On ARPG economies from a game design perspective

"

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.

I thought I made that distinction, advocating searchability in section 4 while denouncing buyouts in Section 2. However, to make it clear, we want to avoid "fire and forget" trading, which pretty much means the only thing completely off the table is instant trading (buyouts).

"

RogueMage wrote:

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* When seller accepts an active bid, payment is withdrawn from buyer's stash and credited to seller's stash, and item is transferred from seller's to buyer's stash.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.

I like this suggestion. The one thing not mentioned above which is sorely needed is the ability for the seller to withdraw at any time. However, in terms of minor tweaks (not sorely needed)...

You wouldn't want to allow grayed-out bids; instead, bid funds should be held in escrow until the bid is retracted (unusable for either crafting or making other bids). This would prevent "bid spreading" and make bidding a more serious affair. Obviously, the buyer withdrawing would refund all bids.

I think the "silent" part of the silent auction system should be optional (a checkbox when offering up an item for auction); I don't see any harm in non-silent auctions. Keep in mind that buyers may prefer one currency over another and perhaps even prefer a "lesser" bid due to differing currency valuations. In non-silent auctions, strictly inferior bids would immediately be refunded to the bidder under the escrow system.

PMs should probably just be PMs — not necessarily through the SAS system, just in general. Actually, the best would be integrating forum PMs into the game itself, so that you could check them while you're in the client.

If you're worried about non-silent auctions, keep in mind how the current "WTS" forum system works. A non-silent version would essentially be the same thing, but better integrated into the game, and better facilitating inter-timezone trading. Sounds good to me.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You wouldn't want to allow grayed-out bids; instead, bid funds should be held in escrow until the bid is retracted (unusable for either crafting or making other bids). This would prevent "bid spreading" and make bidding a more serious affair. Obviously, the buyer withdrawing would refund all bids.

Two reasons not to hold bids in escrow:

* Protects buyers from deadbeat sellers who don't act promptly on bids. A seller who knows the funds are locked up in escrow is under little pressure to close the deal, and may choose to wait and see if an even higher bid arrives.

* Allows a buyer to simultaneously bid on multiple items of the same type, awarding the sale to the first seller who accepts the bid. (The buyer's other bids would then gray out, unless he had enough funds for multiple purchases.) This would motivate sellers to make deals quickly while the buyer's funds are still available.

"

RogueMage wrote:

Two reasons not to hold bids in escrow:

* Protects buyers from deadbeat sellers who don't act promptly on bids. A seller who knows the funds are waiting indefinitely in escrow for him is under little pressure to close the deal, and may choose to wait and see if an even higher bid arrives.

Indefinitely? Who said anything about that? The buyer would be free to withdraw his bid at any time. It's just that, while bidding, he wouldn't be able to use it on something else.

"

RogueMage wrote:

* Allows a buyer to simultaneously bid on multiple items of the same type, awarding the sale to the first seller who accepts the bid. (The buyer's other bids would then gray out, unless he had enough funds for multiple purchases.) This would motivate sellers to make deals quickly while the buyer's funds are still available.

I don't view motivating sellers to make deals quickly as an advantage. Sellers are already fairly well motivated to make deals quickly — they can use the proceeds towards buying an item for themselves. We don't want to push players more towards instantaneous trading than we have to.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

RogueMage wrote:

Two reasons not to hold bids in escrow:

* Protects buyers from deadbeat sellers who don't act promptly on bids. A seller who knows the funds are waiting indefinitely in escrow for him is under little pressure to close the deal, and may choose to wait and see if an even higher bid arrives.

Indefinitely? Who said anything about that? The buyer would be free to withdraw his bid at any time. It's just that, while bidding, he wouldn't be able to use it on something else.

I can see pros and cons both ways. My experience as a buyer is that I'll often find more than one item of a type that suits my needs. I then make individual offers to all sellers, and wait to see who responds first. I really wouldn't want to have to make one offer at a time, wait a few days to see if the seller responds, and then try the next seller. I'd like a system that allows me to make potentially binding offers to all sellers at once, committing me to the first seller who accepts an offer.

Here's how a seller of a popular item can kite out an auction indefinitely: once he gets at least two acceptable bids held in escrow, he can use the two bids as insurance against each other. With a guaranteed sale in hand, he can then wait and see if an even higher bid arrives. He can continue to safely kite out the auction until one of the escrowed bids is withdrawn, at which point he immediately accepts the other bid still held in escrow.

"

RogueMage wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

RogueMage wrote:

Two reasons not to hold bids in escrow:

* Protects buyers from deadbeat sellers who don't act promptly on bids. A seller who knows the funds are waiting indefinitely in escrow for him is under little pressure to close the deal, and may choose to wait and see if an even higher bid arrives.

