Path of Exile - Relation of Economy x Gameplay

"

TheMotherFucker wrote:

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

TLDR: its really not "the game" that depend on the economy - its just the player(s) who think they are dependend on whatever they dont own.

Really? If GGG announced tomorrow that it will not allow more trades, would the game survive?

"

TheMotherFucker wrote:

...already results in annoying to many people.

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

"

TheMotherFucker wrote:

"

Mr_Cee wrote:

TLDR: its really not "the game" that depend on the economy - its just the player(s) who think they are dependend on whatever they dont own.

Really? If GGG announced tomorrow that it will not allow more trades, would the game survive?

beside the fact, that the only viable way (*) for such a decision would be to implement char (or at least accound) bounding (which is hardly imaginable) - why not? It wouldnt affect my gameplay that much, and even beside 'true' SSF activists/proponents there is a whole 'group' of solo players and other people with only insignificant/minor interaction to others. Maybe more we may think, we have no numbers...

"

TheMotherFucker wrote:

...already results in annoying to many people.

as I said above: its the mind of player(s), not a causality from the game itself.

And in addition to the other posts above: 'economy' is not exclusively/explicit for trading - there's also an economy without any player interaction (regarding each account itself, regarding vendor offers/values, and of course within droprates and -distribution).

(*) or to make any item vanish on dropping, in any area. (but wont still eliminate guild transfers)

"

Ashwin wrote:

I totally agree with what you are saying, however, we are the minority here.. The majority of the player base seems to prefer playing Wall-street-simulator with an ARPG minigame attached to it.. As a result, we are stuck with a wonderful game where all key decisions are made based on an "economy" that frankly, should only have been an auxiliary, tiny part of the game.

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

Unless you're trying for something very specific, one doesn't ever need to trade. So I think the whole assumption is faulty for the basis of your argument. To me what your argument is either removing the need to trade by increasing the drop rate (this might hold some water because playing SSF is far more time consuming than trading for what you need), or just getting rid of trade altogether so that this topic is meaningless (because you really don't need to trade to be successful and you need to be shown this reality).

"

This thread is too abstract. What specific element of path of exile is worse because of the economic design?

"

TheMotherFucker wrote:

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

Unless you're trying for something very specific, one doesn't ever need to trade. So I think the whole assumption is faulty for the basis of your argument. To me what your argument is either removing the need to trade by increasing the drop rate (this might hold some water because playing SSF is far more time consuming than trading for what you need), or just getting rid of trade altogether so that this topic is meaningless (because you really don't need to trade to be successful and you need to be shown this reality).

But that is precisely the X of the question. Even without having to trade, the game is so tied to the concept of economy that an X, Y and Z item is extremely rare to protect the economy. That the concern and apologies for the delay in resolving a bug is that this bug has affected the economy. Even if a person plays and never decides to use the trade system, he will be stuck with the RNG system that makes things extremely ridiculous because it was meant to protect the economy.

That's why I keep saying, if there was no such concept of game economy what would remain of it? Would there be people playing as they play today, in search of items to sell as dearly as they can?

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

"

TheMotherFucker wrote:

"

ghoulavenger wrote:

Unless you're trying for something very specific, one doesn't ever need to trade. So I think the whole assumption is faulty for the basis of your argument. To me what your argument is either removing the need to trade by increasing the drop rate (this might hold some water because playing SSF is far more time consuming than trading for what you need), or just getting rid of trade altogether so that this topic is meaningless (because you really don't need to trade to be successful and you need to be shown this reality).

But that is precisely the X of the question. Even without having to trade, the game is so tied to the concept of economy that an X, Y and Z item is extremely rare to protect the economy. That the concern and apologies for the delay in resolving a bug is that this bug has affected the economy. Even if a person plays and never decides to use the trade system, he will be stuck with the RNG system that makes things extremely ridiculous because it was meant to protect the economy.

That's why I keep saying, if there was no such concept of game economy what would remain of it? Would there be people playing as they play today, in search of items to sell as dearly as they can?

Look no further than standard. You can obtain reasonable gear for cheap prices, and mirror worthy gear is so expensive as to be cost prohibitive. People still play in standard. About 20% of the games population give or take. People also play SSF, so many do, that they added in leagues specifically for it, and there is no market economy for them at all, and they still have the exact same drop rates as everybody else.

As far as the league goes, as the market becomes saturated (which happens faster than it used to, since there are far more players in the league than in standard) the league starts to reflect standards market. People will still play the league. The major driver for people playing in the league changes from the market economy to simply enjoying the challenge league mechanics and performing the 40 challenges of the league.