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

"

Boem wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

You admit that having it out side of the game creates a barrier.
Well that's the point. Removing that barrier would make it more accessible and thus detract from the self-loot and self-craft aspect of the game.

Cherry picking is fine, but what about the rest of my post.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

You admit that having it out side of the game creates a barrier.
Well that's the point. Removing that barrier would make it more accessible and thus detract from the self-loot and self-craft aspect of the game.

Cherry picking is fine, but what about the rest of my post.

Peace,

-Boem-

It's the same point. Adding the trade system in game would move the sliding scale from self-loot/self-craft towards trade.

"

Boem wrote:

It would not and if you had read my previous post you would have seen that that is not the case.

It is not the case now, with the current implementation and putting it in-game would change nothing about that.

Or you are arguing that people should throw away valuable resources at a point that is not beneficial for them which has no merit. Not to GGG and their balance and neither to the player experiencing it.

The assumption here is that GGG considers trade a core part of their game and balances around the fact it is so.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

The assumption here is that GGG considers trade a core part of their game and balances around the fact it is so.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

It would not and if you had read my previous post you would have seen that that is not the case.

It is not the case now, with the current implementation and putting it in-game would change nothing about that.

Or you are arguing that people should throw away valuable resources at a point that is not beneficial for them which has no merit. Not to GGG and their balance and neither to the player experiencing it.

The assumption here is that GGG considers trade a core part of their game and balances around the fact it is so.

Peace,

-Boem-

No, it is the case and you even admitted it yourself. If adding it in game would change absolutely nothing then there is no point to it, is there? Ofcourse though it would change things, it would increase trading because people would not be, as you put it, be detracted by the externality of the trading system.

"

Boem wrote:

The assumption here is that GGG considers trade a core part of their game and balances around the fact it is so.

Your assumption that if something is considered a core part of the game it must be encouraged at all cost.
That is simply wrong. There is no logical or game design reason why an external trade page can't be a part of the core game experience.

The game is balanced around trading, at the current trading-level.

"

kto9 wrote:

All these people that say that prices would plummet are just scared of change. Idk why people are so resistant to new things.

Why don't we just play 1 league with an auction house and see how it goes?

Hell, why don't we just start off with a bloody race with an auction house as an experiment?

Will prices plummet? Will Koam's be worth 2c?

Come on guys. It bloody won't. Let's just try it.

And if Kaom's turns into a 2c item cause of auction house, we can go back to old trade, but I know you guys are just scared shitless that you won't be able to scam noobs anymore.

"

Boem wrote:

Your assuming things and putting words in my mouth, that's not conductive to a good conversation, just saying.

The player-experience would change is what i stated, which has nothing to do with current trade-efficiency ratio's.

Similarly if a system is deemed a core part of the game as stated by GGG, then that does in fact imply you want your community to participate in that system since the game is based around the assumption it is being utilized by it's members.

If we illustrate this with feedback from some imaginary players

player A(doesn't utilize trade) : the story content is shit, character progression is poor and weak and bosses are tuned to hard

player B(does utilize trade) : story content is a bit weak and beaten to easily, character progression is pretty bad after level 60+ and bosses are far to easy currently

Both of these players are correct in their feedback. Now, who does GGG listen to? For which player are they making their game or designing around?

Other then a simple "trade" window there is absolutely no indication in-game about the trade-system as a whole, thus player A is correct in assuming his only way of trade is to talk to people and initiate a trade in that fashion.

Player B on the other hand has the entire PoE.trade mechanic behind his game-experience, perhaps he is an older player and evolved with the game so for him PoE.trade is a given.

Your basically telling me that player's A experience is good for the future of the game i hope you don't think that's how GGG views this right?
they want to limit the efficiency of trading(no instant buy-outs and famed "player-interaction" pre-requisite) to increase the barrier to trade.

Having more people actively trade wouldn't do anything to those barriers.(both demand AND supply would increase)

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : i'm fairly interested in how you think "efficiency" of trading is related to "volume" of trading.

Because both are independent factors that share no relation. If the market goes from 1/1000 successful trades to 10/10000 nothing changes in therms of efficiency.

"

Sickness wrote:

Oh come on, it's not that complicated. If you make trading faster, easier and a generally more pleasant experience the amount of trading will increase. You cannot escape this fact by stating falsehood like "everyone who trades are already trading as much as they can".

If people trade more it will shit the balance away from self-crafted and self-found gear.

I fully accept that you would like that. That is a valid opinion. Personally I think we are already too far towards the trading direction in terms of balancing.

"

Boem wrote:

So basically you don't have a counter argument and result(again) to putting words in my mouth and making assumptions.

trading

1) wouldn't be faster
2) wouldn't be easier
3) would be more pleasant(no longer need to visit third party sites)

"

Boem wrote:

So ill resort to my previous response to you, you didn't read my post or understand it at all.

"

Boem wrote:

Similarly to how you confuse "efficiency of trade" with "volume of trades" and somehow convinced yourself one leads to the other not accounting for obvious results of that change like an increase in potential buyers as well as sellers.(it's not a one way street/change)

"

Boem wrote:

You seem convinced that if more people trade, trading itself would become more efficient. That's complete bogus and i would like a logical deduction from your part as to why you think that's the case.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

You seem convinced that if more people trade, trading itself would become more efficient. That's complete bogus and i would like a logical deduction from your part as to why you think that's the case.

You got it backward. More people would trade if trading was made easier, faster and more pleasant.
To deny this is willful ignorance.