Full Trading System Design (Beautiful Pictures Inside!)

Feedback and Suggestions
1

FINAL EDIT: (if that’s okay)
I just wanted to express my thanks to everyone who responded with legitimate constructive criticism. I had every intention of growing this “design” addressing those concerns and elaborating upon these systems. (D2 SOJ) etc. Even, potentially writing the actual code.

But, I will no longer be participating on the forums or responding to those criticisms.
This forum has completly demotivated me of my ambitions.
Sorry if we had unfinished dialog.
All the best.

DESIGN A FULL TRADING SYSTEM IN LESS THAN 24/HOURS - GO

“and so… it came to be, that on one long boring night he dared enter the shadow realm of the forum-mains…”

it’s like theory crafting
i don’t care if you don’t like it, because i do
smiley face
“i made this”

EDIT(s): FAQ - FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

  • Yes, but I didn’t. :scream:

  • The “name” of the “finalizer” or “crafter” would appear on the “item” indefinitely in order to preserve the “identity” of the “item creator”

  • clicking on that “name” MIGHT open a “shop window”
    Where “trade offers” could be “proposed” and left “for approval”
    Going through only when “approved” by both “players”
    Potentially “eliminating” annoying simultaneous “online requirements”
    Forgive me, there I go off “theory-crafting” again.

  • in order to make the “item” “tradable” it must be “finalized” at a “forge” first.

  • RESTRICTING the ability to “trade” “crafting resources” and “affix shards”, and "GOLD, and ANYTHING else that could be considered “CURRENCY”

  • Precisely the point. There will be NO TRADITIONAL WAY to quantify the “value” of ANY “item” in the game outside of (Worth is evaluated based on “USER NEEDS”) PERIOD.

  • IMPORTANT POINT - “ITEM SINK” was included in the design.
    Come on bro, we ain’t rookies out here.

ALBEIT, A VERY VALID QUESTION / CONCERN
CLICK TO ENLARGE (enlarge, giggity giggity goo)

  • Thank you once again for your reply.
    I appreciate your point of view.

  • yes, I VOTED for my own preferences. Correct.

EDIT(s): EXAMPLES OF BASIC TRADE AND PLAYER SHOP FUNCTIONS

NO CURRENCY IS TRADABLE.
Player 1 - adds “finalized boots” to trade window
Player 2 - adds “finalized gloves” to trade window
Player 1 trades “boots” for “gloves”
Player 2 trades “gloves” for “boots”
(Worth is evaluated based on user needs)
(All “items” MUST be 'FINALIZED" PRIOR to “trade”)
END OF TRADE SIMULATION

[]

CLICK TO ENLARGE (enlarge, giggity giggity goo)

2 Likes
2

With respect, could you not simply have added this to one of the many. many trading discussions already taking place?

All these new threads on existing discussions are cluttering up the place. My OCD is hurting my head :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

3 Likes
3

Hey but this one another one aaaand civil but somehow not in offtopic because this is no trading thread but an restrict trading thread an for sure not serious :).

4

How exactly would you “buy” an item if crafting mats and gold aren’t “tradable”?

What would be the currency facilitating trade?

2 Likes
5

Do what I do, click into the new thread, skim down it to the bottom then move on to the next thread. You’re not missing much, it’s just new people expressing their opinions (which is fine and good), unfortunately, they’re the same as all the other opinions that have been expressed over the years on trade. Just tune them out and allow them to have their sat and feel better for it.

2 Likes
6

There should be some sort of algorithm based on key words and auto merge script on the forums. :smile:

1 Like
7

At least there is a nice picture in here :D.

2 Likes
8

The “finalized” (better name pending) trading system is an interesting concept; one that existed, in some iteration, in Project Gorgon - once an item is traded it becomes locked and cannot be further modified or traded. According to the developer, this was done to prevent the highest end gear from being circulated and removing incentive to grind/craft better gear.

