The Case against a Trade Economy

Feedback and Suggestions
222

I actually want something in between. Just like I want a trade that’s somewhere between the extremes of D3 and PoE. LE is a bit on the slow/boring side right now, but PoE is so speed-oriented that you either kill from off screen or die to one-shots. Neither is ideal.

Don’t care about the gold cost. I go through most of my gold pretty easily as it is and don’t mind farming for more if I need it for something. It’s a mostly reasonable balance. My issue is with the way skills are handled. Losing skills points and having to regrind them is not a “respec” by any reasonable sense of the word. It’s a deletion followed by a pointless re-grind. At very high levels it’s fine, but at 60 or less it’s terrible, and that’s where I most want the ability to because that’s where I’m still seeing what everything does and fine tuning the direction of a build.

It’s more that I see it as constraining design options too much. It also is why so many people say it’s too easy to get geared. If the game designed solely for SSF, it’s a great system. I don’t believe it is, though. It gives concern about what they can/will do in the future for itemization.

First of all, I want an economy that is based on more than just equippable gear drops as that’s way too one-dimensional to be interesting or sustainable. Next, it’s not that I want more-but-worse loot in general, it’s that even with the 8.2 changes, general loot drop quality isn’t good enough to regard it as interesting/valuable in most cases. Not trying to shit on the devs here, but when the loot system is this simple, it doesn’t really matter if loot in general is of higher or lower “quality,” regardless of quantity. Then you apply a system that makes even these items often come up as “incomplete” and you have something that is simultaneously boring in ways it shouldn’t be and frustrating in places that it needs to be exciting.

I think this illustrates an overly binary viewpoint about how loot/trade works in ARPGs. The system I want to see isn’t on either extreme. You should see a healthy number of item drops, some good and some not. You should see a variety of useful items that have some utility (and therefore, value). You should have a trade system that helps you progress and push forward, but still leaves plenty to be desired with endgame systems having rewards worth chasing.

I’m not sure how else I can put it, but I don’t appreciate it being mischaracterized as wanting another PoE when I explicitly said in previous posts that was precisely not the case. I don’t believe you are doing it to intentionally antagonize me, but it is an overly simplified interpretation of what I have been saying–to the point of wild inaccuracy.

223

I also play an ARPG to accumulate phat loot. For a loot to be “phat”, it has to have trade value.

224

I’m definitely not trying to antagonize you, it just strikes me that most of what you are leaning towards does seem to trend towards PoE’s design rather strongly. I just get the sense that many people want “PoE, BUT” when it comes to ARPGs, with different players having different notions as to which particular aspect is the most offending one to them.

And from my point of view, LE currently has a foundation that is sufficiently different, yet familiar, that could work to be developed into a different direction. To me, if we were to aspire towards a trade system the way you’d like it, it would have to go hand-in-hand with moving itemization more towards what PoE has, and likely with accompanying shifts in both density and scaling on mobs, because you have to accomodate for the easier access to functional gear in order to maintain a sense of progression and challenge.

I do agree obtaining functional gear is rather easy right now, but that’s fine and good. Whereas the ceiling towards min/maxed gear is very high indeed, and that is also good.

I guess i’m just not sure what you mean by “better” drops and “not just drops you want to equip”, because i’m lacking a frame of reference here. Outside of loot generally having trade value, i’m struggling to define what you could mean, and if you assign trade value, we run into the conundrums described at length. Nothing about the loot design would change drastically, from what I think I glean from your comments, but it would be more interesting because of trade value.

See above though: I can relate to that notion, but for loot to feel more exciting because it has trade value, trade itself needs to be basically required for high end progress, else why would one get excited about a high value drop - you’d get excited because it unlocked new avenues and options for yourself. This is kind of the cat chasing its own tail here, loot can and should feel exciting without the tacked-on function of an economic value, and in my opinion, it currently does in LE, with lots of room to improve and expand on that.

