Re-Rethinking Gold as a Currency

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

scorpitron wrote:

"

Tarlin wrote:

This thread has run circles, and previous threads of this type have run circles... can we get a lock please?

i will trade you 3 chance orbs, 2 fusing orbs, a pet goat, and 3 shillings for that lock.

I don't know about that... Do you have any gold instead?

Are we using the gold specie standard, the gold exchange standard, or the gold bullion standard...

"

mdavis588 wrote:

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

scorpitron wrote:

i will trade you 3 chance orbs, 2 fusing orbs, a pet goat, and 3 shillings for that lock.

I don't know about that... Do you have any gold instead?

Are we using the gold specie standard, the gold exchange standard, or the gold bullion standard...

Lets go 1/3 on each.

"

Epicurwin wrote:

"

mdavis588 wrote:

Are we using the gold specie standard, the gold exchange standard, or the gold bullion standard...

Lets go 1/3 on each.

Then I do indeed have some gold for trade.

While I do enjoy the sarcastic banter going on, this thread has completely degenerated now.

Point is, gold does not work in PoE. It's introduction would only necessitate further balance changes, create a 'middle man' currency, and possibly remove the value of orbs as currency altogether. These are all very undesirable effects and do not fit into the dev's vision for PoE. You can't just claim that gold can be nothing short of beneficial without taking everything into context. Not utilizing gold as a currency is a key feature the dev's are claiming in an effort to differentiate their game from the myriad of other games on the market. Introducing gold directly conflicts with their vision and as such is a terrible idea to consider and even suggest.

Orbs are to PoE as materials are to other games. What PoE is doing is removing the middle man, gold. Instead of trading your weapon for gold, to turn around and trade the gold for materials, you are cutting out the middle man and directly trading your weapon for materials. When vendors are fully implemented in next patch, you will trade items for materials and vice versa.

In this situation it is gold that would make trading more complex and it is gold that would make trading less efficient. Now, gold would make things easier in some situations, but difficulty =/= complexity. You're suggesting to add gold to simplify the trading processes that don't(and most likely won't) even exist such as an Auction House.

"

FaceLicker wrote:

While I do enjoy the sarcastic banter going on, this thread has completely degenerated now.

Boo...

This thread was thoroughly derailed, why did you bring it back on topic? It will just lead to talking circles in again.

My apologies. It was better off derailed wasn't it?

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

scorpitron wrote:

"

Tarlin wrote:

This thread has run circles, and previous threads of this type have run circles... can we get a lock please?

i will trade you 3 chance orbs, 2 fusing orbs, a pet goat, and 3 shillings for that lock.

I don't know about that... Do you have any gold instead?

Let the circles begin...

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

That's not the argument at all. It's "The devs don't want it for a slew of logical reasons that they have clearly outlined for everyone to understand." You guys are simply overlooking all the reasons and focusing on one statement out of context.

That was the argument from many.

We are not overlooking anything here. We have read their arguments against gold, and that is why the OP suggested gold to be added this way. He could aswell have called it "magcal orb shards" or whatever. The point is a uniform currency.
It would not change much, but the things it would change would be for the better.
I can't find anything in that link that makes a point against the proposed system.
They are talking about a run of the mill gold system, but that's not what the OP suggested.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

Probably all the stuff everyone who disagrees with the OP has said throughout this thread. Why repeat it all?

Find one good argument and I'll give you a cookie.

"

Drunknmunkys wrote:

This thread is one big /facepalm...

Why introduce a middleman in gold? I want chaos orbs. I find leet bow. I decide I want 4 chaos orbs for it. Either I'll get 4 chaos orbs for it or the economy will tell me that 4 chaos orbs is unrealistic for that item, so I change my demands.

It's not just that the debs said no gold, they said they don't want anything to have a fixed value. You're ideas are all based on fixed item values...

Just like the threads saying "Oooo I think support gems should be more link runes in D3. Why can't they do that I'll have more fun.". PoE is its own game that is trying to be different, so let it be different.

Yes indeed. The trolling/sarcastic responses here is indeed /facepalm worthy.

