Auction Houses & aRPGs v MMOs

General
21

Yep. However I’m not opposed to uniques being tradeable. There would likely need to be some exceptions maybe something like all uniques below level requirement xx for instance. I find build defining uniques being (almost) fixed in terms of stats as well as not extraordinarily powerful by themselves to be a good option for trading if any. If exalted gear or even rares were tradeable, especially crafted rares/exalted gear it would make the gearing process trivial.

Also, I think trade between those in the same game should be free game similar to d3 if it’s dropped in tht session it’s tradeable. That’s all I got off the top of my head. Cheers.

2 Likes
22

I’m not sure there’s ever a good argument for adding/keeping a thing that makes social interactions more toxic. Surely that’s a sign that the thing is a failure?

5 Likes
23

No. And we’re all familiar with this particular mechanism llama. Surely you know it’s not necessarily always toxic. And I might argue that it’s the lesser evil here.

24

I think for rares/exalted items it would be the best if there would be some kind of “Bind On X” restriction, like Bind On Fracture or Bind On Craft.

This would remove many/most already insanely strong items from the market, since an item already dropping with 3-4 good and high stats is very unlikely.

This would always add some risk to the trading, since most buyers ultimeately have to craft most items they buy a littel bit more.

Regarding uniques: I think random drop uniques being tradeable is fine, but MoF and specific drop uniques, which can be target farmed should not be tradeable.

4 Likes
25

Yeah I agree with both points you make. Every arpg needs chase items that exist for everyone including normal/SSF players. Cheers!

1 Like
26

Yeah, it’s not always toxic, but if the only way a dev can think of doing something is to piss off a sizeable portion of the player base that uses that thing, it’s not good. I can accept that trade in PoE can be a nice interaction towards the top end, but that’s not something the majority of the player base would experience (I did a handful of times in the many years I played PoE).

I think a bind on fracture would be interesting since then you’d have the choice of “do I see how far I can push this item or do I put it up for trade” & as you say, it’d remove the majority of items from the trade pool.

4 Likes
27

There are many many other ways to add ‘friction’ to a trading system other than making players dislike each other. Trading caps, BoP, trading taxes, and others are all mechanisms we have seen used in other games to great success. I’m with Llama on this; if the best way a dev can think of to create friction in a trading system is to create toxicity in the player base, then they haven’t thought hard enough.

4 Likes
28

I want to be clear. My original point in respond to you wasn’t whether player interactions is the best way to go about introducing friction.

I was just commenting that it is not true removing the player interactions will leave the economy “unchanged”. It will have a drastic effect on POE economy and the metagame, because it is currently the core mechanism to introduce friction to trade in POE, for better or for worse.

29

With the greatest of respect though Jerle, you and the other chap seem to be discussing PoE exclusively and polarising in your last few posts. I think most of us could probably agree that trade and the economy in PoE are completely broken, so I doubt whether any changes apart from a complete overhaul could even fix that.

Personally I find how this whole topic relate to LE far more interesting than simply fixating on PoE. That’s somewhat of a dead game for me these days. I’d be more interested if people could find more examples of working AH’s in other games that we haven’t already mentioned in here. It seems that some of us “older” players have a wealth of experience in other games over the years, some of which obscure, some forgotten. I think that the most benefit to be had is from us old gits racking our brains to come up with other games that had AH’s apart from the obvious recent examples. Shaiya as an example I mentioned, and also EvE, WoW. There are a lot of ideas and methodologies to discuss that could assist in devs looking for a future new version.

1 Like
30

Why do players want trade?

Right now, LE is a single-player, no trade ARPG. This means you only get items you, yourself, find. The only 3 sources of items are:

  • Killing monsters
  • The town merchant
  • The Gambler

Adding trade is nothing more than adding a 4th item source - other players. By definition, trading means the rarity of items drops (technically speaking). It means you can get any given item, whether a unique or an RNG item with the rolls you want, easier than it would be to get without trading.

There isn’t really any other effect that trading could have. And yes, I am dismissing the so-called “social interaction” angle, because in years and years of gaming, I’ve never once socially interacted with someone I’ve traded with in any game, not even POE. Saying “Thanks!” and them saying “GL!” is NOT social interaction. Sorry.

At the end of the day, items are going to have “rarity” and you will be subject to that rarity when trying to obtain one. It doesn’t actually matter if there is trade or not, an AH or not, a Bazaar or not. If EHG wants an item to be a certain rarity, then they’ll adjust the drop rate so that it is that rarity. If trading makes it more common, then the droprate will lower to return the item to that target rarity.

