Real Money Auction House RMAH for poe

"

schwerpunk wrote:

Regardless of whether it's a good idea or no, GGG have decided to go in quite the opposite direction with their game. And I support them ($-wise, and as a voice in this community).

The best way you can support GGG is to support good ideas.

If GGG was about to jump off a cliff, would you just give them a thumbs up and tell them you support it?

"

Sickness wrote:

The best way you can support GGG is to support good ideas.

If GGG was about to jump off a cliff, would you just give them a thumbs up and tell them you support it?

Supporting good ideas is one thing, but not supporting something that's both a good and bad thing is totally different.

He never said he would support absolutely everything GGG decides to do. This is something you can be for, against, or neutral about and not be wrong.

"

CharanJaydemyr wrote:

"

tpapp157 wrote:

It's a bit of a moot topic. GGG has no intention of adding a RMAH to the game. Though I do believe they have plans to add a normal auction house.

So why isn't in in the off-topic board yet?

I can't believe this reached 9 pages. No intention of reading all nine, and for a forum junkie like me, that's a miracle.

I read them, AgentDave actually has the best argument when he stated:

"

How is money "less fair" than having more time, or more friends, or more luck, or more connections, or more expertise, or more skill?

The rest of this thread is essentially full of nonsense and this basic question was never answered well.

All the above examples are also factors to consider, so there must be some other intrinsic values to them that make them different than money... so let's knock them off..

Time is the primary constant by which we are ideally measuring players against each other in terms of their item finding and trading ability. So I contend that having more or less time is one of the sole factors that is intended to be used within the game, and directly translates to what you end up with.

Having Luck is likewise a core part of the game itself and interacts with time to give you specific items.

Expertise and skill I'll put together and say that again, they are a core part of the game that is intended. Skill in the game directly translates to fewer deaths, faster progression, and a totally intended increase in what you get out of it.

Friends and connections... this is actually much closer to money than the others. I'd argue that it's intended that you can acquire friends and connections through parties and trading in the game. The game is a multiplayer game, so it's intended that you can also bring in more manpower and use it to your collective advantage.

Money... money does not drop in the game. Money in fact has nothing to do with the game at all... no aspect. Money is something that is disproportionately given to people for their time put in doing something completely unrelated to playing the game. You then leverage that time compensation in order to trade for a disproportionate amount of time in the game (by purchasing items without the in-game collateral to have made the trade possible otherwise, and the time potentially needed to be invested to afford it by a regular player would VASTLY outnumber the number of hours you spent at work.) The problem is that people play games to escape these real world shackles, and the ground rules for most games includes abiding by a set of (arbitrary) rules within the environment of the game in question. Most of the rules are hardcoded into the game, but some are ideological, and often generated by lack of enforceability, but often have the commonality of being external factors that differentiate people in real life whereby its desired to level that playing field within the game (like friends and connections, not all external factors are desired to be leveled in all games, especially when there are specific mechanisms within the game that promote and utilize these factors.)
Buying a disproportionate amount of power (time) due to completely external factors, is usually prohibited in a similar manner as using external programs is.

In general, using any play mechanism that is external to the game ground-rules (different for each game) that are used to level the playing field between different players to improve your game is usually considered cheating.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

The best way you can support GGG is to support good ideas.

If GGG was about to jump off a cliff, would you just give them a thumbs up and tell them you support it?

Supporting good ideas is one thing, but not supporting something that's both a good and bad thing is totally different.

He never said he would support absolutely everything GGG decides to do. This is something you can be for, against, or neutral about and not be wrong.

What post did you read? Not the one I quoted, that's for sure.

"

Sickness wrote:

What post did you read? Not the one I quoted, that's for sure.

Everything in the world isn't always a cut-and-dry case of good or bad. The possibility that it may be a good idea to do something doesn't mean it would be a bad idea to not do it. The RMAH is one of these cases.

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

What post did you read? Not the one I quoted, that's for sure.

Everything in the world isn't always a cut-and-dry case of good or bad. The possibility that it may be a good idea to do something doesn't mean it would be a bad idea to not do it. The RMAH is one of these cases.

Right. But you are still missing the point.
His post was very clear that he would support GGG no matter what.

Thank you Zeto, I appreciate the compliment, and I appreciate the reply even more.

I continue to disagree (big suprise, right?) but at least you took the time to reason out a reply.

While friends/connections/whatever *can* be formed in game, they can much more easily be brought from the outside world. Since you yourself acknowledge this, I think we're back on the "arbitrary distinction" tangent. Because GGG (or any other game maker) could in fact prevent that to a degree if they so chose - for example, run 10 (or 100. Or 3) versions of each league outside of Default, and randomly assign players, so that the likelyhood of ending up with your Sarge from back in the Army are greatly reduced - you can make connections within the game, but not rely on connections from outside of the game. (as an off-the-top-of-my-head example.)

Beyond that, there are various technical Game Design Theory reasons I disagree, but they're technical, and I suspect you don't really care, since "do it by the textbook" is kind of exactly the sort of answer I refused to accept myself as a legitimate reply.

You know I respect your input at any level, zeto, but if PoE is never getting an RMAH (and if it does, I'll quit and take my bloody birds with me)...why is this being discussed at all?

Is there some deeper tangential point at hand that can be related back to PoE and its development? The decision to not use any sort of standardised currency in Wraeclast is virtually set in stone now, I believe, and reflects GGG's deep dislike for any sort of standardised currency being used to obtain in-game goods. Maybe I read into it too much, but I felt the lack of 'gold' in game was a huge indication of just what GGG think about RMAH and 'extra' game trading.

I'm not burying my head in the sand and saying it won't happen, although I do believe that countermeasures such as limited-time, level-playing-field leagues can go a long way in mitigating the damage, but if I am aware it might happen, surely the devs have put even more thought into what may come to be.

...perhaps the strangest thing is that if the game were to become somehow 'pay to win' (and to me that does include being able to use real cash to buy in-game items), it's fairly obvious I'd be in a position to become quite powerful indeed. So it's not as if I'm against RMAH and the like because it would make me 'useless' and 'hopeless.' Sadly, quite the opposite.

I'm against it because it would make me a real arsehole and I'd know it and hate it with all the self-loathing of a recidivist junkie.

So thank frak GGG has no intention of allowing any sort of sanctioned RMAH. And for the people who are going to do it anyway on third-party sites: that's their corruption, not mine. As long as I don't have to directly interact with someone who has bought power, I'm fine with them beating each other up and cruising through merciless etc. I really am.

This also relates to why I'm such a huge fan of the soft Iron man style of current cut-throat leagues.

...Still think this belongs in off-topic *grumble*.

are you ducking kidding?

you must be...

"

Sickness wrote:

"

WhiteBoy88 wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

What post did you read? Not the one I quoted, that's for sure.

Everything in the world isn't always a cut-and-dry case of good or bad. The possibility that it may be a good idea to do something doesn't mean it would be a bad idea to not do it. The RMAH is one of these cases.

Right. But you are still missing the point.
His post was very clear that he would support GGG no matter what.

Sure, looking at it through your generally-biased eyes, it could be taken that way once you throw out all of the context around it.

If it was a cut-and-dry bad or good idea, you would be right. But, it's not. It can be fairly viewed as both good and bad at the same time. Supporting GGG for deciding on either side is still fair, because they can be right regardless of what they chose.