While RMT/Botting is the trend, lets share our magical solution and vote on them

"

symban wrote:

Barter based economy of course demands to trade with peers.

For each player, at least 90% of players are not his or her peers.

What you're talking about is far closer to "no economy" than "a barter based economy." Or perhaps, more specifically, a lot of people attempting to sell an item, and failing miserably due to zero market.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

symban wrote:

Barter based economy of course demands to trade with peers.

For each player, at least 90% of players are not his or her peers.

What you're talking about is far closer to "no economy" than "a barter based economy." Or perhaps, more specifically, a lot of people attempting to sell an item, and failing miserably due to zero market.

No you are wrong. Anyone above 70+ is each other's peer. Item progression comes to a halt slowly after that point. Having a strong endgame economy is more than enough.

I will save you the trouble before you say "but what about people 70- ??" and reply with: Shared stash system ensures your alts will have a breeze in the gardens anyway.
That only leaves 1st char on the league in need of trade for lvling. If you started the league at its early times, then EVERYONE will be your peer through the ride to 70+.

Late comers? By that time lvling uniques will be so low value that they can be even handed down to newbies for free (which many people already do).

"

symban wrote:

Anyone above 70+ is each other's peer. Item progression comes to a halt at that point.

We have isolated the false premises. Because the latter is false, the former is also.

Your Nemesis character was level 77, correct? That's over 70, so according to your statement, your gear is at "peer" status relative to the top 9 players of the Nemesis ladder, who were all level 99 or higher. Somehow I doubt that.

"

symban wrote:

By that time lvling uniques will be so low value that they can be even handed down to newbies for free (which many people already do).

I'll grant that such donation is possible, but you generally get more participants when legitimate self-interest is the motivator.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

symban wrote:

Anyone above 70+ is each other's peer. Item progression comes to a halt at that point.

We have isolated the false premises. Because the latter is false, the former is also.

Let me guess you claim itemlevel prevents lvl70+ guys finding a good tradable gear. You are wrong it comes to luck. You can get BoR and other uniques from Piety, which sells for very good. Also lucky roll itemlvel 71 item > shit roll itemlevel 80.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Your Nemesis character was level 77, correct? That's over 70, so according to your statement, your gear is at "peer" status relative to the top 9 players of the Nemesis ladder, who were all level 99 or higher. Somehow I doubt that.

Over exaggerating much? The point is servers are full of 70-80 chars compared to few 90+ so as 70+ you already have a strong peer. But yes I still claim that any lucky roll item I get at lvl 77 is well worth for trade for even a 90+ char.

Claiming that the gear of your average level 70 is comparable to your average level 80, much less the average level 90, is nonsense, unless you assume some kind of twinking or massive flipping. The former is not the norm, and the second would be virtually impossible under your proposed system.

Was your character at 77 wearing the same gear as level 70? How much changed in between?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Claiming that the gear of your average level 70 is comparable to your average level 80, much less the average level 90, is nonsense, unless you assume some kind of twinking or massive flipping. The former is not the norm, and the second would be virtually impossible under your proposed system.

Average 70 char drops == average 90 char drops? No.
Still having access to drops that has value for higher chars? Yes.

Scrotie you assume one flawed thing: "a char's loot should be as valuable as 10/20/60+ lvl chars' drops for a healthy economy". They are not supposed to be like that in the first place.
But already after 70+ gap closes thanks to item progression coming to a halt around these times. Lucky 70 player may get a 3*res good life drop or a BoR, while 90+ player may get all junk. 90+ still has better odds, and should have better odds as well. But still 90vs70 trade is doable.
That being said I repeat: lvl 70-80 peer is much bigger than 90+ peer in first place, so there is enough room for trade for all beyond 70+.


I also found one other very good reason for no-trade orbs.

As long as orbs are currency, there is need for currency sink -> map system that annoys a majority of players.

With orbs being no-trade, no more need for sink -> opens ground for enjoyable accessible end game content limited by your power, not wealth.

Nice lightning edit there; for those who didn't catch it, symban admitted he flipped for his gear he wore 70 and after, before he was even 70.

Look, I'm not telling you there would be no peers whatsoever, because there still would be. I'm just saying the numbers of those peers would be drastically reduced without currency enabling the gear-rich to trade with the gear-poor, and vice versa; in a large percentage of those situations, the gear-poor have nothing of value to the gear-rich, and thus could not trade with them otherwise.

Currency — that is, items in demand by the gear-rich, which are possible for the gear-poor to acquire — should exist. The issue is in making it so relative demand for currency by the gear-rich, when compared to demand by the gear-poor, is not so overwhelming that the idea of actually using currency on your own items while you are gear-poor is quite so preposterous. I'm not saying currency should only be used by the gear-poor, either; I'm saying it should be a more difficult decision, instead of one with an obvious answer.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Nice lightning edit there; for those who didn't catch it, symban admitted he flipped for his gear he wore 70 and after, before he was even 70.

Yes I found out you were attempting a strawman argument, diverting my claim into a totally different direction to disprove later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So I edited that out. But no biggie, I admit I flipped like everyone else to get my gear even before I reached that lvl. Relevant to topic discussed? Not even a bit, hence edited out.

Current system will reek RMT and flipping as long as currency system stays. Also currency sinks will be a dire need, resulting in the map system that annoys majority of players. Also economy balance will prevent crafting access for majority as well.

Its downsides are so big, and upsides so easily covered by something else. Peer size reduction? Sure, this will hurt trade simulation part which I personally would be happy.

"

symban wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Nice lightning edit there; for those who didn't catch it, symban admitted he flipped for his gear he wore 70 and after, before he was even 70.

Yes I found out you were attempting a strawman argument, diverting my claim into a totally different direction to disprove later.

Nah, I'm more sporting than that. However, I believe your experience counts as a straw man for both of us; although it would be unfair for me to use your experience of your Nemesis 77 to disprove your argument, it's equally unfair for you to use it in an attempt to support your argument, as you advocate a system under which your method of item progression would have been impossible. It renders your experience moot, for both sides of the argument, because it was not a valid trial.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the system requires currency sinks for high-level players, but they definitely help more than hurt. Remember that currency, by its definition, must be something which high-level players value; one excellent way to make them value it is to tie it into their progression in as direct a manner as possible. Plus, using currency allows for a predictable method of achieving semirandom map mods, using an infrastructure players are already comfortable with... and randomness in map mods is vitally important.

In any case, you must realize at a minimum that your idea of a currency-less PoE is a pipe dream, destined to never see reality. Regardless of your ideals, the proper strategy in your case, and the right thing to do besides, is not to work on abolishing currency, but instead to determine ways to make currency a little less of an automatic flow to the tippy-top of the economic pyramid, and instead a more decision-intensive process, with considerably more low-level gambling... but not more high-level, "let's make a Mirror-worthy item" gambling.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

*shiny words*

Seeing you add nothing new, I will renew my suggestion and reason behind and will leave this thread.

I suggest all orbs be made no-trade with improved drop rates, and good vendor recipes for conversion. Also adjusting drops so that items drop for relevant lvl content: low lvls get lvling uniques, high lvl chars dont get junk.

1. It will finally bring a real Barter Based Economy

2. Craft will be for everyone, in line with on how much they play the game and kill stuff.

3. Wealth wont be measured by orbs. Flipping will be harder. Botting will be pointless and easier to fight.

4. No currency = no need for sink -> maps can be freed from duty of currency sink and be adjusted. Instead of content being gated behind trade, it will be gated behind "can you handle it?!"

/thread