225

I think you fundamentally have a different view of endgame and ARPG “fun” from others who enjoy the economic aspect. I get excited from the mere fact that I have more valuable items now - as much as some enjoy chasing the highest arena wave, I enjoy accumulating the most amount of wealth (or valuable loot).

It’s much like someone whose league goal in POE could be to acquire a mirror - the wealth accumulation is a goal in itself.

2 Likes
226

No, I totally get that, it’s how I play PoE and used to play D2 and D3 as well. I liked the feeling of loot being exciting because something valuable could drop at any point.

But the key factor here is that the value is perceived due to its market value, which translates into gearing and build options for oneself. And in my opinion, a similar sense of excitement can be achieved without having to translate loot info trade value and then back into upgrades for oneself.

227

The problem I have with this way of looking at what others are saying is you can easily fit it to either extreme while missing the point. If someone tells me they like a slower paced, more “strategic” game, I can say they are just looking for “Dungeon Siege, BUT…” or “Torchlight 1, BUT…” or any other comparison. It’s hard to argue that the most successful ARPG on the market isn’t PoE, but it’s not as if all the concepts it employs originated with GGG–they borrowed from many other games.

This is only half true. There are plenty of “Hideout Heroes” in PoE–whose only real goal in the game is to flip currency and craft. They don’t care if they ever kill Shaper, let alone Sirus. It’s a different motivation entirely and only vaguely has roots in relative player power when seen from this perspective.

(Gonna catch some Z’s. Have a goodnight and I’ll catch up with you later.)

228

Well, that goes without saying. PoE simply represents the most popular and functional version of a Trade economy in an ARPG to date, but there are reasons for that and drawbacks that plague the community, which we’ve already discussed at length, from the difficulty scaling to the necessary hassle of Trade interaction, etc etc etc.

I just don’t see a world where you can have this cake and eat it too, an ARPG environment where you can achieve that type of economy while it not having severe repercussions and limitations for overall design.

People who plays ARPGs solely to play the market are an insanely small minority. Basing one’s entire design philosophy around catering to this subset seems misguided, at best.

You gotta consider the market here. The vast, vast majority just wants to have intuitive fun with different builds, experience endgame and not have to engage with particularly time-wasting and cumbersome activities outside of the core gameplay to progress. I’m not necessarily such a type myself, i enjoy theorycrafting and spreadsheets, and i’ll play markets sometimes too, but i’m not the majority whatsoever, I shouldn’t be catered to.

229

  1. Wanting loot to have economic value doesnt mean I play ARPG to play the market. I am happy to play the game to acquire the loot. I get that sometimes flipping is better than playing the game to compound wealth but that’s for the devs to create a system to disincentivise flipping

  2. Please dont assume people who like different things from you is this imaginary insanely small minority as you claim. First of all, back it up. Secondly, if items have trade value doesnt resonate with most players as you claim, you might want to explain why POE is the most popular ARPG to date, when people complain about its terrible gameplay and market simulator economy.

2 Likes
230

I’m not referring to you here, but Albino’s very specific example of “hideout heroes” who play just to flip and craft. They are unquestionably a very small minority of the playerbase, I don’t think there can be much debate about that.

I already told you i’m very much in the same boat vis-a-vis enjoying basic loot because of plain market value being attached. At the same time though we’ve discussed in this very thread at length how it also causes necessary drawbacks, which people find unappealing and unfun. Like i’ve been trying to say and apparently failing to adequately express, there just doesn’t seem to be a healthy balance to the extent that we’d like possible in ARPG design. Trade either becomes overbearing and too powerful, or cumbersome and unenjoyable to interact with.

Yes, absolutely there will always be players who enjoy it, but the majority? I would strongly question that. I’m not basing that on a league or two of PoE, but on endless years of D2, D3, and PoE. Maybe having been in the back-and-forth tug-of-war in PoE leagues between the developers trying to come up with compelling challenges and endgame content while maintaining the Trade system and power has coloured my perception a lot, for sure.

