"
Perq wrote:
"
Sickness wrote:
1. The optimal frequency of trading would change.
2. Don't you see that "balanced around trading" means nothing on it's own? The efficiency and convenience of the trading system must be considered.
1. Nope. The optimal frequency of trading is: always, for everything.
2. Why? Do you really think someone will skip an important gear upgrade before HC boss fight because it is... inconvenient? Do you also think that you will be able to buy every map for 1alch like you are now, if they actually sell quickly?
"
Sickness wrote:
Yes that is the logical concluson to his claims. He has litterally said that players that trade are trading as much as they possibly can, which is all the time.
The problem is not with my conclusion, but with the original claim.
I am happy ot accept that the claim isn't that people are trading as much as they possibly can. That proves me right, as if people are not trading as much as they possibly can, they can be trading more, which would happen with a more efficient and convenient trading system.
All the time as in whenever they need to sell/buy something. Not literally ONLY trade. Why the fuck do I have to explain what he said? o___o
No, you are not right. You simply misunderstood (on purpose) and twisted the meaning so that you can be right.
Once again - people who wants to trade all the time (WHICH MEANS WHEN THEY WANT TO SELL AND BUY ITEMS, NOT LITERALLY ALL THE TIME - hope you don't miss it this time) already do that. People who can't be bothered with 3rd part programs and alt+tabing don't trade at all.
The system is balanced around trading. People who trade get the experience that is the main design (while SSF still being an option for people who want more grind), while those who don't want to bother gets shafted.
Claim 1: People who trade are trading optimally.
Claim 2: Optimal trading is trading always, for everything all the time.
Some-f*****ng-how not the conclusion (??!!): People are trading always, for everthing all the time.
[Removed by Support]
Last edited by Blank_GGG#0000 on Feb 13, 2018, 7:49:22 AM
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 13, 2018, 7:45:42 AM
|
|
If you don't understand what we mean, it is too bad. Think our explanation was sufficient to most people, so I'll call it a day.
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. Last edited by Perq#4049 on Feb 13, 2018, 7:51:19 AM
|
Posted byPerq#4049on Feb 13, 2018, 7:51:03 AM
|
"
Perq wrote:
If you don't understand what we mean, it is too bad. Think our explanation was sufficient to most people, so I'll call it a day.
No, I understand what you mean. I am trying to make you understand that it's wrong.
The logical conclusion from your claims is that either the system of trade does not affect how frequently players trade or that we are currently below some barrier where further improvements to the trading system would not make people trade more.
Agree?
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 13, 2018, 7:58:11 AM
|
"
Sickness wrote:
No, I understand what you mean. I am trying to make you understand that it's wrong.
The logical conclusion from your claims is that either the system of trade does not affect how frequently players trade or that we are currently below some barrier where further improvements to the trading system would not make people trade more.
Agree?
"
Trade is bothersome - only determined stay
Lastly, the point I've made multiple times now. The very fact of trade being bothersome means that many people will not want to take part in it. And as we all know, trading gives huge advantage, because you can get rid of what you don't need, and get what you need. Making (and leaving) it bothersome means that some people will simply pass on it, while other determined enough will milk it till the end of the world. Who is who in this scenario is pretty obvious, I think.
That said, this is funny how GGG is so stubborn about flask macros, but yet allows all sort of different trade macros that make trading way more EFFICIENT. Wasn't that the problem we started with, by the way? Efficiency being too high?
It is literally in the OP. No, you do not understand what I mean.
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
|
Posted byPerq#4049on Feb 13, 2018, 8:19:16 AM
|
"
Sickness wrote:
"
Perq wrote:
If you don't understand what we mean, it is too bad. Think our explanation was sufficient to most people, so I'll call it a day.
No, I understand what you mean. I am trying to make you understand that it's wrong.
The logical conclusion from your claims is that either the system of trade does not affect how frequently players trade or that we are currently below some barrier where further improvements to the trading system would not make people trade more.
Agree?
No, the distinction that you have to make is efficient players vs inefficient players.
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on Feb 13, 2018, 8:22:03 AMOn Probation
|
"
Perq wrote:
It is literally in the OP. No, you do not understand what I mean.
