Trading sucks.

If they wanted to kill trading in general, wouldn't they just make vendor trades actually worth it beyond the recipes? I mean you end up with so much crap unqiues for your builds.

AH fixes the time vs reward issues that RNG mechanics produce.

"

brushmonkey wrote:

clearly you just want to be able to trade easily and don't care about the further reaching consequences, which is fine. It just means you are wrong in your statements.

This just tells me you did not read a word of my post. I specifically made suggestions which should limit the negative consequences.
Please read what people write before making assumptions about their motivations.

"

Kulze wrote:

"

brushmonkey wrote:

Which means more people getting items from trade rather than drops, because its more convenient. Which is the situation GGG wants to avoid, because easier item access = easier game = people stop playing sooner = people spend less over time = less profit for GGG = less content for us.

That's why limitations are a necessity.

The current limitation is pure tedium, that hurts the game. Newer players starting late into the league have troubles buying maps as the market is flooded but since the price-point of each individual one is low people don't bother to exit their content... or even answer.

I can understand that, who would go for a 1 alch or 1c trade during a delve or during a map?
In-between, sure, in content, no.
Also de-listing and re-listing is a bother to do between every single map, hence buyers get ignored.

So, because of that reason alone we need a different mechanic for trading, one which isn't limited by tedium but instead by actual mechanics. This - obviously - causes a larger influx of players, but with the proper limitations regarding different stages of the game it can absolutely be handled.... it's just a huge undertaking to implement, performance obviously comes at NR. 1 before that. Though trade should be NR. 2 already.

"

brushmonkey wrote:

popularity is NOT a plus if you specifically want relatively low popularity.

GGG wants low turnover, not low popularity. That's an important difference there.
If they want low popularity for one of their corner-stones of the game (even mentioned in their base-description) then they are incompetent by default, so I won't push them into this category.
On the other hand the types and amounts of trade have changed so significantly over the course of the years that the old system just can't properly handle it anymore, each league the issues grow bigger as most things de-valuate so quickly that it's not worth to exit a map, and for instance fossils for top-tier crafting are needed in such an amount that buying them becomes a hassle, the same with exchanging currency.

Absolutely all true.

GGG wants to have their cake and eat it. Player trade with a free market, but that market shouldn't accelerate player power beyond a threshold and it should be optional...theres a bit of cake in the mouth, but mostly its all over the floor.

I honestly think that the solution needs to be deeper than just player trade. In game access to certain types of item needs to be more attractive to make bad trade unnecessary.
Automated trade would be like putting a splint on a broken leg and trade limitations a crutch to aid the temporary repair. What is needed is to pin and set the crushed and mangled femur of PoE item acquisition.

Maybe 4.0 will be a drop balance overhaul?

"

SisterBlister wrote:

"

brushmonkey wrote:

clearly you just want to be able to trade easily and don't care about the further reaching consequences, which is fine. It just means you are wrong in your statements.

This just tells me you did not read a word of my post. I specifically made suggestions which should limit the negative consequences.
Please read what people write before making assumptions about their motivations.

What i meant was you havent considered fully the consequences of your suggested solutions, because maybe they wouldn`t be something that you would be encounter in your experience of the game, not that you intend malice. In the effort to try and avoid walls of text I may appear confrontational.

I read your posts, but see holes in the reasoning and solutions, which I have tried to address.

"

Kulze wrote:

As usual, there are option to alleviate your mentioned issues even with an automated system. But you're right with the base-assumption.

Limitations of some sort are mandatory... those shouldn't be at the cost of convenience though, viable options to make it convenient + limited are available. Hence timed-listing, fees, re-listing cooldown (let's say 3 days or 1 week, viable enough even for leagues) and so on.

No solutions to the main issue, that any kind of easier trade would widen the difficulty gap between trading and non-trading players have been presented by anyone.

With easier trade, GGG would have exactly two options, both bad for their bottom-line:
1. Keep difficulty as is, making the game a cake-walk for trading players (thus not challenging or exciting)
2. Raise difficulty, making the game impossible to play for non-trading players (which is the majority)

Thus easier trade can not be implemented. Apart from the (significant) cost of implementing it, it would also be a huge financial risk. No sensible company would do so.

