Forums » Suggestions
As per the news post, i decided to fire off a suggestion post to deal with this issue. There should be a auction site style post sale review for both a seller and buyer in game. This review system only would work if the buyer or seller purchased some kind of sale protection insurance from TPG or similar. If the sale goes south the buyer and seller can make a review that becomes part of the permanent record of the game. (If successful, the reviews would be positive. Hopefully)
Forcing the players to purchase some kind of protection insurance or what not means the chances of fake reviews is diminished, especially if it is opt in for all parties involved. If either party does not want to deal with purchased protections, then the other party can back out, or try to go ahead with the deal at their own risk.
This way, a seller with a good rating could advertise their good rating. This being VO, a seller running the long con could also attempt to get a good rating, then rip someone off. As such, the ratings would only be guide. And the oldest ratings would always drop off, so newer negative ratings would have more of an impact.
Forcing the players to purchase some kind of protection insurance or what not means the chances of fake reviews is diminished, especially if it is opt in for all parties involved. If either party does not want to deal with purchased protections, then the other party can back out, or try to go ahead with the deal at their own risk.
This way, a seller with a good rating could advertise their good rating. This being VO, a seller running the long con could also attempt to get a good rating, then rip someone off. As such, the ratings would only be guide. And the oldest ratings would always drop off, so newer negative ratings would have more of an impact.
Meh. Could be beneficial to some and offer long-con angles to others. But, this concept could be implemented outside VO and I don't see why they'd want to invest the time needed to create and maintain this system given the position taken in Inc's excellent news post.
-0.5
-0.5
So, I've had a number of these kinds of issues blow up into support tickets over the years, with people swearing at me and screaming to get their stuff back. When that happens, it's almost always a "long-con" type of situation.
Basically, they develop trust with someone over a long period of time (usually months), and then that person takes all their stuff. Because they think it's funny, or they're bored, or they actually want the stuff, or whatever reason.
Thus, I'm not sure this complex system would yield much value, as it wouldn't catch the cases that are often the problem, and would be not-very-useful the rest of the time, and would also take quite a bit of time to implement properly.
My own thoughts are a lot simpler: an "Escrow" system in the station. A trade offer is defined, with two sides that have to be fulfilled. You load desired items in your side (over X amount of time), the other person has their offer in place. Maybe there's a transaction time limit (hours, days, weeks). When the limit expires, the exchange is voided and nothing is transferred.
Otherwise, if the pre-defined requirements of both sides are eventually met, then the exchange is confirmed and executed. Both people don't have to be online at the same time, etc.
Something like this could probably (?) be done with a variation of our mission system.
But, also, that really only bears on player-trading issues, and not issues with trust within guilds, which is kind of a larger problem and one that isn't easily solved. Like we can create all kinds of special ways of locking down guild banks, but if people trust the wrong person, none of it matters..
Basically, they develop trust with someone over a long period of time (usually months), and then that person takes all their stuff. Because they think it's funny, or they're bored, or they actually want the stuff, or whatever reason.
Thus, I'm not sure this complex system would yield much value, as it wouldn't catch the cases that are often the problem, and would be not-very-useful the rest of the time, and would also take quite a bit of time to implement properly.
My own thoughts are a lot simpler: an "Escrow" system in the station. A trade offer is defined, with two sides that have to be fulfilled. You load desired items in your side (over X amount of time), the other person has their offer in place. Maybe there's a transaction time limit (hours, days, weeks). When the limit expires, the exchange is voided and nothing is transferred.
Otherwise, if the pre-defined requirements of both sides are eventually met, then the exchange is confirmed and executed. Both people don't have to be online at the same time, etc.
Something like this could probably (?) be done with a variation of our mission system.
But, also, that really only bears on player-trading issues, and not issues with trust within guilds, which is kind of a larger problem and one that isn't easily solved. Like we can create all kinds of special ways of locking down guild banks, but if people trust the wrong person, none of it matters..
Personally, I LOVE GS's non-involvement policy, and the fact there is no "risk-free" method of trading goods/services in VO. It is part of what make P2P trade fun and interesting. I would -1 any suggested change that allowed players to skirt these risks.
Personally, I have never scammed a player, nor been scammed, because I consider carefully who I will trade with, and the level of risk I am prepared to take with these trades. In my not-so-humble-opinion, I believe this consideration and risk assessment ought to be the norm.
Personally, I have never scammed a player, nor been scammed, because I consider carefully who I will trade with, and the level of risk I am prepared to take with these trades. In my not-so-humble-opinion, I believe this consideration and risk assessment ought to be the norm.
Yeah really this is a non-issue.
+1 for escrow services! currently im offering this ingame already for parties who dont trust each other, always worked well.
I don't think it's needed to change or add anything. The current trade system is good as it is. It's basically how it is in real life. Exchanging money for goods or services is always a matter of trust and weighing of risks.
Its better to be ripped off in game and learn a good lesson about being too trusting of strangers than to be ripped off in real life. Inc is actually doing young, inexperienced kids a favor in this way.
Its better to be ripped off in game and learn a good lesson about being too trusting of strangers than to be ripped off in real life. Inc is actually doing young, inexperienced kids a favor in this way.
