Poe has outgrown Trade

"

robmafia wrote:

[Removed by Support]

'TRADING TAKES TOO LONG, I'D RATHER PLAY!'

THAT'S THE POINT! you're doing it wrong. you don't constantly need someone else's pixels in order to play.

there is truth in this statement. I also think the vast majority of what chris says in the trade manifesto is correct.


Im not sure what Id do tbh, I feel something needs done but im not sure i would add a full auctionhouse for everything.


I think for a start I would do what i see as the basic tidy up. Shut down the external api, close the trade forums, give everyone a 1/3 sized trade tab. Put the trade searching inside the actual game, build an interface and have all the functionality of poe.trade inside the game. For better or worse thats now the functionality people expect as a minimum, if they wanted less they needed to act 6 years ago before poe.trade existed.

set up a proper auction house for currency, maps, essences, all the little consumables.

I wouldnt add one for actual gear, id keep that a whisper system like we currently have.

Make a little external tool people can load up easily and log in to on a tablet/laptop/phone etc that gives access to the trade interface along with their stash so they can trade from their phone when theyre not playing, or they can have their laptop beside them logged in to trade while they play, maybe on a second monitor etc.

wit the in game ui why not have it when people whisper for a thing u can open an interface up and it shows u the whole tab and highlights the item theyre whispering about, shows u the tab name and any text buyout you typed on it to prevent the scamaz, just make life easier. Have it track ur whoops, save ur searches, follow certain items and alert you when that guy logs in, just make life easier man.


I believe this would remove a huge amount of the trade rage.

Hi guys,

the Discussion is interesting for several reasons...first off, I traded a few items lately. Despite the fact that I once got a response one hour later, everything went smoothly.
Second, there is a game out there that incorporates RMT, auction houses and ingame currency very, very well for over a decade: EVE online. It works. Just works.
Reading the dev manifesto on trading and why trading fails (like with D3) got a simple reason: The loot system. In D3 you very early reached a point where you could not make meaningful progress in a reasonable amount of time (with people having more in there life than that one game, that is).
Same goes for PoE: I only have characters in the 50s and 60s and making progress in regards to equipment seems...unlikely, and I am by no means equipped any good on any char. Getting the one weapon with the Rolls you need, the slots, the links, the colors...
The game is fun and all but making progress sometimes is a chore because most of the loot is just crap and thus you NEED to resort to trading if you want to do some endgame at least.
That is only my opinion as a rather noobish player.

"

Sickness wrote:

The reasoning in the manifest describes exactly what you and I just agreed on was a problem. Any solution to the problem we have discussed is also a solution to the problem started in the manifesto.

Want to go over them piece by piece? Well, let's do that then.

'Items matter, trade is important'.
'The ability to trade any item is a fundamental part of why people enjoy playing Path of Exile'

Well, good job on breaking the API so badly that most consumables aren't falling into this category anymore. Taking away the ability to a large degree.
Fail 1 for the current situation.

'Easy trade reduces the number of times a character improves their items.'

This is the other way around, with easy trading you use trade more often, hence more small rather then less big upgrades.
Fail 2.

'Easy trade means reducing drop rates'

This is inherently wrong, easy doesn't make it, quick and without any barricade creates this issue. Hence a stop-gap implemented. Still easy as heck though not frustrating as now.
Fail 3.

'Easy trade would make the disparity between different players too great'

This is the wrongest of the wrong statements.
90% of the player-base abstain from trading in total.
If you trade you have a far easier way to get forward in the game.
Hence the disparity closes if the 90% get incentive to use trading, this happens via making it intuitive and easy.
Fail 4.

'Easy trade allows for greater abuse by automation'

The current situation is the Eden of bots, the absolute worst-case scenario besides a pure auction-style market.
Everything a human has troubles with... finding items quickly, using a secondary site in a quick manner, pasting messages swiftly... a bot does it in a way which is many times quicker.
In-game solutions on the other hand can actually lessen the bot-issue... IF PROPERLY implemented.
Fail 5.

'This remaining frustration is the only thing standing in the way of trades being basically instant.'

This shows an utter lack of options even taken into consideration.
Search is quick, listing... is intended to be quick (utterly broken now) so... implement a stop-gap at the transaction and it's done. Where the fuck is the actual issue?
Fail 6.