While I can appreciate the goals of the system in Project Gorgon, it became an annoying system to work with - where it paradoxically disincentivized early-game crafting because it meant that you were effectively getting “locked-in” to a playstyle. It also failed to solve the issue of trading because it was too restrictive (a player would be unable to trade a friend a piece of gear to then craft, because the friend would be unable to trade it back).

Crafting resources and affix shards are both significant when it comes to crafting, however not every affix shard will matter for each character/player. I am strongly against restricting the ability to trade crafting resources and affix shards because it means that accounts will be left with an abundance of worthless items.

Furthermore, if neither gold or crafting materials are untradeable, as you propose, what would be left to trade with? Currency of some kind would be required in order to quantify the value of an item.

9

Correct, I could have done that.
But I didn’t.

Totally serious, but I appreciate you.

NO CURRENCY IS TRADABLE.
Player 1 - adds “finalized boots” to trade window
Player 2 - adds “finalized gloves” to trade window
Player 1 trades “boots” for “gloves”
Player 2 trades “gloves” for “boots”
(Worth is evaluated based on user needs)
(All “items” MUST be 'FINALIZED" PRIOR to “trade”)
END OF TRADE SIMULATION

Allow me to respond in kind.
I am not new to LE per say.
I don’t like or agree with (most) of your opinions.
Objectively, my “opinion” is that your “opinion” usually contributes to making the game something I personally won’t want to play.
Although, based on your “post count” I am sure you “feel better” about posting it.
I should tune it out.
“Good advise” as it’s usually providing “nothing new” to my personal archive.
My apologies if you thought otherwise.
“LDrama8”, oops, I meant Llama8

Personally speaking, I would prefer it if “magenta” humans maintained the forums.

Hells yeah BROTHER!
Thanks for noticing my “BEAUTIFUL” picture.
<3

Thank you for responding and providing thought provoking dialogue worthy of discussion.

POINT#1 - The name can be whatever you prefer.
Call it Fruity Pebbles for all I care.
The “system” is more important to me.

POINT#2 - I proposed the “item” in question MUST be “finalized” PRIOR to “trade”
As in in order to make the item “tradable” it must first be “finalized” first.
(And the “name” of the “finalizer” or “crafter” would appear on the “item” indefinitely in order to preserve the “identity” of the “item creator”

(Furthermore, clicking on that “name” MIGHT open a “shop window”)
Where “trade offers” could be “proposed” and left “for approval”
Going through only when “approved” by both “players”
Potentially “eliminating” annoying simultaneous “online requirements”
Forgive me, there I go off “theory-crafting” again.

POINT#3 - Correct. Once a “player” chooses to “finalize” an “item” for “trade” it can no longer be “modified” or crafted upon. PERIOD.

POINT#4 - On the contrary, I am strongly in favour of RESTRICTING the ability to “trade” “crafting resources” and “affix shards”, and "GOLD, and ANYTHING else that could be considered “CURRENCY”

POINT#5 - NO CURRENCY IS TRADABLE.
Player 1 - adds “finalized boots” to trade window
Player 2 - adds “finalized gloves” to trade window
Player 1 trades “boots” for “gloves”
Player 2 trades “gloves” for “boots”
(Worth is evaluated based on user needs)
(All “items” MUST be 'FINALIZED" PRIOR to “trade”)
END OF TRADE SIMULATION

POINT#6 - Precisely the point. There will be NO TRADITIONAL WAY to quantify the “value” of ANY “item” in the game outside of (Worth is evaluated based on “USER NEEDS”) PERIOD.

IMPORTANT POINT - “ITEM SINK” was included in the design.
Come on bro, we ain’t rookies out here.

Thank you once again for your reply.

I appreciate your point of view.
EDIT: yes, I VOTED for my own preferences. Correct.

10

Honestly, this is one of the better ones ideas I’ve seen.

However, it doesn’t in anyway deal with the main thing that people have been bringing up recently (or at least that I’ve seen), the situation where you just want to give someone you’re playing with an item that drpops.