Indefinitely? Who said anything about that? The buyer would be free to withdraw his bid at any time. It's just that, while bidding, he wouldn't be able to use it on something else.

I can see pros and cons both ways. My experience as a buyer is that I'll often find more than one item of a type that suits my needs. I then make individual offers to all sellers, and wait to see who responds first. I really wouldn't want to have to make one offer at a time, wait a few days to see if the seller responds, and then try the next seller. I'd like a system that allows me to make potentially binding offers to all sellers at once, committing me to the first seller who accepts an offer.

Of course you'd like that. But you shouldn't get it; in my opinion, there should be a counterweight to the advantage the buyer has of being offline during transaction completion.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

RogueMage wrote:

I'd like a system that allows me to make potentially binding offers to all sellers at once, committing me to the first seller who accepts an offer.

Of course you'd like that. But you shouldn't get it; in my opinion, there should be a counterweight to the advantage the buyer has of being offline during transaction completion.

It's more than just liking it. I would have the choice between continuing to make multiple non-binding offers via PM, versus tying up my funds and waiting for each seller to reply in a one-bid-at-a-time system. I'd pass up the escrow trap and keep my funds liquid.

What I'd likely do is make lo-ball one-Chaos bids on all the items I have my eye on. Then I'd contact each seller via PM with a real offer in Exalts. When one of the sellers accepts, I'd revise my bid to Exalts, and withdraw the other lo-ball bids. The escrow system would thus devolve into a place-holder mechanism used merely to register an intent to submit an offer via PM.

"

HellGauss wrote:

I think the current system is tuned to:

1) Make the trade difficult
2) Make the trade necessary for end game

The result is that you need stash space both to collect orbs and to store items for trading. Conclusion is obvious. Although the trade system is theoretically sub-optimal (very sub-optimal), the current system is necessary in PoE.

While it definitely seems to be #2, there is an almost hard gate at end game which is a trading gate, it's only not quite a hard gate in that obscene amounts of time alone can open the gate just enough to get a foot through, before it is pushed back and the gate closed.

As for the idea being that more stash is needed for trading than non-trade, if true, it is a misconception.

I play 100% self [account] found. Because I don't buy gear and only use what I have, I need a lot of gear to achieve some sort of synergy. If I upgrade my gloves, I haven't just bought them with the required stats, I likely gain largely in one area and lose out in several others, which requires me to juggle around several pieces and replace them from my item pool.

When I do get a bite of lvl 77 maps, I need to fill up on high ilvl whites. I can't roll these immediately, I'm not going to sell them, I will roll them over the next several 100 hours as and when I acquire currency.

There is very little turn-over, in a no-trade stash, there is, however a steady growth in tabs needed. I'm currently at about 90 or so and I'm often stuck for space.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

I'm not sure if this isn't getting a little too complicated considering the sort of game it's for.

As for the haggling/instant concept -- I agree, but as someone in a different timezone to a lot of you, I'd like to put my items up for trade with a simple listed 'buyout' price that you can then pay and I can wake up to new wealth. That's always nice.

But since GGG said 'no AH, ever' and the AH isn't so much about 'Auctioning' as it is 'automated trading', I really don't know what we're in for. I do suspect it will be instant, whatever it is.

Which is fine. My desire above was pretty much just laziness and zero desire to haggle.

Something to think about.

"

Trading at the moment is a bit too annoying than it should be. Any chance of an actual auction house or a separate platform which can help players purchase and sell equipment more easily? That said I know I would love a mailbox delivery system.

Brian Weissman: Trading can be a bit tough right now because all of the systems involving trade are still pretty new. We didn’t even have formal player to player trading in the game for most of the Closed Beta period! With that said, there are many big improvements coming.

The biggest aid will be the ability to execute trades through the website. Additionally, players will be able to put items into a public stash, that others players can browse and make offers on.

This should cut down on the amount of spam in the trade channels, while streamlining the entire trading process. We have no intention of ever implementing a formal auction house, because we feel that it runs counter to the fundamental motivations of a loot-based ARPG with no gold-based currency.

Read more: http://segmentnext.com/2013/03/21/path-of-exile-interview/#ixzz2fKmB1lCv

Also, when does the Game Designer come and give his take on the ARPG economy?
Or is this thread about trying to think like a game designer and then talking about economics?

So, I read through most of the thread... but man...

How about this:

We fight monsters, clear maps, win races and defeat bosses to acquire the items we want?

Sorry, wrong game I guess lol.

"

ggnorekthx wrote:

So, I read through most of the thread... but man...

How about this:

We fight monsters, clear maps, win races and defeat bosses to acquire the items we want?

Sorry, wrong game I guess lol.

Wrong genre. You're looking for an action rpg, not an auction rpg like PoE.