Thoughts on Trading

I think the "large open world" concept limits MMOs too much to MMORPGs, almost to the point that they become synonyms. However, LoL traditionally doesn't go past 5v5, and other games given as examples have similar issues, so I guess allowing non-RPG genres into the definition has problems of its own in differentiating the intent behind games like Diablo 2 and PoE against the intent behind games like EVE and WoW.

Perhaps the correct stance actually is to save the term for the EVEs and the WoWs; I'm not saying either game is stellar, but I prefer LoL to WoW, and I'm glad to see it surpass it, but the attempt at placing the games in the same category was probably a stretch.

One of the truly elegant things about this idea is that orbs would still be indirectly tradeable; you use them to improve your items, then you trade your items, getting more back as a result. What that means in practice is that you can indirectly trade your orbs, but that you need a platform -- a desirable non-orb item -- in order to do so.

As pneuma predicts, so I predict too: maps would likely be the most used pseudo-currency. They hit three of the four GGG predictors of good currency themselves, as well as my two "less is more" predictors: they're not quite as easily divisible, and the lack of homogeneity is actually good, because it allows us to hopefully fux the map affix system a little to make certain maps tailored to specific audiences -- we emphatically do not want every level 73 map being traded to have the exact same desired affixes, or else they become too universal.

One potential problem with that system is that maps aren't very available early. This actually isn't as acute as one might think, since players can still accumulate orbs, then use that stock to modify the first tradeable items one finds; rerolling low-level characters does generate wealth. The potential problem instead is that this and other forms of wealth require reaching a high level to convert this accumulated wealth into something that's actually tradeable. This would likely lead to a feeling that you absolutely must have one high-level character to be an economic participant, after which you can reroll if desired.

One good way to fix this potential problem is to greatly increase the build-specificity of gear, particularly low-level gear. This would be done by making changes to the affix system. Increased build-specificity would increase the number of trades that don't involve totally different item types; right now you could understand trading a maul for a bow, but it's hard to imagine one great low-level bow being different enough from another great low-level bow to merit a trade between two archers.

Notice I say "potential problem." It might be that the low "currency-ness" of pre-map play might be an asset, not a liability; it might be that the relatively high "currency-ness" of maps leads to the same kinds of problems we see in the economy currently. If we implemented non-tradeable orbs tomorrow, I fear this would be the case; the standard for a good map is entirely too universal currently with the dominance of affixes like Massive and Labyrinthine. It's very important that a "good map" lacks universality, which means "good maps" need to be tailored to very specific audiences.

Both of these issues center on affix and itemization balance, an oft-ignored area that actually has a huge impact on the economy. A good itemization system provides specific gear for specific builds, and thus promotes a lot of "not-for-me" trades -- the maul for the bow from earlier. A bad itemization system, like the one in Diablo 3 (did they do anything right on the mechanics level?), provides general gear that is effective for lots of specific builds, and thus reduces not-for-me trades relative to "hand-me-down" trades -- where you trade away the gear you just replaced with an upgrade. Even in a good itemization system, hand-me-down trades tend to dominate not-for-me trades, since each item's lifespan contains at most one true not-for-me trade, followed by hand-me-downs in perpetuity; affix balance increases the chance of an initial not-for-me and narrows the market for subsequent hand-me-downs, greatly increasing not-for-me market share.

Note that for maps, hand-me-down is impossible (consumable), thus without not-for-me trading the only reason to trade is as a universally desirable, compact form of wealth, as a pure currency and not as a pseudo-currency, as gold.

Now there is enough forum text out there (even in the section above) about how certain affixes on both gear and maps are too universally good and need to be nerfed. Instead, I'm going to focus on affixes that would encourage build specificity, but are gimped in one way or another.

Monsters deal x% fire/cold/lightning damage. This is an example of something that looks like a nice boon to build specificity, but is rendered moot by the way that increased maximum resistance is handled. In order to truly build for such an affix, you need to surpass 75% resists... but all the means to do so increase ALL maximum resists. I agree that Elemental Adaptation needed a nerf, but the nature of the nerf went in the wrong direction; it should have been 5% increased maximum Fire resistance. Somewhere in the Witch area there should be a Lightning version, and somewhere in Ranger one for Cold; spacing them all reduces the chance that a build would have two, much less all three. Uniques could be used to further enhance this effect, always going for specific elements rather than all at one. Consider breaking Purity up into component, element-specific auras (perhaps with stronger max resist bonus). Combined with a large IIQ bonus buff for this map affix, you could make it very desirable while at the same time limiting the number of builds that really want to attempt it.

Also toss in a x% chaos damage one. CI will love it; everyone else, not so much. Not-for-me trading achieved.

Increased monster movement speed. Why is this forever bound to increased monster damage? Separate this from the other half of Fleet and make movement speed ridiculous (perhaps 60-70%), and you have a map affix that presents a big problem for characters with any type of need to kite, while characters that don't have that need would enjoy running it.

Reflected damage. As a magic monster affix, I feel this mechanic constrains viable builds far too much. However, as a map affix that only specific builds would be able to run, I think it's genius. Increase the IIQ on these to make them strongly desired, but remove the need to build around them, and you have a very nice not-for-me affix for maps.

+x% Monster fire/cold/lightning resistance. Should also set monster max resistance for that element to 100%. That's right, an immunity; but don't worry, you can still get around it with penetration. Of course, buff IIQ to make it actually matter.

Increase fire/cold/lightning damage vs increased spell damage. This design decision baffles me. Why make caster weapons so dependent on increased spell damage, when you could instead make them very dependent on elemental damage increases, greatly increasing build specificity? The values on these affixes should be switched; since GGG seems to have a "prefixes > suffixes" policy, that might mean converting the elemental affixes to prefixes (from suffixes) and vice versa for spell damage. Afterwards, caster weapons would be much more build-specific, it would be much easier to craft a good dagger/scepter/staff/wand for an elemental-based attacking character, and you could probably remove the recent Ethereal Knives nerf because it would be less buffable, allowing non-caster builds to use it more effectively (which I think was part of the intent for its original design).

Increase fire/cold/lightning damage vs increased spell damage. This design decision baffles me. Why make caster weapons so dependent on increased spell damage, when you could instead make them very dependent on elemental damage increases, greatly increasing build specificity? The values on these affixes should be switched; since GGG seems to have a "prefixes > suffixes" policy, that might mean converting the elemental affixes to prefixes (from suffixes) and vice versa for spell damage. Afterwards, caster weapons would be much more build-specific, it would be much easier to craft a good dagger/scepter/staff/wand for an elemental-based attacking character, and you could probably remove the recent Ethereal Knives nerf because it would be less buffable, allowing non-caster builds to use it more effectively (which I think was part of the intent for its original design).

Off-flask flask affixes. Current itemization doesn't support these nearly enough as a means for life and mana regeneration. Get these working correctly, and you could change the Stasis/Smothering map affixes to be specificly tailored to flask users, nullifying alternate forms of regeneration and giving these bottles a chance to shine.

There's probably a lot more examples of how to implement an itemization system that's more not-for-me friendly, but those should capture the core concepts.