...about PoE, scamming, its people and culture

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

Indeed, that's the final check (in a hypothetical situation) the user failed to do.

But it isn't a hypothetical, it's literally every trade in the trade window.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

It's a human error when it happens. The player has been conditioned after trading for a long time that checking the specifics of items when they hover over them is almost always correct, given that most people who trade are relatively honest. Then they run into a scammer, and thus miss thoroughly checking the item before confirming the trade.

They don't "miss" they assume, which is exactly the problem. I buy items from other people at their homes. They hand me a bottle of Coke and tell me it's Pepsi. I look at it and say I wont purchase it because it isn't what I wanted.

This is how real life interpersonal trading works. Examination prior to purchase.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

And the proper resolution of the problem is not to blame the users for being idiots when they screw up, but rather attempt to prevent that possibility in the first place. That's why we're asked to enter a new password twice, why many login systems require two-form/factor authentication, etc. And that responsibility rests with GGG, of which they've done THE BARE MINIMUM since the game's launch to curb trade scamming. Go ahead and ask them or press them on this topic and you'll get an ear-full of silence. They know they can do better, yet fail to do anything more.

Do you think a judge would allow you to win a case where you examined something and then purchased it post examination?
With no written contract there is no retribution. Sorry mate. The responsibility is on the individual, that's why the system has been established this way.
Interpersonal trading with no written contract works the same way because: Human Freedom

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

I'm just stating that the safeties we have in place right now are not enough to prevent scamming at the exact time of each trade, and that you PLAN for human error, not the other way around..

They definitely aren't enough for people too lazy to verify what they're purchasing. As evidenced by the rhetoric you've splayed and the examples in this thread and elsewhere.

Human error is inevitable and I don't think it's GGG's problem. People can delete a mirror and that could be "human error", do you think GGG should make another safety net after the "Do you want to delete this item?" window?

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

Again, I've never fallen victim to this, but I can certainly see why and how even veteran players easily could slip and fall victim to a trading scam

A true veteran isn't going to complain about their own error. They're a little more mature than that I would hope.

"

Morgasming wrote:

But it isn't... [snip]

You're just arguing semantics and for the sake of arguing now, so it's pointless to reply.

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

You're missing the point. Perhaps the item looks very similar, you mouse over and assume the seller is being honest. So you miss checking for every single stat, only to find out the gear you bought didn't match the listing and is missing the stat that made it expensive.

I've never had that problem because I spend a few more seconds to examine each item, yet I'm not going to fault people who miss it when trading frequently and quickly. The trading system is flawed, that's not entirely the user's fault. The blame is shared both by user and developer.

I don't think I am: the OP wanted a specific item and chose to trade for it. He contacted the seller, met up with the seller, and then once it came time to actually look at the item he was trading for he...didn't.

The developers put a step into the process that requires the players to verify the items being traded prior to being able to accept the trade; it isn't the fault of the developers when the players willfully ignore the item details on the screen when they are forced to complete this step.

If there's a particular stat that makes an item expensive it behooves the player to actually check to ensure that stat is there prior to clicking accept. There is no reason to absolve the player of this responsibility in a barter trading system.

"

Aixius wrote:

The developers put a step into the process that requires the players to verify the items being traded prior to being able to accept the trade; it isn't the fault of the developers when the players willfully ignore the item details on the screen when they are forced to complete this step.

There is a snag here: hovering over an item with the cursor is not act that forcefully "requires the players to verify" the item being traded. An item that looks similar to another can easily fool those not paying attention.

But I do know better solutions GGG could implement. Take your pick...

1.) Show item stat box in window before hovering over it with the cursor. Not an absolute solution, but much better. You can still have the hover-over confirmation safety as well.

2.) Place short, but unique listing IDs in each listing, and part of the PM we copy includes this (eg: xyZ123aBc). Verify items placed in trade window against original listing. If they don't match, you can either opt to warn user or prevent the trade. Many ways to link PM with trade of that user. Could be cumbersome if not implemented elegantly.

3.) Create entirely new trade tools where players can opt to buy from listings with exact prices only, and bypass sellers having to do any manual steps other than a simple trade accept and confirm dialog that pops up. Would also eliminate much of the scamming, the PMs, switching characters, traveling to hideouts, etc., and at the same time not permit completely automated trades.

Yet we're still here with trading mechanics that suck and, for one reason or another, fans who defend that crappy system and would rather blame the user, because gitgud or something.

