I don't know what you said, but I didn't imply it was the only option.  I said about providers "not in most cases" (cause even I know its not the best solution, but I am good at sounding like an ass) so slowing down on your time before clicking to double check the number is another option I mentioned

 

I only quoted the parts that influence is laughably easy to come by and  where you imply its the other guy who is ripping you off cause "they didn't earn it", it was because you made a mistake. ...  Making mistake happens, blaming it on others is just an excuse when "they didn't earn it".  "I dun made a goof, here is a suggested solution to my problem" without the "they didn't earn it" when in fact you know you lag; its easy to avoid a mistake if you take precautions.

 

Solutions, always a good suggestion but don't use "they didn't earn it because I made a mistake but I am getting ripped off" in the heat of the moment suggesting it; doesn't hold a lot of water with me.  Just "I lag, I make goofs, this would be a good way to prevent us from making these goofs again."

 

Oh yeah, I only see 202 million.  Where is the rest?

Edited March 18, 2020 by Outrider_01

[srmalloy]

5 hours ago, Roderick said:

There's a relatively simple solution: We already have a prompt that asks if you're sure before letting you list an item for a high listing fee. Just (Standard Code Rant applies, of course) add an extra prompt that warns you if bidding over a certain amount. If possible, add a slider, so that people can decide at what threshold to be warned.

Rather than having a slider, which would inevitably wind up allowing painful bids to pass because of bad settings, how about having the prompt pop up if you bid more than ten times the second highest of the last five bids? Using the highest lets one outrageous bid bump the prompt level, but the next highest is less likely to be bumped unreasonably.

[Zepp]

So long as you can mute it, I'd be fine with a prompt...

[Saarthalian2]

2 hours ago, Outrider_01 said:

I don't know what you said, but I didn't imply it was the only option.  I said about providers "not in most cases" (cause even I know its not the best solution, but I am good at sounding like an ass) so slowing down on your time before clicking to double check the number is another option I mentioned

 

I only quoted the parts that influence is laughably easy to come by and  where you imply its the other guy who is ripping you off cause "they didn't earn it", it was because you made a mistake. ...  Making mistake happens, blaming it on others is just an excuse when "they didn't earn it".  "I dun made a goof, here is a suggested solution to my problem" without the "they didn't earn it" when in fact you know you lag; its easy to avoid a mistake if you take precautions.

 

Solutions, always a good suggestion but don't use "they didn't earn it because I made a mistake but I am getting ripped off" in the heat of the moment suggesting it; doesn't hold a lot of water with me.  Just "I lag, I make goofs, this would be a good way to prevent us from making these goofs again."

 

Oh yeah, I only see 202 million.  Where is the rest?

Wow, you really just ran away with that didn't you? I wasn't inferring it was a billion in one sitting as I never said that. I simply said " a billion. " Nor was I talking about people ripping me off. But talking about players being rewarded the excess because of a poorly-functional system at *no one's fault*. Nor am I griping to get money back. This is the whole point of the feedback section. But you wanted to assume and just come up with your own scenario so I'm gonna let you go play with glue in your own corner. Respond or not, I'm not entertaining you.

Edited March 18, 2020 by Saarthalian2

[Saarthalian2]

1 hour ago, srmalloy said:

Rather than having a slider, which would inevitably wind up allowing painful bids to pass because of bad settings, how about having the prompt pop up if you bid more than ten times the second highest of the last five bids? Using the highest lets one outrageous bid bump the prompt level, but the next highest is less likely to be bumped unreasonably.

Even better. I was thinking something of this nature just as a warning system but the more complex, the more work. Though this seems much more reasonable to do.

[Doc_Scorpion]

7 minutes ago, Saarthalian2 said:

Nor am I griping to get money back.

 

8 hours ago, Saarthalian2 said:

Can we at least get a traceable system involved so we can recover this mis-payed influence?

One of these things is not like the other.

[MunkiLord]

5 hours ago, srmalloy said:

Rather than having a slider, which would inevitably wind up allowing painful bids to pass because of bad settings, how about having the prompt pop up if you bid more than ten times the second highest of the last five bids? Using the highest lets one outrageous bid bump the prompt level, but the next highest is less likely to be bumped unreasonably.

I like the idea but, with three current bug of incorrect last 5 bids happening randomly, I worry such a solution may not be effective.

[Doc_Scorpion]

5 hours ago, srmalloy said:

Rather than having a slider, which would inevitably wind up allowing painful bids to pass because of bad settings, how about having the prompt pop up if you bid more than ten times the second highest of the last five bids? Using the highest lets one outrageous bid bump the prompt level, but the next highest is less likely to be bumped unreasonably.

This proposal has been bothering me, and it finally hit me why:  There are two cases where the second highest can be radically smaller than the highest.  (That is, I presume such a system will round bids such that "10,000,001", "10,001,001" and "10,000,000" (etc...) will be evaluated as being the same to eliminate false positives.)

Case A:  The highest is the result of a "gotta have it now" bidder.
Case B:  The 2nd highest is the result of a "gotta sell it now" seller.  (AKA someone dumping without caring how much they make.)

Case B is scarcer, but it does happen often enough that it could be a problem (especially with salvage and non-set IO's).

[MunkiLord]

3 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

This proposal has been bothering me, and it finally hit me why:  There are two cases where the second highest can be radically smaller than the highest.  (That is, I presume such a system will round bids such that "10,000,001", "10,001,001" and "10,000,000" (etc...) will be evaluated as being the same to eliminate false positives.)

