Auto trade. Price fixing solution?

Just to be clear.

I never advocated for an auction house and I never mentioned anything about player retention speculations if players suddenly utilized time saved in autotrading, to reach endgame faster.

It was a simple ask based on the premise of ensuring that listed items, were indeed listed with the intent of selling.

Benefits seem clear and player agency would be the focus.

"

Droch_Rendger wrote:

"

sniping up 'everything'

Fixable. But we don't need auction. We want autotrade.

It would happen without auctions, because of autotrade.

"

Phrazz wrote:

because of autotrade.

It is fixable. And I already described how.

"

Droch_Rendger wrote:

"

Phrazz wrote:

because of autotrade.

It is fixable. And I already described how.

You didn't fix it because your solution is account based. Anything that is account based can be circumvented with other accounts. Accounts in this game are free. That will only be a hindrance for normal players.

People fixing the market will have no issue with your solution, especially since they'll likely be using bots since an automated trade is very predictable and easy to work against.

Its really kind of dumb not to do QOL fixes

How do you expect to attract new customers when your stuck in the 90's, while everyone else is doing modern designs.

"

Nubatron wrote:

You didn't fix it because your solution is account based.

I bet you even didn't read what I posted. I repeat:

"

4.1 The chance for the Buyer to "win" the item dependends from success of previous deals and be entropy-counter driven and/or weight-based. It allows to filter botters with thousands accounts (especially new accounts) filling the list: ppl with less trades have higher chances to acquire the item.

So botter has to create hundreds new accounts after each trade to abuse the system. It is even better to use other variables to create W variable: time played per character, time played per account, XPH, actions per minute, acts / maps per day, etc. Do you think it is possible? Technically - yes, but in practice it will slow down the botter dramatically.

I bet you're definetly missing that very simple concept but in core it allows to trade effectively for old players if they don't trade a lot.

"

Phrazz wrote:

We would just see another form of price fixing: Bots/scripts sniping up 'everything'

Not if there's a puzzle / CAPTCHA, or similar you have to solve to complete the trade.
It would add a few seconds for sure, but taking the bots/scripts out of the picture would be the greatest trade improvement you could think of.

But yeah, they seem to be stuck in the 90's.

"

SpectralDrake wrote:

But yeah, they seem to be stuck in the 90's.

Exactly. The time moves forward, but Chris philosophy stays as we are living in 90's.

"

Droch_Rendger wrote:

"

Nubatron wrote:

You didn't fix it because your solution is account based.

I bet you even didn't read what I posted. I repeat:

"

4.1 The chance for the Buyer to "win" the item dependends from success of previous deals and be entropy-counter driven and/or weight-based. It allows to filter botters with thousands accounts (especially new accounts) filling the list: ppl with less trades have higher chances to acquire the item.

So botter has to create hundreds new accounts after each trade to abuse the system. It is even better to use other variables to create W variable: time played per character, time played per account, XPH, actions per minute, acts / maps per day, etc. Do you think it is possible? Technically - yes, but in practice it will slow down the botter dramatically.

I bet you're definetly missing that very simple concept but in core it allows to trade effectively for old players if they don't trade a lot.

I did, and that just further enhances my point. The more botters there are, the more accounts there are. If the system slants toward less trades/activity per account having a better chance, then they'll create more accounts and limit the activity/online time per account. Your system is account based. That's the problem. A human can manage 5-10(?) accounts without feeling too much of a burden. A well scripted bot army will have no issues handling any number of accounts. Accounts being free is an enabler of the problem, but that ship has long since sailed.

Whatever logic you use to try to filter out/limit their impact and slant it toward players will fail. There isn't a lot of ways to make a bot less likely to win versus a human because they'll just learn the appropriate behavior to win, and then code it. Especially in a game where bot-like behavior is the most efficient way to play the game.

The suggestion made by someone a few weeks ago to make accounts require a phone number for verification might work since it's hard to get 100's of phone numbers and once that number is banned, it's gone for good. That also might rule out some segments of the player base, though it's hard to imagine most people not having a number at this point.

"

SpectralDrake wrote:

"

Phrazz wrote:

We would just see another form of price fixing: Bots/scripts sniping up 'everything'

Not if there's a puzzle / CAPTCHA, or similar you have to solve to complete the trade.
It would add a few seconds for sure, but taking the bots/scripts out of the picture would be the greatest trade improvement you could think of.

But yeah, they seem to be stuck in the 90's.

Please, make a thread where you ask the community if they would want CAPTCHA/etc in the game, and you come back to me on that (I'll be waiting). They aren't stuck in the 90's. Automated trade isn't "new". It's just "bad", in a loot-driven ARPG. Please, tell me one successful ARPG with automated trade.

Is their trade system good? No. Can improvements be made? Of course. But automated trade is not the way to go. But this debate is old, and I always leave with this: As long as they still require both buyer and seller to be online to trade, and that the seller has to accept the trade, I don't really care what they do.