**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Options

A new way to gift?

Despite it’s name, the gifting event rather resembles a mass trading event when players often swap gifts for gifts. Most typically this is a greater gifting Crystal for a greater gifting Crystal, in varying amounts. The excitement of opening these crystals can be immense but I can’t help but feel for those who fall for scams, particularly in global chat, promising a GGC in return for a GGC etc. My idea is nothing radical or original by any means, but it does mean these people (and anyone for that matter) can have better security in those they are gifting with.
The idea is that a player can initiate a ‘trade’ with a friend in-game (purely so no-one gets randomly spammed), in which they can ‘offer’ a certain amount of units worth of gifts to the other player. They also have to set a ‘return’, which includes whatever gifts they desire in return (if any). To confirm, the ‘offer’ must be within the amount of units held by the player at the time it was made. Subsequently, the unit worth of the gifts offered will be removed from the players account to prevent spending them whilst waiting for acceptance.
Once confirmed the ‘trade deal’ will be sent to the other players inbox in which they can clearly see the ‘offer’ and what they are expected to gift in ‘return’. The receiver then has 3 options:
-To accept the deal (a confirmation will be given) - this confirms the players approval of the trade and puts it in action. Both players will receive their end of the bargain and the units required from the receiver will be removed.
-To reject the deal - In case the deal isn’t as agreed upon or is unfair, the player can choose to reject the deal. This functions to prevent players from scams. If the receiver doesn’t have the units to afford the ‘return’, they will be unable to accept the offer and only be able to choose option 2 or 3. A counter-offer cannot be made (to prevent endless cycles) - instead players have to start a new deal. Any units removed from the initiators account will be refunded if rejected.
-The final option is to reject the deal and block future trade interactions with said person. This is in case of spam or other situations. This will be able to be undone if pressed accidentally.
Whatever option chosen will be clearly communicated back to the player which initiated the deal in the inbox, either containing the goods or detailing the rejection. The deal will only last for 24 hours once sent out - if no action is taken by the receiver, the deal is null and void with the initiators units being refunded.
This doesn’t necessarily have to replace the typical ‘gift’ system we currently have, instead working alongside it and counting for the gifting events. However if fully implemented it would prevent global chat from turning into a scamming moshpit every gifting event due to necessary safe measures in place. I know a ‘trade’ isn’t necessarily a ‘gift’, but let’s be honest the majority use the event to trade gifts. This will just aid the security of these deals and prevent the alienation of naive players who fall victim to such scams.
Any other thoughts/input?

Comments

  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65
    I know gifting events are a rarity across the year but it’s consistency means the change would be worthwhile in making MCOC a more welcoming and forgiving game rather than a ‘ha losers gonna lose’ kinda thing.
  • Options
    PiviotPiviot Posts: 658 ★★★
    edited December 2021
    That would just add to unnecessary steps to gift(or trade)

    Just trade or gift who you trust

    I’ve even ran arena to. Get the units to send them back(in the invent where we two ppl sent without a mess in alliance chat)

    But I’ve always let my alliance know what I have and if I can repay(so it was a trade)

  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65
    Piviot said:

    That would just add to unnecessary steps to gift(or trade)

    Just trade or gift who you trust

    I’ve even ran arena to. Get the units to send them back(in the invent where we two ppl sent without a mess in alliance chat)

    But I’ve always let my alliance know what I have and if I can repay(so it was a trade)

    As I said it doesn’t necessarily have to replace the current system but it could work alongside it allowing people to choose. Secondly In the end of the day it really isn’t that complicated - it is just a basic trade mechanic…
    Thirdly there is no reason to disagree with it unless you plan on scamming yourself. Not everyone has people they trust and may naively fall for gifting scams. The trade mechanic would simply prevent this from happening and people taking advantage of others desperation.
  • Options
    LordSmasherLordSmasher Posts: 1,457 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Any other thoughts/input?

    It sounds simple and variations of this have been suggested in the past, but implementing such a thing would probably take a lot more time and resources than you're thinking, and I don't think the devs currently believe that time would be well-spent here.

    The problem is all the corner cases you have to account for if you decide to open this can of worms. Suppose I initiate a trade with someone. I need to have the units to do that. After I send and before the player agrees, what happens to those units? Do they get put in escrow? What happens if that player never comes back? How do I get those units back? Do you need to implement a cancellation process? What happens if the player agrees *after* I hit cancel? What happens if I try to use the units after initiating a trade? What happens if I initiate two separate trades back to back and they are open simultaneously?