I won't go further into other parts which are simply wrong. So no... while I agree that SOME points have a VIABLE BASE ASSUMPTION... it's so narrow-minded that I feel it fairly insulting to put me on the same level as Chris in this regard, he's not smart regarding that topic.

"

Xinronyr wrote:

Gameplay is already trivialized by meta build(s) that have an easier time approaching league content, and no amount of more convenient trading is going to make it more trivial. If anything, convenient trading will allow much more accessibility to other builds that aren't meta. There aren't a lot of people that would want to bother waiting around to get items for a non-meta build if its too inconvenient to do so, but that's my opinion so treat this as subjectivity.

You mean like Ed/Contagion which can fairly easily play SSF up to shaper?
And kill uber-elder with an investment of a measly 5 ex comfortably?

Yes yes... because easy trade wouldn't make that possible, right?

I'm fully on your side there, the situation won't change. It'll only change for the builds which haven't been 'broken to ridiculous levels' by now, which would actually be a GOOD change AT THE MOMENT.

"

Xinronyr wrote:

Most people want to convert currency so they can use the desired currency to engage in the game's actual mechanics, aka crafting. An AH would easily solve this problem and allow for players to engage in the crafting system more often. This is how it should be, especially as someone is building up their Atlas and optimizing their build by crafting their own jewels in case the ones with the mods they want are too expensive and/or too scarce.

Exactly.

"

Xinronyr wrote:

As for the purpose of Premium tabs? Simple... just make it such that items listed in Premium tabs show up in the AH to be purchased. Now people still have a reason to get premium tabs so their items are listed. More tabs = more items that can be automatically sold... the way premium tabs should have worked since their creation.

Also exactly.

"

Xinronyr wrote:

The only way I can see that happening is if they slow down gameplay, which seems to be something GGG is reluctant to do.

And which by now is a detriment to the game in such a large manner that it's causing their revenue to dwindle.
PoE has NO competitor anymore after D3 went down the gutter, nonetheless the player-numbers didn't rise in the same amount it should've done.

Also regarding accessibility of the game, I often hear as a remark to picking the game up 'Starting out in PoE feels very bad, there's so much information to learn and so little explanation that it feels awful' which I have to agree with.
Leagues are a nice thing at the moment... in theory. They are taking away from the core-design of the game though and are hindering the development in a major way by now sadly.

"

Sickness wrote:

There has to be road blocks to trading or we will get the D3 situation all over again, only this time far worse due to no binding at all. I really don't see how the posters who are comlaining about the current road blocks won't just make the exact same arguments against any other one of the same magnitude.

Your ability to intake information seems to be... slightly impaired here.

You realize people are only saying 'Bring an AH' which is the same as 'Change how trading is done' for anyone with a few working brain-cells?
Nothing about removing road-blocks entirely, the notion for an AH is 'we want to access it easy and do a trade easy' it doesn't state 'we want it without any MECHANICAL hurdles attached'. That's important.

You can create an AH which only allows to sell a specific amount of items in a specific amount of time, or list a specific amount of items, or take time to receive the item, or take time to list items, or 'locks' item as a listing for a specific amount of time, or 'locks' your currency if it involves an actual auction of an item, or.... you start getting the idea?

I hope so, because it's starting to become ridiculous in here.

"

Kulze wrote:

'Easy trade would make the disparity between different players too great'

This is the wrongest of the wrong statements.
90% of the player-base abstain from trading in total.
If you trade you have a far easier way to get forward in the game.
Hence the disparity closes if the 90% get incentive to use trading, this happens via making it intuitive and easy.
Fail 4.

This is where your argument breaks down completely. Trading should not be required to play the game!

Easy trade would force GGG to raise the difficulty level to compensate for every trading player having access to top items, or drastically reduce drops. EITHER would mean non-trading players couldn't play...

I am taking in the information just fine.
Removing road blocks to trading is a huge negativr, the reason why is found in the dev trade manifesto and is proved by D3 and poe itself, before and after poe.trade.
That the APIs proved to have a issue with scaling is to me positive as it reduces the speed and ease of trading, in other words it's a road block. If we remove this road block we know perfectly well what the consequenses will be. If we change this road block to another one with the same magnitude (be it any combination of what you suggested) all the same arguments can and will still be used against it and 99% of the people who are whining about trade will still do so.

This has to be acknowledged before any convincing argument can be made.

