Full Trading System Design (Beautiful Pictures Inside!)

[AuroraClaire]

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.

[fknflo]

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

[AmityXIII]

Thanks for response.

You bring valid attention to necessary places.

@AuroraClaire

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

@AuroraClaire

the situation where you just want to give someone you’re playing with an item that drpops.

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)

@AuroraClaire

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.

POINT#1 - i like it
POINT#2 - i wouldn’t say it’s a terrible idea either
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
   

@AuroraClaire

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.

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.
lul

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

[AuroraClaire]

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

[AmityXIII]

@AuroraClaire

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

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

Thank you.

[AmityXIII]

@fknflo

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

hahaha, HELL YEAH BROTHER!

Crafted by “DeeznutZ”

OPTIONS
FUN = 1

[TehGrief]

@AmityXIII

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.

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?

@AmityXIII

POINT#4 - 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.
(Worth is evaluated based on user needs)

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.

@AmityXIII

POINT#6 - There will be NO TRADITIONAL WAY to quantify the “value” of ANY “item” in the game.

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.

[AmityXIII]

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

@TehGrief

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?

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.

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

@TehGrief

I think that this is where I have the most difficulty with your proposed system.

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

@TehGrief

The reason currency works so well in both the real world economy and most virtual economies is because of the concept of surplus.

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.

@TehGrief

the likelihood of two players having what the other needs (in terms of gear) is very unlikely.

Good. Working as intended.

@TehGrief

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.

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

@TehGrief

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

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

@TehGrief

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.

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?

[TehGrief]

@AmityXIII

@TehGrief

In this system, would [‘finalized’ items] continue to be tradable [after being traded?

Yes there is an established “item sink” with a demand for creativity.

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’.

@AmityXIII

Currency does “NOT” work well in virtual economies BECAUSE of the concept of surplus.

A fundamental issue in arpg economy is that trade CAN"T work too well. Scarcity MUST drive demand.

“Items sinks” are deployed with the intention of “consistently removing” “items” from “circulation” To fight “inflation” and “flooded markets”

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

@AmityXIII

@TehGrief

The likelihood of two players having what the other needs (in terms of gear) is very unlikely.

Good. Working as intended.

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).

@AmityXIII

@TehGrief

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.

Which is the main reason why it needs to be completely removed from trading

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].

@AmityXIII

@TehGrief

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.

No, I disagree. It’s not fair to say that. It’s not a fact either.
The price of anything is only worth what someone else is willing to pay.
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.

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.

@AmityXIII

I hope my ideology on this matter is now clearer.

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.

[AndrewTilley]

@AmityXIII

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

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

[AmityXIII]

@AndrewTilley

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

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

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”

[AmityXIII]

@TehGrief

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.

Yes there is an established “item sink” with a demand for creativity.
I said this already.
DEMAND FOR CREATIVITY. - “See response to the post under your last one for a quick example off the top of my head on the spot” lul ez
*Got anything to contribute?

@TehGrief

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’.

I do have a little faith in this community and EHG. Some individuals are quite capable of coming up with solutions and helpful ideas. Other’s not so much. I digress, I am sure EHG and the community working together are able to come up with some exciting ideas for the extremely open ended tagline - finalized’ items can be broken down for ‘unique’ crafting resources"

I said this already.* I said this already.
DEMAND FOR CREATIVITY. - “See response to the post under your last one for a quick example off the top of my head on the spot” lul ez
*Got anything to contribute?

@TehGrief

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

No, I disagree.
I value individual player and community efforts to overcome challenges.
My apologies, I do NOT share your perceived values or perceptions.

@TehGrief

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

If you still need clarification on my stances, re-read my old posts.
I am satisfied with the level of clarity I have provided you and the patience I have shown to do so.

@TehGrief

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

I said this already. I said this already. I said this already.
DEMAND FOR CREATIVITY. - “See response to the post under your last one for a quick example off the top of my head on the spot” lul ez
*Got anything to contribute? *Got anything to contribute?

@TehGrief

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.

