On ARPG economies from a game design perspective

More recipes.

"

Xendran wrote:

More recipes.

I agree. But I don't feel it's important enough to get its own section. And no more currency-generating recipes please; just new recipes for actual equipment that actually stands a chance of being used.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

And no more currency-generating recipes please;

Well it depends on whether or not giving players a lot more currency would balance out with item prices rising.

If prices rise, things balance out as the cost of rolling gear remains the same, putting crafting in a better spot. Problem is, there's no way to predict whether or not the prices would rise. There's incentive for the market controllers to both keep prices the same AND for them to hike them, so it would be a gamble of a fix.

Seems ironically appropriate, but not something worth doing unless done very very well and designed very meticulously.

Or bypass it all with account bound currency from advanced recipes, non bound currency from drops.
There are tradeoffs in every form of solution, so it all depends on what tradeoff is more likely to be the least detrimental.

If anybody is wondering what the tradeoff for gear recipes is, it's the vast number of different recipes that would need to be implemented to do anything of value.

"

Xendran wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

And no more currency-generating recipes please;

Well it depends on whether or not giving players a lot more currency would balance out with item prices rising.

If prices rise, things balance out as the cost of rolling gear remains the same, putting crafting in a better spot. Problem is, there's no way to predict whether or not the prices would rise. There's incentive for the market controllers to both keep prices the same AND for them to hike them, so it would be a gamble of a fix.

Prices rise relative to what? Is your baseline Chaos, Exalts, or GCP here? And who is to say those will continue to be the main baselines in the future?

I know the initial OB inflation was scary, but I've gotten over my hysteria and determined that big shifts in currency exchange ratios might be a bad thing for some individual players, but not a bad thing for the economy nor the game.

That said, I do feel I was a little extreme earlier; some new currency formulae might be okay. But I really do believe that the main focus should be on vendor formulae for actual (meaning rare) equipment.

The only currency formulae I'd really like to see:
Full set of uniques, any itemlevel below 60: 1x Exalted Orb
Full set of uniques, all itemlevels above 60, any itemlevel below 75: 1x Eternal Orb
Full set of uniques, all itemlevels above 75: 1x Shard of Kalandra (20x makes one Mirror of Kalandra)
No multiplier for unidentified nor quality

"

Xendran wrote:

If anybody is wondering what the tradeoff for gear recipes is, it's the vast number of different recipes that would need to be implemented to do anything of value.

I think the most logical thing would be to keep gear an entirely orb-based (gambling) affair, but allow a series of recipes to create virtually any rare amulet or ring, given the appropriate rare amulet/ring ingredients. Perhaps belts too.

Interestingly enough, this is currently the case if you're into Paua or Coral Amulets. Problem is, virtually no one is.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

All gear tradeable. Period. Fuck account-bound.

And fuck Diablo 3.

And in modern day, essentially, fuck loot-find.

I agree with Xendran on more recipes, but for a different reason.

More vendor recipes give more tools to adjust the balance between MF/noMF without changing the actual MF. A big part of why MF is better than noMF is because so many vendor recipes favor rarity. Some more recipes like 3link, 6socket which are invariant to MF would help tweak the balance without changing MF in any way.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

All gear tradeable. Period. Fuck account-bound.

And fuck Diablo 3.

And in modern day, essentially, fuck loot-find.

Agreed.

I stand by my original assertion that market saturation destroys item progression and in turn destroys what makes the game fun. A hand-me-down sink could dramatically improve that situation. A bind-on-equip league for example would keep players from making a profit on gear they have used, incentivizing actually finding loot.

Hardcore leagues are more difficult to saturate because items leave the economy on death and there is actually a demand for back-up items. That alone however isn't sufficient to combat item saturation, it merely delays the inevitable. What POE needs is a self-regulating mechanic.

Economies, and concern for economies, especially on a global server scale, just don't fit with Action RPGs. There's a reason people played Diablo 2 for like 10+ years and yet people are rapidly leaving PoE after just 8-9 months. The risk/reward system, the focus on low drops to keep the global economy under control, and questionable decisions like gating end-game experience gain are ruining the fun for *most* people. I can tell you that all three of my best friends, all of whom donated quite a bit of money, have all quit, citing the above issues. My friends list of people from in-game have all quit. The chats are a lot quieter, and there are a lot less parties.

