From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Older discussions


Vanguard Foes: New Presearing Scam[edit]

Source: Vanguard armor bonus > Merciless Evilphyre There are scammers selling weapons/armor/mods/ect. at higher then average prices in an attempt to convince ignorant buyers that they need them and/or are useful; but they have NO EFFECT! ^_^ --Falconeye 02:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


Should we consider adding examples? I ask because I added a sentence to an existing bullet to elaborate, and now the entire bullet got removed. I thought it was very helpful to explain some examples as I've seen first hand someone trying to scam me with the example I provided. Fortunately I was paying attention, but 10,000 looks a lot like 100,000 when someone pulls the "oops cancelled" bit. --Kniblet Beast 02:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Or at least update "modification" to include the "cancel trick" as that is no longer represented now. --Kniblet Beast 02:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Not much point in quoting real examples ("Happened to a friend of mine!"), since there are thousands of stories and you can't represent them better than the generalizations... maybe an illustration for each one though. | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg | 02:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The problem that this page has had in the past is that it becomes chock full of examples and too long to be of help in preventing others from seeing the type of scams out there. This article needs to be as tight as possible so that it's easy to learn about the most frequent types of scams.
In particular, the accidental change scam is really a variation of modification scams, for which the important lesson is: carefully check the trade before clicking accept. The more text we add, the less prominent that lesson is.
I would, however, support creating of a subpage with a modest amount of examples, especially the one that Kniblet Beast wants to add and especially if there were accompanying examples showing what the scammer's offer looks like. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I will see about drafting something together in my sandbox then and will solicit feedback once I have something simple put together with some screen shots. --Kniblet Beast 03:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Official scam or legal?[edit]

Hi,im looking for more info about a strange thing that happens often in trade place like Kamadan or Lion Arch: Some ppl sell items for a price X, and other ppl buy the same item, with the same req-stats-skin, for X price x2/3/4. in other words they pay 3/4/5 times the price that other guy offer.When the seller sell the items,the buyer disappear, and when you try to sell that item to the buyer WHILE the seller still selling, they ignore your trade,ignore your pms and sometimes (it happened to me) they put you in ignore list. Is it legal?Light Athena 10:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See "partner pricing" under Scam#Verbal scams. Be suspicious of someone wanting to buy an item at a vastly higher price than someone else is offering it for. --Irgendwer 11:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Whenever possible, get independent price checks through your guild or via trading sites. The Estimator has recent prices from Kamadan AED1 while GW Auctions (the only official auction fansite) allows you to track historical records of actual sales (no registration required to browse current offers). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Its not that the problem,i usually dont buy things overpriced to risk a "powertrade",i usually go to guildwars guru and ask a PC on all.I just was wondering if 2 or more people are bannable for this,because its nor a "real" scamm. I mean everyone can sell and buy for a price they want because there isnt a official price list in game that "set" the prices.And everyone can ask for how much they want,Seller are not forced to sell and buyer are not forced to buy,i mean if i spam: WTB "item name"="price i want pay" im not forced to buy it,i can just shut off the trade and go away without problem.Light Athena 11:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Trying to sell an overpriced item is one thing, but using a fake WTB to make the buyer think they're getting a good deal is where it becomes a scam. Putting up a trade advertisement in bad faith sounds pretty ban-worthy to me. --Irgendwer 14:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah you right but, who know if he/she is in good faith or not?I mean, good faith or no it doesnt matter untill you do the trade!A scam is usually when someone try to pay less than you ask,not pay or steal something from you, and we know all methods.Here it is different,now you put a WTB with a price,but maybe you never you know that he/she doing that trick?he/she can just be afk,or dunno...thats the problem.Light Athena 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You can leave it up to ANet to investigate. They can find out if the behavior is unusual or typical for the accounts. If these 2+ accounts are in the habit of posting inflated WTB/WTS together to manipulate the market, then ANet can take action. If the second account is unrelated to the first, but is in the habit of posting WTBs that they have no intention of paying for, ANet can choose to warn that person. And if it turns out that this is coincidence or good faith offers from legitimate traders, then no problem.
The bad thing about ANet being judge/jury/executioner is that we don't know exactly what they do/don't act upon. The good thing is that this allows us to /report anything and everything suspicious and leave the burden of investigation to them; we are free from the obligation of proving guilt. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this my fault?[edit]

