In-Game Trade System: Cancelled?

"

RockGod wrote:

GGG hasn't implemented a better trade system because they don't want one.

It's as simple as that.



Current system is what they want, it's hardcore and manly and cut throat, anything better would be appeasing the sheep.

the "sheep" pay their bills

perhaps its time to listen to them....

"

k1rage wrote:

the "sheep" pay their bills

I have missed out so many trades simply because of time zones and not being able to be online while the other person is. Add the fucker to my friends list, pm them here and offer them above there asking price and I still missed out. But hey that's pretty cutthroat isn't it?

Heh whats next? its my fault for having a normal sleeping pattern?

"

StDrakeX wrote:

"

k1rage wrote:

the "sheep" pay their bills

Those are some expensive looking titles you have there.

"

k1rage wrote:

"

RockGod wrote:

GGG hasn't implemented a better trade system because they don't want one.

It's as simple as that.



Current system is what they want, it's hardcore and manly and cut throat, anything better would be appeasing the sheep.

the "sheep" pay their bills

perhaps its time to listen to them....

 +1 on that. If GGG thinks Trade Chat is good as is and is "working as intended" and does not want to replace with some form of asynchronous trade then I'll reluctantly (based on principal) continue to not buy anything from them. If true on GGG's part (I know that it's pure speculation since GGG is silent on this subject save for the infrequent "we're not happy with where trading currently is" comments from Chris in interviews) then I'll continue to muddle along with my 42 Premium Stash Tabs. That's plenty for the temp leagues but I sure could use another 6 pack (or 2 or 3) of them (even if I'm forced to gamble that the 6 read only tabs that get converted are not over ½ full... another long standing change GGG made that I hate) for Standard. GGG, some of your decisions infuriate me. Oh, well, I know that GGG can't please everyone so I'll keep on with my boycott of MTX until there is a change. Sigh!!!... :(

Hey GGG... If you pleasantly surprise me then I'll be one of the first to get a new supporter pack.

Saying the majority of players would want, or not want, a particular trade method is a lot like saying the majority of people in the United States are Democrats. The truth is that it's a very controversial topic; moderates and fencesitters constitute a population large enough to prevent either side of the debate from acquiring a majority.

What's more important here than asking people what they want is carefully considering the effect changes will have on play prior to making changes.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Saying the majority of players would want, or not want, a particular trade method is a lot like saying the majority of people in the United States are Democrats. The truth is that it's a very controversial topic; moderates and fencesitters constitute a population large enough to prevent either side of the debate from acquiring a majority.

What's more important here than asking people what they want is carefully considering the effect changes will have on play prior to making changes.

Chris has said all along he has built the game that he wants to play, and there has been no trade system for three years because he doesn't want one.

If he wanted one he would have built it.


It's going to take a revenue drop or reduction in the number of players or something drastic.


Just look how stubborn they were over party looting, it took 1000's of requests and years of whining to get PA.


Doesn't matter if you and I think it's a good thing, it's up to the designers.

"

RockGod wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Saying the majority of players would want, or not want, a particular trade method is a lot like saying the majority of people in the United States are Democrats. The truth is that it's a very controversial topic; moderates and fencesitters constitute a population large enough to prevent either side of the debate from acquiring a majority.

What's more important here than asking people what they want is carefully considering the effect changes will have on play prior to making changes.

Chris has said all along he has built the game that he wants to play, and there has been no trade system for three years because he doesn't want one.

If he wanted one he would have built it.

It's not just a case of if you want it build it. Are you saying they didn't fix desync for years because they wanted that in the game?

I should have linked this video in my previous post: Malcolm Gladwell on surveys and happiness.

The truth of it is that, generally speaking, we're players, not game designers. We do know what we like and what we don't, once it is placed before us for us to try. But we don't know how to make that perfect game which we'll enjoy more than any other game.

We are tasters, not cooks.

Feedback is more valuable to GGG than suggestions. If something sucks, say so. But do not presume that your fix will actually make things better.

"

RockGod wrote:

GGG hasn't implemented a better trade system because they don't want one.

It's as simple as that.



Current system is what they want, it's hardcore and manly and cut throat, anything better would be appeasing the sheep.

Aaandddd that is bunch of lies.