Here's the problem, though: This is creating issues for people like me who want to stick it out, because the game is designed around people trading. That's great... when there's enough people playing to find/sell the items we all need. I literally have such a hard time even finding sellers anymore that even had I felt trading was great early on, it is becoming a bigger problem now. Around the time of release I'm sure there will be a small surge of players, but for how long? Most of my friends probably won't come back unless some of these core issues are dealt with, and let's face it, this concern for the global economy isn't going anywhere.

TL;DR: I want to find more orbs and more items, such that I can at least sustain my characters playing self-found, especially given the fact that with people leaving the game in droves, pretty soon I won't have anyone to trade with... Thank you.

"

ggnorekthx wrote:

Economies, and concern for economies, especially on a global server scale, just don't fit with Action RPGs.

False. Section 1 of my OP explains why. However, I'm inclined to agree with you on one thing: over-tweaking of a game's economy on the developer's part almost never leads anywhere good, and laissez-faire is usually a pretty good policy. On the other hand, GGG doesn't seem to violate this principle.

"

ggnorekthx wrote:

The risk/reward system, the focus on low drops to keep the global economy under control, and questionable decisions like gating end-game experience gain are ruining the fun for *most* people.

False. A lot of people attribute GGG's failure to quickly address certain common complains with focusing on the economy instead; however, the evidence that they actually have been focusing on the economy is slim at best. It's not like GGG is micromanaging the economy, or has announced any specifics on a revamp to the trading system. Blaming "the GGG focus on economy" for a lack of improvement in the areas you care about is just scapegoating.

"

ggnorekthx wrote:

The chats are a lot quieter, and there are a lot less parties.

True. I expect a lot of people to come back with the release of Act 3.5, however. The real question is: what will keep them from rapidly becoming bored again, and sticking with PoE this time? Answer: global improvements of many systems, not just trading but definitely including trading.

"

ggnorekthx wrote:

Here's the problem, though: This is creating issues for people like me who want to stick it out, because the game is designed around people trading.

False. There's an important difference between designing around something, designing assuming something, and designing while being cognizant of something. I feel that item rarity and currency drop rates are at levels which indicate GGG assumes trading, and I'd even agree this goes too far; proper levels would be aware of trading, but not necessarily assume players participate in it. However, it's still a gross exaggeration to act as if GGG's intent was for trading to be the main draw of the game, eclipsing hack-and-slash; furthermore, there's nothing in the design of the game which indicates this. This is an ARPG first and a trading game second.

Another thing to consider: finding rare items which your current character cannot use does not necessarily mean the designers intended you to trade. It could mean they intended you to reroll; instead of having your spellcaster trade away that bow, the designers may have intended you to create a new character to use that bow. However, if that is the case (and I think it is), then it's clearly a flawed design; far too many players prefer a single- (or double-, but not quite multi-) character style, and thus trading away items is circumventing the reroll incentive.

"

ggnorekthx wrote:

TL;DR: I want to find more orbs and more items, such that I can at least sustain my characters playing self-found

You should read Section 3 of the OP.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

ggnorekthx wrote:

Here's the problem, though: This is creating issues for people like me who want to stick it out, because the game is designed around people trading.

False. There's an important difference between designing around something, designing assuming something, and designing while being cognizant of something. I feel that item rarity and currency drop rates are at levels which indicate GGG assumes trading, and I'd even agree this goes too far; proper levels would be aware of trading, but not necessarily assume players participate in it. However, it's still a gross exaggeration to act as if GGG's intent was for trading to be the main draw of the game, eclipsing hack-and-slash; furthermore, there's nothing in the design of the game which indicates this. This is an ARPG first and a trading game second.

Check your facts; before you throw the word "False" around with such reckless abandon.

"

It is designed around a strong barter-based online item economy...

- From <http://www.pathofexile.com/game>

"

Path of Exile’s economy is the most important element of the game to us.

- From <http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/55102>