Since when did arpgs become merchant simulators?

You ignore that crafting/gambling can be a whole lot of fun, for many people much more fun than trading can ever be. Some people like to play self-found as a principle, some just hate trading. As of now - with trading being superior to crafting by your definition *and* by the the low droprates of orbs - all they can do is grind for gear and hope. With bad luck they get "stuck" somewhere in cruel.

I really don't see the fact that buying is cheaper than crafting as an issue. But what is an issue is that with the droprates of orbs as they are, there is only one way you can actually utilize them, and that is by being so rich that you can afford to lose dozens and dozens of them without becoming significantly less rich.
Meaning, the only way to use orbs in their "intended" fashion is when you are in a state in which you actually don't need to use them anymore.

So what harm would an increased droprate of orbs do?
High-end gear would still be very hard to get, with the chances for the right rolls being as low as they are. All it would do is to give the players more options on their way to get there. And much more fun for the self-found and trade-shy people.

Make currency items untradable? what the fuck have you been smoking?
That would make half of the player base quit.

"

Jojas wrote:

Spoiler

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

...but your understanding of the cause of this problem is both wrong and ridiculously immature. And I am getting sick and tired of seeing this suggestion over and over again, as if it would solve anything.

Guys, here's the relevant formula:
cost of item used < cost of item new

This formula is impervious to drop rates. And it means that the only people who have an actual interest in creating items with currency are the players who can't find upgrades on the open market — either because the item is too cheap to be worth the time to trade it, or because their gear is so fantastic that upgrades do not exist for them, and must be either directly made or directly farmed.

For everyone else — the vast majority of players — you will always be better off going all thrift shop and trying to find someone else's hand-me-downs... and wasting your currency on a self-made item would be, well, swindling yourself. This is true even if you get 20 Exalts an hour... because the used item will always be cheaper.

Maps are the only real exception to this; as consumables, they can't be handed down.

So please, stop with the "increase drop rate to enable crafting" suggestions. They're founded on an utterly false premise.

You ignore that crafting/gambling can be a whole lot of fun, for many people much more fun than trading can ever be. Some people like to play self-found as a principle, some just hate trading.

Refusal to trade is pretty much the only way to make the "cost of item used < cost of item new" formula irrelevant.

"

Jojas wrote:

As of now - with trading being superior to crafting by your definition *and* by the the low droprates of orbs - all they can do is grind for gear and hope. With bad luck they get "stuck" somewhere in cruel.

I really don't see the fact that buying is cheaper than crafting as an issue.

I view the conscious decision not to trade as similar in type, but not in degree, to the conscious decision to kill Normal Vaal Oversoul at character level 1. Is it cool? Yes. Should it be encouraged? Yes (more on that later). Is it optimal? No.

And most importantly, should we be balancing the game under the assumption that players are not trading? No. Choosing not to trade means making the game harder, and self-imposed restrictions are great, but not proper to assume when deciding how hard to make the game. Difficulty should be set assuming that players are attempting to min/max the game using the features available to them, although not necessarily utilizing these features at maximum efficiency. In regards to trading, that means we should assume players are trading for gear, and because of that the monsters should be at a difficulty appropriate for the gear they could get through trading. Which is how buying being cheaper than crafting becomes an issue.

"

Jojas wrote:

But what is an issue is that with the droprates of orbs as they are, there is only one way you can actually utilize them, and that is by being so rich that you can afford to lose dozens and dozens of them without becoming significantly less rich.

First, it's not "with the droprates of orbs as they are," it's with "cost of used < cost of new" as it is, and droprate changes aren't going to change anything. Point of the whole post and all.

Second, it's not about being rich, it's about being unable to find upgrades. If you have the best wand on the entire server, you want a better wand, and you have zero Exalts in your stash, and you find an Exalt, you're likely using that Exalt on your wand and going right back to being broke. On the other hand, if you have 50 Exalts in your stash, and your gear is mediocre, and you want better gear, you're still best off by shopping for upgrades. Liquid wealth is irrelevant to this decision; the quality of your current gear is the sole deciding factor.

"

Jojas wrote:

So what harm would an increased droprate of orbs do?

Make the game too easy for people who don't voluntarily cripple themselves.

Now, if there was a No-Trade box during character creation, that you could check to get a permanent drop-rate bonus at the cost of being banned from trading forever*, I could get behind that (I did say this should be encouraged, right?). You decide to voluntarily gimp yourself one way, you get a compensating reward in return. But the solo phenomenon is most definitely not an excuse for increasing droprates universally; the traders should not benefit more than they already do.

One caveat -- the No-Trade option should err on the side of the game being more difficult, not less. The philosophy should be one of partial compensation, not total, and the game should still be harder taking this option than not taking it. After all, it's not something to brag about if it's just "another way to play."

