In-game trading system?!!!!

With the amount of these fucking thread popping up lately, I'm quietly hoping GGG makes trading even more annoying in POE2.

Fumy same discussion every month 10 years in a row

"

apples to oranges

Another logical fallacy.

The guy A says: there is a lot of games of games with successful market places.

True? True.

The guy B says: you would struggle to find one in this genre (therefore above not true).

Nope, the guy B. This doesn't make abovementioned not true.

It could be billion reasons why "you would struggle to find one in this genre", and it is your (logical) job to prove that one and only one reason behind it: the guy A is wrong.

"

BambulaGTS wrote:

It could be billion reasons why "you would struggle to find one in this genre", and it is your (logical) job to prove that one and only one reason behind it: the guy A is wrong.

But first, it is your (logical) job to prove that Guy A's statement is relevant. If it's not relevant, whether or not it's true doesn't matter.

Which is why the statement's relevance, not its truth, was challenged by Guy B.

If you can't accept that, then here's why trading in PoE shouldn't be changed: The sky is blue.

oh wow no one has ever suggested this before! what a great idea

"

authenticgarbage wrote:

Mostly logical fallacies prevailing in this thread by the usual suspects. People arguing in bad faith pretending there haven't been dozens of games with successful auction houses / economies.

This is a solved problem, folks, and "But bots! and D3's auction house! look at my 40 challenges!" lack substance.

People who benefit from the existing tft/rmt system will always pop up in these threads. Try to remember that.

You dont even need to be rmt to benefit from it, however TFT is like flipper heaven right now. If you are willing to put some time into it, there is literally no better money/h strat in the game than flipping using bulk trading from TFT.

"

Jadian wrote:

If you can't accept that, then here's why trading in PoE shouldn't be changed: The sky is blue.

That statement is false though, the sky here is clearly grey.

Nitpicking aside, the whole "Other ARPGs also don't have an AH so it's bad" argument is made in bad faith from the start because it's deliberately ignoring the other half of that truth.
Other ARPGs also aren't designed around a trade market. They aren't even designed around multiplayer (which is a necessary element to even have a market) in the first place. Some have an option for it, but they aren't designed around it like POE.
They are either pure single player (grim dawn) or heavily inclined in that direction (LE, D2, D3). They don't have trade sites, they don't drop 99,999999% trash and they don't have seizure inducing crafting systems with hopelessly bad odds.

They actually stick to the fundamental principle of ARPGS which is kill monsters to get items. It is only GGG who decided to change that principle to "kill monsters to get currency to buy items from other players" and THEN they went and made the process of doing that as painful as possible in an attempt to balance the power of trade. It's such a ridculously stupid concept to begin with and yet people keep defending it.

If you want to make an economy focussed multiplayer game then you need to provide a decent tool that allows players to interact with that economy without annoying them to hell and back.

"

Baharoth15 wrote:

"

Jadian wrote:

If you can't accept that, then here's why trading in PoE shouldn't be changed: The sky is blue.

That statement is false though, the sky here is clearly grey.

Nitpicking aside, the whole "Other ARPGs also don't have an AH so it's bad" argument is made in bad faith from the start because it's deliberately ignoring the other half of that truth.
Other ARPGs also aren't designed around a trade market. They aren't even designed around multiplayer (which is a necessary element to even have a market) in the first place. Some have an option for it, but they aren't designed around it like POE.
They are either pure single player (grim dawn) or heavily inclined in that direction (LE, D2, D3). They don't have trade sites, they don't drop 99,999999% trash and they don't have seizure inducing crafting systems with hopelessly bad odds.

They actually stick to the fundamental principle of ARPGS which is kill monsters to get items. It is only GGG who decided to change that principle to "kill monsters to get currency to buy items from other players" and THEN they went and made the process of doing that as painful as possible in an attempt to balance the power of trade. It's such a ridculously stupid concept to begin with and yet people keep defending it.

If you want to make an economy focussed multiplayer game then you need to provide a decent tool that allows players to interact with that economy without annoying them to hell and back.

having auction house would completely crash economy, making currency value plummet due to bots, and high value item value sky rocket into the sky

"

authenticgarbage wrote:

Mostly logical fallacies prevailing in this thread by the usual suspects. People arguing in bad faith pretending there haven't been dozens of games with successful auction houses / economies.

you'll probably find the games that have good/strong economies that utilize AHs or item exchanges have end products/items that degrade and break or require upkeep. PoE doesn't have a cyclical economy like say EVE does and even it's consumables are used to increase item yield.

I really like this game's economy. I like that you can identify an underserved market because the content is either unpopular or players haven't caught on yet. it makes the game feel alive, more multiplayer than most 'MMOs'.

if you introduced an AH or item exchange then the % of items that enter the game and end up in the economy goes up significantly, which would negatively effect the upwards mobility and reduce stratification.
because players put an increasing amount of value on their time they eventually graduate from making certain trades or picking up certain currency items all together, which creates an opportunity for someone else to service those needs.

this would be like someone fresh out of HS with their diploma and no work experience, so they get a job washing dishes in a hotel. eventually they could get promoted to the concierge and maybe one day they're the manager, but if one person could simultaneously cover all of those positions then how's the person entering the job market supposed to climb it, or even find work?

don't you find that compelling, that this fundamental principle of economics is so well distilled in this game?

that said I do have a couple suggestions for the current trade system to reduces a couple frustrations.

1. non-bulk item listings should expire.
2. display the time a bulk(currency) listing has existed.
this exists in the API but is not shown on the website. this would help players identify inactive and exploitative listings and avoid them.

"

Aetherium wrote:

having auction house would completely crash economy, making currency value plummet due to bots, and high value item value sky rocket into the sky

that is already the case. and supposedly since forever?
or look for other projects that Tencent also bought: Warframe. why can't I find anything for it in Google? because it's not worth it AT ALL and playing is fun????