It's about time we reveal the ID of sellers on the AH

Ty Cobb · 12-23-2020, 10:05 AM

The pictures speak for themselves.

dkgo · 12-23-2020, 10:14 AM

With all due respect, who cares? Just ignore them. Why are you always posting stuff like this

Syd Thrift · 12-23-2020, 10:37 AM

It's another way of skirting the rules. Either this is a way of pushing an otherwise good player to a reserve roster situation where the anti-tanking algorithms won't notice or else they're transferring PP from one account to another.

Ty Cobb · 12-23-2020, 10:37 AM

dkgo, put me on your ignore list and move on. I'm not on the forums to answer vapid rhetoric.

cardsfan79 · 12-23-2020, 08:01 PM

I would be more in favor of showing historical completed transactions with a "report transaction" button. Maybe if a number of different people report it could then trigger some review.

Ty Cobb · 12-23-2020, 09:21 PM

Not a bad idea either.

daves · 12-24-2020, 02:32 PM

The starting bid price seems reasonable. The buy now could be a typo or outrageous for a different reason.

Anomalies like this should be reportable to the devs to prevent shadiness

I am not sure if reveal ID's would help or hurt? Would this imply favoritism in my buying? Would I avoid a purchase knowing who I am buying it from?

Ty Cobb · 12-26-2020, 08:58 AM

Well, how about in furtherance of realism then? Do any of us think Buzzie Bavasi hung out on a dark street corner asking passers by if they knew where he could score a lefty hitting SS with a good glove for the stretch run? No...he called other GM's...and my guess is he knew their names.

Quinta · 01-06-2021, 09:47 AM

I have had an idea that I was going to wait until OOTP/PT 22 to suggest but it might be slightly relevant here.

I think the game (and it is a game) is more fun when there is functioning AH with fair sellers. I know this thread is about potential shadiness (and frankly I have seen much worse than what is posted above) but I think fair sellers can and should advertise their status.

People (not a lot but some) indicate their free to play or 0$ status in their name. Obviously not everyone is going to do this but I think knowing there are other people out there that do this helps and makes the game more fun. So I am going to encourage people when the new game comes out to identify themselves as a Fair Seller with a FS seller tag in their name. So if SuperFun23 wants to identify as a fair seller the would be SuperFun23_FS or SuperFun23-FS or SuperFun23(FTP-FS). You could be a pay player or a FTP player and still identify yourself as FS.

Now, I have not defined a "fair seller" yet so I would be interested in feedback but I would think that it would be something like someone who sells over 90% of their AH sales as last 7 average or less. Something like that (I actually sell a fair amount below L7 average) but it should not be designed to indicate any hardcore purity--just that the person sells fairly and makes the game more enjoyable for others. The 90% allows for someone to make some strategic use of selling above L7 sometimes.

This idea would obviously work better with Ty Cobb's idea of identifying sellers but it works without that idea as well (although it would obviously just be a self designation that you may or may not want to use--I am a FTP person but I have not added to my name this year).

dkgo · 01-06-2021, 10:37 AM

If someone buys the card then the price was "fair". If no one does then the seller just wasted their own time.

Some guy has been putting up the postseason Bernie Williams over and over starting at 1M buy it now and decreasing by 50K each time. Obviously never going to sell, but so what? He's just hurting himself and it's functionally no different than if he kept the card in his collection to everyone else.

Syd Thrift · 01-06-2021, 11:08 AM

If the same person buys the card under another account then it was anything but "fair", and if they're putting cards out there to duck tanking, then it's also not "fair".

Quinta · 01-06-2021, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkgo

If someone buys the card then the price was "fair". If no one does then the seller just wasted their own time
.

You miss the point completely. I am aware of all you state but the notion that you can just label any activity as "fair" is not what I am saying. I am advocating a (loose) definition of fair and then self-declaring. I am well aware that people can do and think what they want--what I am suggesting (using the self-designated FTP or $0 people as an example) is a way to signal to each other that there are some people who are trying to make the game more enjoyable (you seem to think that listing any price is harmless when it obviously isn't--there is both shadiness and wasting others time or PP).

Ty Cobb · 01-06-2021, 11:12 AM

Tell me...what's the problem with showing the seller? It harms nobody..except perhaps those price gouging, who my quickly find themselves short of business.

I know the name of my waiter/waitress when I drop in at Applebee's—they wear a name tag.
I know the name of the cashier at Walmart...they wear a name tag.
I know the name of my bank teller. There's a desk plaque.
I know the name of the repairman Charter sent when our modem failed. The company told me via text message.
I know the name of the politician I vote for.
I know the name of my baker.
When I call a local business, the person on the other end routinely identifies themselves with a name.
None of these people have a problem with that.

Many players are spending real dollars to compete. Why shouldn't they know the game ID of the person they're purchasing from in the Auction House?