    No matter how strange, silly, unlikely, or nonsensical, the developers would have to account for every possible sequence of actions to prevent bad things from happening like units disappearing or trades getting broken. You have to account for server crashes while thousands of trades are in process. You have to think about all possible ways to exploit this so players don't figure out ways to break the system for exploitable gain. All that would take a lot of developer resources, for something that happens once a year.
    You're describing every transactional system on the planet. Its it a well known problem with many well described solutions.

    That said, if implemented it would a complex way of implementing a "Gifting Crystal Store". I don't see the requirement, takes the flavour away. Trade with randoms at your peril.
  • Options
    PiviotPiviot Posts: 658 ★★★
    edited December 2021

    Piviot said:

    That would just add to unnecessary steps to gift(or trade)

    Just trade or gift who you trust

    I’ve even ran arena to. Get the units to send them back(in the invent where we two ppl sent without a mess in alliance chat)

    But I’ve always let my alliance know what I have and if I can repay(so it was a trade)

    As I said it doesn’t necessarily have to replace the current system but it could work alongside it allowing people to choose. Secondly In the end of the day it really isn’t that complicated - it is just a basic trade mechanic…
    Thirdly there is no reason to disagree with it unless you plan on scamming yourself. Not everyone has people they trust and may naively fall for gifting scams. The trade mechanic would simply prevent this from happening and people taking advantage of others desperation.
    It is that complicated having to click yes no or a maybe button is way more then the you are spending units to send this person something are you ok with that no or yes

    Again if you go general chat you r screwing yourself

    No point in making it more difficult for others if u want to screw your self


    It TELLS you are SPENDING units to GIFT if you SEND a GIFT
  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65
    DNA3000 said:

    Any other thoughts/input?

    It sounds simple and variations of this have been suggested in the past, but implementing such a thing would probably take a lot more time and resources than you're thinking, and I don't think the devs currently believe that time would be well-spent here.

    The problem is all the corner cases you have to account for if you decide to open this can of worms. Suppose I initiate a trade with someone. I need to have the units to do that. After I send and before the player agrees, what happens to those units? Do they get put in escrow? What happens if that player never comes back? How do I get those units back? Do you need to implement a cancellation process? What happens if the player agrees *after* I hit cancel? What happens if I try to use the units after initiating a trade? What happens if I initiate two separate trades back to back and they are open simultaneously?

    No matter how strange, silly, unlikely, or nonsensical, the developers would have to account for every possible sequence of actions to prevent bad things from happening like units disappearing or trades getting broken. You have to account for server crashes while thousands of trades are in process. You have to think about all possible ways to exploit this so players don't figure out ways to break the system for exploitable gain. All that would take a lot of developer resources, for something that happens once a year.
    I get your first point about actually implementing it would probably take more effort then it is worth due to it only appearing for a few weeks every year but your other points suggest you didn’t read the whole thing. The trade when sent would take away the units from the person offering the trade immediately so they can’t spend them whilst waiting for a response - these units will be refunded if the receiver rejects the trade. As for how long it lasts I stated the receiver only has 24 hours to respond otherwise the deal is null and void - offerers units are given back at this point. Obviously there will be technical issues with anything but some fail safe system which ends all trades (thus refunding units) when servers crash could work? (That one I am unsure of though.) As for players exploiting it, well to be honest it will be very limited it what they can do anyway as it is a similar premise to normal gifting, only a few more steps to add greater security. That said Thank you for providing some constructive criticism with some actual grounding lmao
  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65

    DNA3000 said:

    Any other thoughts/input?

    It sounds simple and variations of this have been suggested in the past, but implementing such a thing would probably take a lot more time and resources than you're thinking, and I don't think the devs currently believe that time would be well-spent here.

    The problem is all the corner cases you have to account for if you decide to open this can of worms. Suppose I initiate a trade with someone. I need to have the units to do that. After I send and before the player agrees, what happens to those units? Do they get put in escrow? What happens if that player never comes back? How do I get those units back? Do you need to implement a cancellation process? What happens if the player agrees *after* I hit cancel? What happens if I try to use the units after initiating a trade? What happens if I initiate two separate trades back to back and they are open simultaneously?