Example 4 in physical scams. Why is it I would be banned if someone gave me free money? This seems incredibly unfair to someone who paid for their account and potentially has worked hard for what they have. Sierra Invenio 20:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused: (1) there are only three listings under Physical scams (Teleport, Forced death, and Cheats). (2) No one is saying that one player can't offer free money to another.
Every scam has the same single common factor: the scammer offers one thing, but delivers something else (of lesser value). If someone is offering ill-gotten gains, but fails to deliver them, that's a scam. If that illegal wealth is shared, then (a) both players are knowingly involved in cheating because (b) that wealth wouldn't have been earned. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Please allow me to rephrase seeing as I mangled my thought. If someone were to use illegal methods to acquire wealth, then share said wealth others, why would the others be banned? Would they only be banned if they knew about the cheating? That's my question. Sierra Invenio 00:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you're conflating two very different scenarios. If a friend of yours gives you some free plat or ecto or whatever as a gift, you have no knowledge of where it comes from and aren't giving them anything outside the game (besides perhaps a friendly smile) for it, it is unlikely you would wind up banned, and if you do, you're certainly free to appeal. If, on the other hand, you are knowingly reaping the rewards of a cheat, an exploit, or botting (or if you turn a blind eye to something so incredibly blatant that any sane person should know), especially if, as in the situation on this page, you are somehow contributing to the cheat/exploit such as a downpayment or giving them an item for duplication or so forth, that's what the legal system would refer to as w:Accessory (legal term), and yes, your account could be banned. - Tanetris 00:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'd been wondering. I've heard of examples of Anet basically doing a "Oh this person traded you X amount of money too much." /Ban. I knew the accusations were ridiculous but when a friend of mine and I had discussed an agreement (he'd fund my obby armor because he can farm the mats easier and I'd fund his Zaishen Title) I obviously got a little worried. So the only way to get banned for this truly is if you know the cheat is taking place, correct? Also what should one do if they find out the money was "unclean" after they've used it? I know I would not like to be banned because I used dirty money. (Basically) Sierra Invenio 00:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't worry; the deal with your friend sounds like many similar deals made every day. (For example, people pool together to work on wisdom titles, e.g. A & B give golds to C to ID until C gets the title... and then they focus on B...that ends up being worth a lot of cash.)
In scams (and botting), the issue isn't the amount, it's the cheating. Also: ANet goes through a lot of steps before they ban someone, so they are unlikely to base a ban on a single transaction (or even a single series of them). Of the cases I know about in which someone besides the botter/scammer got banned, the collaboration was easy to see (e.g. X would bot, undersell their items to Y, who would trade in Kamadan...and then share the profits with Z — i.e. it's obvious that Y & Z were laundering X's ill-gotten gains). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you both very much for setting my mind at ease. Sierra Invenio 01:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A word about reporting to Arenanet[edit]

I reported 2 scams. One resulted in the player being banned, the other nothing. BOTH got what they did not pay for. BOTH laughed and said that arenanet would do nothing about it. Why the inconsistancy? You tell me:

Report 1: Scammer agreed to buy Nick's items for 8k a set but paid nothing. I was ill and didn't realize that he didn't put any money in when I pressed accept. He took a second in which both of us realized that I had submitted and accepted, then he accepted and took the trophies. I immediately told him that he had not paid me and he said, "too bad".

Report 2: Scammer agreed to buy 15 red rocks for 2.5k ea. I accidently hit "all" giving him 17 instead of 15 for his 37.5k. Again there was a moment when he and I both realized I had given him 2 more than he paid for. I immediately told the scammer of my error (obviously I didn't intend to give him all of the rocks, just 15 as his 37.5k paid for.) And again, the scammer said, "too bad".

Scammer in Report 1 was banned, but Scammer in Report 2 not. I was told the first one was the scammers fault, the second mine for I "gave" the extra 2 rocks to the player. Didn't I "give" Nick's items to the first player too? Either way both players kept items that did not pay for. Why is some stealing tolerated but others not?

I really don't get it. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk).

One possible factor (that you are not privy to) is whether the user has been reported previously. Additionally, in the first one the trade was completely one-sided, in the other, you were not nearly as short-changed. --JonTheMon 21:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
In the first I lost 8k, the second 5k; is there some type of monetary standard: 5k and under is a minor infraction, above 5k, a felony? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
In both cases, you made a mistake and your trading partners took advantage of it. That makes them opportunistic jerks, rather than deliberately dishonest scammers, so perhaps ANet doesn't consider this bannable. 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Then why was one banned and the other not if as you stated they BOTH were opportunistic jerks? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
You also don't know the full details of what ANet did or did not do. As noted above, Player #1 might have had lots of previous offenses. Player #2 might have been clean prior to your report...and, for all we know, might have been warned or suspended briefly. It might be that Trader #2 will be perma-banned if there is another violation. 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I probably would not have reported the second case even when I first started playing (and 5k was a big deal). However, I am glad that you did report both, since it is probably better that ANet knows about this in case there's a pattern by that player. 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, my main concern is that this type of inconsistancy is causing people to go on to other games. I'm sure you've seen players almost paranoid about buying and selling and let's face it, with the long wait for GW2, players are going on to other games. I love this game and really want it to continue to GW2 but players want to have fun not watching out for the next con. And if it weren't for all the cool (and expensive things that you can get thru trading up) most players would have gone on. I know I would. The desire to keep this game going is the reason I try to help newbies who have no idea what somethings are worth, no idea how to get something better, and who is taken advantage of by people who have no problem in selling their good name for a few thousand gold coins. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
I appreciate all the feedback; the continuation of this game is my main reason for taking the time to report this person and to continue to argue for consistancy. I understand that this moderator's decision will not be overturned and I realize that I can no longer stand up for arena net when players say that they do not care if players are being scammed. I just hope that someone from arenanet will look into having a consistant ruling on scamming and cheating other players that encourages proper conduct. Zero tolerance would go a long way in making players feel that arena net is in control and not the "opportunistic jerks" who pray on less suspicious players. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 00:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
What's "consistancy"(sic) to you may not be the correct judgement in any given situation. Again, it's not ANet's fault at all -- they make their judgement calls based on information you don't have. "Zero tolerance" as you advocate will likely result in a massive amount of injustice. I'd rather trust the many-stepped systems they've put in place, than a victim's own personal sense of what's "fair" or "consistent". This includes myself -- if I'm the victim of a horrible scam I'd want to string the scammer up by the balls, but that doesn't mean ANet should automatically accede to what I want. MeiOfTheNorth 10:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You didn't get scammed, you just screwed up the deal to their benefit. Profiting from some ones error isn't a crime. Its not nice, but its perfectly legal. If i buy a cup off of ebay, and when the item comes in and its 2 cups. Its called my lucky day, not a crime. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

