just add gold and be done

Why do people think there are given ratio ? There aren't any, all trades are one way, so it's impossible to deduce any set ratio. Even though, people are still trying to say those are wrong. Of course they are wrong, because it's the proposition of a vendor who want to scam you...

Now, while I like the idea of rotating recipe to resolve some problems. It creates more other issues. First, it will confuse people even more than now. Plus it will create real ratios, indeed if a scroll of wisdom is replaced by 2 transmutation shard in a recipe, it will clearly mean that these two are equal.

And no, a knife may be more useful than a gun in many situations. I think you can't find an item that is better than another in every situation.

"

Nate_Prawdzik wrote:

Witt, you said this:

"

...it isn't intended that you should be hauling tons of gear back to the vendors, it's optional.

Is it intended that you should be killing monsters?
Yes.

Is it intended that they should drop items you don't need?
Yes.

Is it intended you can turn items you don't need into items you do need (via vendors)?
Yes.

Is the intent of the game to collect items you need as best as possible?
Yes.

Is "the best way possible" turning things you don't need into things you do need instead of just ignoring them?
Yes.

Using vendors is not optional when playing the game as intended.

Yes you kill monsters.
Yes they drop things you dont need.
It is OPTIONAL to take them to the vendors,
It is OPTIONAL to trade them with other players
It is OPTIONAL to leave them on the ground.

If you intend/desire to gain the best possible worth from your items, it will always be better to trade with other players. Unless the items are pure trash, or you happen to be looking for a particular group of items to trade to a vendor in order to utilize a particular recipe.

It seems to me like you aren't understanding the purpose of the vendors.. it isn't like D2 when you just haul back all your crap for gold. You CAN haul back all of your crap for shards/fragments, but that is a very burdensome and time consuming process. Your efforts would be much better spent:

1. looking for specific drops, for specific recipes, to gain specific items.
2. picking up good items to trade with other players.

Also, Chris has stated numerous times that GGG's goal isn't to have people haul back all of there items, but to use the vendors as I have outlined above.

"

zriL wrote:

Now, while I like the idea of rotating recipe to resolve some problems. It creates more other issues. First, it will confuse people even more than now.

Random is always confusing to people for some reason. No way around it. However, this approach is actually quite simple. It's random. Random fits in well with PoE.

"

Plus it will create real ratios, indeed if a scroll of wisdom is replaced by 2 transmutation shard in a recipe, it will clearly mean that these two are equal.

Apparently you don't undestand the meaning of random. As well you can't imagine the details without it being completely specified. If one day its a scroll, and the next 2 trans shards, the next day could be 3/5 of a scroll, and the next 1 trans shards. It rotates, but it's still random. How are set value ratios created out of randomn returns?

"

And no, a knife may be more useful than a gun in many situations.

Perfect! You understand how player determined values work in a bartering economy.

I suppose that was an error to say a gun will always be worth more. I beleive it would be in terms of practicality when it comes to killing. Where as a knife is more practical for slicing the meat off the bone.

"

zriL wrote:

It's sad so many people don't seem to understand what's the purpose of this system and how it's meant to be used.

There's no gold and people want the system to work as if there were gold.

It's pointless to try to determine a fixed relative value between items and currency because there isn't any.
It's pointless to look for a way to trade profitably with vendors because it's impossible, vendors are and will always be the winner in almost all trades, and it's intended.
It's pointless to put so much thought in this system, involving maths and such, you're wasting your time.

The vendors are meant to be used in particular situations depending on what you need at some point. Vendors aren't necessary in your gaming experience, it's here to help you only if you want. And it does his jobs.

1. With sufficient trade, prices stabilize. It's basic supply and demand.
2. If that were true, no one would ever use vendors.
3. Right. So we're on a beta forum intended for feedback and we shouldn't give feedback. Great train of thought there.

"

Strill wrote:

"

zriL wrote:

It's sad so many people don't seem to understand what's the purpose of this system and how it's meant to be used.