The no name and shame policy is stupid. It should be no name and shame without evidence.
The currently enforced rule just removes a community ability to self-clean and protects scumbags.

"

Disrupted wrote:

The no name and shame policy is stupid. It should be no name and shame without evidence.
The currently enforced rule just removes a community ability to self-clean and protects scumbags.

You missed a word between 'without' and 'evidence': incontrovertible.

And I'd like to see your definition for that in this context.

Easy to suggest something when it's nothing more than a 'good idea'. GGG have to think well beyond that, and consider serious ramifications for everything they do.

An acceptable alternative to 'no name and shame' on their official forum that wouldn't turn the place into a bloodbath is something of a holy grail.

Don't worry OP. GGG and their mods are right on top of chat banning people for ridiculous and uncalled for reasons though.

"

The_Scourge wrote:

"

Disrupted wrote:

The no name and shame policy is stupid. It should be no name and shame without evidence.
The currently enforced rule just removes a community ability to self-clean and protects scumbags.

You missed a word between 'without' and 'evidence': incontrovertible.

And I'd like to see your definition for that in this context.

Easy to suggest something when it's nothing more than a 'good idea'. GGG have to think well beyond that, and consider serious ramifications for everything they do.

An acceptable alternative to 'no name and shame' on their official forum that wouldn't turn the place into a bloodbath is something of a holy grail.

Well, ofc when I say evidence I expect evidence, not just word of mouth. For this context I cant say shit, cause I dont know what was removed. if he had a video that showed his trade in full and the guy purposely ignoring him afterwards then I'd say that is some pretty good evidence.
Maybe there could be a rep system with several layers of checkmarks (mostly general things, but certainly not limited to only something as simple as a + or -)
If GGG wants to run this shit like EVE online I dont mind, they should just come out and say it. This is certainly not the worst case I've seen here. A lot of people had to learn regarding having their maps open in the past and unpaid runs are a dime a dozen.

"

Disrupted wrote:

"

The_Scourge wrote:

"

Disrupted wrote:

The no name and shame policy is stupid. It should be no name and shame without evidence.
The currently enforced rule just removes a community ability to self-clean and protects scumbags.

You missed a word between 'without' and 'evidence': incontrovertible.

And I'd like to see your definition for that in this context.

Easy to suggest something when it's nothing more than a 'good idea'. GGG have to think well beyond that, and consider serious ramifications for everything they do.

An acceptable alternative to 'no name and shame' on their official forum that wouldn't turn the place into a bloodbath is something of a holy grail.

Well, ofc when I say evidence I expect evidence, not just word of mouth. For this context I cant say shit, cause I dont know what was removed. if he had a video that showed his trade in full and the guy purposely ignoring him afterwards then I'd say that is some pretty good evidence.
Maybe there could be a rep system with several layers of checkmarks (mostly general things, but certainly not limited to only something as simple as a + or -)
If GGG wants to run this shit like EVE online I dont mind, they should just come out and say it. This is certainly not the worst case I've seen here. A lot of people had to learn regarding having their maps open in the past and unpaid runs are a dime a dozen.

On this much we agree: it's all very half-arsed and GGG were totally unprepared for what has happened regarding player reputation, scamming, and exploitation. I think Eve Online is probably the game I cite most often when it comes to perceiving what GGG expected or wanted from their player interaction, but it'll never be like that. Ever. We're still relying on third party tools just to facilitate basic trades when Eve had escrow in place not too long into its development. As much as we can praise GGG for how they've come and how much PoE has improved, I think if there's one blemish on their record it's how far development of tools for trade between players hasn't come, and the repercussions from that neglect are very...very significant.

"

uroboros wrote:

"

Morgasming wrote:

- Has a chance to look at the item and accept it

- Chooses to rush and gets "scammed"

You played yourself homie.

You just made my point, this is accepted as a scam avoidance game, prolly by some who profit from these ways, who haven't got scammed yet or enough to get upset.
The bigger problem is the guy doing this is still online and the jewel i asked for is still for sale even though he said he sold it to excuse the fact that he ignored my initial request.

Stop being butthurt that you should have spent more time with the transaction that meant this much to you.

I feel for the people trying to buy services, albeit not very much...but the trade system is fine. You are REQUIRED to mouse over the item before accepting. What do you want GGG to do about it? Rhetorical - they’ve already done more than necessary...