    No matter how strange, silly, unlikely, or nonsensical, the developers would have to account for every possible sequence of actions to prevent bad things from happening like units disappearing or trades getting broken. You have to account for server crashes while thousands of trades are in process. You have to think about all possible ways to exploit this so players don't figure out ways to break the system for exploitable gain. All that would take a lot of developer resources, for something that happens once a year.
    You're describing every transactional system on the planet. Its it a well known problem with many well described solutions.

    That said, if implemented it would a complex way of implementing a "Gifting Crystal Store". I don't see the requirement, takes the flavour away. Trade with randoms at your peril.
    If your only rebuke to this is that it takes the ‘flavour away’, then I honestly don’t see an issue lmao

  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65
    edited December 2021
    Piviot said:



    It TELLS you are SPENDING units to GIFT if you SEND a GIFT

    That one I understand, as I said earlier a trade isn’t really a gift but the actual thing could be named differently like a ‘gift swap’. But let’s be honest the amount of gifts given without expected return is a slim minority making most gifts function as trades whilst merely looking like a gift

  • Options
    Scarcity27Scarcity27 Posts: 1,906 ★★★★★
    1) Turn off global
    2) Don't trade with randoms

    These two steps should keep you maybe 80-90% safe from scams. The rest is your discretion.
    Confirming trades with ally mates in a group chat will give you some evidence in case the other person backs out, so there is a way to be held accountable.

    For the most part trade with friends and ally mates.

    As for your suggestions, that seems like an overcomplication of an otherwise simple process. I'm sure there are still drawbacks to it, as DNA mentioned.

    It would also take a lot of effort from the game team to actually implement the system. It's easy to suggest these things, but from a programmers point of view, it may well be a nightmare.

    Not to mention, there isn't a way for them to properly test it out since the event happens once a year. You'd be surprised how many codes that 'should' work have little bugs in them, and for such a hyped event, all hell will break lose. We've already seen over the past few months that a lot of content, especially new features, tend to have some bugs.
  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65
    edited December 2021

    1) Turn off global
    2) Don't trade with randoms

    These two steps should keep you maybe 80-90% safe from scams. The rest is your discretion.
    Confirming trades with ally mates in a group chat will give you some evidence in case the other person backs out, so there is a way to be held accountable.

    For the most part trade with friends and ally mates.

    As for your suggestions, that seems like an overcomplication of an otherwise simple process. I'm sure there are still drawbacks to it, as DNA mentioned.

    It would also take a lot of effort from the game team to actually implement the system. It's easy to suggest these things, but from a programmers point of view, it may well be a nightmare.

    Not to mention, there isn't a way for them to properly test it out since the event happens once a year. You'd be surprised how many codes that 'should' work have little bugs in them, and for such a hyped event, all hell will break lose. We've already seen over the past few months that a lot of content, especially new features, tend to have some bugs.

    I get the technical side of actually implementing it and if the effort is worth it. But for the trade with friends etc you have to remember not everyone plays in a competitive alliance or has made many friends on the game, especially newer people who are also more likely to fall for these scams out of inexperience. I still think the idea is better than the current system, but as you pointed out - implementation would be the main problem. I also just want to say I enjoy your jumbled word challenges lmao - for some reason they are the hardest anagrams I’ve ever come across 😅 but I mean your gifting matchmaking post kinda agrees that there is a problem for people to find safe, trustworthy trading partners
  • Options
    Scarcity27Scarcity27 Posts: 1,906 ★★★★★

    1) Turn off global
    2) Don't trade with randoms

    These two steps should keep you maybe 80-90% safe from scams. The rest is your discretion.
    Confirming trades with ally mates in a group chat will give you some evidence in case the other person backs out, so there is a way to be held accountable.

    For the most part trade with friends and ally mates.

    As for your suggestions, that seems like an overcomplication of an otherwise simple process. I'm sure there are still drawbacks to it, as DNA mentioned.

    It would also take a lot of effort from the game team to actually implement the system. It's easy to suggest these things, but from a programmers point of view, it may well be a nightmare.

    Not to mention, there isn't a way for them to properly test it out since the event happens once a year. You'd be surprised how many codes that 'should' work have little bugs in them, and for such a hyped event, all hell will break lose. We've already seen over the past few months that a lot of content, especially new features, tend to have some bugs.

