Why is there no auction house in POE?

"

Deathfairy wrote:

"First of it is a lie an you consistently insist AH is fine" That is what i said exactly where does it say it is your only argument?

Your exact words only slightly earlier.

"YOU saying some arbitrary idea or other horde of forums trolls does not make it a good idea either does it? And yet this is consistently your one and only argument."

You are contradicting yourself within the span of 3 posts and 45 minutes, literally word for word.

"where does it say it is your only argument"

"this is consistently your one and only argument"

We done yet?

"Id honestly be perfectly happy if they rebalanced this game around SSF. (But they havent yet)."

1) Extremely arbitrary idea. With zero back up, why would they balance game around mode that only small fractions of people play?

"(talking about a better trade system) Maybe no trade, maybe balance around SSF, maybe easy trade. But not this"

2) Again balance around SSF see 1). Easy trade wtf does that even mean? AH? anything more specific. yet again arbitrary idea with zero logical back up.

"there are multiple improvements possible from full AH to smaller improvements "

3) Which are? Not sure that even counts as an idea even...

"Its also just lazy game design, ignoring the vast amount of options to improve trade even outside an AH."

4) The fact that GGG stated this is their intention sure as hell makes this not a lazy game design, in theory it might wrong one (which i dont think it is) but sure not a lazy one. So yet again arbitrary idea separated from logic or reality.

"I also think that even if you and Chris are 100% right, there are dozens of ways to create trade barriers without resorting to the worst one "

5) Which are? there is not idea or argument here.


So if you think any of these statements are anything but random arbitrary ideas then we have different understanding of logic arguments.

I clearly brought the fact I was open to various different ideas outside an AH, in writing, 5 times in this thread.

You definitively said my only idea was an AH, and my only support was arbitrary people supporting it.

Lets revisit that "this is consistently your one and only argument".

Then later "where does it say it is your only argument"





Why scramble so hard? Just admit you were wrong and move on. You think Chris is going to change his mind because you, random forum goer, made a mistake? There are no consequences to being wrong, its ok. No harm no foul.

But, it is a bit silly to keep pretending. You need another replay?

"this is consistently your one and only argument".

"where does it say it is your only argument"


Its ok to be wrong, doesnt mean you're wrong about the AH, just means you dont keep track of your arguments on the forums. Thats not a cardinal sin.

"The part you missing in this whole situation is that YOU saying some arbitrary idea or other horde of forums trolls does not make it a good idea either does it?"

Every single counter example you provided fits the definition of arbitrary idea.


"And yet this is consistently your one and only argument."

"This" in this case is an arbitrary idea not an AH. Stop putting words in my mouth ffs.

"

trixxar wrote:

I also think that even if you and Chris are 100% right, there are dozens of ways to create trade barriers without resorting to the worst one

Let us hear them. "Dozens". I'm expecting minimum 12. Please say "bound on account".

"

Deathfairy wrote:

"The part you missing in this whole situation is that YOU saying some arbitrary idea or other horde of forums trolls does not make it a good idea either does it?"

Every single counter example you provided fits the definition of arbitrary idea.


"And yet this is consistently your one and only argument."

"This" in this case is an arbitrary idea not an AH. Stop putting words in my mouth ffs.

Haha, so you need one more revisit?

"this is consistently your one and only argument".

Then later "where does it say it is your only argument"

Judging my suggestions as arbitrary or not doesnt mean they dont exist (your judgments themselves are arbitrary, by the way).

You claimed there was only a single argument, and now scramble desperately to judge the arguments as good or bad. But either way, you still either made a mistake or lied. Its ok though, you dont go to court if you admit it.

I also love that Im putting words in your mouth by just quoting you word for word...



Overall, I dont think you understand what the word arbitrary actually means. There are no ultimate or objective video game principles or ultimate guidelines, particularly for trade. What people enjoy about gaming is different. Every decision in PoE could have been designed differently. Chris's own explanation of trade shows that it evolved over time, in an arbitrary manners, at arbitrary times. It was not planned this way from the start. Nor did the trade api use design principles but was a response to community setting up trade search. GGG decision is... you guessed it, arbitrary.

The word arbitrary means not following clear principles of design. The trade system we have now, by Chris own description, is not what they envisioned or designed, very clear from manifesto.