The quote is concerning how many people trade, is it not? I am talking about how much a given player is trading. The idea that you either trade "always, for everything, all the time" independent of the trading system or don't trade at all is simply wrong.
To make this point clear, imagine the PoE with only the trade chats as a trading system, and PoE with a full blown instant buy-out AH. You would surely agree that people who trade would tend to trade more in the second example than in the first?
If the upgraded weapon for the new act is 3 clicks away instead of 10 minutes of spamming it would surely affect the decision of buying, right?
If that is the case, then why would that principle not also apply to improvements to the current trading system?
Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Feb 13, 2018, 8:43:10 AM
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 13, 2018, 8:36:45 AM
|
"
Boem wrote:
"
Sickness wrote:
"
Perq wrote:
If you don't understand what we mean, it is too bad. Think our explanation was sufficient to most people, so I'll call it a day.
No, I understand what you mean. I am trying to make you understand that it's wrong.
The logical conclusion from your claims is that either the system of trade does not affect how frequently players trade or that we are currently below some barrier where further improvements to the trading system would not make people trade more.
Agree?
No, the distinction that you have to make is efficient players vs inefficient players.
Peace,
-Boem-
No, that is a meaningless distinction since no player is 100% efficient. It's all about a matter of degree.
Please give straight yes/no ansers to the following:
Does the system of trade affect how frequently a trading player trades? Yes/no
If yes, are we currently below some barrier where further improvements to the trading system would not make people trade more? Yes/no
Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Feb 13, 2018, 8:40:33 AM
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 13, 2018, 8:40:21 AM
|
"
Sickness wrote:
No, that is a meaningless distinction since no player is 100% efficient. It's all about a matter of degree.
Please give straight yes/no ansers to the following:
Does the system of trade affect how frequently a trading player trades? Yes/no
If yes, are we currently below some barrier where further improvements to the trading system would not make people trade more? Yes/no
So because in your eyes there is no player that is playing 100% efficiently, efficiency cannot be utilized as a scale to make distinctions between players.
Damn i wonder why all those people are complaining that only efficient strategy's are being rewarded in PoE.
(also known as skill/game-knowledge)
You realize the entire upset of a game like PoE is to obfuscate efficiency(skill) to create a reward loop where the discovery of the most efficient path feels rewarding right?
And that people fall into different stages of "skill" or "game-knowledge" right. Hell people have been complaining about this for the last three content updates, since GGG is doing a piss poor job currently of obfuscating efficiency for already skilled players.
(referred to in the community as "obviously pushing a "X" meta)
As for your questions,
1) in it's current implementation for a "skilled"(=efficient) player, no.
2) Since the answer is no, no need to respond to this.
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoem#2861on Feb 13, 2018, 10:01:18 AMOn Probation
|
|
i'm not the role model of a arpg player as i play intentionally inefficient (as f.e. i like loot tention and identifying loot).
when starting the game i played ssf for a long time and when they enabled forum trading i couldn't be bothered to open a shop myself. too much hassle and i occasionally exchanged currency with others in trade chat.
it's only when ggg introduced trade tabs that i discovered i suddenly had 150 of them and could conveniently sell stuff. i did start to trade, game changed alot although i never really got rich cause i'm not online all the time.
but i think there is a barrier for trading which still exists in alot of people's minds. that is additional to the barrier that is available stash which is needed to be able to offer items.
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
|
Posted byvio#1992on Feb 13, 2018, 10:29:55 AMAlpha Member
|
"
Boem wrote:
So because in your eyes there is no player that is playing 100% efficiently, efficiency cannot be utilized as a scale to make distinctions between players.
No. Because no one is 100% efficient, everyone falls between 1% and 100% efficiency, and thus the destinction between efficient and inefficient is completely arbitrary.
"
Boem wrote:
1) in it's current implementation for a "skilled"(=efficient) player, no.
What does that even mean? Would players not trade less if the ability to use sites like poe.trade was removed?
|
Posted bySickness#1007on Feb 13, 2018, 10:39:50 AM
|
