This would be a lot more fun

[David Watts]

Does every single historical Tiger suck rocks in PT? I've had Dave Rozema's rookie deal and he was just awful. The Denny McLain I had was horrible. I don't think he ever pitched below a 5 ERA. Aurelio Lopez is blah. Keep waiting to get the Bobby Higginson "the meth years" card, but so far it evades me.


And why I posted this in this particular thread, I haven't a clue. Thought I had started a new thread. Oh well.

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

...There was one instance last night that appears to be on the up and up where a person put up a very valuable player for peanuts that someone got. They then went back and forth with the giver saying it was a mistake and the taker expressing surprise and happiness, yet telling the giver he would owe him one somewhere in the future. Though I think it was a mistake, it shows how things like this "could" be done with bad intentions, but I can't see them bringing so much attention to it by talking about it so much (unless that was the beauty of hiding the scam) ...

The best place to hide something is in plain sight. "Owe him one somewhere in the future" could be the follow through on the whole setup for a back and forth.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Kushiel

To me, making deals on the AH thread here or on Discord is no different than moving players or PP from one of your own teams to another on the same account. It serves the same purpose prearranging a deal behind closed doors. Therefore it can and may conceivably give some teams an advantage. Just a thought.

Good luck in stopping that. Can you ban OOTP players from talking to each other completely online and offline? If not, then it'll happen.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Kushiel

By your own statement, you enforce my opinion that it is an opportunity to abuse the system. If it is very strictly policed through flags, then there is not a problem. Otherwise, there will be and probably are now cheaters doing this like all the other ways they find to abuse the rules for an advantage.

Of course it is an opportunity for abuse, and I agree with you on that, but I disagree that it is the same as moving cards between your own accounts or that anything should be done about it; I don't think it should be forbidden, because it is not inherently cheating, and also because you can never police it effectively.

So why make an effort to moderate the auction house forum in that regard, when in fact that is even a cumbersome way of making a deal, when players can do live coordination in, f.e., a Steam chat? A card can be posted and snapped up in a matter of seconds. The odds that an outsider snatches the card by chance are virtually zero.

And I would argue that all of this is fair game, and does not constitute abuse, unless people use it to funnel PP from one account to another with outrageous prices. *That* is the crowd OOTPD should be after.

As a thought experiment - say I have a diamond card that you really, really want, and I am not really happy with it (it's a player I really, really hate, possibly a Yankee). The average for recent transactions of the card is 6,412 points. Because I like round numbers, we agree that I post my card for a buy-it-now of 6,500 PP at this and that time, and you buy it within seven seconds. I have 5,850 PP (minus tax), got rid of the damn Yankee, and you have the card you always wanted.

Who exactly is hurt by this transaction?

If I had posted the card without prior agreement for the same buy-it-now, would you not have bought it anyway? Where's the difference?

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by Westheim

As a thought experiment - say I have a diamond card that you really, really want, and I am not really happy with it (it's a player I really, really hate, possibly a Yankee). The average for recent transactions of the card is 6,412 points. Because I like round numbers, we agree that I post my card for a buy-it-now of 6,500 PP at this and that time, and you buy it within seven seconds. I have 5,850 PP (minus tax), got rid of the damn Yankee, and you have the card you always wanted.

Who exactly is hurt by this transaction?

If I had posted the card without prior agreement for the same buy-it-now, would you not have bought it anyway? Where's the difference?

In your example, nothing is wrong. But what if the same transaction was done by a couple of people that essentially want to trade players. They both offer the player with a bin that is the lowest it can be and swap players. The advantage they get is like selling a car and lying to the DMV/State about the transaction price to avoid paying higher taxes. Both players get the player they want and save PP.

[Dogberry99]

We should not be able to set BIN prices. They should be a static value directly based on the starting auction price. Doing so would go a long way to mitigated any potential problems such as those being discussed here.

