Re-Rethinking Gold as a Currency

"

Sickness wrote:

No I'm not missing that point! You are missing the point that the prices the game tells us will be directly based on the players.

Then there's no reason to have it! If it does exactly what orb-to-orb trading does (lets players set their own values for each trade based on their own ideas), then it simply adds another step to the process to achieve the same result. But, this is not what it would be doing. It would be dictating exchange rates, not setting them based on players.

How would the prices be set based on players, anyway? Based on the average orb purchases from vendors across the board? That's still the game's decision on values, not the players'. The system is supposed to be flexible and dynamic. If I value my 1 Divine Orb at 4 Alchemy Orbs (or gold of equal value), how am I going to accomplish making that trade if the game is telling everyone else that it's only worth 3? I have absolutely no room to negotiate a deal because absolutely no one would make that trade when they could get a better deal from the vendor.

"

sickness wrote:

That's not how it works in a functioning market. Aslong as they don't completely cripple all orb trading, market-wide relative vales will be set, and it is in the players best selfinterest to stick to that.

If my own relative value says that 1 alch = 2 jewlers but the market value says 1 alch = 3 jewlers it would not be rational to sell an alch for 2 jewlers.

As I said above, this is a negative aspect of the proposed system. Market-wide relative values would be set by the game, removing negotiations and flexibility from the trading process by dictating what's good and what's bad in terms of trade deals. This is what I mean when I say that it will remove the majority of social interaction involved in a trade.

"

sickness wrote:

You change the gold value of the orbs.

In the proposed system, no you can't. Since each orb drops as a relative amount of gold, changing the gold value for 1 orb would do absolutely nothing to that orb's purchase availability.
Example:
1 Divine Orb = 50 gold
Players are using this orb's effect too often, causing imbalance.
1 Divine Orb = 60 gold
Who cares? Unlike drop rates, exchange rates need a much larger change to have drastic effects. A 10% drop rate reduction means 10% less of that orb overall. A 10% exchange rate hike means almost nothing when you can readily exchange any other item to make up the cost. It doesn't mean 10% less orb use, it means 10% more sells to convert to gold to cover the new cost. This brings up all sorts of balance issues since the perceived value of lower items would drop drastically, as they're used more often for gold than their intended purpose.

What kind of market produces items out of thin air for consumers to buy? Sure, drops are like that (although they're equated to what we earn for our work), but you're talking about taking dropped/earned gold to a vendor who produces an infinite supply of whatever good you want on command. Equate it to real-world economics all you want, but there are some parts of it that just can't possibly follow real-world rules. There are also many parts of it that don't have to. Games skip major steps in the economic process, and are nowhere close to being realistic markets. Games dictate supply (drop rates and vendor availability) and demand (utility of goods/services and how important they are to excelling in the game). The proposed system here further removes player decisions and influence in the market.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

Then there's no reason to have it! If it does exactly what orb-to-orb trading does (lets players set their own values for each trade based on their own ideas), then it simply adds another step to the process to achieve the same result.

I was not able to read further than this due to facepalming so hard my eyes popped out.


You are clearly not willing to listen and your mind was set long before you even read the OPs suggestion.
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."

Sorry to have confused you with facts. Have a good day.

Way to try for the last word while ignoring all the important parts of my post, especially the argument dealing with the part you quoted. It's not like anyone else is reading this anyway, so whatever.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

Way to try for the last word while ignoring all the important parts of my post, especially the argument dealing with the part you quoted. It's not like anyone else is reading this anyway, so whatever.

Whitheboy, just get it through your head that players ALWAYS set their own values for each trade in EVERY economy. Period. No exceptions. Barter system, uniform currency, doesn't matter. Prices are determined by opinions.

"

Sickness wrote:

A short writeup that should cover most, if not all, arguments against the OP.

What if they make it so that you still find orbs but you can turn orbs into gold and gold into orbs at NPCs.
The supposed greater thrill of finding an orb with a particular name over finding a huge pile of gold would remain. People who prefer not to use gold would never have to see it.
People who prefer to trade with gold can do so.


The OPs suggestion would make the game LESS like the game it is compared to the most: D2.
The trading in that game is much like in PoE in many aspects.
Just because there exsists a uniforum currency doesn't mean that PoE will become more like D2 just because it also uses one.
In D2 gold is implemented in a horrible way so it's not good to trade with. It lacks the basic properties that a currency requires.
Trading is mostly done with runes, which is not so different from trading with orbs. (Runes are consumed when get better random modifiers).

I agree that it important for a game to stand out from the crowd, but it should do so with good things, not bad things.


Lorewise gold can represent the stuff that orbs are made off. That way it wouldn't be a fiat currency lorewise or for players.


Orbs in the curret system do have relative values. To say anything else shows a lack of understanding of Supply and Demand and Consumer Rationality. This is economics 101.
This will manifest more clearly when there are more actors on the market and more trades are being done.


The points the devs made was not against a uniform currency system like the OP have proposed.
Therefor they are irrelevant. If you feel that they contains something that is relevant you have to show us why.

I could keep going but it's getting late here...

I call to anyone to adress these points with rational arguments.

The problem is that in that system you can exchange orbs and gold at 100% efficiency. It turns all currency items into a single commodity, which makes trade redundant and limits it exclusively to equipment.

fuck gold

"

Strill wrote:

Whitheboy, just get it through your head that players ALWAYS set their own values for each trade in EVERY economy. Period. No exceptions. Barter system, uniform currency, doesn't matter. Prices are determined by opinions.

Yeah... I know. That's exactly what I'm saying. Not once have I ever said that there won't be relative values based on the community's collective mind. In fact, I've said numerous times that this will occur. What I'm saying is that they are not dictated by the game, nor should they be, and that having the proposed system does just that. I don't see why this isn't understood by people who proclaim to be economic academics.

I read through this thread and I still think gold is a terrible idea when we already have a better alternative to it

"

Etna wrote:

I read through this thread and I still think gold is a terrible idea when we already have a better alternative to it

"

Etna wrote:

Try posting reasons why you don't like it instead of this crap