Trade Hate: Which one takes more skill?

"

SlixSC wrote:

When you look at it from a philosophical perspective free trading is immoral. It's not immoral by definiton, but the dynamics of a free market make it immoral.

Accumulating wealth (profit - the end goal in the free market) would be impossible in a system where people only exchange things of equal value (outside of abstract "things"), which means that, if someone wants to accumulate wealth others necessarily have to lose wealth.

This doesn't just apply to Path of Exile though, it also applies to the real world market.

The free market system is antiquated and altough it may have been a necessary evil in the past it is no longer necessary.

What makes me sad though is that this "free market-concept" even extends to games where it is absolutely not necessary, never was and never will be.

I definitely agree. The point I made earlier was that a SFL doesn't solve any of the trade issues. Fixing trade would fix trade issues. However, while it's not necessary in a game, there's a big difference between people working jobs they hate to make a living for themselves and trading in-game items they don't need for those they want. With that in mind, and the fact that you are not at all required to trade to play the game, it becomes acceptable for it to be part of the game.

Furthermore, being a customer doesn't entitle us to dictate how the company runs its business. It is in their interest to accommodate us, but they are not required to. If you don't like how they run it, vote with your feet and your wallet.

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

"

SlixSC wrote:

When you look at it from a philosophical perspective free trading is immoral. It's not immoral by definiton, but the dynamics of a free market make it immoral.

Accumulating wealth (profit - the end goal in the free market) would be impossible in a system where people only exchange things of equal value (outside of abstract "things"), which means that, if someone wants to accumulate wealth others necessarily have to lose wealth.

This doesn't just apply to Path of Exile though, it also applies to the real world market.

The free market system is antiquated and altough it may have been a necessary evil in the past it is no longer necessary.

What makes me sad though is that this "free market-concept" even extends to games where it is absolutely not necessary, never was and never will be.

With that in mind, and the fact that you are not at all required to trade to play the game, it becomes acceptable for it to be part of the game.

I would be ok if trading was just "one of many ways to accumulate wealth" but as it stands trading is clearly "the best way to accumulate wealth."

I don't understand why farming level 78 maps for 6 hours has to be "less profitable" than "trading with people" for 6 hours. The time-investment is the same.

Now if the only solution to that particular problem were fixed prices and a heavily regulated market I wouldn't mind that solution at all.

"

Furthermore, being a customer doesn't entitle us to dictate how the company runs its business. It is in their interest to accommodate us, but they are not required to.

I can only speak for myself, but saying that "I think it would be really cool if x was changed" is very different from demanding x be changed.

I don't think anyone is putting a gun to Chris' head saying "if you don't do this bad things will happen!", most people are just posting suggestions about what they would like to see (or not see) in the game. GGG can do with that feedback whatever they want.

And if that feedback really conflicts with their own philosophy of the game to an extent that they could never possibly change the game the way some people here (including myself) would like it to be changed... then you have absolutely nothing to worry about, so why even make that argument?

"

SlixSC wrote:

I would be ok if trading was just "one of many ways to accumulate wealth" but as it stands trading is clearly "the best way to accumulate wealth."

I don't understand why farming level 78 maps for 6 hours has to be "less profitable" than "trading with people" for 6 hours. The time-investment is the same.

Now if the only solution to that particular problem were fixed prices and a heavily regulated market I wouldn't mind that solution at all.

Here we start to get to a place we can agree. The argument should be about which activity should be more rewarding. My stance is that farming should be better than trading until you get to items that are extremely rare. The problem is that "flippers" start out slower in their gains, but end up much faster. Doing something to limit the inflation of upper end items might be a way to start if this was something they wanted to fix, but I feel that GGG prefers these things to exist.

"

I can only speak for myself, but saying that "I think it would be really cool if x was changed" is very different from demanding x be changed.

I don't think anyone is putting a gun to Chris' head saying "if you don't do this bad things will happen!", most people are just posting suggestions about what they would like to see (or not see) in the game. GGG can do with that feedback whatever they want.

And if that feedback really conflicts with their own philosophy of the game to an extent that they could never possibly change the game the way some people here (including myself) would like it to be changed... then you have absolutely nothing to worry about, so why even make that argument?