Please...explain to me clearly what problems you feel this would cause, because I'm thinking that anyone who is doing business fairly has nothing at all to worry about. I'm not asking for a blood sample or your home address. I'm asking to know who I'm spending money with.

dkgo · 01-07-2021, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

If the same person buys the card under another account then it was anything but "fair", and if they're putting cards out there to duck tanking, then it's also not "fair".

Well yes, manipulating the auction house with multiple accounts is explicit cheating.

Trying to get more than the last-7 average though is not a crime. Most of the time it is severely under-reported since it doesn't update as collections increase a cards value and I don't really trust it anyway.

There is a calculated trade off between taking longer to sell the card (and risking the value dropping) and a possibly higher price.

For instance I've been working on the postseason collection, very highly priced cards since they all got newly released and supply was low. But now there 8 Carl Furillos on the market, all continuously undercutting each other and 30% lower than last-7. Anyone who was hoarding/speculating/trying to overprice is losing value by the day.

Syd Thrift · 01-07-2021, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkgo

Well yes, manipulating the auction house with multiple accounts is explicit cheating.

Trying to get more than the last-7 average though is not a crime. Most of the time it is severely under-reported since it doesn't update as collections increase a cards value and I don't really trust it anyway.

There is a calculated trade off between taking longer to sell the card (and risking the value dropping) and a possibly higher price.

For instance I've been working on the postseason collection, very highly priced cards since they all got newly released and supply was low. But now there 8 Carl Furillos on the market, all continuously undercutting each other and 30% lower than last-7. Anyone who was hoarding/speculating/trying to overprice is losing value by the day.

Why are you moving the goalposts? Did you even read the first post? It has a picture in it. You don’t even have to read that much.

dkgo · 01-07-2021, 10:03 AM

Yes, I see the first post. It is a super obvious case of a card that is a part of a newly released collection increasing in price. Happens literally every time, price spikes for about a week as people try to buy missing pieces then gradually drops back down to where it was.

There is a BID of 455 already active with 8 hours left so clearly a buy it now of 700 or 800 is in the ballpark of what people will pay to finish it immediately. Those cards probably both sold. The 50K buy it now is stupid but doesn't really impact anything, it essentially does not have a BIN which surely people can't have an issue with.

As for why it's a problem to show the seller, personally I don't think it is a "problem" to do it, but I think it adds no value at all for the game and would take a significant amount of work to implement thus is not worth it. A way to show previous stats and position training is much more important.

Ty Cobb · 01-07-2021, 11:01 AM

I don't see the "significant amount of work" being an issue. The Seller ID is already kept track of in the AH, so the only change needed would be a field added to the display.

Syd Thrift · 01-07-2021, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkgo

Yes, I see the first post. It is a super obvious case of a card that is a part of a newly released collection increasing in price.

LMFAO. You're so full of crap it's coming out of your ears.

dkgo · 01-07-2021, 12:14 PM

Seriously man, what are you talking about? Just make your point. I see three bronze Guerreros from right after the "Slugging in the Domincan" mission was released.

A BIN at 700, a BIN at 799, and a current bid of 455 with a nonsensical BIN.

What exactly is the problem here?

dkgo · 01-07-2021, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

I don't see the "significant amount of work" being an issue. The Seller ID is already kept track of in the AH, so the only change needed would be a field added to the display.

Maybe, maybe not. We really don't know. Apparently it is nearly impossible for them to create a filter for cards you already own so nothing seems very straightforward about the current system.

Like I said I don't thinking showing it would be a negative at all, but I wouldn't want them to dedicate any time to it that could be spent on something more useful IMO.

12-23-2020, 10:05 AM	#1
Ty Cobb Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Grayling, MI Posts: 4,559	It's about time we reveal the ID of sellers on the AH The pictures speak for themselves. Attached Images __________________ "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." Thanos Last edited by Ty Cobb; 12-23-2020 at 10:07 AM.

12-23-2020, 10:14 AM	#2
dkgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,152	With all due respect, who cares? Just ignore them. Why are you always posting stuff like this Last edited by dkgo; 12-23-2020 at 10:21 AM.

12-23-2020, 10:37 AM	#4
Ty Cobb Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Grayling, MI Posts: 4,559	dkgo, put me on your ignore list and move on. I'm not on the forums to answer vapid rhetoric. __________________ "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." Thanos

12-23-2020, 08:01 PM	#5
cardsfan79 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Aug 2020 Posts: 39	I would be more in favor of showing historical completed transactions with a "report transaction" button. Maybe if a number of different people report it could then trigger some review. __________________

12-23-2020, 09:21 PM	#6
Ty Cobb Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Grayling, MI Posts: 4,559	Not a bad idea either. __________________ "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." Thanos