So, literally everything about trade is arbitrary. Keeping it the same would be arbitrary, as would changing it. That doesnt mean good or bad, just means it wasnt designed this way.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

trixxar wrote:

I also think that even if you and Chris are 100% right, there are dozens of ways to create trade barriers without resorting to the worst one

Let us hear them. "Dozens". I'm expecting minimum 12. Please say "bound on account".

Bound on account wouldnt be a barrier so much as halting trade. I guess technically thats a barrier, but doesnt fit the principle of trading with limits.

So ignoring that one...

1 - Resource limited for seller (listing tax)
2 - Resource limit for buyer (sales tax - yes it functions very differently from listing tax, cause now its free to list, vs opportunity cost to buy)
3 - Account limited (listing or purchase limits, after X time playing)
4 - Time limited (item can only be listed for X time)
5 - Per item limited (each item can only be listed X times)
6 - Max/min value limits
7 - Space limits (X tabs can be listed, everquest actually did this)
8 - While logged selling (no sales when logged out - again EQ, though technical limitations caused this not desire to reduce trade)
9 - Tokens (I could break this into 20 ways to get tokens, but you can only list or buy for every map boss, or level, or some other way. Ill count it as one)
10 - Listing unsorted (before you say this is stupid, this is GGGs choice for console. I agree its dumb, but its a limiter)
11 - Level based limitations (different than one per level, this is limiting purchases based on progression, similar to not having access to all spell gems at the start of the league)
12 - Someone else suggested it, I dont love it, but limit where you can access the AH, similar to requiring a lab run to get a chance to enchant gear.

You could implement most of the above in many ways, (for instance tax scale). You could implement that one alone in 100 ways. 1 jeweller per list, 1 alch, proportion of c, progressive tax per time listed (WoW did this).. thats how you get dozens.


Oh, before someone points out that there is no gold standard, vendors actually set a value of currency items as X amount to 1 of the next tier up. So there already is an ingame system of currency. Meaning, you could use vendor values to calculate 10% of item value.

If you list for 10c, well, thats 1 c, too easy.

Lets say 1c.

So if 2 alch = 1 c, and 4 fusings = 1 alch, and X jewellers = so many fusings, well the math is already there ingame except the alch to c conversion, but thats not high level math here.

"

trixxar wrote:

"

Deathfairy wrote:

"The part you missing in this whole situation is that YOU saying some arbitrary idea or other horde of forums trolls does not make it a good idea either does it?"

Every single counter example you provided fits the definition of arbitrary idea.


"And yet this is consistently your one and only argument."

"This" in this case is an arbitrary idea not an AH. Stop putting words in my mouth ffs.

Haha, so you need one more revisit?

"this is consistently your one and only argument".

Then later "where does it say it is your only argument"

Judging my suggestions as arbitrary or not doesnt mean they dont exist (your judgments themselves are arbitrary, by the way).

You claimed there was only a single argument, and now scramble desperately to judge the arguments as good or bad. But either way, you still either made a mistake or lied. Its ok though, you dont go to court if you admit it.

I also love that Im putting words in your mouth by just quoting you word for word...



Overall, I dont think you understand what the word arbitrary actually means. There are no ultimate or objective video game principles or ultimate guidelines, particularly for trade. What people enjoy about gaming is different. Every decision in PoE could have been designed differently. Chris's own explanation of trade shows that it evolved over time, in an arbitrary manners, at arbitrary times. It was not planned this way from the start. Nor did the trade api use design principles but was a response to community setting up trade search. GGG decision is... you guessed it, arbitrary.

The word arbitrary means not following clear principles of design. The trade system we have now, by Chris own description, is not what they envisioned or designed, very clear from manifesto.

So, literally everything about trade is arbitrary. Keeping it the same would be arbitrary, as would changing it. That doesnt mean good or bad, just means it wasnt designed this way.

Arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

All of your arguments including all of the ones you provides as counter examples just now are not based on any reason or system They all fit this definition perfectly. And this the only type of argument you provide. You refuse to look even half a step ahead to see what other issues proposed change will create, who will it impact positively, who it will impact negatively. You do not bother with such concepts you just spit out random stuff out and think you are actually producing some solutions.