"

brushmonkey wrote:

Maybe 4.0 will be a drop balance overhaul?

Drop balancing will not matter... For the game to be viable for the (majority) non-trading players, they still have to be 'high'.

The only thing that could help enabling Auction House style trading would be if items started wearing out while being used. Diablo 2 style durability (without the option of repairing) would work nicely.
Item drops would then have to be increased a lot, and the balancing would be tricky, but it would probably be done.

HOWEVER, it would be financially risky for GGG (which ensure it'll probably not happen). The game would be effectively changed into another game, with no certainty it would catch on with new players. A lot of existing players would not like it and quit.

"

Cyzax wrote:

With easier trade, GGG would have exactly two options, both bad for their bottom-line:
1. Keep difficulty as is, making the game a cake-walk for trading players (thus not challenging or exciting)
2. Raise difficulty, making the game impossible to play for non-trading players (which is the majority)

1. The market is dictated by offer and demand drop rates for good item would continue the same, so no change in the offer and items exiting the market to become someone's final item would also continue the same, so no change in the demand. The availability of good items for top players would not change nor the game's difficulty

2. With easy trade, non-traders would become traders and be finally able to aim to become good players, maybe even top players

"

Pizzarugi wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

"

Pizzarugi wrote:

I, myself, send 2 messages to each person I PM for trade, waiting to send a second only after the first message fades. And if they don't respond, I write them off as a price fixer and block their listings on the trade site.

...wow.

i'm glad you conclude that everyone taking a piss/in the mine/etc is a "price fixer."

hahaha. this thread's hilarious.

so many people blaming "trade" for their own actions.

It takes literally zero effort to say something like "delving" or use the /afk chat function before taking a piss. Thankfully, I've met people who actually let me know they're busy, and I make sure to do the same if messaged to trade.

Come on, dude...

yeah, sure. let me just stop and type things out while i'm swarmed by delve bugs as my cart runs away. sounds like a great idea.

it definitely makes more sense than reaching a safe spot and then responding. /s

"

Cyzax wrote:

No solutions to the main issue, that any kind of easier trade would widen the difficulty gap between trading and non-trading players have been presented by anyone.

Because that base notion is INHERENTLY WRONG.

First of all that's a given, it's like saying 'Nobody as given a suggestion how to solve the issue that killing uber-elder grants an extra Sextant, this is a gap between top-tier players and the others'. OBVIOUSLY. INTENDED.

If trade had NO UPSIDES then OBVIOUSLY NOBODY would use it. It's a tool. If you don't use the tools provided to you then you'll always be slower then someone using all of them, period.

You're asking for something which is IMPOSSIBLE to solve by TRADE EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Unreasonable.

That all doesn't even take into consideration that people abstain from trade BECAUSE IT IS TEDIOUS rather then not wanting to trade at all. There is SSF for that for an OBVIOUS reason.
Hence your whole point if moot in the first place... nonetheless I'll go into your follow-up reasoning in a bit.

Though before that: Incentive to use the system for more players needs to be adjusted by limiting effectiveness of the system ITSELF regarding the different situations and stages of the game (as said before several times). Hence the solution for a change in trading has to be trading itself, the current situation is literally abysmal, the (viable) issues talked about can be handled by proper iterations of it with proper drawbacks to the system SHIFTING the investment from pure tedium to other things. This namely can be waiting times (To make it not faster), fees (to add a ressource-investment), limited EQUIPMENT sales (to limit the acquisition- and turnover-time), limited re-selling options (To take care of artificial inflation or deflation of prices and reduce the volatility of the market) and so on.

"

Cyzax wrote:

Thus easier trade can not be implemented. Apart from the (significant) cost of implementing it, it would also be a huge financial risk. No sensible company would do so.

The majority here hasn't talked about EASIER trading, people talked about SHIFTING the FOCUS of the needed investment (Time-investment with really tedious situations for both buyers and sellers) to a system with causes different downsides ON PAR with the current time-investment. Hence your point here in itself is contrary to what is the main focus of the discussion --> dismissed.