    I get the technical side of actually implementing it and if the effort is worth it. But for the trade with friends etc you have to remember not everyone plays in a competitive alliance or has made many friends on the game, especially newer people who are also more likely to fall for these scams out of inexperience. I still think the idea is better than the current system, but as you pointed out - implementation would be the main problem. I also just want to say I enjoy your jumbled word challenges lmao - for some reason they are the hardest anagrams I’ve ever come across 😅 but I mean your gifting matchmaking post kinda agrees that there is a problem for people to find safe, trustworthy trading partners
    I've done a bit of coding, I've seen that more times than not, for a code that should work, there usually is some unexpected problem with it. On such a large scale, implementing a system the likes of which hasn't actually been done before, I'm not sure it would work successfully.
    See this kind of holding units as 'collateral' and two way transaction, it's not like anything that's been done in game. There are a lot of 'what ifs' to account for.
    For a two week event, it's too much work, and too many variables. Gifting is very lucrative for Kabam, and a system like this could lead to a nosedive.

    I'm glad you liked the Jumbled Words thread. There are still a few on there that I couldn't wrap my head around if you're interested.

    And yes, I created the matchmaking thread because global is a horrid place to find a trading partner. People on forums seen a little more reliable than global, and I assumed at least a few of us would have the problem of not having friends or ally mates to trade with, so to partially help alleviate it, I made the thread.
    As long as it helps even 2 people, I'm satisfied.
  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65

    1) Turn off global
    2) Don't trade with randoms

    These two steps should keep you maybe 80-90% safe from scams. The rest is your discretion.
    Confirming trades with ally mates in a group chat will give you some evidence in case the other person backs out, so there is a way to be held accountable.

    For the most part trade with friends and ally mates.

    As for your suggestions, that seems like an overcomplication of an otherwise simple process. I'm sure there are still drawbacks to it, as DNA mentioned.

    It would also take a lot of effort from the game team to actually implement the system. It's easy to suggest these things, but from a programmers point of view, it may well be a nightmare.

    Not to mention, there isn't a way for them to properly test it out since the event happens once a year. You'd be surprised how many codes that 'should' work have little bugs in them, and for such a hyped event, all hell will break lose. We've already seen over the past few months that a lot of content, especially new features, tend to have some bugs.

    I get the technical side of actually implementing it and if the effort is worth it. But for the trade with friends etc you have to remember not everyone plays in a competitive alliance or has made many friends on the game, especially newer people who are also more likely to fall for these scams out of inexperience. I still think the idea is better than the current system, but as you pointed out - implementation would be the main problem. I also just want to say I enjoy your jumbled word challenges lmao - for some reason they are the hardest anagrams I’ve ever come across 😅 but I mean your gifting matchmaking post kinda agrees that there is a problem for people to find safe, trustworthy trading partners
    I've done a bit of coding, I've seen that more times than not, for a code that should work, there usually is some unexpected problem with it. On such a large scale, implementing a system the likes of which hasn't actually been done before, I'm not sure it would work successfully.
    See this kind of holding units as 'collateral' and two way transaction, it's not like anything that's been done in game. There are a lot of 'what ifs' to account for.
    For a two week event, it's too much work, and too many variables. Gifting is very lucrative for Kabam, and a system like this could lead to a nosedive.

    I'm glad you liked the Jumbled Words thread. There are still a few on there that I couldn't wrap my head around if you're interested.

    And yes, I created the matchmaking thread because global is a horrid place to find a trading partner. People on forums seen a little more reliable than global, and I assumed at least a few of us would have the problem of not having friends or ally mates to trade with, so to partially help alleviate it, I made the thread.
    As long as it helps even 2 people, I'm satisfied.
    Yeah the actual implementation is the main issue in a game which is already extremely complicated. To me, the system would work better than what is in place currently - however whether that is possible to implement is well … a completely different matter lmao

  • Options

    DNA3000 said:

    Any other thoughts/input?

    It sounds simple and variations of this have been suggested in the past, but implementing such a thing would probably take a lot more time and resources than you're thinking, and I don't think the devs currently believe that time would be well-spent here.

    The problem is all the corner cases you have to account for if you decide to open this can of worms. Suppose I initiate a trade with someone. I need to have the units to do that. After I send and before the player agrees, what happens to those units? Do they get put in escrow? What happens if that player never comes back? How do I get those units back? Do you need to implement a cancellation process? What happens if the player agrees *after* I hit cancel? What happens if I try to use the units after initiating a trade? What happens if I initiate two separate trades back to back and they are open simultaneously?

