On ARPG economies from a game design perspective

"

Mr_Bill wrote:

You idea of skill based trading seems to be nothing more then an attempt to narrow the number of buyers for certain sets of mods. I don't think I am for that.

The only thing that is needed is for GGG to implement an unattended shop interface with buyout prices attached. Not an AH where there are bids but that you pay the asking price or move on. Doing it this way will set a natural price range for items eventually.

The problem with sites like the indexers is that you still have to arrange a meet up time which for an international game like this one is a pain in the ass.

"I is pro at reading. I totally read and understood the thread in its entirety. I didn't bother to respond in any way with any discussion just said that I am against it and then made up an argument with no logic presented as to this view"

I agree with you scrotie.

If you make trading too easy, you trade for your items because finding them is too hard. If you make farming too easy, you don't bother trading ever because why would you unless you want the best items (at which point mid-low level items completely disappear).

Automated trading pushes you towards never farming, so you just buy the best gear then complain it costs so much, kill things hoping for a VERY rare drop that is now worthwhile because your medium level drops are completely worthless.

Self found completely destroys trading which is a large part of many players. Not to mention at least 50% or more of those 'self found' league people haven't actually gone and played a sefl found game. I have, I can say its very possible, but it is slightly more challenging, and I prefer to play mostly self-found so I can buy the occasional item if RNG is just vexing me (no speed boots over 10%, so I buy my 30% +life boots instead).



Overall I do agree, the itemisation and the easy price setting is a large issue. Uniques now have a very set 'buy' price for most of them, to an almost pointless level. And there is the stupidity of the exalt and its value being so inflated because everyone seems to want to have fixed prices. The exalt being used for majority of high level trades angers me mostly because the divine orb is a better currency as it is rarer, yet apparently its worth almost nothing compared with an exalt.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Regarding valuation, you're mistaking a thing for the perception of a thing. It's not so much about what builds are most effective, but about which are perceived to be most effective, and the ability to foresee one does not equatee to foreseeing the other, at least not until an economy has reached a high degree of maturity (and perhaps not even then).

I'm glad you stated that, but I would have phrased things differently. Instead: all we have is perception. The thing itself has innumerable different ways in which it can be evaluated, and who's to say which one is the correct way to determine it's value? That is left to a player's judgment- traders and farmers alike.

In your OP it sounded as if you were dismissive of this perspective (in regards to orb evaluation, at least), but in fact you rely on it in your reasoning as quoted above. Anyway, I'm not sure how this pertains to the topic anymore. It was an interesting read, some good points, but some room for improvement.

"

PolarisOrbit wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Regarding valuation, you're mistaking a thing for the perception of a thing. It's not so much about what builds are most effective, but about which are perceived to be most effective, and the ability to foresee one does not equatee to foreseeing the other, at least not until an economy has reached a high degree of maturity (and perhaps not even then).

I'm glad you stated that, but I would have phrased things differently. Instead: all we have is perception. The thing itself has innumerable different ways in which it can be evaluated, and who's to say which one is the correct way to determine it's value? That is left to a player's judgment- traders and farmers alike.

In your OP it sounded as if you were dismissive of this perspective (in regards to orb evaluation, at least), but in fact you rely on it in your reasoning as quoted above. Anyway, I'm not sure how this pertains to the topic anymore. It was an interesting read, some good points, but some room for improvement.

I'm pissed at myself for that use of the word "perception;" its proper definition is "the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses," which is not the meaning used. I meant "opinion," or perhaps "estimation." Sloppy English on my part.

In any case, market value is an objective effect with subjective causes. This might be a difficult concept to wrap one's head around, so the best way to think of it is like a bet in no-limit poker: the bet itself is objective and definite, the causes for such a bet are often subjective. Making it a community consensus does not change this; the probability distribution of a set of objective measurements is still an objective measurement. Predicting the value of an item to a single trader is like predicting the bet of a particular player given a particular hand; predicting the market value of an item is like predicting the probability distribution of bets of players given a particular hand. There are still right and wrong answers, and it is not a "who knows" situation (although it is an immensely difficult problem).

Amazing post, and I agree with all of it but the following.

A distinction not present in the OP is the difference between a searchable AH with instant trading and a searchable AH without instant trading.

Searchability/filters are definitely something that GGG should want to implement, since their alternative doesn't incorporate any useful player skill. Either the search is good or the search is bad and the "skill" invested becomes spending more time reading more bad search results and mentally filtering them. This skill isn't something GGG should want to foster.

Non-instant trading is an artificial/"UI" limitation, which you would reject from a general game design standpoint. The purpose, however, is to incorporate haggling by making all trades manual, which does allow for player skill to come into play.