12-24-2020, 02:32 PM	#7
daves Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,824	The starting bid price seems reasonable. The buy now could be a typo or outrageous for a different reason. Anomalies like this should be reportable to the devs to prevent shadiness I am not sure if reveal ID's would help or hurt? Would this imply favoritism in my buying? Would I avoid a purchase knowing who I am buying it from? __________________

12-26-2020, 08:58 AM	#8
Ty Cobb Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Grayling, MI Posts: 4,559	Well, how about in furtherance of realism then? Do any of us think Buzzie Bavasi hung out on a dark street corner asking passers by if they knew where he could score a lefty hitting SS with a good glove for the stretch run? No...he called other GM's...and my guess is he knew their names. __________________ "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." Thanos

01-06-2021, 09:47 AM	#9
Quinta Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Oct 2020 Posts: 278	I have had an idea that I was going to wait until OOTP/PT 22 to suggest but it might be slightly relevant here. I think the game (and it is a game) is more fun when there is functioning AH with fair sellers. I know this thread is about potential shadiness (and frankly I have seen much worse than what is posted above) but I think fair sellers can and should advertise their status. People (not a lot but some) indicate their free to play or 0$ status in their name. Obviously not everyone is going to do this but I think knowing there are other people out there that do this helps and makes the game more fun. So I am going to encourage people when the new game comes out to identify themselves as a Fair Seller with a FS seller tag in their name. So if SuperFun23 wants to identify as a fair seller the would be SuperFun23_FS or SuperFun23-FS or SuperFun23(FTP-FS). You could be a pay player or a FTP player and still identify yourself as FS. Now, I have not defined a "fair seller" yet so I would be interested in feedback but I would think that it would be something like someone who sells over 90% of their AH sales as last 7 average or less. Something like that (I actually sell a fair amount below L7 average) but it should not be designed to indicate any hardcore purity--just that the person sells fairly and makes the game more enjoyable for others. The 90% allows for someone to make some strategic use of selling above L7 sometimes. This idea would obviously work better with Ty Cobb's idea of identifying sellers but it works without that idea as well (although it would obviously just be a self designation that you may or may not want to use--I am a FTP person but I have not added to my name this year).

01-06-2021, 10:37 AM	#10
dkgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,152	If someone buys the card then the price was "fair". If no one does then the seller just wasted their own time. Some guy has been putting up the postseason Bernie Williams over and over starting at 1M buy it now and decreasing by 50K each time. Obviously never going to sell, but so what? He's just hurting himself and it's functionally no different than if he kept the card in his collection to everyone else.

01-06-2021, 11:12 AM	#13
Ty Cobb Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Grayling, MI Posts: 4,559	Tell me...what's the problem with showing the seller? It harms nobody..except perhaps those price gouging, who my quickly find themselves short of business. I know the name of my waiter/waitress when I drop in at Applebee's—they wear a name tag. I know the name of the cashier at Walmart...they wear a name tag. I know the name of my bank teller. There's a desk plaque. I know the name of the repairman Charter sent when our modem failed. The company told me via text message. I know the name of the politician I vote for. I know the name of my baker. When I call a local business, the person on the other end routinely identifies themselves with a name. None of these people have a problem with that. Many players are spending real dollars to compete. Why shouldn't they know the game ID of the person they're purchasing from in the Auction House? Please...explain to me clearly what problems you feel this would cause, because I'm thinking that anyone who is doing business fairly has nothing at all to worry about. I'm not asking for a blood sample or your home address. I'm asking to know who I'm spending money with. Attached Images __________________ "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." Thanos Last edited by Ty Cobb; 01-06-2021 at 11:38 AM.

01-07-2021, 10:03 AM	#16
dkgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,152	Yes, I see the first post. It is a super obvious case of a card that is a part of a newly released collection increasing in price. Happens literally every time, price spikes for about a week as people try to buy missing pieces then gradually drops back down to where it was. There is a BID of 455 already active with 8 hours left so clearly a buy it now of 700 or 800 is in the ballpark of what people will pay to finish it immediately. Those cards probably both sold. The 50K buy it now is stupid but doesn't really impact anything, it essentially does not have a BIN which surely people can't have an issue with. As for why it's a problem to show the seller, personally I don't think it is a "problem" to do it, but I think it adds no value at all for the game and would take a significant amount of work to implement thus is not worth it. A way to show previous stats and position training is much more important.

01-07-2021, 11:01 AM	#17
Ty Cobb Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Grayling, MI Posts: 4,559	I don't see the "significant amount of work" being an issue. The Seller ID is already kept track of in the AH, so the only change needed would be a field added to the display. __________________ "You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." Thanos

01-07-2021, 12:14 PM	#19
dkgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,152	Seriously man, what are you talking about? Just make your point. I see three bronze Guerreros from right after the "Slugging in the Domincan" mission was released. A BIN at 700, a BIN at 799, and a current bid of 455 with a nonsensical BIN. What exactly is the problem here?