"

Cyzax wrote:

This is where your argument breaks down completely. Trading should not be required to play the game!

Easy trade would force GGG to raise the difficulty level to compensate for every trading player having access to top items, or drastically reduce drops. EITHER would mean non-trading players couldn't play...

'When we started developing Path of Exile in 2006, we identified several key design pillars. These are fundamental philosophies chosen to guide our design decisions throughout development. One of these was that "items matter". Items are a player's reward for playing Path of Exile. They're the primary way of measuring progress in a league. A person with vastly more in-game wealth has often played longer than someone with a higher level character. They also matter because if a player had better items, then they'd be able to build more powerful characters, play harder content, and be viewed as richer and more successful within the game. The acquisition of items is why people play Action RPGs. Chances are, if you're reading this, you understand why it's important that items matter because your Path of Exile items mean a lot to you as well.'

'For items to matter, it's important that they can be traded to other players. It's important that you could give the item to the other player, if they were able to convince you into it. For this reason, almost nothing in Path of Exile is bound to your account. Even in Solo Self-Found mode, which doesn't allow trading, items can be moved at will into the regular trading leagues so that you can benefit from their value if desired.'

So, let's break it down for you then, right?

Nowhere in my post was it stated as 'required' nowhere in the Manifesto is it stated as 'required'
So, the first question is, how are you coming to the solution to use the word 'required' and making a point out of it?

The ability to trade is severely hampered by making it frustrating, hence 90% of player abstain from it. This leads to 'Fail 4', disparity. As Chris said, the possibility of doing so needs to be viable, it isn't if you need to work around a massive amount of issues. Hence less trade-interactions total despite it being a design-pillar of PoE.

Also, you're unable to intake information:

Define 'easy', go ahead.
Is it easy to wait 1 hour on your item but do the trade-interaction in 2 seconds?
Or is it easy to have a 1 hour trade-interaction but wait 2 seconds on the item?

Which is the one you prefer, just from your gut-feeling... it should be obvious there.

Also... having access to top items... it's already the case, the upper echelon already runs around with a HH reliably at week 1 in the league!
Or do you mean top items like a 6L unique chest? Heck... I can farm that up in a day of hardcore playing in the current system with ease. For a newer player this is a major hurdle though. It's the disparity there which needs to be lowered. Then the game needs to be adjusted regarding to it. That's how it would usually go.

Also, niche builds already have the issue with them needing trade to get to end-game reliably in any sensible amount of time. It's those that suffer from the current situation, for the common meta-pleb like me it doesn't. Ed/Contagion and trade? Pfft... I'll get some non-ailment multi simply, and if I don't buy it... I can easily multi-mod it onto gear by now.

That's why the amount of players enjoying trade-interactions has to rise, it gives back the design-pillar Chris talked about, items matter. Right now I'll simply slap stuff into my trade-tabs and wait for them to go, I don't enjoy finding an awesome jewel for another build despite how expensive it is... simply because I'll sit on it for weeks most likely. I also don't enjoy crafting expensive gear as much... I'll most likely sit on it for weeks as well. More people taking place in trade would take care of that and actually make them matter again, enjoyment from finding stuff which isn't unique and expensive, a consumable which is expensive or pure currency.

"

Sickness wrote:

I am taking in the information just fine.
Removing road blocks to trading is a huge negativr, the reason why is found in the dev trade manifesto and is proved by D3 and poe itself, before and after poe.trade.
That the APIs proved to have a issue with scaling is to me positive as it reduces the speed and ease of trading, in other words it's a road block. If we remove this road block we know perfectly well what the consequenses will be. If we change this road block to another one with the same magnitude (be it any combination of what you suggested) all the same arguments can and will still be used against it and 99% of the people who are whining about trade will still do so.

This has to be acknowledged before any convincing argument can be made.

Once again... despite your words you haven't understood anything. I'm starting to think you can't understand it... so I'll try once again with easier words, this time for someone who has really really huge problems with taking in information properly:

Road-blocks sure, great, good thingy! Want to have!
Type of block... bad thingy, don't like, bad stuff.
Solution --> Take bad thingy away, add good thingy. Problem solved. Stays same at end.

Easier now?

It's the same concept as why formula 1 cars have limitations, to make the competition even and focus on specific parts of the sport, hence how intricate the design of some car-parts are and how good the driver is.
Those limitations have a very important reason there.