So really, if the rarity is controlled by EHG and they can enforce it accounting for all game mechanics (including multiplayer farming, trading, etc.), then why bother introducing another variable that EHG will simply need to factor into the overall calculation? It seems to me that the main concept of an ARPG is fighting for loot. I get that farming “currency” in lieu of the item takes the same “time” (mostly), so it doesn’t shorten the game in that respect. But it’s definitely easier to just farm currency than it is to farm that special item, even if the time taken is the same.

So really, the only questions are - do we want an easier game? Does EHG?

The Bazaar, as it appears to be (no way to know till we get our hands on it) is, as I’ve said, NOT a trading system at all. Its just a fancy NPC-esque “twink” tool (great source of items for new characters where you don’t care too much about perfect items, just items that “will do”.)

Part of me prefers an AH because I’m old, and bad at farming items, so farming currency and just buying it works better for me. But that is also an admission that it’s easier to do so.

2 Likes
31

I don’t know what you call “old”. I’m 51 and I don’t want an auction house. I want a system that will not be a huge time spender, even if it means less items variety and possibilities.
For the rest, kinda the same: I’m not a good grinder, and I can even say I’m not very patient either.

32

All of your examples are MMO’s, which have a completely different gameplay model. AH’s work in MMO’s because the goal of the game is different. Sure, there is a minor loot goal, but MMO’s are more about beating the endgame group content.

LE has already stated that they don’t want to gate any content for multiplayer. The entire point of LE, and aRPGs in general, is the loot hunt. AH’s fail in aRPGs because it allows people to basically skip the whole point of the game, making the turnover rate for players much higher.

The game gets boring if you have all the gear you want.

2 Likes
33

In terms of the current set-up/plans with randomized inventory, I do think that would help prevent making it “too easy” for players to getting exactly what they want. Especially if the inventory refresh is time locked.

I guess for me the biggest question is how to handle exalted items, and to a lesser extent, sets and uniques.

I do like the idea of exalted bases being available to trade but don’t want fully crafted exalted available as then I think you begin to compromise doing some end game content (for loot drops) or being able to clear end game content in which such equipment is either needed or gives a true advantage to.

I’d love to see a feature, if possible, for binding exalted gear on crafting. I think this would be a decent balance of getting a piece of gear you have been looking for, but still having to take the risk in the forge to optimize it how you would want it to be optimized. This also still makes looting relevant due to the chance of fracturing.

Not sure if such a system is possible, but I think exalted items are probably the stickiest subject for an AH right now in my mind.

1 Like
34

The solution bouncing around in my mind in this regard would be to limit the tier total of items for sale. E.g. something like only being able to sell <= T15 un-fractured items. This could still be a T12 AMAZING exalt with two T6 affixes and nothing else, that could fetch a nice price, while still requiring more crafting to perfect it.

I think this is kinda neat because it still provides a potential risk-reward incentive for selling items (e.g. hmm this nice exalt base could fetch a ton more if I can remove that crappy T1 affix, should I risk the roll or sell it cheaper and let someone else risk it?)

But that being said “bind on craft” could achieve a similar goal, but then it’s a hard line of “craft of sell”. However having a total affix tier limit leaves a little wiggle room, and also allows instability to factor into the pricing even more as well, so there’s a bit more complexity.

35

I wouldn’t say “completely”, I would say just different.

Both have a similarity in that both drive the player to equip end game gear in order to compete. This in turn drives the player to find that gear, which in turn drives a need to both buy for themselves and also to sell off excess items gained by the player. In an “mmo” that isn’t also an aprg players also spend a large amount of time not in parties farming content for a number of reasons, materials for crafting, something to do, looking for drops to sell, wealth gain, etc etc.

These days in general gamers tend to forget how these labels came about and what they actually mean. Instead they are fixated on the label without knowing its definition. Some of us older gamers from the days of the birth of the internet remember how and when these labels started appearing online. MMO merely means Massively Multiplayer Online (a game where players interact with a large number of other players) and ARPG means Action Role Playing Game (a game where it is both Action and Role Playing).

At the moment, in its current form LE is an ARPG only. You could really argue that it’s an APG as strictly speaking there is no role playing. Once multiplayer is introduced and players are allowed to group up and we have a large server population that you can trade with or mingle with then it will also be definition also be an MMO.

My examples are all MMO’s as you interact with a large number of other players. However, they are also ARPG’s. Take EvE as one example, you will struggle to find another game where people Role Play any more! Lots of people actually post in RL as their characters and treat the game as their job. They also engage in combat a lot, which is a form of Action. The same goes with WoW, lots of role playing in their plus combat. Same again with Shaiya, role playing & action.

