Thoughts on Trading

"

Rhys wrote:

Great read, this thread.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Currency Sinks: Endgame maps

At least Maps are not a gold-sink that exists just to be a gold sink, which is the major problem with many gold sinks. Not sure we quite nailed the "avoiding frustration" part, though...

Personally, I agree that it would be a big problem if trading were too easy.

Is anyone else worried that people are going to take Rhys's statement wrong, that GGG purposely want people to not be able to trade properly and as such hate the idea of improving trading?

I understand that you mean you don't want it to be too easy, and still have that human element, and that you are improving the trading system to make it so it is a better system for communicating (as per the trade chat disappearing off the screen instantly), but perhaps you should amend your statement a bit Rhys, to avoid the trolls and being misquoted in your meaning

"

Rhys wrote:

Great read, this thread.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Currency Sinks: Endgame maps

At least Maps are not a gold-sink that exists just to be a gold sink, which is the major problem with many gold sinks. Not sure we quite nailed the "avoiding frustration" part, though...

Personally, I agree that it would be a big problem if trading were too easy.

Thanks.

It's very hard to tell if you're accurate about maps not existing just to be a gold sink. A very large number of players wonder why you can't have a "zero item cost" endgame to ensure continuous endgame progression, so it seems to them that maps exist solely to eat currency past Merciless.

I think the real selling point here is the map affixes. If you make those exciting and dynamic, it works: people see that randomizing their grind is better than not randomizing it. If you make map affixes unappealing, predictable and/or imbalanced -- which is unfortunately the case currently -- the randomization of the grind isn't a factor, and they're just tossing orbs at rune-looking things.

Labyrinthine is a huge problem.

"

Real_Wolf wrote:

perhaps you should amend your statement a bit Rhys, to avoid the trolls and being misquoted in your meaning

Trolls have Resolute Technique, buffing evasion is pointless.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I think the real selling point here is the map affixes. If you make those exciting and dynamic, it works: people see that randomizing their grind is better than not randomizing it. If you make map affixes unappealing, predictable and/or imbalanced -- which is unfortunately the case currently -- the randomization of the grind isn't a factor, and they're just tossing orbs at rune-looking things.

Absolutely agreed. That Maze and Larger exist (no downside affixes) is a real problem that's really tearing people's money supply apart. There was a recent first pass on the affixes, but the no downside ones need to simply be removed. If it's too hard to level without them, then that can be fixed as a separate issue.

Regarding automated trading, it does disastrous things to an economy like this. The trading system can be improved in every way as long as those ways do not involve "buyout"/instant trading.

Being an ARPG, I would like to see a larger emphasis on things that drop and not things that are traded for. I also like the ability to trade with others, so I would not like to see it be removed via some form of heavy handed taxation.

Non-tradable orbs is a very interesting idea. Item to Item trading would be difficult and would very likely resolve in maps (most homogenous, often used, take up the least space) becoming the "currency". I think I'm actually a fan of that.

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

having a marketplace which is too efficient shifts the focus of the game to being about playing the economy rather than playing the game

Thats already the reality, with the 'limitation' that its most use by players that can most profit from it. Read: if someone can nobble others, he will do, others probably dont participate that much in offering trades. (IMHO) I expect that better access to trades will lead into more offers, which can increase the availability of good non-endgame items and WILL increase the transparency of trading in general: if you have some (enough) offers to compare, the risk to get ripped of will decrease a lot. There are a lot of tactics to improve wealth just by trading (higher 'reward' than needed to get/create the same item for the next offer), once you have the right things to offer and enough time and patience to stay with the trades.

"

I will take it as a given that the game should motivate players to play more than trade.

If I have less hassle to trade, I have more time to play ^^

"

an inefficient marketplace is actually superior to an efficient marketplace

An inefficient marketplace only raises resignation/frustration on the buyers side: losse lots of time to search/transact; often not finding the item you seek anyway, sometimes (often?) ripped off from the (low amount of) sellers (maybe related to own missing knowledge, but doesnt matter)

"

Conclusion:
I hope that readers have the following questions after consuming all of the above:
1) How efficient should the trading market be?
2) What would be the best way to meet that efficiency target?
3) How does POE differ from that?

1) as efficient as needed to make it a non-exorbitant-hassle for the average players... to make it transperent enough to avoid exaggerated pricings
2) hard to say, considering the desired balance of the spreading of the item pool, especially for the highest grade of gear that should stay rare (but will loose its rarity anyway just by time) One Solution to this is the already used system of time-limited leagues and seasons/events...
3) just this word: alot. From my experiences, especially the discrepancy between solo and partying is even more worse for trades than for general gameplay.

I co-sign on what Mr_Cee is saying. I have been advocating that the trading inefficiencies only harm legitimate players the most for months.

"

jeois wrote:

I co-sign on what Mr_Cee is saying. I have been advocating that the trading inefficiencies only harm legitimate players the most for months.

+1

Inefficient of trades doesn't change anything for big market regulators, who just have time for trading. And GGG is not able to control this inefficiency for a long time, look and those indexing sites, your only worry nowadays is to have orbs and match timezones.