So yes this(arbitrary ideas) is the only arguments you have. That statement is perfectly correct in context of this thread.

"

Deathfairy wrote:

All of your arguments including all of the ones you provides as counter examples just now are not based on any reason or system They all fit this definition perfectly. And this the only type of argument you provide. You refuse to look even half a step ahead to see what other issues proposed change will create, who will it impact positively, who it will impact negatively. You do not bother with such concepts you just spit out random stuff out and think you are actually producing some solutions.

So yes this(arbitrary ideas) is the only arguments you have. That statement is perfectly correct in context of this thread.

I take it stopping arguing that you werent lying before as an agreement. Yes? We done discussing that?

Here is my logical system, you can agree with it or not, but ultimately youre just being arbitrary with your own preferences.

"Trade is part of the game for a significant portion of players and for many their primary mechanism -> trade is intentionally frustrating and annoying -> frustrating and annoying gameplay is generally bad and only should be used if nothing else is better -> there are multiple improvements possible from full AH to smaller improvements -> doing nothing for fear of D3 is harmful to the gameplay for at least a significant portion of the players."




I appreciate where this conversation has gone. All of your objections and fears have been boiled down to saying that not like intentionally frustrating gameplay is arbitrary. Thats literally where we are right now. Trade was made frustrating, and saying that it could be better is "arbitrary". You are a trip.

1 - Resource limited for seller (listing tax)
Pretty sure it was pointed over multiple posts why this is horrible idea, and you have yet to provide a single answer to the issues pointed out. And yet you list this here lawl.

2 - Resource limit for buyer (sales tax - yes it functions very differently from listing tax, cause now its free to list, vs opportunity cost to buy)

This has nearly same issues as 1)

3 - Account limited (listing or purchase limits, after X time playing)

This is extremely limiting crafters for example (which is you know the key part of this game) because they buy and sell alot more items per time played then others. And this is just tip of the iceberg on this one. But considering you don't actually produce any real cases on how this works it would be just guess work.

4 - Time limited (item can only be listed for X time)

That is how nearly every ah works as is...

5 - Per item limited (each item can only be listed X times)

So if my shavs with double corrupt for 30ex does not sell i can only vendor it? Also do you even understand the amount of effort to keep track of every item ever listed for every player? This also means that every item would need a unique id, other wise how would you know person listed this item? How do you generate unique ids to every item that drops in the game?

6 - Max/min value limits

?? aka AH for low value trades? Does not actually solve any issues with AH just limits them to particular ARBITRARY set of items.

7 - Space limits (X tabs can be listed, everquest actually did this)

So punish people who play more and have more to sell?

8 - While logged selling (no sales when logged out - again EQ, though technical limitations caused this not desire to reduce trade)

What does this solve?

9 - Tokens (I could break this into 20 ways to get tokens, but you can only list or buy for every map boss, or level, or some other way. Ill count it as one)

again without concrete examples cant say much. But sure as frack does not look or sound easy rather some complex band-aid at best.

10 - Listing unsorted (before you say this is stupid, this is GGGs choice for console. I agree its dumb, but its a limiter)

It is stupid. Stop bring console into this, they had somoene die in HC at lvl 70 3 weeks into the league he was in top 50. Console is more limited by design of console then trade on pc is now.

11 - Level based limitations (different than one per level, this is limiting purchases based on progression, similar to not having access to all spell gems at the start of the league)

hmmm what??? What and how does it solve... me confused,

12 - Someone else suggested it, I dont love it, but limit where you can access the AH, similar to requiring a lab run to get a chance to enchant gear.

That clearly sounds like an improvement to current trade.


Oh, before someone points out that there is no gold standard, vendors actually set a value of currency items as X amount to 1 of the next tier up. So there already is an ingame system of currency. Meaning, you could use vendor values to calculate 10% of item value.

If you list for 10c, well, thats 1 c, too easy.

Lets say 1c.

So if 2 alch = 1 c, and 4 fusings = 1 alch, and X jewellers = so many fusings, well the math is already there ingame except the alch to c conversion, but thats not high level math here.
[/quote]


Bro we had this discussion i pointed out multiple holes in this approach, all of which you failed to address and yet here you are pushing it again.