Which is the main reason why it needs to be completely removed from trading
We covered this already. Right? Didn’t we?

@TehGrief

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].

No, I disagree.
There IS plenty of incentive to trade.
To reiterate my previous statement, neither Player ‘A’ nor Player ‘B’ will use their currency directly in a trade because the ability for either player to do so has been REMOVED. lul
We covered this already. Right? Didn’t we?

@TehGrief

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.

Path of Exile removed gold
They allowed currency
Which is a “form of currency”
It’s even called “currency”
Path of Exile MIGHT have been the “WORST” example you could have chosen to support your argument for “in favour” of tradable currency. lul
Path of Exile doesn’t have “an official” currency
Path of Exile has “many official” currencies. lmfao
You completly fell out the boat that I’m riding in, bud. hahahaha

@TehGrief

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

I was actually just waiting for you to bring up Diablo 2 and SOJs.
I’m surprised you didn’t.

@TehGrief

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.

No, I disagree. And I dispute it. And I already explained why.
If you need additional clarity for that too, feel free to read my previous posts.

@TehGrief

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.

And it’s clear that we are just going in circles at this point.
If you aren’t going to at least try to offer anything new to the discussion, I’m afraid continued dialog with you is over, my friend.

I’m sorry you were unable to accept my views without resorting to name calling.
Thank you for sharing yours.

Sometimes it’s healthy to keep a sense of humour.
You still aren’t getting my “Glorious Boots of Glory”

Later bud.

[TehGrief]

@AmityXIII

It’s clear that we are just going in circles at this point.
If you aren’t going to at least try to offer anything new to the discussion, I’m afraid continued dialog with you is over.

I am actively trying to understand what you are trying to propose and you are not doing a very good job of describing your system.

@AmityXIII

There is an established “item sink” with a demand for creativity. I said this already.
DEMAND FOR CREATIVITY.

If your only “established item sink” is the half-baked idea regarding a resource to increase the maximum tier an affix can be sealed then I am even more confused - how will that work? I genuinely want to know - Considering that the Glyph of Despair (the only way to seal a mod onto a piece of gear) only has a chance to seal an affix (it is not guaranteed); which, because of its fundamental nature, is the reason why the sealed affix is currently capped at tier four.

Furthermore, you have stated that this system only applies to:

“VERY VALUABLE FINALIZED ITEMS ”

Which is hard to understand since you consistently suggest that “value” is a subjective metric assigned based on player’s “need” and not an objective, collective perception.

Regardless, I fail to see how this is a viable “item sink”, as you claim it to be. Please clarify.

@AmityXIII

@TehGrief

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

No, I disagree.
I value individual player and community efforts to overcome challenges.

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

@AmityXIII

@TehGrief

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

If you still need clarification on my stances, re-read my old posts.
I am satisfied with the level of clarity I have provided you and the patience I have shown to do so.

I have never required clarification on your “stance”, that is very clear:

i don’t care if you don’t like it

I do, however, require clarification on your proposed trade system - which is why I am asking genuine questions.

@AmityXIII

@TehGrief

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].

No, I disagree.
There IS plenty of incentive to trade.

What is the incentive for a random player with a [+3 Boot] to trade for a [+1 Glove]? This is not an even (i.e. ‘fair’) trade. Give me some examples of existing incentive if there is ‘plenty’ of them.

@AmityXIII

@TehGrief

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.

Path of Exile removed gold
They allowed currency
Path of Exile doesn’t have “an official” currency
Path of Exile has “many official” currencies.

This is my point.
To quote from Path of Exile’s official statement:

“We’ve gone as far as removing gold as a currency and basing our trade economy around orbs that can randomly reroll the properties of other items.”

The Path of Exile economy is based on objects that are synonymous with ‘currency’; as I have stated, removing ‘currency’ will simply make another tradable object into currency.

[AmityXIII]

@TehGrief

Sorry bud, I ended the conversation between you and I.

Angry French Bulldog on Diet Throws Tantrums for Not Getting Food - 1065754

I WON’T be reading or responding to anything more from you within this particular thread.