Now for PoE as a metaphor: It is the same as attaching a parachute at the back of Formula 1 cars, it will only open at specific places on the track... and also not always, very frustrating indeed that would be! On the other hand the 'good' limitations aren't used anymore, they aren't needed or taken into consideration, after all a car can be as powerful as anyone wants if it's unable to use the top-speed because randomly it'll be slowed down.
Enjoyable? No.
Proper competition? No
Solution to limit the output of the specific system? Yes... though faulty... same as trade in PoE, functioning but faulty.

"

Sickness wrote:

"

Marxone wrote:

It is possible to do auctions in a right way. D3 did not do it right

1. too many bugs in the auctions, from generating gold, cloning items to exploits
2. paying gold, having gold cap
3. adding real money into that mess

I played couple games where auctions worked, WoW, GW2 to mention some specifics.
Yes, it is possible to monopolize certain items, but it is overall better experience than player interaction for regular mass shopping.

Games where the vast majority of items are bind on pickup is not comparable in any meaningful way what-so-ever.
We dont even have bind on equip so with stable prices there would not even be an actual cost of buying an item and the market would be flooded.
There would have to be some serious restrictions to an AH here, and people would complain about them just in the same way they do about the current restrictions.

Might be interesting to tag every traded item with Bind to account :)
That would be a nice restriction for reselling.
Adding that even to currency.

In games i mentioned, sure, items are BoE or BoP. But for materials, it's not that restrictive. I think people call for auction mainly for currency swaps and maps. including fossils etc. For items alone, auction is not that necessary from my view. Trade does not bother me as buyer or seller, i am trying to go without currency trades or maps because of the current state of trade.

Anything is better than trying to trade with afkers for the last 5 hours.

If devs can't see this at this stage we are well and truely!

oh well back to pming afkers! so enjoyable...lmao


lose the stubborness and give us better trading options please.

"

Once again... despite your words you haven't understood anything. I'm starting to think you can't understand it... so I'll try once again with easier words, this time for someone who has really really huge problems with taking in information properly:

Road-blocks sure, great, good thingy! Want to have!
Type of block... bad thingy, don't like, bad stuff.
Solution --> Take bad thingy away, add good thingy. Problem solved. Stays same at end.

Easier now?

I perfectly understand the issue and I have been debating it from both sides for almost a decade.

I am making a simple point here; that essentially the same arguments of why the current road blocks are bad can and will be used for any type of road block of the same magnitude.

If you can prove that a new road block is better and does not increase reliance of trade I am all for it.

However, every time that discussion starts it become obvious that the intent is indeed to increase reliance on trade, which you made perfectly clear in your comments on the trade manifesto above.

"

Sickness wrote:

I am making a simple point here; that essentially the same arguments of why the current road blocks are bad can and will be used for any type of road block of the same magnitude.

Why it's bad:
-Being ignored (not answered) is inherently frustrating, that's a common psychological aspect.
-You can't play the game, you're working on mechanics around the game
-It takes up more time then getting the currency in the first place often does. This goes specifically for prophecies or some fossil-crafts.

It doesn't take you to be an Einstein to see that 'Ok, you have to RELIABLY wait 5 minutes to 1 hours - depending on value let's say - to receive the item' is less frustrating despite being such a road-block.
Sure people will complain as well about that, but it's AT LEAST BETTER.

Your argument is based on 'If we can't make it perfect we shouldn't touch it' at the moment, which is utterly BS.

"

Sickness wrote:

If you can prove that a new road block is better and does not increase reliance of trade I am all for it.

Since the sink is shifted and not adjusted to be more or less in general... there is no need for more or less reliance on trade. So yeah, better.

That one was easy.

"

Sickness wrote:

However, every time that discussion starts it become obvious that the intent is indeed to increase reliance on trade, which you made perfectly clear in your comments on the trade manifesto above.

And that's once again your personal ability to read into possibilities rather then just taking in those few written words.

Sure... I could write an essay of 150-200 pages of why trade is bad, which things effect it, how specific details interact with each others, solutions, problems of those specific solutions, basic economy to understand all of that... nobody would read that.
Hence you need to be able to see the potential something poses instead of stopping right at the end of the sentence. That's what's called to be narrow-minded after all, the lack of ability to see more then is shown openly.