Economy in PoE reminds me late middle ages and probably devs would like it to be, with those big several weeks long bazaars. But there is quite substantial difference, as communication in middle ages was slow, what is not true in nowadays world. And we can see it in "fresh economy" of anarchy, then after only 2 weeks we have prices and possibilities almost the same as in Standard.

So, keeping inefficiency of trading doesn't stops anything and is only hassle for new players, who are scammed and spamed and instead of spend time for playing they haw to spend time for digging prices.

For me, it's like this, that or you allows trading and base your game on "economy" but you deliver modern tools (like AH ;)) and then you can balance your game on this economy or you (like D2) balance game on player progress and make him never need to trade. And the latter is IMO not the way PoE is designed. I was virtually forced to trade on Anarchy, as I'm leveling wander templar and most important gems for this build are world drop and for 52 lvls I have not dropped decent wand.

The seller is in no way, shape or form more responsible for evaluating the price of an item than the buyer himself.

If i think that sword is worth 2gcp, why should it be a rip off only because you have no clue? Why should i have? Why shouldn't i trust in YOUR responsibility to value an item before you actually pay for it? I didn't make my major in PoE economics, ready to rip off you poor unknowing fools. I just came up with a price. If you don't like it, we can argue about it with reason. If you paid it must have been worth it for you. It's not like the things i am selling are of fundamental need to beat the game. Noone is selling item repair kits or potion charges.

You just have to prepare for the negotiation by getting an idea yourself and search for economic fix points such as:

-vendor recipes(e.g. a fusing being worth no more than 4 jeweller's because you could get that deal any time from the vendor)

-the existence and accessibility of uniques that make rares for a certain item slot in a certain build obsolete(think about mightflay for example. Only very few rare physical dagger in that range will surpass it.)

-etc.


All this 'trade transperency' would do is give the power to value things away from you to the guys that play the market and only the market. With that the complete process of getting a grip of what stuff is actually worth becomes completely obsolete for anyone actually playing the game since they have no influence on the prices anyway, unlike the people who now exclusively play the market.

"

BlazinHazen wrote:

The seller is in no way, shape or form more responsible for evaluating the price of an item than the buyer himself.

Only in theory. (or in a 'perfect' balanced economy that a place like wraeclast never will be)

"

BlazinHazen wrote:

If i think that sword is worth 2gcp, why should it be a rip off only because you have no clue?

Used practice is, that if you know/think this sword is the best possible offer you can get (cause there are no comparable offers!), you may think about paying an even to high price (cause what other option dod you have? no real one). And if the seller knews for himself too that you cant get a better offer, he'll demand 3 exalt and not 2 ^^

And thats not the only chance for a rip-off, and especially not the one I mainly meant - it was more about trading discrepancies around currencies than items: if I can vendor a (crappy) unique for 5 chance orbs (with some additional grinding), why should I sell them for 3 to another guy? For these, its two free trials for a very valuable unique for every deal they can make - or they get for 2 bought uniques the equivalent to buy the next THREE.
To me, the effort to fulfil the recipe is not in relation to the profit - the only thing that me distracts from these deals is the effort of the trading to get the uniques.

"

pneuma wrote:

Non-tradable orbs is a very interesting idea. Item to Item trading would be difficult and would very likely resolve in maps (most homogenous, often used, take up the least space) becoming the "currency". I think I'm actually a fan of that.

I think it needs to be difficult such that these modern web tools and bid systems can find a use. Using currency, any type of "buyout" system is an economic disaster; without currency, perhaps not. And shop indexers kind of show that we don't have a lot of power to fight the trend towards trading automation.

In terms of maps as currency, that's a really interesting idea that also creates really interesting ideas. I intend to cover it in proper detail in a post later (hopefully today)

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

"

I will take it as a given that the game should motivate players to play more than trade.

If I have less hassle to trade, I have more time to play ^^

I believe this is only true in cases of very good trade/farm balance. Generally speaking, the less hassle to trade, the more inclined players are to make trading the bulk of their play experience. That which profits most, wins.

"

tmaciak wrote:

Inefficient of trades doesn't change anything for big market regulators, who just have time for trading.

This is a huge misconception. Struggling players often think of rich players the way people think of international corporations -- as somehow possessing more manpower than your average player. That's an illusion that I believe stems from the way most American retailers operate. The truth is that rich players are individuals, who perhaps dedicate more time per day to the game than you do, but who don't have endless time resources at their fingertips. As such, time efficiency is very, very important to them. (Which is why botting has such a sinister alure.)

The main difference between a rich player and a struggling player isn't time; it's in-game wealth. Pure and simple. And adding a bunch of time-efficiency tools to trading helps that rich player far, far more than the struggling one; the rich player has lots of different items to manage, more non-essential inventory to trade for new items, and in general just has a stash that requires much more micro-management energy than a player whose stash is relatively bare.

This is really one of the main reasons why the Diablo 3 auction house didn't work. It was an almost perfectly efficient system, allowing players to have almost their entire stash in sell or buy status, as appropriate, with relatively little work. This meant that a rich player was having his entire stash working for him all of the time. And that's how it works with these efficiency systems; rich players will always utilize it more and easier than struggling players will.