I'm not advocating the use of death threats. I'm merely saying that your money is the only real leverage you possess in the way of getting things added/changed. To give a real world example: Wal-Mart has awful business practices, and have had documentaries and boycotts levied against them for a long time now. They have taken steps to clean up their act (a little bit, they still have a long way to go) and to repair their public image. Why? It's not because they care what people think--at least, not for its own sake--but because they lost a lot of potential sales. A similar principle applies with games. If a game company does not offer what you want, find one that does.

I understand asking them for changes, and providing feedback, but there's a difference between "reasonable requests" and "unreasonable expectations." While I don't personally place you in the latter category, I don't place you in the former either. However, I find that the vast majority of the SFL crowd do fit into the latter.

Just as an exercise in compromise, here's a concept: An item-only league.
The idea behind this is not to remove trade, but remove currency (other than scrolls). This would force the markets into a true barter system where everything is not labeled in values of "C" or "Ex." This doesn't directly violate GGG's game vision, and there would still be the traditional 4-month leagues as well. However, this takes a lot of the wind out from the anti-trade crowd while still preserving the most important points of the game: trade, group play, build diversity, and competition (if extended to races).

"

AlbinosaurusRex wrote:

"

SlixSC wrote:

I would be ok if trading was just "one of many ways to accumulate wealth" but as it stands trading is clearly "the best way to accumulate wealth."

I don't understand why farming level 78 maps for 6 hours has to be "less profitable" than "trading with people" for 6 hours. The time-investment is the same.

Now if the only solution to that particular problem were fixed prices and a heavily regulated market I wouldn't mind that solution at all.

Here we start to get to a place we can agree. The argument should be about which activity should be more rewarding. My stance is that farming should be better than trading until you get to items that are extremely rare. The problem is that "flippers" start out slower in their gains, but end up much faster. Doing something to limit the inflation of upper end items might be a way to start if this was something they wanted to fix, but I feel that GGG prefers these things to exist.

My stance is that "actually playing the game" should be encouraged. So.. I guess in that sense it really doesn't matter what exactly happens to trading. As long as farming would feel more rewarding (than it currently does) the leagues or game itself wouldn't even have to necessarily be self-found at all.

But from my own past experience it always felt that actually playing the game wasn't very rewarding at all and (in most cases) I would have been significantly better off spending my time trading with other people instead.

To me this seems like a problem. Again I understand that GGG or other players might not agree with me, but that's not the point. I can only share my own opinion and experience with the game.

"

I'm not advocating the use of death threats. I'm merely saying that your money is the only real leverage you possess in the way of getting things added/changed. To give a real world example: Wal-Mart has awful business practices, and have had documentaries and boycotts levied against them for a long time now. They have taken steps to clean up their act (a little bit, they still have a long way to go) and to repair their public image. Why? It's not because they care what people think--at least, not for its own sake--but because they lost a lot of potential sales. A similar principle applies with games. If a game company does not offer what you want, find one that does.

But it seems to me that you are jumping to an extreme here. If people think that there is a chance that GGG listens to their feedback then they should naturally try that approach first.

And call me naive, but I don't think GGG is as determinately profit-driven as walmart is. I'm just gonna go ahead and say that I think GGG also wants to make a game that people find fun and enjoyable to play, at least in part. (again that might be naive, but so be it)

"

I understand asking them for changes, and providing feedback, but there's a difference between "reasonable requests" and "unreasonable expectations." While I don't personally place you in the latter category, I don't place you in the former either. However, I find that the vast majority of the SFL crowd do fit into the latter.

Trust me I have absolutely no expectations at all. I'm simply leaving feedback here for GGG to perhaps consider. If, at the end of the day, they decide that my feedback conflicts with their personal philosophy of this game then I couldn't care less. At least I tried and voiced my opinion, for that's all I can realistically do without actually quitting the game.

(And let me just state here that not getting a self-found league would not be a sufficient enough reason for me to ever actually quit the game.)

"

Just as an exercise in compromise, here's a concept: An item-only league.
The idea behind this is not to remove trade, but remove currency (other than scrolls). This would force the markets into a true barter system where everything is not labeled in values of "C" or "Ex." This doesn't directly violate GGG's game vision, and there would still be the traditional 4-month leagues as well. However, this takes a lot of the wind out from the anti-trade crowd while still preserving the most important points of the game: trade, group play, build diversity, and competition (if extended to races).