I think a firm policy should be followed that prevents those of lower ranks usurping those of higher ranks by guide-facilitated guild changes. The expectation for many is that this was the case, but an incident occurred last year that made it starkly apparent that there was no official policy on this, or if there was it was not being followed.
I would suggest the following policy specifically:
Council cannot request elevation to LT or Commander positions.
LT's cannot individually request elevation to Commander position (even if they are the only LT).
Only with the consent of a second LT can an LT request an elevation to Commander, and only due to inactivity of longer than 1 year or some other reason deemed acceptable by GS via support ticket.
I would suggest the following policy specifically:
Council cannot request elevation to LT or Commander positions.
LT's cannot individually request elevation to Commander position (even if they are the only LT).
Only with the consent of a second LT can an LT request an elevation to Commander, and only due to inactivity of longer than 1 year or some other reason deemed acceptable by GS via support ticket.
$$$
lulz, butthurtery is everywhere in greenie's post.
+1 Escrow system.
-1 to escrow systems and in-station safety trading.
It virtually eliminates the opportunity for a third party to interfere.
It virtually eliminates the opportunity for a third party to interfere.
I once bought something like 10,000 SSS from Faille Corvelle. It took us about 45 minutes of nonstop transferring cargo to complete the deal. It was amazing. Did I really enjoy myself? In the moment, it would have been hard to say that I did. But looking back on it, it's one of the most memorable things I did.
After countless player to player transactions I can't tell you how much I disagree with an in-station means of trading items. At first, it seems really useful cause it would be a real time-saver. On the flip-side, it would steal so much game-play.
Coming from a guy who spent years selling shit to other people, please never do this!
After countless player to player transactions I can't tell you how much I disagree with an in-station means of trading items. At first, it seems really useful cause it would be a real time-saver. On the flip-side, it would steal so much game-play.
Coming from a guy who spent years selling shit to other people, please never do this!
It makes player to player trading more secure , it solves all fear of griefing ,stealin and scammin problems, and saves time.
Incarnate thats very good idea i appreciate it - safe and secure trading :P
Incarnate thats very good idea i appreciate it - safe and secure trading :P
A player to player trade window in stations is long overdue. It would put an end to most of this nonsense. Just make it so that "advertised​" sales aren't global.
Who gives a crap about some so called 'nonsense'? A decent player to player trade system is long overdue because player to player trade sucks ass without it. The current system was fine before tridents. However, with the volumes that get traded in trident specific goods the old system makes VO not fun in my opinion. But hey, I just spent hours if not days mass producing or accumulating some widget. Now I've got to fly around a station in circles like a jack ass if I want to share or trade it? No thanks.
Now I've got to fly around a station in circles like a jack ass if I want to share or trade it? No thanks.
Why yes. I am entitled to spending my resources- time in this case- in a manner that I find both enjoyable and productive. But by all means, don't mind me. I haven't logged into my yearlong subscription in months and only check the general forum once a week to see if there might be an update that I might find interesting enough to motivate me to log into a game I used to love.
So no one should attach too much relevance to my comments. I can't even be bothered to play the game. If people think the status quo provides a better game experience then by all means leave things as they are. Changing player trade at this point is not likely to be enough to return me to being an active player by itself. This is after all, only my opinion on the matter.
So no one should attach too much relevance to my comments. I can't even be bothered to play the game. If people think the status quo provides a better game experience then by all means leave things as they are. Changing player trade at this point is not likely to be enough to return me to being an active player by itself. This is after all, only my opinion on the matter.
I dont mind a player to player trade system as long as it is local to the station or capship the goods are being traded from, no magic universe wide junk
This way you still have to bring it to the location to trade and still provides opportunity for some fun along the way.
This way you still have to bring it to the location to trade and still provides opportunity for some fun along the way.
-1
It's already hard enough to hijack cargo and credits.
If we are interested in improving how players take part in the economy then we should take a much harder look at things like static trade routes and how players with capital ships can bypass certain cargo capacity limits, among the other known issues capships have(godmode turrets, ammo, docking exploitation & crashing, missile homing, jump power requirements, etc)
Transferring cargo should maintain its inherent risks, as should the facilitation of transactions between players involving credits as combat has been (mostly) been kept pristine by staying to the core principle that the responsibility fall on you to cover yer own ass.
This is goes both ways, GS has to take key steps such as the ability to dismantle capital ships & expand n2 style trade as soon as possible or we will continue to see the slow deterioration of the current social norm when it comes to how we interact with each other, let alone trade or shoot.
It's already hard enough to hijack cargo and credits.
If we are interested in improving how players take part in the economy then we should take a much harder look at things like static trade routes and how players with capital ships can bypass certain cargo capacity limits, among the other known issues capships have(godmode turrets, ammo, docking exploitation & crashing, missile homing, jump power requirements, etc)
Transferring cargo should maintain its inherent risks, as should the facilitation of transactions between players involving credits as combat has been (mostly) been kept pristine by staying to the core principle that the responsibility fall on you to cover yer own ass.
This is goes both ways, GS has to take key steps such as the ability to dismantle capital ships & expand n2 style trade as soon as possible or we will continue to see the slow deterioration of the current social norm when it comes to how we interact with each other, let alone trade or shoot.