So, I think it is dangerous to take labels as referred to by some collections online too literally as classifications.

Sure, gear is important in games where Raiding is not the main supposed purpose of the game but it is also just as important in games that involve a form of raiding and where gear is important, it is also the main driving ingredient of trading.

I would agree with you, in that this is more important for a game that does not have a raiding or large party involvement component. However, the “loot hunt” is also just as important for games that people tend to classify as “mmo’s” which are also actually arpg’s as well. You cannot raid (for example) continuously in crappy gear.

I applaud the sentiment. I have no doubts that LE will not introduce a “hard gate”. However, there will always be a soft gate on end game multiplayer content by its very nature. As an example: People who group together a lot will not want to carry someone who is wearing T10 gear and struggling, and who also refuses to upgrade their gear. While this is an odd example and extremely unlikely it is an example of a “soft gate”.

36

No. MOST people understand that MMO is shorthand for MMORPG. aRPGs are NOT MMOs just because they have multiplayer. What makes a game MMO by definition is the REQUIREMENT of other players to play the game. This is content that requires parties or economy that requires other players.

Just having a random AH in LE isn’t going to make it an MMO. I don’t know a single aRPG that has done a public item market (AH’s and the like) successfully. It goes against the primary goal of the game.

As stated, MMOs primary goal is the party play to beat the content. Loot is a means to that end. ARPGs are the opposite. Loot is the primary goal and end game content is a means to that end. This is because LE is, at its core, balanced around single player play.

I’m not sure you understood. They have stated there will be no multiplayer exclusive content. Only single player content that can be played with a party.

37

Looking up “mmo” online (which is quite easy) will give you results such as:

MMO
massively multiplayer online game: any online video game in which a player interacts with a large number of other players.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mmo

You are incorrect. MMORPG is a different animal, it is not what MMO is short for.

Another link for you.
https://plarium.com/en/blog/difference-between-mmo-and-mmorpgs/#:~:text=To%20put%20it%20in%20simpler,Online%20Role%2DPlaying%20Game.%E2%80%9D
An extract from that:

The difference between MMO and MMORPG is that all MMORPGs are MMOs, but not all MMOs are MMORPGs.

So, getting all shouty and re-iterating your OPINION achieves nothing. I read your first post and posted my replied opinion, I don’t need you to repeat your opinion at me endlessly and especially not in a shouty format.

You expressed your opinion, I expressed mine. You attempted a dictionary correction, and I cited sources that show an error. Move on & have a nice day… :smiley:

38

You are wrong. I said MMO is common shorthand for MMORPG. I did not try to redefine the entire acronym. The way you write to me sounds as if you assume I am a moron. Maybe you should stop assuming people are stupid and give the benefit of the doubt that they are not. The vast majority of people just refer to mmorpgs as mmo’s because it is shorthand. Everyone knows that there are non-rpg mmos. That is not the discussion here.

Yes, and maybe you should reread the definition you quoted. MMO by the definition you quoted, requires the interaction with other players. LE does not require you play with other players. PoE is also not an MMO, because none of the game requires party play. It is entirely solo-playable.

A couple of the indicators of an MMORPG is a persistent world where other players not in your party can approach you outside of the common areas. LE doesn’t have a persistent world. Zones are instanced.

1 Like
39

I think the MMO/ARPG distinction is kind of irrelevant, in-so-far as the concept of trading items to one another. Trading does not “accomplish” something different in an MMO than in an ARPG. Trading allows players to get items easier (note: not quicker, just easier). They can farm some form of currency and trade it for the item (or in super rare cases, a real barter - item for item).

In both types of online games, trading adds one more “source” of items, the other “sources” being monsters and NPC merchants (no one really considers NPC merchants real sources). LE has 2 types of NPC Merchants where one (the Gambler) could get you some end-game-ish items, but not all (many are “Not able to be gambled” which, if you think about it, is already one “Trading” limitation EHG put into the game.)

1 Like
40

Where is “requires” mentioned? You suggest re-reading? You obviously didn’t read the link at all.

“massively multiplayer online game: any online video game in which a player interacts with a large number of other players.” No REQUIRES in that sentence at all.

Take your own advice, and read what people write and links they quote. You obviously do not bother reading things as demonstrated by the way you keep shooting your own feet; and I have better things to do than argue with you just because you’re bored & seem to enjoy arguing (your posting history seems to back that assumption up). I’ll stick to replying to the other people in this thread who want to engage properly and can be bothered to read. At least I’ve had some intelligent discussion with them.

Edit: To avoid getting dragged into nonsense I will utilise the “ignore” facility in profiles. Easier to not get baited by silence :wink: