Developer Q&A - Answers Part 2

"

cipher_nemo wrote:

Round 2 and still GGG avoids the Auction House question, or at least poe.trade functionality in the client. Very lame.

You clearly can't read...Pretty obvious by the post that no ah coming.Poe.trade in client might be a possibility they might reveal later on

seems like GGG is giving a pretty big middle finger to anyone who supported the game on PC and wants to play on Xbone.

"

The existing community tools (combined with our public stash tab API) already put us pretty far down this spectrum, compared to the old days of trade chat. We already view this as a crisis. That is why we are hesitant to add more convenience features.

Man, if you consider this easy trade already, then I guess I'll never be trading. SSF for life it seems. :/

@Chris

Addressing the trading improvements:

How about implementing a quota per hour or per day on the amounts of trades allowed per user?

Expected and realistic outcomes:

- Diminishing the gap between traders and non-traders
- Allowing flippers to still use trading as a source of income (just not as extensively)
- Should not impact the average user (threshold obviously would need testing/balance)


Things to consider:

- Implement a restriction on 1 trading account per user to avoid using multiple accounts to gain an advantage
- There still needs to be an in-game trading system that does not rely on a 3rd party website
- **IF** the eventual trading system has buyouts and could discriminate between a user buying or selling an item/currency, then these numbers could be balanced independently. ei: 5-10 "Buy" and 10-20 "Sell" trades per hour allowed per user. Heck these numbers could even be lower if GGG really wants to tackle the trivialization of progression issue, making a trade "count". These numbers could even have a dynamic progression as the league becomes older to cater to low value items.

Food for thought.

Eh, implementing a maximum number of trades per time period wouldn't change the game for most players, but would surely result in the middle-grade equipment becoming somewhat more expensive depending on the maximum number of trades.

I recently submitted a trading system suggestion that had various assumptions about what you guys wanted for the future of the game in regards to trade.

Since it seems my assumptions were more or less correct and the idea covers the concerns you have I'm going to use this opportunity to shamelessly link it and maybe promote some discussion that's not just complaining - rather, a discussion that strives towards a solution.

"I love work visa paperwork so much."

best thing I've read all day...

"

Chris wrote:

We already view this as a crisis.

Easy trade didn't make the game what it is currently. Unrelenting power creep and not rebalancing against it is why the game is what it is today.

If trade and master crafting trivialize resist capping, make resists harder to cap. Is there a reason the endgame penalty needs to remain -60%? If everyone is steamrolling every enemy except for T16+, is there a reason mobs should still have so little life?

Power creep (and the Atlas is just another form of it) has made it so people can run 60 Shaped Strands per hour. You've let players become farming bots: What a bot can do in 24 hours, a player can do farming Strands in a few hours.

People get to T15 maps damn near day one of a league now. Damage and clear speed come almost effortlessly now. Everyone with a little game knowledge gets way more drops per time unit spent in the game now than they used to.

Don't you think that has at least little effect on item and currency acquisition? Shav's used to be 80 exalts because people got 5% the number of sheer drops as they do now. Blaming trade is the easy way out.

I love your responses on trading. Keep it up! :)

"

The_Reporter wrote:

"

Astealoth wrote:

Ascendancy classes should not be tied to the labyrinth. This content is really unfun and uninteresting. Locking core progression in there is asinine at best. I am extremely disappointed that this is not being addressed. I would rather see ascendancy class progress integrated into the core game than new acts or anything else. The current setup with the labyrinth would be like making it so you could only earn XP for a certain range in vaal side areas. Frankly I think even that would be better since that content is comparatively much more interesting.

There is no slippery slope to worry about here, how often do you plan to hide skill tree nodes in horrible side content? Asking GGG to not do that and to rectify the one time it was done in the past is not a slippery slope to fall down, but a mountain of stubbornness you've asked us to climb.

Well said.

Well said indeed. There is no slippery slope here. I only wish GGG could understand the level of negativity toward PoE that this issue generates among many players who otherwise only want to love the game.