Now sure, you could use this sytem to trade between each other. But now the item the person wanted is worth less than if it actually dropped for them. And the way to go about giving that item to the person you’re playing with is cumbersome and disruptive to the flow of gameplay.

Also the ‘unique and unpredictable crafting resources’ idea is bad, either the resources are useless, or you’ve now turned trading into a economy simulator. Which I personally wouldn’t say is terrible, but it’s fairly clear that a lot of people, including ehg, don’t want that.

But as I said in the first line, I do like the general idea here. This is kind of one of the ways I was imagining the bazaar to work.

1 Like
11

At least you have some creativity and imagination, I will give you that. Cant wait to get some gear made by " YourStepDaddy" or about 600 names off the top of my head I probably cant post without being banned :rofl:

1 Like
12

Thanks for response.

You bring valid attention to necessary places.

:scream:

I prefer to solve problems and provide solutions as an alternative to finding faults
ALBEIT, A VERY VALID QUESTION / CONCERN
CLICK TO ENLARGE (enlarge, giggity giggity goo)

POINT#1 - i like it
POINT#2 - i wouldn’t say it’s a terrible idea either :rofl:
POINT#3 - i would argue that the CREATIVE RESPONSIBILITY is to implement solutions that don’t automatically default into “economy simulator” if that is the goal.
POINT#4 - i would also argue that the desire for the design following the taglines ‘unique and unpredictable crafting resources’ is OPEN ENDED just waiting for said CREATIVE SOLUTION in place of DOOM and GLOOM.

Options

  1. Solve
    or
  2. Embrace
    :scream:

I always liked the loose, not firmly or tightly fixed in place, idea of a Bazaar as well.
Which is why I made an effort to implement on it instead of throwing it in the DUMPSTER. :takeout_box:
lul

it’s extremely important to remember that, “what happens behind the dumpster stays behind the dumpster.”

13

Its your idea my dude, I have no horse in the race, I got no interest in solving problems with your idea :smiley:

14

And yet, you have contributed to the solution, my dude.

Thank you.

15

hahaha, HELL YEAH BROTHER! :takeout_box: :rofl: :scream:

Crafted by “DeeznutZ”

OPTIONS
FUN = 1

16

In this system, would the items continue to be tradable? For example, if you traded me [@AmityXIII’s Glorious Boots of Glory], would I then be able to trade those boots to someone else?

I think that this is where I have the most difficulty with your proposed system. The reason currency works so well in both the real world economy and most virtual economies is because of the concept of surplus.

While I will not lecture you on the details, as it is both obvious and intuitive, I will provide an example to illustrate my point. Regarding your situation, you have player ‘A’ trading [Item ‘X’] player 'B’s [Item ‘Y’]; you have concluded that this trade is occurring based on “user needs”. I would argue that this is likely an atypical scenario, as the likelihood of two players having what the other needs (in terms of gear) is very unlikely.

The purpose of currency (in any form) is to provide a reliable, surplus object of need that can be used to offset trades. In the case that player ‘B’ does not have what player ‘A’ wants, they can substitute the lack of gear item with a form of currency.

Removing currency (in any form) from the equation will not make for a suitable trading environment.

I do not see how this is possible. The “traditional way” to quantify the value of anything in a free market is to subjectively interpret its worth - that is to say, a “user’s need”.

I think it is both fair and objective to suggest that a [+1 Axe of Smiting] would be worth less than a [+3 Axe of Ultimate Smiting]; considering this fact alone, there will most definitely be a way to quantify the value of items.

2 Likes
17

It’s so easy to play devils advocate.
Everyone does it.
It’s also rather easy to conquer.

With all due respect…
I would never trade you my “Glorious Boots of Glory”
Keep your greedy hands off my boots.

Did you read the rules?
I’m not being snarky.
If you understood you wouldn’t ask.
:scream:

I digress.
The answer is yes.
Moreover, yes there is an established “item sink” with a demand for creativity.

I agree.
This is where you have the most difficulty with my proposed system.

