Tokenized Trade
|
Background
In the link I discuss some general thoughts on trading, which serves as justification for this suggestion:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/421402
Glossary of Terms with Suggested values
Trade Tokens (TT)
Trade Tokens Limit (TTL) = 2 TT Extended Trade Token Limit (ETTL) = 10 TT Period (P) = 7 days (maybe less) Trade Tokens per item of Restricted Item Class (TTPI) = 2 TT Restricted Item Class (RC) = Either [1] any rare or unique item, or [2] any item that goes in the 10 equipment slots on the character doll; which is basically everything but flasks, gems, and currency Functionality Trade tokens (TT) are refilled to Trade Token Limit (TTL) at the beginning of each new Period (P). The only way to gain TT is to wait for the end of the P when they are refilled by the server, which sets them directly to the TTL. There is no rollover for unused TT. In order to complete a trade with another player for a Restricted Item Class (RC), a certain number of Trade Tokens per item of Restricted Class (TTPI) must be consumed in the trade. This part is hard to describe in general terms so I will set TTPI = 2 for the remainder of this paragraph. The default allocation of the TTPI is 1 TT from each player (2 total = TTPI), however both TT may come from the same player. In this way, TT have some amount of trade value. The TT committed to this process are destroyed; neither player retains them. If the players are unwilling or unable to commit sufficient TT for the TTPI, then the trade cannot be completed. Each item from an RC requires TTPI, in other words TT are consumed on a per-item basis. A Trader's license may be purchased from GGG, perhaps on a subscription basis, which substitutes the licensed player's TTL for an Extended Trade Token Limit (ETTL). An ETTL requires payment information so that GGG can regulate more effectively and abusers can be handled more decisively.
Variation
If we want to retain TT at the conclusion of trade instead of destroy them, players could flip-flop the TT between each other, thus obviating the system. A fraction of tokens must be destroyed each trade even if the other fraction is retained. This is difficult to do with an even numbered TTPI since it is unclear whose TT should be destroyed when both players commit the same amount.
Suppose TTL = TTPI = 3. Let 2 tokens be destroyed in the trade, but the 3rd is given to the player who committed less tokens. This variation benefits heavy traders, as they can trade longer before running out of TT during the P. In this example, however, it is not difficult to go indefinitely. Without adequate restriction, tokenized trade has essentially no benefit, so this variation adds more complexity than it is worth, and is not suggested. With the suggested values, it takes 2 tokens per trade, those tokens can come from both players or just one, players get 2 tokens per week. Comments The values of the named variables may be changed for different results. I set suggested values in the glossary for what I think would be best results. In the default situation, players get 2 trades per period. If a player desires more trades than that, they must convince others to give up both their tokens. Naturally, this should give those others some additional leverage. TT are expected to have some amount of trade value. This should give people who trade infrequently some leverage, which may entice them to begin trading (if they haven't tried it before) or to trade more. This is expected to grow overall participation in the economy on a player-count basis, but not on a trade-count basis. People who trade often and know the market may suffer. However, their suffering- or more precisely, everyone else's knowledge of that suffering- encourages those who are not heavy traders as there is less fear of being taken advantage of. Tycoons have limited reach to dictate prices upon others. Flipping items is less efficient, though still possible. Item-for-item bartering becomes impractical. However, it does not seem like this is a popular method of trade anyway as currency has superseded bartering. Items which are not part of an RC are not subjected to trade tokens. Notably, currency is not in a restricted class. Heavy abusers (such as RMT sites) will have difficulty unloading large quantities of goods without an ETTL. As long as TTL equals the number of TT consumed per exchange, creating additional accounts to offload goods for trading does not work. The alternate account has another 2 TT from the TTL, but 2 TT were spent getting it to that account in the TTPI, so no net TT were gained. Waiting for the P to expire, of course does gain Num_Accounts * TTL tokens so they can be generated faster in the future, but the allocations have to be made in advance of the exchanges (to a 3rd party) so it is highly inefficient. If they choose to use the ETTL, this makes it easier to shut down their network due to the required payment information. Dummy accounts whose sole purpose is to generate TT will likely be easy to identify. Is an ETTL ethical, or is it pay-to-win? I'd argue that ETTL falls in the same category as stash tabs. They save time, but they do not unlock new capabilities which require the paid service. Ultimately it is possible to play without either if you are willing to spend extra time and manage more accounts. It is paid convenience. This thread has been automatically archived. Replies are disabled.
|
|