    No matter how strange, silly, unlikely, or nonsensical, the developers would have to account for every possible sequence of actions to prevent bad things from happening like units disappearing or trades getting broken. You have to account for server crashes while thousands of trades are in process. You have to think about all possible ways to exploit this so players don't figure out ways to break the system for exploitable gain. All that would take a lot of developer resources, for something that happens once a year.
    You're describing every transactional system on the planet. Its it a well known problem with many well described solutions.
    Actually, no. You're thinking about the theory of transactions. Operational systems are not transactional theory plus a Squarespace front end. The theory can give you tools to solve this problem, but this problem is not a transactional theory homework assignment. Every system that implements transactions is different, every one has corner cases, and most are honestly not fully ACID compliant either, so the easy answer in the back of the textbook won't work.

    We're not talking about building a transactional backend system from scratch. We're talking about implementing a constellation of transactions within a system that already exists, and whose limitations you have to account for.
  • Options

    DNA3000 said:

    Any other thoughts/input?

    It sounds simple and variations of this have been suggested in the past, but implementing such a thing would probably take a lot more time and resources than you're thinking, and I don't think the devs currently believe that time would be well-spent here.

    The problem is all the corner cases you have to account for if you decide to open this can of worms. Suppose I initiate a trade with someone. I need to have the units to do that. After I send and before the player agrees, what happens to those units? Do they get put in escrow? What happens if that player never comes back? How do I get those units back? Do you need to implement a cancellation process? What happens if the player agrees *after* I hit cancel? What happens if I try to use the units after initiating a trade? What happens if I initiate two separate trades back to back and they are open simultaneously?

    No matter how strange, silly, unlikely, or nonsensical, the developers would have to account for every possible sequence of actions to prevent bad things from happening like units disappearing or trades getting broken. You have to account for server crashes while thousands of trades are in process. You have to think about all possible ways to exploit this so players don't figure out ways to break the system for exploitable gain. All that would take a lot of developer resources, for something that happens once a year.
    I get your first point about actually implementing it would probably take more effort then it is worth due to it only appearing for a few weeks every year but your other points suggest you didn’t read the whole thing. The trade when sent would take away the units from the person offering the trade immediately so they can’t spend them whilst waiting for a response - these units will be refunded if the receiver rejects the trade. As for how long it lasts I stated the receiver only has 24 hours to respond otherwise the deal is null and void - offerers units are given back at this point. Obviously there will be technical issues with anything but some fail safe system which ends all trades (thus refunding units) when servers crash could work? (That one I am unsure of though.) As for players exploiting it, well to be honest it will be very limited it what they can do anyway as it is a similar premise to normal gifting, only a few more steps to add greater security. That said Thank you for providing some constructive criticism with some actual grounding lmao
    I did read your suggestion in full, but the point I was trying to make is that if you believe the effort to implement such a suggestion is relatively low, one reason why it wouldn't be is that every single element of such a suggestion would have to survive close scrutiny. Why 24 hours? Why not a week? Why not during the entire event? When you say the units are deducted and then refunded if the trade expires, how? How do you give back units? Do you put them somewhere? If you don't, and you just destroy the units and then trust the system to recreate units out of thin air and hand them back to the player who initiated the trade, any malfunction in the system could result in a player being able to "refund" themselves unlimited units. What's the fail safe to prevent that?

    If I ask the developers to correct a typo, that takes only ten seconds. But they have to verify my correction is actually correct: that could take time. They have to take my correction and verify it matches the writing style guides for the game, if I'm changing enough words. They have to pass that to the localization team to translate the correction to other languages. They have to make sure my correction doesn't cause the text to no longer fit in the allocated space in the game interface. In every supported language. A five second typo correction becomes a few hours of work, just like that.

    A suggestion to make a trading system is that, times a thousand. Every piece of it has to be scrutinized carefully, and that will require multiple developers doing multiple things, and while they are working on that they cannot work on what they are currently scheduled to work on. In fact, one thing I've learned in my interactions with game developers is that a feature request that will take a hundred hours of one developer's time is often easier to make happen than a feature request that will take twelve hours of six developers' time. If you need two minutes of a writer's time, and half an hour from the GUI designer, and fifteen minutes from the mechanics designer, and two hours from the data integrity manager, and ninety minutes from the operations people, good luck.
  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Any other thoughts/input?