Okay if you want 4 chaos orbs for your bow, assuming that that is it's exacpt market price, then you actually have to find someone who both:
A. Want your bow.
B. Have 4 chaos orbs to trade.

If there was an uniform currency that could easily be traded in for orbs then you would only need to find someone who have want your bow and have an equvivalent to 4 chaos orbs worth of currency (lets call is magic orb shards). Simpler. What are the downsides again?
It's important to note though, that this could happend today. It would only be much harder to value the orbs relative to eachother and you would have to go through more trouble to go from your bow to chaos orbs.

Who said anything about fixed values?
The price of orbs measured in "magic orb shards" can be based on demand.

"

FaceLicker wrote:

While I do enjoy the sarcastic banter going on, this thread has completely degenerated now.

Point is, gold does not work in PoE. It's introduction would only necessitate further balance changes, create a 'middle man' currency, and possibly remove the value of orbs as currency altogether. These are all very undesirable effects and do not fit into the dev's vision for PoE. You can't just claim that gold can be nothing short of beneficial without taking everything into context. Not utilizing gold as a currency is a key feature the dev's are claiming in an effort to differentiate their game from the myriad of other games on the market. Introducing gold directly conflicts with their vision and as such is a terrible idea to consider and even suggest.

Orbs are to PoE as materials are to other games. What PoE is doing is removing the middle man, gold. Instead of trading your weapon for gold, to turn around and trade the gold for materials, you are cutting out the middle man and directly trading your weapon for materials. When vendors are fully implemented in next patch, you will trade items for materials and vice versa.

In this situation it is gold that would make trading more complex and it is gold that would make trading less efficient. Now, gold would make things easier in some situations, but difficulty =/= complexity. You're suggesting to add gold to simplify the trading processes that don't(and most likely won't) even exist such as an Auction House.

The value of orbs would transfer to the "magical orb shards". Nothing else would change in that regard.

Orbs are note what materials are to other games. Atleast not in any game I have ever played.
Orbs are like having a dozen or more different currencies. It adds a layer of trading, currency trading. But why do we even want that?
There is a good reason why that is avoided as much as possible IRL: It makes the market less efficient.

"Cutting out the middleman" as you put it is not a good idea. It does not make trading less efficient. How can trading in one currency be less efficient than trading in dozens? That doesn't make any sense.
There is sound economic theory behind the idea of currencies. I know, I studied economics at the uni.
Adding "magic orb shards" would simplify every trading process.

Take everything the OP said in post 1 and 7, but change the word "gold" to "magic orb shards" and tell me, without circular arguments or flawed economical reasonings, why this would be bad?

because your flask shards.. or gold.. or pixie dust. solve nothing but add yet another system to balance.

Problem now: people don't know what a specific orb is worth (i don't think this is a problem at all, but some people evidently do)

proposed fix: introduce another currency system

How does that solve the problem? It would just cause people to ask "how much pixie dust is this orb worth?" which is just the same as asking "how many X orbs is this worth?"

The "problem" will be "fixed" once the sell vendors are introduced. How? Because when people ask what is X worth, they can be told, "well, at the vendor you'll get 2 of X orbs." or whatever it is the vendor gives, which will provide a base value for all items in the game.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

because your flask shards.. or gold.. or pixie dust. solve nothing but add yet another system to balance.

Problem now: people don't know what a specific orb is worth (i don't think this is a problem at all, but some people evidently do)

proposed fix: introduce another currency system

How does that solve the problem? It would just cause people to ask "how much pixie dust is this orb worth?" which is just the same as asking "how many X orbs is this worth?"

The "problem" will be "fixed" once the sell vendors are introduced. How? Because when people ask what is X worth, they can be told, "well, at the vendor you'll get 2 of X orbs." or whatever it is the vendor gives, which will provide a base value for all items in the game.

You have completely misunderstood the suggestion. No one would ask how much pixie dust orb X is worth. That trade would be handled by the system (like an NPC).
If the vendors can trade orbs for other kinds of orbs that is the same thing.

Vendor prices will be rather useless for the purpose of price setting. An item with useless highlevel mods is presumably worth as much as an item with perfect highlevel mods.