I’m entirely open to suggestions which could solve this eternal issue within the ARPG genre satisfyingly to most, if not all parties involved. So far, I haven’t been able to detect any clear idea here which would adequately address the issues that we all know and are aware of though. Hence my initial postulation: what if LE just bypasses it entirely, and goes down a different direction?

I’ll stress again: if a version of a Trade economy which doesn’t feel unnecessarily clunky and time-wasting, and doesn’t necessitate balance and itemization having to be adjusted to account for its power and preserve the key gameplay loop for as long as possible in any given Cycle (which should always be the goal) can be found - hey i’m all for it, i’d be the first to sign up and vocally praise it whenever I get the chance. I’d play the heck out of it.

But so far, i’ve not seen one proposed.

231

You keep saying this as if it’s a given, but it’s just the opposite end of the spectrum with regard to the D3 AH fallacy.

Nobody is saying to base the *whole design philosophy" around this, but it is a reason that some people play. Just because you may dislike it doesn’t mean these people shouldn’t be able to enjoy the game too. This is why I said earlier that it would be absurd if they suggested that you shouldn’t be able to spam farm bosses because it deflates the economy. I’m not convinced that one preference is “legitimate” and the other isn’t.

It’s not about majority/minority. You want a game that appeals to both sides as much as possible.

This is a false dichotomy. As I said earlier, I haven’t seen the middle ground tried yet in this genre.

I’ve offered many suggestions to this effect, but if they bypass trade entirely, this game stops being a competitor to PoE and is instantly relegated to something closer to Grim Dawn, Wolcen, or Torchlight.

That sounds like you haven’t been reading what I have written. I leave a certain amount of it open-ended because the devs have to figure out the finer details, but I have outlined the character of where itemization could/should be, reasonable limitations and purpose for trade, explained how it doesn’t need to be inconvenient or cumbersome to work, and that it would be a tool for progression but not the be-all for the game. Most of all, it doesn’t have to go to either extreme that D3 or PoE did.

232

I think we’re kind of talking past one another. I’ll try to clarify again.
Trade has to has some form of restriction to it, whether that be in form of restricting what can be traded, or how trade works. This isn’t just a thing since the famous PoE manifestos on the topic, it’s a generally recognized circumstance of ARPG design. There is a good reason why so many smaller ARPGs exist which do not implement a proper trade economy - it’s incredibly difficult to do.

It’s not about me disliking it, I honestly don’t really care. I dabble in the markets myself, I enjoy that. I’m trying to look at it from the neutral/design perspective. If you’re looking at trying to maintain gameplay loop integrity for the longest durations possible, giving this tiny subset of players any undue consideration is just a non-factor.

That is certainly the dream scenario, but you gotta start with the majority, and see if you can fit in something to please that minority afterwards. Hence why I believe LE has been in a non-Trade state for so long, they started in that manner and are now seeing how they can still make that work.

Neither have I, which is why I opened up this topic. We’ve discussed various iterations and i’ve brought up multiple points about the drawbacks of the different forms imaginable. Which brings us to:

Trade is not the deciding factor in an ARPG reaching certain levels of success, imo. It is unquestionably a popular feature that many want (myself included), but I would argue PoE’s success is, to a very large degree, based on their very regular and constant content turnout, which is something no other ARPG before them or after them managed thusfar, and why LE is looking at a similar model with Cycles. If D3 2.0’s itemization model were less hyper-focused on smart loot and had a little more variety in builds and loot, along with seasons adding more content, they’d still be chugging along quite nicely as well. Because the core game works very well, there’s just not enough compelling stuff to do in seasons since 2.0, and Trade isn’t the main factor there imo.

I have, and we’ve discussed the various drawbacks. To reiterate: a buyout AH with restrictions would trivialize and endanger early to mid-progress, basically the lion’s share of gameplay which the vast majority engages with. In this way, LE is quite comparable with PoE in the campaign mode leading into the mapping equivalent. It is to be expected that the vast majority will not reach Monoliths and when they do, many will not progress far. That isn’t to say that the game should be designed to cater to that audience, PoE doesn’t do this either. But it is a very important factor to consider when looking at what is tradeable, how and when. For us as more dedicated/hardcore players, Trade existing up to T20 mods for example would be a non-factor, we’d use it a bit and mostly be focused on hunting Exalteds, boss drops etc in endgame. For the general player, “simply buying” an item that could function as their chase level of item basically cuts off a good portion of their incentive to keep playing at the knees.

As i described earlier, the alternatives are a barter system, which brings with it the same types of issues PoE and D2 had, being cumbersome and a hassle, and a bid-only system which essentially bridges that gap, but runs the rather large risk of being virtually pointless due to its inefficiency and unpredictability.

I’m actually very tickled by this issue and will think further on the problems. Maybe I’ll think of something I think might work. So far I don’t see how the options on the table so far could work satisfactorily without causing the same problems we’ve seen in other games.

Addendum-edit:

Another big factor to consider is that LE is a box price game, and not a free game. The core experience up to Monoliths and early Monolith progression should be as enjoyable as possible without Trade being a necessity or hurdle, imo.

234

I’m not sure how this relates to the topic, to be honest.
And please stop insinuating that CT’s somehow get privileged information.

2 Likes
235

I have already explained why I didn’t find these argument sufficient.

Again, these are just repetitions of the fallacy. I don’t buy it. These arguments boil down to, “This is how it has to be done because it’s the only way we have seen work,” but ignores the sheer number of options that haven’t even been tried and have plausible reasons to believe they could work. It’s not as if any system is perfect, but it can have a few flaws in certain areas and still work perfectly well.

Agree, but the current state of the game only allows for that to be the case on the first (and maybe) second character. Given how build variety/expression is such a huge selling point for the game, it could use some more work in that department. It wouldn’t be hard for me to say that trade would actually improve this part of the game for me. I don’t subscribe to the notion that getting an item through trade undercuts the enjoyment of a section of content–quite the inverse. The only people I have seen where trade harms their long-term enjoyment are people who don’t like the trade process or who have very narrowly defined goals with regard to a character being “done” once they can complete the content. You want to talk majority/minority? I believe those players are the minority. However, they would have the option to just not engage with trade if they feel that way. This is why SSF has found a niche in PoE.

236

This was my first thought too.

However,

This is likely the case. It’s also possible that they don’t (yet) care.

1 Like
237

I would kind of argue the opposite. The players who like playing in a Trade environment because of the “value” factor added to loot excitement, but who do not enjoy any form of Trade interaction outside of a full buyout AH is the very likely majority. That’s the impression i’ve always gotten throughout the decades. Most people want that sense of excitement, but not the hassle. And this is where, imo, the issue starts because hitting a spot where that can coexist is incredibly challenging.

If I assume that more of everything is to be added - more bases, more affixes, more unique items, and whatever Legendaries are to be - then I think either a bid-only AH without restrictions (with very few exceptions) or a buyout AH with more stringent restrictions (said it before, but probably: no boss drops, maybe no Legendaries, maybe no Exalted items) could work in the short term. And in fact, a buyout AH of that nature would probably be incredibly popular early on.

The problem as I see it is that the game would then, over time, run into the issue of people encountering a solid wall after the cut-off point. You’d have people who enjoy the trade meta up to that point, and get frustrated that they’re prevented from engaging with it for endgame loot. You’d have people feeling “locked out” from endgame because “nothing ever drops and I can’t buy it”. You know it would be a major community topic, and i’m not sure it would be an unwarranted one either.

The more I think about it, the more I think it really is a binary decision. Either do fullblown Trade with everything tradeable in a more convenient way than in PoE, and tune and design accordingly - this alone would be a major draw, whether it works out longterm for the health of the game or not. Or leave it out entirely, and try to craft the most compelling SSF experience to date.