It also creates a larger "flipping window" for flippers to get really big wins and really sore losses.

It also has the side benefit of making the market take much longer (read: orders of magnitude) to settle. This means that flipping remains profitable for new items for a longer period of time.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

Non-instant trading is an artificial/"UI" limitation, which you would reject from a general game design standpoint. The purpose, however, is to incorporate haggling by making all trades manual, which does allow for player skill to come into play.

Haven't delved the thread in much depth -- this isn't my area at all -- but wouldn't non-instant trading also help globalise the market to account for different time zones?

It would also do that. Americans would mostly trade with other Americans, since they both need to be playing at the same time to complete a trade.

Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. Seems like a mixed bag.
Note that we currently are in such a system.

"

pneuma wrote:

A distinction not present in the OP is the difference between a searchable AH with instant trading and a searchable AH without instant trading.

Non-instant trading is an artificial/"UI" limitation, which you would reject from a general game design standpoint. The purpose, however, is to incorporate haggling by making all trades manual, which does allow for player skill to come into play.

How about a non-instant silent auction system (SAS), with GGG acting as the broker:

* Seller registers items for bidding on the SAS.
* Buyers register silent, potentially binding bids on individual items on the SAS.
* At the time each bid is registered, buyer must have sufficient funds available to fulfill the bid.
* If at some later point, a buyer lacks sufficient funds to fulfill a bid, the bid grays out, but remains on the SAS.
* Buyers can review all current bids, and retract or revise bids at any time.
* Seller can review all current bids, both active and grayed-out, but may only accept one currently active bid to end an auction.
* Buyers and sellers can negotiate via PM through the SAS.
* When seller accepts an active bid, payment is withdrawn from buyer's stash and credited to seller's stash, and item is transferred from seller's to buyer's stash.

This system would enable players to buy and sell regardless of time zone, while avoiding D3's instant buy-out syndrome.

"

RogueMage wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

A distinction not present in the OP is the difference between a searchable AH with instant trading and a searchable AH without instant trading.

Non-instant trading is an artificial/"UI" limitation, which you would reject from a general game design standpoint. The purpose, however, is to incorporate haggling by making all trades manual, which does allow for player skill to come into play.

How about a non-instant silent auction system (SAS), with GGG acting as the broker:

* Seller registers items for bidding on the SAS.
* Buyers register silent, potentially binding bids on each item on the SAS.
* If buyer currently lacks funds to fulfill a bid, the bid grays out, but remains on the SAS.
* Buyers can retract or revise bids at any time.
* Seller can review all current bids, both active and grayed-out, but may only accept one currently active bid to end the auction.
* Buyers and sellers can negotiate via PM through the SAS.
* When seller accepts an active bid, payment is withdrawn from buyer's stash and credited to seller's stash, and item is transferred from seller's to buyer's stash.

This system would enable players to buy and sell regardless of time zone, while avoiding D3's instant buy-out syndrome.

Its not the instant buyout, its the inherent ease of use.

That system, while yes delayed, would still be a case of fire and forget. You stick your item up, when it sells you get an item back. You want an item, you browse it, you put down a 'winning' bid that would definitely win, and you wait for people to respond.

There is still no haggling involved, and due to numbers you would end up with 40 Bringer of Rain on sale, and the ease to go 'which one is cheapest' and bid on it, means no haggling would occur, and things would reach a fairly standard price

I'm not convinced it's a good thing to be able to buy and sell regardless of time zone.

Your implementation solves a lot of minor problems like tracking people interested in your items automatically, but it does nothing to promote haggling, which is what you really want to do.

"

pneuma wrote:

A distinction not present in the OP is the difference between a searchable AH with instant trading and a searchable AH without instant trading.

Non-instant trading is an artificial/"UI" limitation, which you would reject from a general game design standpoint. The purpose, however, is to incorporate haggling by making all trades manual, which does allow for player skill to come into play.

"

pneuma wrote:

I'm not convinced it's a good thing to be able to buy and sell regardless of time zone.

Your implementation solves a lot of minor problems like tracking people interested in your items automatically, but it does nothing to promote haggling, which is what you really want to do.

The haggling would occur when the seller receives an active bid from a buyer that's not high enough to suit the seller. The seller can then PM the buyer privately, and negotiate a higher bid. Once the buyer revises the bid to the seller's satisfaction, the seller accepts the revised bid and concludes the auction.

One advantage of this system is that it would allow both buyers and sellers to discreetly conduct negotiations simultaneously with multiple potential buyers and sellers. That would motivate both parties to conclude negotiations quickly, before any other potential competitors close their deals.