I’m not seeing the problem here?
This has already been explained to him several times so I no longer believe that he still doesn’t get it but rather actively tries to spread disinformation so that nobody else tries to use this tactic.
1 Like
I am being constructive.
I’m saying, this change is fine. It’s not as bad as you think it is. It will not be so bad that your resorting to ganking for income will exceed the profits from marketing. It will not cause people to swap to Contracts anymore than they already do. etc. etc. etc.
If you want to do nothing but ■■■■■, I guess I can’t stop you. But it’s not the end of the world.
1 Like
I won’t apologize for having morons blocked on the forums, but if you want a fast track to join them, that can be arranged too.
I’m not worried about the fake “Concern-Trolling” by Zoltan about how this helps bots. CCP can easily track that kind of behavior (like they already do) and handle it with their internal tools.
If they can, why then introduce the draconian changes and claim it is to curb bot activity?
1 Like
That’s a fair question to raise, and a separate discussion.
I can’t answer that because I don’t know about what happens behind the scenes. Why not post that to one of the CCP devs on the off chance one of them ever cares to look in the forums?
So You know or don’t? You cant have it both ways.
2 Likes
Are you intentionally being dumb here or does it just come naturally?
I know CCP has the tools to track it, because they’ve told us they do and provided data.
From the dev blog:
A tiny minority of orders (less than 1.3%) are modified more than eight times. Among these are orders that are being modified hundreds of times, with behavioral patterns that are very likely not human.
So they do have the tools track (and do) in-game actions that are suspicious and sketchy. They even had a presentation from EVE Vegas 2019 showing more numbers they’ve collected.
I don’t know what CCP’s decision making process is when it comes to pushing out market patches or choosing when to / when not to ban people for botting.
They’re separate things. Do try to keep up, dear.
TL:DR;
Do I know if they have the tools? Yes, because they’ve shown us the data.
Do I know why they don’t ban the bots? No, because I don’t know their decision making process.
These only hold true in the imaginary case where supply and demand are both infinite. What actually happens is that multiple orders are filled and prices move when demand exceeds supply or vice versa. The market does care about your price in at least two ways: your price tells other market participants what you valued the item at; some buyers will pay asking price for low supply, hard to find items
So basically You have just accused CCP of having the tools to track market bots, and ignoring this data in handing out bans despite their stated firm “commitment to fighting botting in all its forms in EVE”. Wow. Heavy stuff dude. I tend to be more optimistic about other people nature.
Nobody said it was the end of the world, so what you are saying makes no sense. I agreed with someone who was having mixed feelings about the effect it would even have.
If being constructive is really what you are after, you should read what people are saying or replying to completely, and respond with something more valuable than trying to demean their intelligence.
With the new system you won’t see the supply and demand anymore because people will hold back their stock and only expose the bare minimum to the market. Each filled order will immediately replaced by a new one. Bots preferred of course.
4 Likes
Okay, so you ARE a moron just like them. Thanks for making this obvious.
I’m sorry you’re not able to follow along.
When somebody doesn’t have many real arguments, usually resorts to name calling, when dishonest about their strength. I call that a temper tantrum 
Currently the supply well exceeds demand on most items. You can come up with an ‘‘intelligent’’ price for your items, but 10 minutes later someone else is gonna come and price theirs lower, because the only ‘‘intelligence’’ for new sellers is still to price their items at the top, and not somewhere in the middle of the market. (This is presently the case and will be the case after these changes, unless CCP does away with the feature where only the cheapest orders are filled). Then 10 minutes after them another one comes to price at the top. All this time no-one is actually buying anything and the chance that your order is filled without modification gets smaller the more time goes by. When supply exceeds demand you do need to move your order to top with the way things are set up in EVE, in order to sell at all and not sit an indeterminate amount of time in cue, if ever selling without modifying at all. Not a lot of people are interested in putting their stuff on the market and then waiting around for a long time till they get their money. Nor should they.
These new changes may discourage traders from posting new orders after market supply exceeds daily demand, or they may not. In the first case supply will fall, market will be less active than it is now, manufacturing/industry will possibly become less active, meaning less goods to go around than what we have now. (This directly means also less time people will spend playing EVE, which is kind of the opposite CCP should be wanting). Possibly prices will rise across the spectrum. In the latter case, the prices will likely increase from the start, and so will the price gap between sell/buy orders.
Bottom result, the new market will, quite probably, be a lot more expensive market for everyone involved, whichever way things go. Traders will still turn a profit, no-one is gonna sell items to be at a disadvantage. But if things become more costly for the trader, they will be that much more costly on everyone using the market.
1 Like
these changes have all the characteristics to make the trade hubs boring places
2 Likes
And they can’t know ?
FFS get a brain.
Now they can do whatever you think they will do later, plus more (updating orders by 0.01 isk). So no, this change will not “put bots at an advantage” more than they already are, on the opposite.
All your claims that this will help bots is complete BS.
If you are so butthurt about a patch that is against bots, maybe you should not behave like a bot in the first place.
But if you put one after the other, your bot reaches its limit of active orders. Because the issue is, what happens when the bot is cut.
Right now, it can just update its orders ASAP or place another one if the last one is below 5min before. With 3 orders it can keep cycling the 0.01 since there is a cache on the market (actually if it was instant it would be like 5 orders, with 30s cache)
After the modification, if it keeps updating its orders, it means it will lose money. A LOT. So it’s forced to place more and more orders as it’s cut.
The issue is not to place orders. The issue is to cycle orders in order to be trusting the sales on a specific item.
So yes, a bot can place more orders when the previous one are sold. But guess what ? You can do it too, just by selling more at once.You think it’s a bot ? Place a few orders with a frank cut. then if you’re cut again, make deeper cuts. and try to bring it down. When it stops, it means you reached its margin limit. Place more orders at this value, and if they are gone place more again… and someone else thinks you are a bot.
Sure that needs to think about it, and to WANT to do something, instead of the stupid -0.01 isk.
If you can’t have fun in a game doing something else than being a bot, I say : good riddance. You won’t be missed.
No, a bot will not lose a lot of money if he updates small orders. And set up a new one when the last has been filled, Or maybe have 3 or 5 small ones in parallel as before if the min interval stays there…
Also small orders = no big escrow for the bot.
Only the trader with a big order loses a lot of money if updates. Because the fee for updating is mainly governed by the total amount of the order. And of course a huge amount of money in escrow to add insult to injury.
The bot doesn’t care if he has to set up a thousand small orders to get the needed amount. A trader will care after 50 at the latest…
This rings true to me. Since passing items through the market is now more expensive, both in terms of fees and escrow, smaller orders become that much safer, and smaller orders mean more order maintenance, not less. This would seemingly redound to the benefit of botters.
The change from 0.01 to percentage increments is irrelevant - everyone is always going to use the smallest increment available no matter what. Changes to market behavior will be driven by relist fees and the elimination of margin trading.
2 Likes
BS
If the same order is updated several times, it ends with a loss.