Case A:  The highest is the result of a "gotta have it now" bidder.
Case B:  The 2nd highest is the result of a "gotta sell it now" seller.  (AKA someone dumping without caring how much they make.)

Case B is scarcer, but it does happen often enough that it could be a problem (especially with salvage and non-set IO's).

I frequently both case A and case B

[srmalloy]

21 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

Case B is scarcer, but it does happen often enough that it could be a problem (especially with salvage and non-set IO's).

That's why I suggest using the second-highest sale as the value for the 10x "Are you sure?" prompt, because it is much less likely to be a "gotta have it now" purchase. And remember that all this does it trigger the "Are you sure?" prompt; I would rather see someone get an unneeded prompt for bidding 50 on a piece of common salvage where the highest sale was 250 and the four other sales were 1 than use the highest sale price as the marker and have someone not receive a prompt for any bid under a billion if there was a 100,000,000 sale from someone else making a mistake. You could make the prompts less common by adding a second condition that the bid has to be a million or more, which would cut out the common and uncommon salvage and some of the rare salvage.

[Doc_Scorpion]

37 minutes ago, srmalloy said:

That's why I suggest using the second-highest sale as the value for the 10x "Are you sure?" prompt, because it is much less likely to be a "gotta have it now" purchase.

The issue isn't whether or not it's more or less likely to be a "gotta have it now" purchase - the issue is the corrosive effect on confidence in the system from false positives (Case B).

[Redlynne]

There is no such thing as Foolproof ... merely FOOL RESISTANT ...

[TraumaTrain]

Now I know where my extra billion came from!

[Saarthalian2]

12 hours ago, srmalloy said:

That's why I suggest using the second-highest sale as the value for the 10x "Are you sure?" prompt, because it is much less likely to be a "gotta have it now" purchase. And remember that all this does it trigger the "Are you sure?" prompt; I would rather see someone get an unneeded prompt for bidding 50 on a piece of common salvage where the highest sale was 250 and the four other sales were 1 than use the highest sale price as the marker and have someone not receive a prompt for any bid under a billion if there was a 100,000,000 sale from someone else making a mistake. You could make the prompts less common by adding a second condition that the bid has to be a million or more, which would cut out the common and uncommon salvage and some of the rare salvage.

 I'm thinking it's something that might have to be manually set but rarely do I see IO's go as high as 10x their average sale price, even when they're low. That would still be a good prompt. This may be something that has to be done manually for a time until the system gets an overhaul. But that's in dreaming. I work the auction house repeatedly and only salvage has ever sold that high over it's average price. I've never seen regular, rare or even purple IO's go beyond 5x even when none were left. A few times things get up there, 2-3x but never higher than that. So a warning prompt for a manually set price if it goes over, might be easiest for the Dev team as well. It'll have to be updated once in a while but that does give it a lot of leeway.

It shouldn't be informative of the average price either but just stating "This is an error prevention warning for accidental overspending" etc.

Wouldn't help much if you mess up on purple prices as they're already so costly. 10x is still a high price, but it will help prevent major loses on yellows/oranges and salvage material.

My concern is that with how the game lags, when it does can lead to some funky things and always has. I've messed up overpaying many, many times before and have lost billions back in may>september.  I was also under the impression things were being worked on and fixed so I'm just adding to the queue if it isn't already in there.

 

 

[Outrider_01]

17 hours ago, Saarthalian2 said:

But you wanted to assume and just come up with your own scenario so I'm gonna let you go play with glue in your own corner. Respond or not, I'm not entertaining you.

 

On 3/18/2020 at 2:44 AM, Saarthalian2 said:

Benefiting off of mechanics that are poorly designed isn't fair to anyone. 

 

But really. I've paid out way, way too much money to people who haven't earned it

Play EVE online, you will see the difference between my definition vs yours.  That market is savage, and "people benefit off money they didn't earn via market mechanic".  

 

tl;dr - You f*** up in EVE, it isn't a market mechanism. It is misunderstanding how it works, you will see a lot of scams and the game allows it.  That is my pov if how I see it.

 

In the case of CoH, I said you screwed up.  A simple anonymous 5 line last bid, it's hard to not screw up.

 

And pull the crayon out of your nose, leave out MF, benitit and not earned if you are trying to explain something clearly, easier to just say you screwed up. We can all misinterpret something.

[Saarthalian2]

1 hour ago, Outrider_01 said:

 

Play EVE online, you will see the difference between my definition vs yours.  That market is savage, and "people benefit off money they didn't earn via market mechanic".  

 

tl;dr - You f*** up in EVE, it isn't a market mechanism. It is misunderstanding how it works, you will see a lot of scams and the game allows it.  That is my pov if how I see it.

 

In the case of CoH, I said you screwed up.  A simple anonymous 5 line last bid, it's hard to not screw up.

 

And pull the crayon out of your nose, leave out MF, benitit and not earned if you are trying to explain something clearly, easier to just say you screwed up. We can all misinterpret something.

Try again.

[Yomo Kimyata]

I'm a big fan of measure twice, cut once, myself, but it wouldn't bother me if they rolled out a prompt that notified you if you were bidding over X thousand/million on an item.  I don't even mind a slider, so long as it's not a particularly difficult programming task.  I'd just disable it like I disable all the other prompts.

 

That said, I don't really see how this is a big problem.  I'm sorry you overpaid, but personally I'd much rather see dev time and resources go towards what I think are more important things than making sure you don't overbid again.  That's my opinion, and I understand that yours differs.

 

If you are really bent out about it, send me a PM and I'll trade you 200mm for your Cloud Senses to make you even.