Along the same lines, 15 minutes is too short a minimum auction duration.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

In your example, nothing is wrong. But what if the same transaction was done by a couple of people that essentially want to trade players. They both offer the player with a bin that is the lowest it can be and swap players. The advantage they get is like selling a car and lying to the DMV/State about the transaction price to avoid paying higher taxes. Both players get the player they want and save PP.

Of course they would set the buy-it-now to the minimum then, nothing else would make sense. Why would you bloat the value to pay a bigger cut to the house? It has nothing to do with lying; what you really do is trading things of equal value, not selling something, and you pay a premium in the 10% cut to get the trade done.

But even then that minimum value trade still costs them f.e. 800 PP combined for trading diamond cards. I would contend that the minimums that are already in place are a sufficient safe guard against shenanigans. 200 on trading golds, 800 on diamond, 4,000 on perfect. (Nobody would go to through the bother of setting up two deals to exchange bronzes…)

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

We should not be able to set BIN prices. They should be a static value directly based on the starting auction price. Doing so would go a long way to mitigated any potential problems such as those being discussed here.

This is nonsense. If you can set the selling price and that determines the buy-it-now price, you are at the same time also setting the buy-it-now price by adjusting your selling price accordingly. Wanting to ban buy-it-now pricing makes you sound really paranoid, like the other faction that insists that the only reason they are not winning their league is for the despicable people buying points with money.

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

Along the same lines, 15 minutes is too short a minimum auction duration.

Why? Any reasoning for that?

It would get my attention when I am watching the action house with time remaining increasing, and I am surely not the only one doing that at times.

[Dogberry99]

The changes I suggest would make the free market more capable of mitigating collusion.

It is impossible to guarantee a true fair market price in a coordinated exchange if the BIN prices can be manually set to whatever low price they agree upon.

Besides, its an auction house, not a store. The auction house should host auctions.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

The changes I suggest would make the free market more capable of mitigating collusion.

It is impossible to guarantee a true fair market price in a coordinated exchange if the BIN prices can be manually set to whatever low price they agree upon.

Besides, its an auction house, not a store. The auction house should host auctions.

All it does is make the tax higher. How much of a deterrent that is to each individual is up to them.

If the exchange is coordinated, the fair market price does not matter. Players want to exchange these two cards, straight up. The cards' individual value is irrelevant.

And what does it do to your opinion? Square dance competitions I have seen none in the auction house…

Some people here and there desire to impose crippling limitations just so nobody else dare to have half an ounce more fun than them …!

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Of course it is an opportunity for abuse, and I agree with you on that, but I disagree that it is the same as moving cards between your own accounts or that anything should be done about it; I don't think it should be forbidden, because it is not inherently cheating, and also because you can never police it effectively.

So why make an effort to moderate the auction house forum in that regard, when in fact that is even a cumbersome way of making a deal, when players can do live coordination in, f.e., a Steam chat? A card can be posted and snapped up in a matter of seconds. The odds that an outsider snatches the card by chance are virtually zero.

And I would argue that all of this is fair game, and does not constitute abuse, unless people use it to funnel PP from one account to another with outrageous prices. *That* is the crowd OOTPD should be after.

As a thought experiment - say I have a diamond card that you really, really want, and I am not really happy with it (it's a player I really, really hate, possibly a Yankee). The average for recent transactions of the card is 6,412 points. Because I like round numbers, we agree that I post my card for a buy-it-now of 6,500 PP at this and that time, and you buy it within seven seconds. I have 5,850 PP (minus tax), got rid of the damn Yankee, and you have the card you always wanted.

Who exactly is hurt by this transaction?

If I had posted the card without prior agreement for the same buy-it-now, would you not have bought it anyway? Where's the difference?

Where did I say anything should be done or any moderators should placed on any platform? I think I said it should be flagged.by OOTP because it is a a perfect place to abuse the system. You or me or anybody else would be naive to think that it will not be done.


but I disagree that it is the same as moving cards between your own accounts Collusion is collusion no matter how you dress it up. It is indeed the same moving cards from player to player without giving everyone the fair opportunity at the AH as it is moving players between your own teams.