Is that clear ?

later bud

[TehGrief]

I guess you could say this conversation is “finalized” and “can no longer be modified”?

Shame really.

[AmityXIII]

Can’t hear you nah nah nah nah nah

@Maelstromicus

Yeah, I guess you can work around anything with the will to do it.

Ok, I give in. Frankly I’ve got better things to do with my life than spend it fruitlessly in here. I said my opinion and I can’t be bothered with anything more.

Then some of us can pop back in a couple of years, admire the desolation, and have the scant reward of saying “we told you so”.

I’m out. Have fun.

Funny enough I share this sentiment with a number of players in this community.
We usually sit back and watch from a distance attempting more efficient ways of channeling our voices with the best of intentions for the game.

Those that lurk have some incredible feedback that nobody get’s to consider.
Few have the patience or the will to endure what go’s on here. They just don’t care enough to deal with the mess. It’s very unfortunate and damaging in several collective opinions.

We have been around for years now avoiding this place. Finally ,myself just participating in these forums for my first 24 hours ever felt like a social experiment. I would have to say it’s been the worst experience I’ve ever had on a community gaming forum. What’s even worse is that I knew about and was prepared for it.

IF I was a new player looking to get involved in the community through these forums, with little experience, I might have felt like my opinions didn’t matter and I was treated dismissively by the inhabitants of the deep and dark forum-main shadow realm.

These agents flapping about while they flex their bones, giving off a mentality like this is some kind of Gen Pop Yard Juvenile Maximum Security Detention Centre. If anyone steps to you. boy, you better be ready to throw down and type furiously. It’s comically ridiculous.

It’s not a very welcoming place. I see a lot of new players immediately being turned off and watching from a distance. I know this to be true, because we have been accumulating like a small army out on the peripherals.

It’s entertaining just to entertain it for a little while and play the part.

After the initial 24 hours, I have had my fill.

[EHG_Mike]

Please keep conversations on topic and respectful. If you don’t want to talk to each other, stop talking to each other. Needing to get the last word is just dragging out the process of ending the argument. So I’m happy to take away that burden of you’d like this to be that last word.

You’re welcome to keep the actual topic rolling though.

[darkdeal]

@AmityXIII

@darkdeal

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

What would be the currency facilitating trade?

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

This would only end up doing what happened in D2. There would be some “base item”, like SoJ in D2, that would take the place of currency. All top end items would be priced in “SoJ’s”. You can’t avoid currency. If there isn’t one created by the devs, one will be created by the players.

@AmityXIII

I was actually just waiting for you to bring up Diablo 2 and SOJs.
I’m surprised you didn’t.

I did, because it is a valid critique of your idea.

[Heavy]

Yeah Marvel Heroes had the same thing.

Early on it was “Hand of Doom” (HoD’s), later it became “Gem Of The Kursed” (GotK’s).

Both were decently rare items, but with very generic crit stats that literally every build could use.

In trade chat it was then stuff like: “WTB 99% roll [Item X] for 100 GotK’s”

[Llama8]

@TehGrief

What is the incentive for a random player with a [+3 Boot] to trade for a [+1 Glove]? This is not an even (i.e. ‘fair’) trade.

It could be, if player A wants the gloves & player B wants the boots & they can therefore both make use of them then ignoring any external viewpoint on the relative value of those items it would be a fair trade if both players were happy with the items they received.

Using a currency (be it gold, SoJ, the many orbs in PoE or whatever) makes life a lot easier when trying to trade rather than bartering since if player A doesn’t want the gloves that player B has to offer for their boots but there is a widely used currency then the trade can happen for that & player A can go shopping for whatever they do want more easily than trying to find someone that wants the gloves that they now have to trade for whatever item they do want.

As I’ve said before, there’s reasons why people moved away from barter several thousand years ago.

But some people like the idea of bartering & that’s fair enough.

And @AmityXIII, I’m sorry if you took my earlier post as offensive, it wasn’t meant in the way that you appear to have taken it.