Talk: Common scams/Item scams

deleting/weakening commendations scam?

I would like to see the commendations scam removed or weakened to a note. Buying items from new players for less than their minimum value may not be the most sporting conduct, but in my view, scamming involves providing some false information to potential buyers/sellers to raise their interest, which is clearly not the case here. If we put commendations here then we must as well include "Buying black dye for 1k", "buying VALUABLE_MOD for 100g", "buying bone dragon pet for 5k" etc. etc.. This is obviously not practical but just as valid because it aims at the ignorance of players regarding item prices. Reminding players to always check prices before trading would be more useful than classifying all these as scams. Additionally, the list's relevance suffers with every non-scam entry. If nobody objects, I'm going to change the commendations entry accordingly. RolandOfGilead 12:13, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

I agree with Roland there....Buying (for cheap) and selling (for more) is just everyday normal stuff... I will often Sit in LA and buy a IDS for 20-25k..then turn around and sell it for 35k+... There is no "scam" in this..just using common sense...Deadlyknights 15:35, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

A scam still involves using ignorance against a player to cheat them out of money, and while trading a weapon is definately not a scam (because the merchant price is a few hundred gold) credits are indeed worth 200 gold. So yet, it is a scam.Anooneemiss 00:45, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Don't think that buying these for a reasonable amount that is lower than the collector's will give you is automatically a scam. Many people (including myself) rush through some areas so only pick up a few of the items, Especially the two later areas of Nightfall where there arent many quests that reward them. As the collectors often require many of the item to trade it in for a decent amount (5 for Sup Salvages, 7 for gems) many people merely sell them for alittle less than their worth to get rid of them. - Former Ruling 19:49, 5 December 2006 (CST)

The reason it is important to keep the buying for less than collectors will give you scam listed is that it is so common. It is rare for anyone to try to buy dyes for less than vendors will pay (except in pre-searing, where there are no dye traders). It is quite common for people to try to buy quest reward items for less than collectors will pay. Go to Kodash Bazaar and more often than not, within 60 seconds there will be an offer to buy trade contracts for less than 2/3 of what vendors pay. Indeed, for some items, scammers have posted their lowball prices so often that some players think that's the fair market value of the item.

It's one thing to offer slightly less than vendors pay. It's entirely another to offer half of what vendors pay. And it's particularly egregious for the newbie island ones where the optimal collector trade item takes only one battle commendation or monastery credit. Quizzical 05:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified weapons & armor

I don't see selling gold, unidentified items like armor or weapons as a scam. It's silly to think so. In most cases the person who buys an unidentified object, is buying it to identify it in order to get the title of Wisdom.

That was posted before the intro of titles. — Skuld 17:36, 1 January 2007 (CST)

Cities of Ascalon

The item is for the invincimonk build, but since other classes use it now (necro and dervish, for example) the edit is fine. Cress Arvein 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He was saying the note implied only monks could do the quest, which is untrue and which is why he deleted it. --Shadowcrest 20:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Dye in Presearing Ascalon

Should the scam of buying Black Dye from new players in Presearing Ascalon for 1 gold be added? Invincible Rogue 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

YES. Well, I didn't sell mine for 1 gold, but... I did kinda sell it for 10 gold. Being the happy little noob I was back then I never really figured there were any people preying on noobs... lol... --204.248.58.136 02:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Major overhaul

I've done another bold edit. The original article suffered these issues:

• much of the information was out-of-date (some of the scams might have been likely at one time);
• a lot of the details repeated from one scam to another
• a lot of the details might help someone scam, but would be unlikely to help someone avoid the scam
• some of the warnings were lost in the details

I have tried to preserve the specific scams (to the point of including some that seemed redundant or unlikely) and much of the flavor of the original article.

I've made the following types of changes:

• used matrices to present similar scams, putting the common details into the intro paragraph
• grouped similar scams together
• removed out-of-date details or put them into historical notes
• removed "how-to" details in favor of "avoid this" suggestions
• changed some of the "scams" into "unreasonable offers," as this allows for the possibility that folks can choose to sell for whatever they like (while pointing out that they can easily get better deals)

I suspect that the current version is too long, too verbose, and still includes unnecessary details or repetition. In theory, if this is about "common" scams, it should not contain every one we have ever heard of.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:53, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

"too long, too verbose, and still includes unnecessary details or repetition [...] it should not contain every one we have ever heard of."

I quite agree. The purpose of this article should be more general, simply to familiarize players with the types of scams they might encounter. I say throw out the tables, keep 1 or 2 examples to put in the scam description, and demote the level 3 headers to a definition list. And reword the top header to match the purpose, instead of "Detailed listing" it should be "Types of scams" or something. —Dr Ishmael 19:08, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Then do we really need two articles? This one and Common scams? Or should we combine (and simplify) ?   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:33, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep as much as is reasonable. Two articles is not reasonable, it just adds more reading material on the same topic. Removing uncommon but still possible scams is not reasonable, as there is no other place to learn about them other than your own mistakes or word of mouth. RoseOfKali 20:51, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Also, including uncommon scams that don't really cost you much money isn't all that necessary, unless they are very common, like Monastery Credits prices. So basically, I think keep common scams, bulk item scams and rare scams that can still cost you a pretty penny if you're "newb." RoseOfKali 20:55, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Reverting my own comment!) After reviewing the primary article, Common scams, I think most of the general cases are already covered in that article. Accordingly, I think this article should only contain a handful of examples, emphasizing RoK's rules-of-thumb:

• does it hurt n00bs?
• is there any other place that players can learn of this scam? if not, is it a painful lesson?

I propose that we

• cut out everything else (which is probably 75% of this article).
• leave historical notes in (there's no harm and they can be moved away from the main article
• rename Common scams/Item Scams to Common scams/Scam examples, which would allow us to further simplify the main article.

  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:23, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Sword Issue

At the last major overhaul, on December 30, 2009, the text on the Icy Dragon Sword and Fiery Dragon Sword was changed; the original text read " the Fiery Dragon Sword is less valuable than the Icy Dragon Sword", while the current version states that "the IDS is considered less valuable". Since the FDS drops practically everywhere and the IDS drops only in Mineral Springs (leaving aside the Gifts of the Traveler), this seems likely to be wrong, and if so it inadvertently makes the scam more likely to work, since people using GuildWiki as a reference may overpay for an FDS or undersell an IDS. I'm not changing the article myself, because as a fairly n00bish editor I know I may very well be wrong, but I did want to bring this up since unless ANet has seriously revamped the dragon swords, the article is currently precisely backward on this issue. Thanks. AnneA 15:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think a perfect FDS is worth more, since all IDS are perfect as they come. RoseOfKali 17:03, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

FDS are worthless. IDS are more sought after. Docta Jenkins 00:44, June 15, 2010 (UTC)