Leave trading alone, don't waste resources on it

"

TohtoriKuolema wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

Between procurement and poe.trade I have never had an issue with trading. I'm not sure why anyone wants ggg to spend time on this. Maybe I'm missing something but the current options are fairly convenient.

Maybe someone can give me a good reason though, idk.

See Goetz, we do agree on some things. But only the ones that make sense.

So you don't have issue with trading when you are using 2 3rd party tools to make it work?

Can't see anything wrong with that?

Try using procurement with steam client without knowledge about web development tools. It is fine and there is no issue with trading.

I play self found solely for the reason trading being so cumbersome, I don't imagine many have the patience for this and leave for other games instead.

I see POTENTIAL issues with it, yes. You are right in that it isn't the ideal situation.

Currently though, it is functioning quite well and probably as good or better than an actual in-game AH would work. I definitely don't think the time spent on it would justify the negligable benefits that would be gained.

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

TohtoriKuolema wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

Between procurement and poe.trade I have never had an issue with trading. I'm not sure why anyone wants ggg to spend time on this. Maybe I'm missing something but the current options are fairly convenient.

Maybe someone can give me a good reason though, idk.

See Goetz, we do agree on some things. But only the ones that make sense.

So you don't have issue with trading when you are using 2 3rd party tools to make it work?

Can't see anything wrong with that?

Try using procurement with steam client without knowledge about web development tools. It is fine and there is no issue with trading.

I play self found solely for the reason trading being so cumbersome, I don't imagine many have the patience for this and leave for other games instead.

I see POTENTIAL issues with it, yes. You are right in that it isn't the ideal situation.

Currently though, it is functioning quite well and probably as good or better than an actual in-game AH would work. I definitely don't think the time spent on it would justify the negligable benefits that would be gained.

The thread I linked was to be a middle ground idea to satisfy both sides of the argument as much as possible. Maybe give it a read and see if you have any new thoughts about it.

I gave your article a read, it has some valid points. I actually liked the AH in D3. But none of them address the fact that the benefits are extremely marginal and until one of the two third-party options breaks down, developer time would simply benefit the game more on a bigger issue. Like say, desync. Or balance.

Now if procurement or poe.trade ceased to exist? Then sure, I could see a real need for AH developer attention. Currently though, that system functions extremely well with little effort on the player's part.

I'm curious as to what benefits you think an AH will have over procurement and poe.trade, knowing that they both function without any issues at the present time?

I actually don't use either of those because I don't like 3rd party stuff when I'm playing a game. Having to tab back and forth in and out of game is a real hassle--especially given the poor performance optimization in the game (doesn't like to leave or enter with older systems with poorer CPUs or less RAM--like my laptop or my gf's laptop), and having the trade system in game to begin with would alleviate that.

While those two things are pretty popular, lots of people don't use them, and everyone in game could easily use something like what I proposed.

Also, I know GGG doesn't mind those kinds of things for the game, but not having to rely on them would make cheat detection of other software a little easier for the simple fact that there would be so many less people using 3rd party programs to begin with.

As for the allocation of development time, there are a number of factors that would make this point less relevant--such as how different development teams work on different projects so it may not even take up the time of people working on "bigger picture" content--but I also hold the opinion that it should be GGG that enables trade transactions, and not rely on 3rd party programs to do that for them (which can have other implications, depending what those may be and how they work). This would also make RMT detection a little easier over long periods of time.

I'm not saying that poe.trade or procurement have any malevolent ulterior motivations, but if security is the reason they won't fix desync, then it should also be the reason they try to keep game features "in house." And all of that still isn't even considering the professionalism side of it.

Beyond any of that, in-game systems are just more convenient and less time-consuming. The fact that they are such a hassle currently--even with 3rd party nonsense to muddle with--is another unfortunate pock mark on GGG's otherwise well-polished game.

I'd honestly prefer it be kept the way it is, but at least you have valid reasons for wanting an AH.

Yeah trading in this game is really good.

without procurement and poe.xyz the system would be even better! like back in D2

If you are too lazy or too stupid to trade, then just dont do it!
But dont ruin the economy with your stupid automatic trading...

"

azraelb wrote:

Yeah trading in this game is really good.

without procurement and poe.xyz the system would be even better! like back in D2

If you are too lazy or too stupid to trade, then just dont do it!
But dont ruin the economy with your stupid automatic trading...

I would inverse nearly all of that post if I were presenting my opinion. It's pretty backwards.

Barter systems are really irritating, and it isn't even a question of intelligence, but rather not wanting to deal with people's bullshit of fake-pricing, undercutting, overpricing, trying to flip an item right in front of your face, rude manners, taking an eternity to respond to a whisper, taking an eternity to come complete the trade, etc, etc, etc.

AH style trading--even if it was just a system where you leave an offer and they accept or decline it, would free up so much time that is wasted in an out-dated, primitive, and backwards style of economic interaction.

I'd rather spend my in-game time playing the game--not playing Trade Chat Simulator. Keep the trading process as brief and simple as possible.

This system is very good for people that spend 22h trading per day. But you know what? That is the 1% of PoE active playerbase

Very expected feature. They are not going to do an AH or something. They will just make trading less painful for 99% of population lol

They've pretty well said desync will never be fixed (because of reasons). The majority of their new 'content' is merely content recycling systems (corrupted areas are old tilesets with a particle effect it seems, hideout editing is a stripped down dev tool I'd bet, really very little 'new' content since they finished Act 3).

So yes, a new trade system would be great. I'm fine with content recycling, but I hope there's real work going on behind the scenes, and this is an area that could use real work. Maybe not as much as desync, but I think that ship has sailed.

"

sanleon wrote:

This system is very good for people that spend 22h trading per day. But you know what? That is the 1% of PoE active playerbase

Very expected feature. They are not going to do an AH or something. They will just make trading less painful for 99% of population lol

I understand your being facetious with the 22hr thing, but it doesn't really help your point.

What exactly is so terrible about the current system for you, what would you like to see in a new system? Saying they need to do something without expressing what is wrong with the current system isn't really helpful feedback.

@b15h09

Your comments are in line with sanleon, how can GGG being to think about a new system (although I don't personally think its necessary) when the current system is working. If it isn't working for you, why?