The guy from report 1 did try to scam you, by not putting the money in the trade window. He actively unbalanced the trade. As for the second guy reported, the fault lies on your end. He did't actively unbalance the trade, but 'only' took advantage of your mistake.

Listing: Conset shares stealer[edit]

User Yoshida Keiji Apocalypse Concerto.jpg

I am awared of another scam that is currently not listed. In Speed Clears, team members drop 1k~1.2k gold to share conset expenses. The scammer lies about "popping" (might have them or not) and once collects the money from everybody else, leaves. I have already submited a support ticket but no response so far. I don't know any prevention method nor what ANet usually does to solve this problems as in what they do with the stolen goods or punishment against the criminal.

User Yoshida Keiji Signature.jpg Yoshida Keiji talk 06:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you got scammed. I am glad you submitted a report to support (via email or their ticketing system); you should hear back on Monday or so (3 business days from 3 April, ANet's time zone). If you haven't received a response, then post the ticket number at the official forums (under account support, iirc) and she'll make sure to follow up (do not create multiple tickets).
Sometimes, ANet is able to tell you the outcome, sometimes not. But ANet always deals with scamming, especially when it's blatant like in this case. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
One platinum loss is not really much to cry for, but these selfish behaviors need a counter-measure. Specially because it was a guild run and I had three members under my wings, I like people to feel safe and comfortable within my alliance and this is the part that I care.
"Response Via Email (GM FruitSnake) 04/04/2012 05:36 PM
Hello Keiji,
I was able to find a violation by reviewing the game logs of the incident and the account was suspended.
Thank you for submitting your report and helping keep Guild Wars a fun and safe place to play.
GM FruitSnake
The Guild Wars Support Team"
Note: Even though its dated as 4/4, I received the mail on the 4/5.
This is the reply I got. But im not happy with it because I don't know the length of suspention (people would want to know how long as they rely confidence on their leader), but beside the punishment by which my people would probably be glad with...since we don't get the money back (imagine a higher value) "justice" is not properly compensated in my opinion. I believe such badwilling players should be tagged so that others can decide whether or not to team up with (e.g.: Guru Auctions "reputation"). I am coming to wiki in an attempt to help/prevent the community, not for vengance. So... I think we should list this in the main page. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.jpg Yoshida Keiji talk 11:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
ANet doles out punishment in a consistent fashion:
  • Every violation results in black marks on the account. Certain violations result in an automatic suspension to get the person's attention.
  • The number and frequency of marks on the accounts affects the duration of the suspension, the minimum length is (I believe) three days.
  • Some violations (e.g. botting) are so serious that they result in immediate account termination.
  • Other violations are not in themselves serious (stealing 1k each from 7 people), but if they are part of a persistent pattern, will result in a termination after further review.
If this scam was the guy's only violation, it seems reasonable for ANet to slap his wrist and use the shortest possible suspension. It's also possible that GM FruitSnake used the word suspension generically, i.e. that they suspended the guy's account for 3 days on the fourth, but... after a later review of the player's history, ANet might have decided to terminate the account, too. In other words, they KD'd the guy for the easy-to-find issue (and sent you an immediate email), but that triggered a more thorough review which resulted in a full ban, but since your ticket was now closed, you didn't find out about it.
BTW: I do think sealing 1k is a big deal. Yeah, a lot of people have 500k in the bank (not including mats, weapons, and minis), so it doesn't hurt them much. However, if [expletive] think they can get away with scamming a plat, they might think it's ok to go after bigger targets and/or scam on a regular basis. That would be terrible for the gaming environment. So again, thank you for taking the time to report this guy and letting us know the outcome of ANet's initial review. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

"The Estimator" currently diverts to a blank page that attempts to run an unnamed application, which is flagged as being high risk, and then closes my browser (Mozzilla). I am unsure if this is due to my security settings, the link being diverted/altered (as the destination does not match the address), the website being closed and reaquired by a malicious intending scam (such as installing a keylogger), or whatever... I would recommend that the link be disabled until someone experienced and knowledgeable with "The Estimator" can confirm the situation, correct any link issue, and/or detail the application that is being offered. Gwynna Vive 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been down before for periods of time. Before we remove it from the list, we should give it a week or so and other people should verify the issue. 05:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)