just add gold and be done

"

fartloud wrote:

look at the real world example... there is a reason why trading goods is gone and we have money. oh and the EURO thing as well.
i dont see why we should go a few hundred years back in a video game. its not like we are roleplaying mount and blade or smth

+1 to this line of argumentation.

today we have automated guns, mighty combat vehicles, ballistic rockets and nukes. so why do i have to run arround and kill monsters with a club in poe?!

oÒ

/troll


besides all the arguing about technical/gamedesign decisions, keep in mind that ggg is trying to develope a consistent world (postapocalyptic) with a specific setting that _they_ have in mind (and yes, they are concerned about immersion issues, at least to some extent, and i am glad about that).

and for my part...* i am always happy when i stumble across games where the devs are trying something "new", even if its more "awkward" than "cool" on the first glance. most complaints in this thread - but thats only my interpretation (again..) - seem to be longing for a more "streamlined" system.

yes, its a bitch for noobs. but to me (and i have been a noob in poe...) its fun to learn about it, make my errors and finally manage to master the system. learning and adapting (and failing before) is the main source of gaming-fun for me. the more complex the system, the more fun for a longer time. so i love the currency-system, the vendors, the awkward passive-tree, the complex item-system, the randomnes in drops and crafting, the... ... ...

yes, i like the currency-systems. i am using most of the lowlvl stuff to pimp my gear and i have always managed to buy/craft/trade good stuff with the highlvl currencies. i really dont see the need for a "second layer" or a pure gold based economy where the benefits from the currency-items are reduced to a service wich can be bought from a npc.


(*after reading and posting in the forums a lot, im well aware of the fact that i seem to belong to a minority. i have played d2 for years, not soloing, not using bots or cheats, trading for/with items, gems, runes... and ive always managed to get my chars in the 90s with decent gear. not the 100%-kickass-equipment, but that never was/is my goal).

"

Clownkrieger wrote:

besides all the arguing about technical/gamedesign decisions, keep in mind that ggg is trying to develope a consistent world (postapocalyptic)

Fallout does that far better (nuka caps anyone ?)

I like that fact there is no currancy , only trade , just wish they traded better items lol . Its something diffrent , so yeah +1 for GGG ! :P

"

Vvemoth wrote:

This thread suffers from people who are unable to use their brains.

The currency system that is in place is based on a free market. You pay what you want for a certain item. You don't need mommy and daddy pricing everything for you.

Who is suggesting to have anything other than a free market?
The current currency system is bad, free market or not.

"

Vvemoth wrote:

This item costs 2 wisdom scrolls, will you pay that or not?

This item costs 1 alteration orb, will you pay that or not?

Earlier yesterday I traded an Alchemy Orb for a Chaos Orb. Even though a Chaos Orb is worth much more, and harder to find the guy I traded with DIDNT CARE because he DIDNT NEED IT and wanted the other orb! Free market people!

So he didn't get the value of his item. How is that a good thing?
It discourages trading.

Again, nothing to do with a free market.

"

Sickness wrote:

So he didn't get the value of his item. How is that a good thing?
It discourages trading.

Again, nothing to do with a free market.

Yeah, same point you can't grasp as in the other thread: the 2 players decided on a price that made them both happy. How did he not get the value of his item? He got what he wanted for it, and there is no dictated, set-in-stone value. This is far better than a system that constricts trades to specific values via an NPC. And yes, that is a big part of a free/open market.

You're saying that if Hardware Store A sells hammers for $5 and Hardware Store B sells hammers for $6, Store A isn't getting the value of their hammer and that makes it a bad system. If they're willing to lose a small amount of potential profit to bring in more customers and sell more goods faster, that's their own decision. They decide what a hammer is worth to them, and ensure that it's a price that customers are willing to pay. You should know that this is what drives competitive markets, not regulatory pricing that can't be undercut (like what is present in games that sell via NPC's).

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

Yeah, same point you can't grasp as in the other thread: the 2 players decided on a price that made them both happy. How did he not get the value of his item? He got what he wanted for it, and there is no dictated, set-in-stone value. This is far better than a system that constricts trades to specific values via an NPC. And yes, that is a big part of a free/open market.

If I know that 1 orb X is worth more than 1 orb Y, the only reason I would trade 1 orb X for 1 orb Y is because trading is consuming and complicated.


