GGG's argument about AH/state of trade that is grinding my gears - 2018 edition

"

Miazga wrote:

well actually AH worked just fine when RM aspect was removed.

The RM aspect did not affect me, but the AH still more or less ruined D3 for me, and for many others. Which is why it was removed.

"

Miazga wrote:

You probably dont know this, but AH was only removed bacause D3 go from trade based game to fully BoA game, which also included improved drop rates, more targeted loot for chosen class and better quests rewards

You are putting the cart before the horse. The reason D3 went fully BoA was because the AH failed, not the other way around.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

edit : your fundamentally claiming that a person who requires an upgrade or increase in power is going to forgo utilizing PoE.trade as that road to power because he's required to press alt-tab.

No. What I am fundamentally claiming is that players don't only trade when it's absolutely required.

And of what do you base that stance?

As far as i know, the people that i know keep pushing the content as far as they can with the items they have or pick up along the way.

The days that people farmed fell-shrine for a full day to progress to the next difficulty/act are long gone.

And the people that you claim would utilize trade before that point, already do. Since trading is a mater of having the currency and then spending 5 minutes of your time to turn that currency in the desired item required.(if the market can provide it)

And if the current implementation already makes it a void point, there is little argumentation to be had since the game is already in the perceived state you find non-desirable.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

And of what do you base that stance?

As far as i know, the people that i know keep pushing the content as far as they can with the items they have or pick up along the way.

Since you can push the content all the way without trading that statement it clearly false.

"

Boem wrote:

And the people that you claim would utilize trade before that point, already do. Since trading is a mater of having the currency and then spending 5 minutes of your time to turn that currency in the desired item required.(if the market can provide it)

If it was 100 minutes instead of 5, would that affect trading? How about 50 minutes? 10? 7? 1?

The very obvious answer is that the faster and more conventient trading is the more often people will trade.

"

Boem wrote:

And if the current implementation already makes it a void point, there is little argumentation to be had since the game is already in the perceived state you find non-desirable.

Peace,

-Boem-

No, since it's not binary.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qqh9tuxluy

Here is how GGG sees issue. Speed/convenience (I.E. frequency) of trading on the X-axis and "fun"(or optimal game design) on the Y-axis (the numbers are arbitrary ofcourse).

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

And of what do you base that stance?

As far as i know, the people that i know keep pushing the content as far as they can with the items they have or pick up along the way.

Since you can push the content all the way without trading that statement it clearly false.

Uhm no.

I told you my parameters before, if the market can provide upgrades it will be utilized in optimal play.

You can push the content without trading and then we are talking about cases where the market cannot provides upgrades or the person in question is in my category 3) which contains masochist's who are aware of playing inefficient but are not bothered by that fact. A very minor part of the community.

If you wan't to base your argument around non-optimal play, then you first need to present the statement that GGG balances loot and drop-rates around sub-optimal play.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Sickness wrote:

If it was 100 minutes instead of 5, would that affect trading? How about 50 minutes? 10? 7? 1?

The very obvious answer is that the faster and more conventient trading is the more often people will trade.

"

Boem wrote:

And if the current implementation already makes it a void point, there is little argumentation to be had since the game is already in the perceived state you find non-desirable.

Peace,

-Boem-

No, since it's not binary.

But it isn't 100 minutes. People who want to get everything from trade already do that. You can sit all day complaining about these people, or that they are taking the easy way (not like you, the true player, btw ssf, tips fedora, PT died for this and so on), but this still remains a fact.

And of course it isn't binary - at this time we're at the point in which casual players simply don't want/know how take part in trade, so they don't. And because of that they lose out, which creates the disparity.
You can claim all day that if you make the trade less-annoying, it will be worse for the game, but the fact of the matter is that inconvenient trade CAUSES the disparity and not the way around. At least this makes more sense compared to what GGG is proposing.

"

Sickness wrote:

The RM aspect did not affect me, but the AH still more or less ruined D3 for me, and for many others. Which is why it was removed.

The reason D3 went fully BoA was because the AH failed, not the other way around.

This isn't true. At all. AH didn't fail. Nor was removed because of it.

What and why actually happened was pointed out many pages ago, if you wish you can find it out by yourself.
Or search on the internet for the many related topics.

It's just tiresome to explain something over and over and over and over.

edit: it ate my post... going to work, won't bother re-writing right now.

"

torturo wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

The RM aspect did not affect me, but the AH still more or less ruined D3 for me, and for many others. Which is why it was removed.

The reason D3 went fully BoA was because the AH failed, not the other way around.

This isn't true. At all. AH didn't fail. Nor was removed because of it.

What and why actually happened was pointed out many pages ago, if you wish you can find it out by yourself.
Or search on the internet for the many related topics.

It's just tiresome to explain something over and over and over and over.

So Blizzard lied? Why did they do that ? Why did they remove the AH in the first place if it was so great?
Nah, you are not making any sense.

"

Perq wrote:

And of course it isn't binary - at this time we're at the point in which casual players simply don't want/know how take part in trade, so they don't. And because of that they lose out, which creates the disparity.
You can claim all day that if you make the trade less-annoying, it will be worse for the game, but the fact of the matter is that inconvenient trade CAUSES the disparity and not the way around. At least this makes more sense compared to what GGG is proposing.

lolz @ the thought that easier trade (AH or otherwise) would somehow magically make the casuals poeconomics-savvy... and blaming the state of trade for the disparity of knowledge.

more casuals trading = more fodder for flippers.

"

torturo wrote:

This isn't true. At all. AH didn't fail. Nor was removed because of it.

i mean, i quit paying attention to d3 long before the AH was changed... but the above quote sure sounds like revisionist history to me.