    It sounds simple and variations of this have been suggested in the past, but implementing such a thing would probably take a lot more time and resources than you're thinking, and I don't think the devs currently believe that time would be well-spent here.

    The problem is all the corner cases you have to account for if you decide to open this can of worms. Suppose I initiate a trade with someone. I need to have the units to do that. After I send and before the player agrees, what happens to those units? Do they get put in escrow? What happens if that player never comes back? How do I get those units back? Do you need to implement a cancellation process? What happens if the player agrees *after* I hit cancel? What happens if I try to use the units after initiating a trade? What happens if I initiate two separate trades back to back and they are open simultaneously?

    No matter how strange, silly, unlikely, or nonsensical, the developers would have to account for every possible sequence of actions to prevent bad things from happening like units disappearing or trades getting broken. You have to account for server crashes while thousands of trades are in process. You have to think about all possible ways to exploit this so players don't figure out ways to break the system for exploitable gain. All that would take a lot of developer resources, for something that happens once a year.
    I get your first point about actually implementing it would probably take more effort then it is worth due to it only appearing for a few weeks every year but your other points suggest you didn’t read the whole thing. The trade when sent would take away the units from the person offering the trade immediately so they can’t spend them whilst waiting for a response - these units will be refunded if the receiver rejects the trade. As for how long it lasts I stated the receiver only has 24 hours to respond otherwise the deal is null and void - offerers units are given back at this point. Obviously there will be technical issues with anything but some fail safe system which ends all trades (thus refunding units) when servers crash could work? (That one I am unsure of though.) As for players exploiting it, well to be honest it will be very limited it what they can do anyway as it is a similar premise to normal gifting, only a few more steps to add greater security. That said Thank you for providing some constructive criticism with some actual grounding lmao
    I did read your suggestion in full, but the point I was trying to make is that if you believe the effort to implement such a suggestion is relatively low, one reason why it wouldn't be is that every single element of such a suggestion would have to survive close scrutiny. Why 24 hours? Why not a week? Why not during the entire event? When you say the units are deducted and then refunded if the trade expires, how? How do you give back units? Do you put them somewhere? If you don't, and you just destroy the units and then trust the system to recreate units out of thin air and hand them back to the player who initiated the trade, any malfunction in the system could result in a player being able to "refund" themselves unlimited units. What's the fail safe to prevent that?

    If I ask the developers to correct a typo, that takes only ten seconds. But they have to verify my correction is actually correct: that could take time. They have to take my correction and verify it matches the writing style guides for the game, if I'm changing enough words. They have to pass that to the localization team to translate the correction to other languages. They have to make sure my correction doesn't cause the text to no longer fit in the allocated space in the game interface. In every supported language. A five second typo correction becomes a few hours of work, just like that.

    A suggestion to make a trading system is that, times a thousand. Every piece of it has to be scrutinized carefully, and that will require multiple developers doing multiple things, and while they are working on that they cannot work on what they are currently scheduled to work on. In fact, one thing I've learned in my interactions with game developers is that a feature request that will take a hundred hours of one developer's time is often easier to make happen than a feature request that will take twelve hours of six developers' time. If you need two minutes of a writer's time, and half an hour from the GUI designer, and fifteen minutes from the mechanics designer, and two hours from the data integrity manager, and ninety minutes from the operations people, good luck.
    To argue solely on the basis that things could go wrong and that it takes time can be used against anything ever being implemented into any game. The actual idea is only an idea. The 24 hour suggestion was an idea. I’m not telling them to implement it and it’s not my job to tell you all the things to prevent exploits with it. It’s a suggestion which I put forward so people don’t get scammed out of units and in my opinion raising a plausible idea to deal with a problem is much better than just ranting about a problem. One of the main points of the forums is for people to post ideas - I’m just pointing out a particular problem and giving one possible fix which could be looked at as a possibility. You obviously disagree, that’s fine but you are simply pointing out the obvious - anything will be difficult to implement as you insinuated with changing typos.
  • Options
    DestinyPoloDestinyPolo Posts: 65
    edited December 2021
    @Alado1977 here is another thread I created on the same issue earlier - it’s just another idea of a different possible trading system but as you can see it also had the same sort of reaction lmao
Sign In or Register to comment.