I think the structure for the latter is there, for the former a lot would have to change pretty drastically, as you have correctly said before.

238

This is possible, for LE at least. I don’t think it’s generically true for the genre.

This is where having more than just top end gear [for trade] becomes really important, but it’s also fair that if power creep really sets in–we start to see t10 or t12 affixes–they slowly ratchet up the tradeable cap to compensate. The beauty of that is in the idea that if the devs strike the right balance between maximum trade power and maximum craft power, each tier of trade power that goes up brings the economy up too.

You’d have people feeling “locked out” from endgame because “nothing ever drops and I can’t buy it”. You know it would be a major community topic, and i’m not sure it would be an unwarranted one either.

This part is definitely binary. Either trade IS the end-all for itemization, PoE-style, or you are doing the old school WoW-style of allowing players to get reasonably far on trade, but still have to work for their endgame. I personally prefer the latter because it’s a model that kept me playing for longer in the games that do feature it.

239

The difficulty when comparing to an MMO, though, is that an MMO has fundamentally different activities and gameplay. You don’t really feel locked out of anything when the entire point is to engage in group activities and challenges, imo. On top of the already mentioned important distinction of an MMO economy encompassing far more than just gear, and serving other purposes there.

Whereas in an ARPG the trade factor kind of affects everything. There is nothing else being traded, and it is solely about the question of how you obtain what the point of the game is, loot.

If you design an ARPG from the ground up with a very specific middle-ground solution in mind, it might be possible. But I don’t think LE is in that spot, and I am talking about LE specifically here.

240

People commonly say this, but I don’t buy it. It’s a design issue, not a genre issue. If you want to get real abstract, the only substantive difference between them, as far as I’m concerned, is the camera position/angle. I could play WoW as an ARPG if I just kept the camera locked in an ISO position. There is actually nothing stopping ARPGs from having “MMO features,” and indeed, PoE’s trade is one such feature.

This is why I am so insistent that the game needs much more item variety if it is to feature trade. By the way, this is a big part of why it works (to the extent that it does) in PoE.

241

Idk if you’ve noticed but a lot of games nowadays are adopting MMO-like mechanics to keep people playing for longer. PoE is basically a top-down MMO without the party play component.

Trade is going to be a necessary component for this game to be competitive with PoE and Diablo 4. There is no argument that beats that. Trade needs to happen, it’s just a matter of EHG balancing it in a way that makes the majority of people happy. Arguing against a trade economy is basically arguing against the future success of the game. We can “But Grim Dawn/D3!” all day but that doesn’t change the fact that both of those games decreased in popularity as time went on whereas PoE has only increased, and by a lot.

1 Like
242

The whole philosophical debate changes from the meandering omphaloskepsis which is fundamentally incapable of a resolution when EHG actually introduce new things. They said they were going to do new things.

They’ve been explicit about stash tabs several times. Gold is the method for acquiring them, they will not be sold as MTX for real money.

The moment they make a rare Stash Tab item drop in the world then the gold and trading future can be imagined. Something everyone wants, but has a higher value to those with more currency (which I am relating to number of tabs owned) and have probably played longer. A new player says to his guild “hey I just got an extra Stash Tab drop!”. Everyone then shouts in the channel ffs don’t use it. You can buy your tabs real cheap as a new player, but there are loads of people paying 2 mil for that in Trade because their own tabs have gotten too expensive.

I’ve not really seen much more achieved in the threads (including the locked ones) that don’t just say I like GD, the game should be more like that. Or I like POE, the game should be more like that. Who is going to change their opinion of their favourite game? The intention of the threads was very interesting, but without any information from EHG (even a statement like that of the stash tabs, which was specific to real concerns and issues people have encountered in other games).

Sorry @miffy your OP points and followups have been fascinating. I hope nothing I wrote is taken against that.

But yeah, Stash Tab drops from monsters, rare, but tradeable for gold. 100% certain :slight_smile:

1 Like