Yeah, who knows? I think the important point is that there are clearly ways to change the game without "breaking" it. So ultimately this discussion seems well-worth having.

And it's not even necessarily about "what is better", because (outside of logistical problems perhaps) I see no reason why GGG shouldn't allow players the option to choose which version of the game they want to play.

I don't see this false dichotomy of "it either has to be this or that".

"

SlixSC wrote:

When you look at it from a philosophical perspective free trading is immoral. It's not immoral by definiton, but the dynamics of a free market make it immoral.

LOL. Oh boy. Here we go with the armchair economists.

Would you suggest that everyone become their own doctor, lawyer, plumber, shoemaker, farmer, and construction worker? Should we all become self-sustaining cavemen? Free trade develops naturally for a reason. Certain people excel at completing certain tasks, thus it's more efficient to barter/trade goods and services with each other. Even in a fully developed countries, people would be better off doing what they're best at doing, then taking the $$$ they earned to pay other people for their goods or services.

Trading is a communal activity. Trading is a willing exchange between both parties. Neither side is "forced" to do anything. It doesn't have to be the evil, immoral strawman that you're trying to portray.

"

rrtson wrote:

"

SlixSC wrote:

When you look at it from a philosophical perspective free trading is immoral. It's not immoral by definiton, but the dynamics of a free market make it immoral.

LOL. Oh boy. Here we go with the armchair economists.

Would you suggest that everyone become their own doctor, lawyer, plumber, shoemaker, farmer, and construction worker? Should we all become self-sustaining cavemen? Free trade develops naturally for a reason. Certain people excel at completing certain tasks, thus it's more efficient to barter/trade goods and services with each other. Even in a fully developed countries, people would be better off doing what they're best at doing, then taking the $$$ they earned to pay other people for their goods or services.

Trading is a communal activity. Trading is a willing exchange between both parties. Neither side is "forced" to do anything. It doesn't have to be the evil, immoral strawman that you're trying to portray.

You are interpreting things into my argument that I never actually said. So unless you "grow up" and actually address what I said, without personal projection, I will ignore you.

It's as simple as that.

So aside from concerns about expanding a race mode which is played "for fun" and tradecore spam; Does anyone else see an issue with a long term (2+ month) Decent league for the sizable player demographic looking for a version of POE not balanced around trading?

"

wrathmar wrote:

So aside from concerns about expanding a race mode which is played "for fun" and tradecore spam; Does anyone else see an issue with a long term (2+ month) Decent league for the sizable player demographic looking for a version of POE not balanced around trading?

I see an issue.

Called development time, there's only been two versions of Descent and both have a realistic cap of about ~20-25. I'd play through that in 1 hour, never mind making it last 2+ months.

The new act is coming out and it took over a year to make. Any "long-term" like that has got to be at least 1 act, am I right?

Now - PoE has a very limited development team and their resources are limited, you have to prove to them that they should invest a HUGE amount of time to make this new mode.

Either take it to reddit or use a strawpoll, but you better show them it would be worth it.

I'm going to pre-emptively predict this will never happen because of development time vs. demand.

I see your point about limited resources, but I think you are underestimating how much current code they can re-use. Such as the core decent code, endless ledge code, Vaal side area code, current zones code, and maps code.

Act 3 and Act 4 have such a long development time because GGG introduced and will introduce new game play elements, and new monster base types. With Decent they can simply re-use the current monsters, and current zones.

"

SlixSC wrote:

You are interpreting things into my argument that I never actually said. So unless you "grow up" and actually address what I said, without personal projection, I will ignore you.

It's as simple as that.

Oh, no no no. I understood perfectly what you were saying. And it sounded like a bunch of socialist drivel. The free market (capitalism) is alive and well in 2014. The free market satisfies the needs of the many, and the people who are able to satisfy the most will rise to the top. Long live corporations. Long live business.

PoE would not be around today if it weren't for the free market. Chris and the gang saw an opportunity to make a great game, and through fundraisers, ingenuity, and game-design prowess, they were able to jump to the head of the pack and make a successful F2P ARPG — the very game you're playing today.