Who exactly is hurt by this transaction? Possibly everyone.


This is my first FTP/PTP experience and I am absolutely shocked the myriad of ways people try to beat the system. Things I have seen discussed both here and other forum/chats.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by Kushiel

This is my first FTP/PTP experience and I am absolutely shocked the myriad of ways people try to beat the system. Things I have seen discussed both here and other forum/chats.

Ditto

[Thalion]

About a month ago, I raised the question about people arranging deals in chat and I got a response basically saying that it was okay if:

1) The deal is set at fair market value
2) People are given equal opportunity at the auction.

I don't remember the context of my question, nor the exact wording of the answer (may not even be on the forums but an answer in Discord) but I think that is the gist of it.

If people are concerned, I think a separate topic should be created here on the forums in hopes we can all get clarification from management as to what their intent is.

[<Pion>]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Of course they would set the buy-it-now to the minimum then, nothing else would make sense. Why would you bloat the value to pay a bigger cut to the house? It has nothing to do with lying; what you really do is trading things of equal value, not selling something, and you pay a premium in the 10% cut to get the trade done.

I disagree completely. It's scamming the system through collusion. They would have paid a higher tax if done with someone they did not make this arrangement with. So if they are arranging a method to do the exchange and avoid higher tax, how is that not collusion to scam the system and get an advantage?

[Thalion]

Originally Posted by Thalion

About a month ago, I raised the question about people arranging deals in chat and I got a response basically saying that it was okay if:

1) The deal is set at fair market value
2) People are given equal opportunity at the auction.

I don't remember the context of my question, nor the exact wording of the answer (may not even be on the forums but an answer in Discord) but I think that is the gist of it.

If people are concerned, I think a separate topic should be created here on the forums in hopes we can all get clarification from management as to what their intent is.

It's in the FAQ thread. On 11/26 (or 27). From Markus. I can't seem to cut and paste here.

[Kushiel]

I think unless Markus states it differently now, this is the answer as found in the FAQ. You may notice that the conjunction is and not or. That means both have to take place. When you try to do the fast dirty deed of the quick auction you are not abiding by this definitive statement.

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

This is illegal if others do not get the chance to bid and the buy-now price is not market value.

[Thalion]

I don't know how they can enforce or monitor something like this though. I don't think of any way to code something into the system automatically.

[Thalion]

I mean, I hang out in Discord a lot when I'm at home. This happens quite a bit. Maybe not explicitly in terms of price, but more in terms of the "Okay, I just posted it".... "Gotch. Got it. Thanks" type of stuff

[Kushiel]

I do not know how they can control it either or if they are trying. We are all on the outside looking in at the inner workings and only have windows to peak through where they are allowed.

All I started out saying is that it is the same thing as a player cross trading with his/her own second or third team.

Originally Posted by Kushiel

To me, making deals on the AH thread here or on Discord is no different than moving players or PP from one of your own teams to another on the same account. It serves the same purpose prearranging a deal behind closed doors. Therefore it can and may conceivably give some teams an advantage. Just a thought.

[Janks]

Originally Posted by Thalion

I don't know how they can enforce or monitor something like this though. I don't think of any way to code something into the system automatically.

It would be easy to code a report where the BIN of a card deviates more than x% of the average BIN and/or final auction price.


The report of all of the outliers can be tweaked to find the best X% value. It might be 20% or 30%.


I can have the SQL statement done in no time.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by <Pion>

I disagree completely. It's scamming the system through collusion. They would have paid a higher tax if done with someone they did not make this arrangement with. So if they are arranging a method to do the exchange and avoid higher tax, how is that not collusion to scam the system and get an advantage?

With that stance, what is the point to making this a multiplayer game at all, when there is no interaction whatsoever with other players?

And believe me, the least I want in life is interaction with humans beyond what is necessary, but what is the point of it all if you can't even help another out to round out your rosters?