Viewing and modifying buy orders - missing info/options?

Of particular note, once it’s been submitted, there’s no way to even check a market order to find the range at which you’re buying from the order’s location. You can see the location it’s at, but not the range. And when modifying the order, it doesn’t show you the current range, nor does it let you alter this value. I don’t play a lot with market orders to rearrange things, so there might be other missing features I’m not aware of, but this seems like something you really should be able to see and edit without having to cancel and recreate an order if you aren’t sure you’d done it right the first time.

you can r. click your market order , and show market details . this brings up the market page for that item , with all the info and your order will be highlighted . this only works in the same region your order is in .

don’t confuse missing features with intended limitations , such as above .

You can, yes. But that is a restriction on where you can see the timeframe on an order you already placed, and doesn’t let you change the timeframe when you can change most other things about the order.

I don’t believe this is an intended limitation. And if it is, there should be some explanation for why it’s intended, and I haven’t seen any such explanation, from you or anyone else.

Still feels like missing information on market order page (and missing functionality to be unable to edit it).

Allows for remote modification of buy and sell orders. Each level of skill increases the range at which orders may be modified. Level 1 allows for modification of orders within the same solar system, Level 2 extends that range to systems within 5 jumps, and each subsequent level then doubles it. Level 5 allows for market order modification anywhere within current region.

If that skill is at 5, then you cannot modify the order if you arent in the same region. Period.

ccp did this so you wouldnt be halfway across the map and modifying an order to undercut someone. I assume anyway.

Say for instance you are in lonetrek region. But your order is within The Forge. Even if you are one jump away from a system located in The Forge, you couldnt modify the order because you are in Lonetrek

1 Like

Digging through my brain from very old conversations, I also believe (a long time ago) it had to do with rate limiting market updates to the underlying database (sharding per region). They didn’t want all of New Eden to be able to hammer The Forge region with 0.01 ISK wars.

Sadly this incentivizes alt gameplay. Sit a market alt per region. But what doesn’t these days.

1 Like

Care to explain how the range at which you can edit an order is relevant to the visibility of the range of the order itself? Because… well, it isn’t. That has literally 0 relevance to what I’m asking about.

And this makes sense as a reason to limit the max range of orders, and/or the max range from which they can be edited.

But it doesn’t provide any reason not to show the range or to allow the range to be edited while you’re in range to edit the order.

To be fair, you created a forum thread for anyone to participate in, and are setting expectations that only the original devs who are long gone can answer. You’re going to get speculation and adjacent answers. If you’d like actual answers, you’d have to aggressively stalk LinkedIn profiles and track down the original devs. Not create forum posts.

The reality is a lot of the very old code for things like market is „this is how it always was“ and behavior has been carried forward mostly intact.

It’s how the original devs implemented the market. :person_shrugging: the buy and sell orders have never remembered their „source location“ so something with greater than „station“ range just gets a bunch of orders copied out to a bunch of locations. The original devs decided it was easier to just delete an order and create a new one with a new range. That means the devs just have to delete all those rows with an order ID and then separately create a bunch of new one based on where you are now. Clean delete, separate clean create, and no need to remember where your source location was in the past. It’s always order creation where you are now. In this regime an orders „distance“ makes no sense because it’s always a local copy and can’t be changed anyway.

That’s all much simpler than introducing insane complexity trying to add a new feature where orders remember where they were „sourced“ from, and make sure the partial create/update/deletes behaves well in one transaction, and retroactively apply different distance based SQL changes upon a prior location, and all that’s a massive headache in comparison.

The actual code now might look much different, and the Schema might facilitate your request. But that’s the way the behavior was and it’s high risk to try to change market behavior and upset peoples familiarity with its behavior. So I’m not surprised devs have stuck with status quo.

No need to get angry and irate with forum folks over this.

To be actually fair, I created a forum thread anyone can participate in, but provided a specific topic about which I was asking, and that partiicular contribution didn’t look to me like it was addressing that topic, so I asked for clarification about the purpose of an off-topic post. I haven’t seen anything in your response or elsewhere to suggest I’m wrong about that. Thank you for making sure your posts are on-topic, though, even if I have some questions about the validity of your position this time around.

I sincerely doubt you have a source which would even vaguely suggest this to be true, but if you do, feel free to share. I have good reason not to expect you to though, and would be even more surprised if you’re right about that being how it works. Because…

This is your founding premise and it’s hilariously backwards.

Simply inserting a “this order can be accessed from X range” line in the code for orders is a MUCH simpler and more elegant solution which self-updates in the event of changes of any kind, many of which are already applicable to orders in the game as it already behaves. Changes to the starmap (rare but possible) can potentially add in new systems/stations which need orders propagated into or remove things from the list of places the order should exist, and those events happen outside of the creation of the order. These updates would be impossible to automate under the system you’re suggesting, and it’s not the only obvious surface-level problem with your idea. Each time anyone interacts with an order, every other copy of the order would have to be updated independently in your model, which means each instance of the order would need to have cross-referenced links back to every other instance of the same order so it can reach out to all of them and update them whenever any instance of the order is updated. That’s patently stupid design in comparison with having a single order with a range value which can be updated by anyone interacting with it while within that range.


Given how many other things have been changed in the game (not all for the better, but that’s a whole other story), this isn’t even a remotely valid argument. And in this instance, unless I’m missing something, it doesn’t look like it has the potential to negatively impact anyone’s existing market interactions? Can you explain how this change would actually alter the market in a way which realistically impacts any players or their existing orders? I’m open to being wrong about this, but I don’t see a way for it to cause problems.

And just to address one last concern…

I’m not angry at anyone over this, especially not you. It’s just a simple QoL request. Pointing out that an off-topic post is off-topic isn’t anger, it’s just an attempt to keep the conversation on-topic. And disagreeing with you about a claim which can be identified as being ridiculous on its face is similarly not a sign of anything but thinking your argument makes no sense. I’m not angry with you for presenting an explanation you think is plausible, even if there’s clear and obvious reason to say you’re almost certainly wrong. There might be some old dev posts which are related-ish to the question and suggest something like this may happen or may have happened in some form in some aspect of the game, but I’d be very surprised if it’s what you’re claiming it to be in this post.

It might be hilariously backwards, but early CCP was a spaghetti factory that put Italy to shame, so your incredulity and disdain means to me it’s more likely to be true. I feel the same way. I’m not saying it’s a good thing.

There’s even the old CREST market order schema to indicate something along these lines. Locations are structured data. The „range“ has never been structured data but a simple string. It’s still true today in the ESI. Why range doesn’t reflect structured data, is beyond me.

No I don’t have explicit sources beyond the original CREST Schema, but we’re firmly in the land of digression and speculation anyway. Just because things maybe had technical limitations and never got revisited doesn’t mean your QoL suggestion is bad or good. It just means the devs probably went to work on other stuff and never revisited the assumptions in the first place. And CCP is very conservative in market code (it took 17 years to get rid of 0.01ISKing) so the answer is one of unintentional neglect.

Should put your suggestion in the QoL thread where it’ll be seen by the current devs.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.