There's no gold and people want the system to work as if there were gold.

It's pointless to try to determine a fixed relative value between items and currency because there isn't any.
It's pointless to look for a way to trade profitably with vendors because it's impossible, vendors are and will always be the winner in almost all trades, and it's intended.
It's pointless to put so much thought in this system, involving maths and such, you're wasting your time.

The vendors are meant to be used in particular situations depending on what you need at some point. Vendors aren't necessary in your gaming experience, it's here to help you only if you want. And it does his jobs.

1. With sufficient trade, prices stabilize. It's basic supply and demand.
2. If that were true, no one would ever use vendors.
3. Right. So we're on a beta forum intended for feedback and we shouldn't give feedback. Great train of thought there.

I think all of the feedback possible has been given on this topic, and now it's just people arguing.

"

always be better... Unless...

Sometimes always is always, sometimes always is unless, but unless is always unless unless it's always.

>.<

Dying, by your definition, is optional. I mean, you can do it, so that makes it optional right? Oh wait, no, that would not be playing to be the most effective you can be.

Vendors, by your definition, is optional. I mean, you can earn less than your maximum potential, so that makes it optional right? Oh wait, no, that would not be playing to be the most effective you can be.

Although you're right that the option to play the game poorly exists, within the confines of intending to play the game to maximum effectiveness, they are not optional.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

I think all of the feedback possible has been given on this topic, and now it's just people arguing.

It's been in this state for months, with no new practical ideas.

Considering the return rates on your time invested in vending items, I would agree that the system is entirely optional. If it had larger returns, it would be necessary for maximum potential. As it is now, the investment (just time, as that's all we really put into the game) gains similar returns on both killing for loot and vending. That means, to me, that the system is in no way mandatory. People who are saying it is mandatory may not understand the intent of the system. It's been clearly stated by Chris that they don't want players to see this as something they must do. The current system discourages constant vending of every item, which is important in keeping the system optional.

Maybe someone with a ton of extra time on his hands can do an unbiased test to see what method produces the most currency over time. Spend X amount of time playing for drops only, then spend X amount of time vending everything. Finally, spend X amount of time selectively vending items for recipes only.

I would bet that the first test would yield the best results of currency over time.

"

zriL wrote:

You didn't understand what's a barter system. In a barter system, the value of a currency is different for everyone, that's why you can't know what worth what. It's not a bad aspect, it allows people to make win/win trades while a money system can only make equal trades, which are just plain boring.

Your lack of understanding of economics is staggering. Rational people never knowingly make "equal" trades. If the trades were equal, why would they bother to take the time to trade? Every trade is made because both parties believe that what they're getting is worth more to them than what they're giving up. A barter system has nothing to do with it.

A barter system also does not in the slightest imply that prices will be unstable and widely varying. Price instability is dependent on there not being enough resellers or middle-men. The barter system is only tangentially related.

Please stop trying to justify a barter system with irrelevant arguments.

You're right but you're talking about reality. Here we are trying to determine what's better for a game. People are complaining because they are no fixed relative value between things and that gold would solve this issue. Some people want "equal" trades, that are always stable. And I'm saying those are boring.
Of course, you can make varying prices with gold depending on offer and demand. Many games made it work, but I think GGG don't want that. Maybe they want to be closer to a true barter system, where, by definition, no money should be involved at all. This encourages player to player trading, if vendors where as profitable as player to player trading, almost noboby would trade with anyone in the end.


Anyway, this thread isn't going anywhere now. So you won't see my irrelevant arguments again here :p

"

zriL wrote:

You didn't understand what's a barter system. In a barter system, the value of a currency is different for everyone, that's why you can't know what worth what. It's not a bad aspect, it allows people to make win/win trades while a money system can only make equal trades, which are just plain boring.

That's not how it works. There is no reason why you can't know what something is worth in a barter system.
The problems are that it's harder to know what something is worth and to actually get that value for your item when you trade.

I know that your side of the arument really wants to, but you can't disregard economic principles.