Currency does “NOT” work well in virtual economies BECAUSE of the concept of surplus.
Surplus is the enemy.
A fundamental issue in arpg economy is that trade CAN"T work too well.
Famine and scarcity MUST drive demand.

“Items sinks” are deployed with the intention of “consistently removing” “items” from “circulation”

To fight “inflation” and “flooded markets” and other such stuff as, "people quitting in less than 2 weeks because they already have everything that there is to get and “everyone has the same stuff” SNOOORRRRE…

This isn’t high class Atherton, California with a median list price of: $10,194,000.
This is Eterra. You might expect the likelihood of economies to be more in line with scarcity and famine. A deficit is essentially the opposite of a surplus. I will not lecture you on the details, as it is both obvious and intuitive. But I will provide you will an example to illustrate my point.

Somebody at EHG literally wrote “pun intended” “supplies depleting” hahaha.

Good. Working as intended.

Which is the main reason why it needs to be completly removed from trading, set on fire, and promptly yeeted off a cliff.

ADDING currency (in any form) to the equation will NOT make for a suitable trading environment.

No, I disagree. It’s not fair to say that. It’s not a fact either.
Quite frankly, it misses the point entirely.
The price of anything is only worth what someone else is willing to pay.
I won’t mince words here.
In the CONTEXT of this particular dialogue, the traditional method to quantify “items” is done through the utilization of “tradable currency” which has been removed and is NOT tradeable PERIOD.

And with that said…

Since you have nothing I want in trade.
You aren’t getting my “Glorious Boots of Glory”
That’s the way it go’s.

Closing comments:

“A necessary evil is an evil that someone believes must be done or accepted because it is necessary to achieve a better outcome—especially because possible alternative courses of action or inaction are expected to be worse.”

“You need people like me so you can point your explicit fingers and say, “That’s the bad guy .” So… what that make you ? Good? You 're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don’t have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy!”

I hope my ideology on this matter is now clearer even if you dislike it.

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to clarify.

Who’s next?

18

Can you clarify what your proprietary ‘item sink’ entails? You have suggested that ‘finalized’ items can be broken down for ‘unique’ crafting resources - how do these resources differ than the ones that already exist in the game? This portion of your proposition seems vague.

If the system is the same as what currently exists with the Rune of Shattering, then I would recommend changing the wording as it would not be ‘unique’.

Surplus in virtual economies is mandatory to ensure that larger portions of the involved population are able to access the items and/or content.

To clarify, is it your intention, regarding this system, for trade between players to be a rare (almost non-existent) occurrence?

I believe, if anything, this would create a surplus of unusable items (as they do not suit the class/build that is being played).

To reiterate my previous statement, in the case that Player ‘A’ does not have anything “of value” for Player ‘B’, there is no incentive to make the trade. Having a generalized, universal currency (in any form) allows there to always be incentive in the trade - sure, Player ‘A’ may not have a piece of gear that Player ‘B’ needs, but Player ‘B’ can always make use of [insert LE currency here].

Removing “currency” from a game only causes the gear/items to become the currency. Path of Exile is proof of this, in the sense that there is no “official” currency, but certain items in the game are valued the same way that currencies are.

To use a more notorious example, Party Hats in Runescape became one of the highest valued “currencies” for trading - without being an intended currency.

It is an indisputable fact that [+1] is worth less than [+3]. Whether the trade is being conducted with Fun-Bucks or Boots of Glory, the [+3] is going to be worth more of them.

Outside of being contrarian and belligerent, not really. Sorry.

If anything, I would advise you to focus on making your intentions more clear regarding your proposed system.

1 Like
19

Fruity Pebbles has immediately outed themselves as a hacker. There’s no way I’m trading with this person. :sweat_smile:

A tier 4 affix is the highest that can be sealed.

1 Like
20

:scream: Thanks for helping me connect yet another dot, friend.

“x” “crafting resource” example #1 “incredibly rare”
increases the highest tier an affix can be sealed.
only “obtainable” from “breaking down” / “destroying” “VERY VALUABLE FINALIZED ITEMS”