If trade is so social then why all the trade bots in POE?
People keep calling trade āsocialā which isnāt exactly true. The word they should be using is āinteractiveā.
This interaction CAN lead to socializing, but it doesnāt always happen that way. More often than not, itās a trade and a goodbye or āgl hfā.
Occasionally it turns into real discussions or a few gaming activities or even a new friend or clan/guild memberā¦THAT is socializing. Again, this is the EXCEPTION rather than the rule.
interactive =/= social.
1 Like
Yes. Trade is literally the same thing as checkout at the grocery store. Most of the time, you use the automated checkout station and ring out your own order. Once in a while, you go to the line with a checker, but have 0 conversation with them. Once in a blue moon, you say āHiā and āThanks.ā to the checker. You basically never have a full-on conversation with them.
Is it a strawman though? Why do you trade? The reasons I can think of are:
- To āhelpā someone else with a build by giving them some of your unwanted items (ie, helping them get loot faster)
- Having a conversation with someone, but thereās chat for that & you donāt need to bribe them with an item
- To get an item for yourself quicker than you would otherwise, or if not quicker then just swapping some of the ācrapā that dropped for you for someone elseās ācrapā that has value for you, this is the āget loot fasterā option
1 Like
This. Literally, trading items between players (characters) has quite literally no other possible function or effect than to obtain an item faster. In this case, faster for the character who does not possess it.
This has to do with the Law of Large Numbers. TL;DR - a single player may have great luck or bad luck in regards to RNG (probability) and either get a rare item quickly or not at all. But when you expand the # of players, the probability evens out to nearly perfect distribution.
End result: Any rare item you can name (Unique with LP, certain Exalted, etc.) will become commonplace across the diversity of the player base and therefore become more accessible if it can be traded.
This is why we keep telling people who ālove to tradeā, that instead of trade, EHG just needs to keep drop rates really good (like they are now) and trade simply isnāt needed at all (or in limited forms, like they have proposed in the past)
1 Like
Iād like to think thereās a subset of people that want limited trading.
As an example, I am trying out the game with 2 of my friends, and we are all streaming our gameplay for each other so we can try out multiple builds & playstyles to see how they go. One of them leveled a Spellblade and REALLY wanted/needed a Sunwreath. I got 4 on my druid, and our other friend got 3 on his Necromancer. Obviously this is a common drop (we were all lower than level 80 at the time), but the one friend I had that wanted the ring couldnāt get it.
I want to be able to help out my friends, and possibly clan mates, specifically with common drops that are just being weird and not dropping for the people that need them. I really like how LE allows you to target farm most hard to get items, whether it be from specific timeline bosses, or unique/set nodes in specific timelines. but I think thereās a certain subset of items, specifically very common drops, that should be tradeable to a certain degree. Maybe anything under level 50 is tradeable? Maybe only random drop sets/uniques under 60 are tradeable? Iām not sure of the specifics.
I donāt necessarily want 100% open trade, but I think being able to share drops within your group is kind of a necessity if they want MP to be a thing.
Yes, I support the proposed āIn Party, In-Instance Tradingā, otherwise there is no point in grouping up. I also support some form of limited trading across the playerbase which wonāt affect drop rates. Maybe it is limited by time, and/or number of items, and/or rarity, and/or other factors. It also would need to prevent RMT (which has been discussed up-thread).
Because PoEās trade system was built to have zero restrictions on what can be traded or not and is the entire backbone of that particular gameās non-found itemization. This is Last Epoch, and they can make trade work however they want. Probably wonāt do it like PoE, and thatās good.
1 Like
No, I am actually curious why I am wrong to enjoy trading and find it a social activity versus other peoples literal opinions.
I donāt want to re-read a bunch of other peopleās literal personal opinions, I want to know why this opinion that trading is a socially interactive activity is FACTUALLY WRONG. Why is the opinion of people who enjoy that aspect of this kind of game completely invalid, just because yours is opposite of it?
Are we all blind to the fact that LE is able to cultivate the trade experience to however they see fit? Itās not like theyāre stuck between a choice of copy/pasting PoEās system or D3ās system with no other options.
This thread is a joke, and half of you people in it are disgusting examples of whatās wrong with gaming communities today.
1 Like
because trading with someone doesnāt FORCE you to socialize.
Socializing with someone is an OPTION during trading.
The two are NOT one and the same. This is a fact. If English is not your first language, you may be excused for not understanding the nuance here. Iām not sure if this is the case or not.
If I want to trade with someone, I can click a button, open trade, click a few other buttons, and never actually say ANYTHING to the person. It could be as silent as an auction house run by an NPC, once we both know what weāre trading.
I can also CHOOSE to socialize with the person if I see fit. This is usually a good thing, and Iām not against this. However, refusing to admit this is an OPTION and not a REQUIREMENT is just refusal to acknowledge the difference between interaction and socialization.
If you want to socialize, I have no doubt that trading would increase your opportunities to do so. If thatās the case, though, I would ask why you couldnāt use tools better suited to socializing like chat, groups and guilds (once their implemented of course).
Well, you managed to restart a dormant argument in a thread that had gone dormant. That is pretty much what I predicted in my post that you are replying to.
Your last post above just seems like mad ramblings.
As far as this goes, as you have opened up this particular door I shall reply to it. What I find as a disgusting example of what is wrong with gaming communities are trolls who necro threads simply to incite flaming for their own twisted enjoyment. People who actually post nothing at all in an argument of substance, merely questioning other peoplesā posts in order to elicit a response. Disgusting to me are people who contribute nothing tangible to a debate, but merely troll through it at intervals prodding at others.
As far as this thread goes. Despite not agreeing with others on some aspects I enjoy the debating and voicing of alternate viewpoints. This is an example imho of what gaming communities should be about. This open debating of opposing views, while done politely, with substantive arguments, can often bring to light new options & alternatives for the Devs to consider. Indeed, they themselves have condoned debating in these forums, and have stated that they appreciate the viewpoints from all sides of the fence.
Sometimes posts should just go unanswered despite how much we might want to. It doesnāt mean ātheyā āwinā if āweā donāt reply, just that āweā donāt get dragged down into the #### with āthemā.
Its like the aphorism about arguing with idiots (donāt, theyāll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience).
4 Likes
Yes, and I had logged in here this morning to edit my post. I apologise for losing my temper. in my initial edit.
I just got riled up at the inference that half of our community were disgusting because a poster disagreed with their views in one thread. As you say though the aphorism is apt and I should have stuck to that ethos.
1 Like
Ah, you seeā¦ this post emphasizes our difference of opinion. I ardently avoid the use of self-checkout registers for the exact reason that it removes the small chance that you can make someone smile.
Automation has eroded social interaction; people are less likely to participate because it is more āefficientā to automate. However, efficiency does not always equate to overall satisfaction.
I really hope player groups offer more incentive than simply the opportunity to trade in-instance - This will be incredibly disappointing if this form of trade is the only benefit and the game is to remain single-player with arbitrary multiplayer elements.
These are literally synonyms. To socialize is to interact. Trade requires a community; communities are social. Length or duration does not disqualify two players engaging in a system as lacking socialization, it only means that the particular social interaction is lacking depth.
This is one of the most pedantic and foolish argument I have ever seen.
Blockquote
These are literally synonyms. To socialize is to interact.
You have to interact before you can socialize, but you DONāT have to socialize to interact. They mean SIMILAR things, but not the SAME thing. Just like all rain is wet, but not everything wet is rain.
In order for me to get my cash out of an ATM, I have to interact with it, but I donāt have to socialize with it. Even if I decide to go inside the bank and get my cash through interacting with a person, I donāt have to SOCIALIZE with them. Greeting someone to meet a social norm before completing a transaction is not socializing. We can make the transaction in a utilitarian way, OR we can make small talk and socialize a bit, OR we could become best friends while performing the transaction. Trade can absolutely ENCOURAGE socializing, and thereās nothing wrong with that. Pretending that it REQUIRES socializing isnāt genuine, and Iām a big believer that even a multiplayer game shouldn ENCOURAGE rather than REQUIRE socializing.
1 Like
Socializing is interacting. Greeting someone is socializing. The part that makes it social is the fact that it is happening between two people within a social sphere.
The reason you do not socialize with an ATM is because it is a tool and not a person.
You are correct based on the primary definition of the wordsā¦
I think it depends heavily on the persons culture & view of what they consider socialising - personally, I dont consider interacting with arbitrary strangers or bank tellers as socialising - I interact with them - but I do socialise with friends and family at a party or informal setting.
Getting back to what I think the main point here is that Trading can just be an interaction between unknown partiesā¦ It doesnt need to be socialisingā¦
It depends on the context and the purpose of the interaction. In order for it to be Socializing, there has to be a SOCIAL purpose.
Trading items isnāt social, itās transactional and utilitarian. Both people are getting something they want. Most people donāt offer to trade for the sole purpose of having a social conversation and make friends. If thatās their purpose, they use other tools like chat, forums, or clans/guilds.
It is 100% possible for me to trade items in POE without getting to know someone. I donāt have to ask them how their day was, I donāt have to offer to help them or continue gaming with them. I donāt have to ask them about their build or why they want a seemingly useless item. I can CHOOSE to do those things and make the transaction social. Until one (or both of us) decide to take that step, itās a transaction, or an interaction. The purpose of the interaction is mutual gain, not social interaction, therefore it is asocial.
If your purpose is to trade an item, itās not social. If your purpose is to make friends, then itās social.
To be clear, Iām not against socializing, as a certain level is required for the success of an online game (or any group activity), but it should NOT be forced, and in order to preserve the equilibrium of socialization being encouraged but NOT required, itās important to have a clear understanding of the difference between the two.
The reality and meaning of the words cannot be twisted.
Trading is a social purpose; you require the labour of another player (person) to provide you with resources (gear).
It seems you are confusing intimacy with socialization - youāre right, you do not need to know a person to socialize with them. However, you do need to trust them, you need to rely on their ability to socially interact with you and trade you the item without scamming you.
To use your own analogy of trading with a person (cashier) and a machine (ATM), there is a significant difference between visiting a playerās hideout in Path of Exile to trade an item and using an autonomous auction house trading system; one is socializing, the other is autonomous and utilitarian.
Having an efficient, and as you say - transactional and utilitarian, interaction with a player to trade an item is still socializing; it requires two players (people) to engage with one another. This fact cannot be disputed, this engagement is a culturally universal example of socializing.
Edit:
Furthermore, I believe this argument to be inconsequential. It has already been objectively admitted that player-to-player trade can be deeply engaging and offer a better player experience - that is the point to take away from all of this.
What you call intimacy is what I call socializing. Socializing REQUIRES a social purpose. If my purpose is to trade for an item, Iām not socializing. The entire definition of āSocializingā revolves around the INTENT of the interaction.
Using your own terms:
Interaction + intimacy = socialization
Interaction - intimacy = the vast majority of trading.
Furthermore, I believe this argument to be inconsequential. It has already been objectively admitted that player-to-player trade can be deeply engaging and offer a better player experience - that is the point to take away from all of this.
Youāre not entirely wrong, but at the same time, the AMOUNT of player to player trade, how it is implemented and what the limiting factors are will have a HUGE impact on the long term success of the game.
1 Like