"

Cyzax wrote:

Drop balancing will not matter... For the game to be viable for the (majority) non-trading players, they still have to be 'high'.

Culling the current drops by 99% by re-working the quality of those that actually still drop would cause the total value returned to not have any difference.

So yes, re-working the drop-system WOULD make a change in trade.

For one part it means if a player finds an item then it's most likely one at least viable for any build running the respective content at the moment.
As for another the flood of 'mediocre' items is culled to a more reasonable amount. Instead of 20 '5c' amulets and a single '70c' one you'll only get the '70c' drop in the first place without having to sift through tons of drops without any value at all.

"

Cyzax wrote:

The only thing that could help enabling Auction House style trading would be if items started wearing out while being used. Diablo 2 style durability (without the option of repairing) would work nicely.
Item drops would then have to be increased a lot, and the balancing would be tricky, but it would probably be done.

Non-viable, mirrors = worthless, meta-crafting = worthless, progression beyond a certain point = worthless.

Absolutely not even remotely an option.
Soul-binding is a more viable solution for this, though not via acquisition but people actually needing to make a choice to do so, but also not something GGG would do.

Also dismissing the notion that ANY OTHER options is available already narrows your view-point heavily, there ARE other options, actively search for them and tinker around until a proper one is made.

Here is one:
-Actual auctions are only done for items and have a large fee (causing all items who aren't top-tier to be actively detrimental to put in)
-Consumables are handled by an automated market, period. Need a map? Click buy and the cheapest (and of those oldest) one in the market is automatically transferred to you while your currency goes to the seller. Causes consumables to have a stable price-range no matter the price-tag.
-Equipment buying is limited heavily and NOT FULLY AUTOMATIC, 1-2 items PER DAY... OR a large waiting time (RL time). Want to have that juicy upgrade? Sure, here you go, in 6 hours you have it! Likely you'll get something in the meantime? Well, don't buy it. Also the seller should NOT be notified which item someone wants to buy BEFORE THE HO. This makes every potential trade viable and causes people to ONLY set up those worthwhile enough to leave a map --> push to high-quality equipment with further progression which causes younger players to have a chance to sell in their stage in progression as advanced players won't bother with 'flooding' the market.

"

Cyzax wrote:

HOWEVER, it would be financially risky for GGG (which ensure it'll probably not happen). The game would be effectively changed into another game, with no certainty it would catch on with new players. A lot of existing players would not like it and quit.

Obviously, that's why adjustments have to be made slowly, first of all performance needs to be solved by GGG (Changes in the Engine ---> time intensive) then they need to adjust the drops (4.0) then they need to implement an in-game solution ONLY for trading, then they need to add a instant-buy method for consumables, then they need to limit the item-acquisition, then comes the Auction itself and after the system can be steadily adjusted along the line.

There has to be a START for that though, GGG doesn't even ACKNOWLEDGE that people have troubles with the current system, they don't address ANY of the ACTUAL issues with the mechanic and dismiss them openly as 'tough luck, eat shit!' to players with their answers. Even saying 'we got no clue how to fix it but we are aware of 'x' 'y' and 'z' would already be fine... but that's not the case --> lack of competence in this regard.

"

robmafia wrote:

"

Pizzarugi wrote:

"

robmafia wrote:

...wow.

i'm glad you conclude that everyone taking a piss/in the mine/etc is a "price fixer."

hahaha. this thread's hilarious.

so many people blaming "trade" for their own actions.

It takes literally zero effort to say something like "delving" or use the /afk chat function before taking a piss. Thankfully, I've met people who actually let me know they're busy, and I make sure to do the same if messaged to trade.

Come on, dude...

yeah, sure. let me just stop and type things out while i'm swarmed by delve bugs as my cart runs away. sounds like a great idea.

it definitely makes more sense than reaching a safe spot and then responding. /s

I’m with you on this one. TradeMacro makes responding a one-click effort but the game doesn’t provide anything like that. No way I’m risking losing XP to sell something no matter the price. Especially considering some people won’t wait a minute anyway, making the risk not worth it. Sucks that I’m being labelled as a price fixer for that.