* Would also need to prevent drop-trading.

If only PoE was a "merchant simulator", it would mean we would have a good & fast in-game trading mechanism, that wouldn't waste you hours and hours of playable time to gear up.

But instead there is a non-filterable unsearchable chat spam fest, a non-filterable unsearchable forum spam fest and third party sites, that make the game look like I'm at work or something... (it's early morning, let's check stock market, hmm, EXLT index is on the rise and ALCH values dropped 4% last night...)

For a game where you are required to trade if you want to progress, it has the lousiest trading system ever.

TLDR: give us a better / faster / easier trading system, or bum up drop rates of orbs & skill gems x50 so we can gamble with crafting.

Since when did arpgs become merchant simulators?

Since Blizzard and GGG.

One did it out of greed, the other is just green around the gills and thinks shopping is hardcore.

Apologise,but I feel like so good at the moment. Once I realised that games are about playing - and playing only - I started to play the games again like I did 10 years ago. And it is just fantastic, PoE is so much fun if you play it without spamming the trade chat etc.

Guys, just play, rape monsters, let the game decide your progress level, don't think you can tell the game how you should progress!

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Since when did arpgs become merchant simulators?

Since Blizzard and GGG.

That's not fair to GGG at all. The correct answer is "Since Diablo 3."

It's not like PoE started with this amazingly efficient trading system that reinforced the concept of always going for the hand-me-down; if anything, trading was discouraged. However, the auction house culture created by Diablo 3 doesn't exist in a vacuum, and a huge portion of the ARPG community is now keenly aware of trading opportunities, has come to rely heavily on trading as a means of progression, and — perhaps most noticeably — isn't afraid of lobbying for their cause on the forums through QQ and suggestions.

Just think about the Diablo 2 days. There wasn't a "solo self-found" label, because there was no contrast — everyone was solo self-found. And although PoE isn't really that terribly divergent from D2 economically (excess "gold" is still used to gamble), the shift in expectations caused by D3 are the cause of this push for improved trading mechanisms.

"

Supp0rtguy wrote:

Guys, just play, rape monsters, let the game decide your progress level, don't think you can tell the game how you should progress!

I would love nothing else to just play and rape monsters, but the game requires me to trade, at the very least for skill gems I will else never* find.

It's easy being carried by a group, but did you got to say Merciless, solo and maybe on HC? If not, then you probably did not hit the progress wall and you don't realize that trading is a must in this game.

(* in a reasonable timespan that doesn't make me crack and leave the game altogether)

I agree with basically all you wrote. Except:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

"

Jojas wrote:

But what is an issue is that with the droprates of orbs as they are, there is only one way you can actually utilize them, and that is by being so rich that you can afford to lose dozens and dozens of them without becoming significantly less rich.

First, it's not "with the droprates of orbs as they are," it's with "cost of used < cost of new" as it is, and droprate changes aren't going to change anything. Point of the whole post and all.

Second, it's not about being rich, it's about being unable to find upgrades. If you have the best wand on the entire server, you want a better wand, and you have zero Exalts in your stash, and you find an Exalt, you're likely using that Exalt on your wand and going right back to being broke. On the other hand, if you have 50 Exalts in your stash, and your gear is mediocre, and you want better gear, you're still best off by shopping for upgrades. Liquid wealth is irrelevant to this decision; the quality of your current gear is the sole deciding factor.

You seem a bit fixated on trading here. Let's say there is an abundance of alchs and chaos (which is what I would prefer), what would happen is that they lose any value when it comes to trading. But people would *use* them, especially new players. More people could reroll maps more often. People could pick up some 4L boots and give them a few tries, just because they can.
What would happen - due to the potential of RNG - is that by becoming more common they would become more appreciated.
As opposed to now, where you alch -> chaos maps and that's it, and only if you really do not need to worry about their constant supply (RMT, selling an exalt).

"

Spoiler

"

Jojas wrote:

So what harm would an increased droprate of orbs do?

"

Make the game too easy for people who don't voluntarily cripple themselves.

I disagree. By "voluntarily crippling" you mean choosing not to trade. How would that make the game too easy for everybody else? The chances to craft something really worthwile are almost abysmally low. As of now, with the exception of using fusings, NOBODY does it. You might occasionally regal or exalt something and will usually end up saying "shit". That's it. Basically crafting is dead. You really think the game would become too easy with an incentive to use your orbs on gear instead of as a currency?

this problem can easily be solved by introducing new orbs that do the same as the existing ones but they are none tradable! So in effect you will still get the "currency/craft orbs" and about the same drop rate of pure crafting orbs:)