If time consuming and complicated is what the devs are going for, then they certainly have succeded.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

You're saying that if Hardware Store A sells hammers for $5 and Hardware Store B sells hammers for $6, Store A isn't getting the value of their hammer and that makes it a bad system. If they're willing to lose a small amount of potential profit to bring in more customers and sell more goods faster, that's their own decision. They decide what a hammer is worth to them, and ensure that it's a price that customers are willing to pay. You should know that this is what drives competitive markets, not regulatory pricing that can't be undercut (like what is present in games that sell via NPC's).

If store A is selling more hammers faster then they are not losing profit.

Having a currency market in the game just adds alot of complexity for no good reason.

The only reason why even call the orbs currency is because the devs labeled them as such.
The reality is that it's a bartering economy.
When more players join and trading increases you will see that over time a few of the orbs be used as a currency because a bartering economy is horrible (just like in D2 and every other game without a real currency).
Why should thet completely ignore this when designing the game?

Barter is fine. What is not fine is that the developers seem to be stuck in a Diablo 2 mindset and intend to make an improved D2 instead of a new game.

I like the concept of having no currency, it makes sense in the world. But as of now, all they seemed to have achieved is a different kind of gold, one you have to lug around like we're playing D1 again, but this time you can right click on the gold to identify items (another relic of the old days).

Not far enough to be a true barter system (which btw would require a lot more work, like a sell window that would accept items directly from the stash), not close enough to be as user-friendly as gold.

My pet peeve with ARPGs is that the gameplay is stagnant and usually not even there; most ARPGs just mess around in the margin, by adding laser weapons (Sacred) or a new passive tree (PoE). But in the end, you just do the same thing over and over. And trading items for identify scrolls is just gold in disguise. Not good enough.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

So he didn't get the value of his item. How is that a good thing?
It discourages trading.

Again, nothing to do with a free market.

Yeah, same point you can't grasp as in the other thread: the 2 players decided on a price that made them both happy. How did he not get the value of his item? He got what he wanted for it, and there is no dictated, set-in-stone value. This is far better than a system that constricts trades to specific values via an NPC. And yes, that is a big part of a free/open market.

You're saying that if Hardware Store A sells hammers for $5 and Hardware Store B sells hammers for $6, Store A isn't getting the value of their hammer and that makes it a bad system. If they're willing to lose a small amount of potential profit to bring in more customers and sell more goods faster, that's their own decision. They decide what a hammer is worth to them, and ensure that it's a price that customers are willing to pay. You should know that this is what drives competitive markets, not regulatory pricing that can't be undercut (like what is present in games that sell via NPC's).

"Can't be undercut?!" It's the barter system where prices can't be undercut! Tell me, how would you undercut an Alchemy orb?

The problems you're describing are #1. Price floors, and #2. a lack of ability to haggle, neither of which have anything to do with the lack of currency.

Items will always be worth what the player who has them thinks they are worth and what the player who she is trying to trade with thinks they are worth.

Adding gold does nothing to change this.

You can tell me the "market value" of a Zod rune pre-patch in D2. But that assumes that both the trader (with the Zod) and the tradee (without the Zod) are basing what is valuable to their play style off of calculations based on drop chance and that they also have the ideal items for trade at all times. doesn't happen, which is what leads to things like gold farmers and the like.


What.. I'll just guess here.. 90% of trades come down to.

Player A: I need a new axe.. posts in global.
Player B: Like this axe?
Player A: sure, what do you need?
Player B: A fusion orb.
Player A: Oh sure, no problem.. normal flats.

Now comes along player C who says "you know, fusion orbs are technically really rare (or whatever orb you want to use) you could have gotten a much better deal." and nobody gives a shit because A and B both have what they want.


But, it seems like people are just in love with beating this dead horse into oblivion so have at it.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

Items will always be worth what the player who has them thinks they are worth and what the player who she is trying to trade with thinks they are worth.

Adding gold does nothing to change this.

You can tell me the "market value" of a Zod rune pre-patch in D2. But that assumes that both the trader (with the Zod) and the tradee (without the Zod) are basing what is valuable to their play style off of calculations based on drop chance and that they also have the ideal items for trade at all times. doesn't happen, which is what leads to things like gold farmers and the like.


What.. I'll just guess here.. 90% of trades come down to.

Player A: I need a new axe.. posts in global.
Player B: Like this axe?
Player A: sure, what do you need?
Player B: A fusion orb.
Player A: Oh sure, no problem.. normal flats.

Now comes along player C who says "you know, fusion orbs are technically really rare (or whatever orb you want to use) you could have gotten a much better deal." and nobody gives a shit because A and B both have what they want.


But, it seems like people are just in love with beating this dead horse into oblivion so have at it.

Nobody gives a shit? Right so Player A doesn't care that he could've gotten two new axes instead of just one? Quit being so naive.