I just don’t understand this idea that trade isn’t itself gameplay in games where players aren’t intentionally impeded from the activity. I never thought of it as a hassle or a chore in WoW or PSO2–only in games with extra hassle. It doesn’t mean I like all gameplay, but I generally can choose not to engage with the elements I don’t like–for example, Warframe’s PvP is meme, but it’s available.
The problem here is that ARPGs with an economy are typically balanced around Trade existing, and expect you to engage with it. Trade itself definitely is gameplay, but not typically gameplay everyone enjoys and thinks of when engaging with an ARPG, imo. If you care about your progress, especially relative to others in a MP setting - which the majority, I would wager, does - you’re coerced to engage with the tools the game is designed around to achieve those ends (not so with voluntary side activities such as PvP in such genres, for example).
I really do think a good ARPG should be fun and enjoyable, over long periods of time, without ever requiring access to an economy, and not the other way around.
I think the SSF players in PoE show that it is optional and voluntary. Loot is balanced well enough to permit that. I don’t believe there’s anything substantially different/special about ARPGs that precludes them from accessible trade systems other than the D3 fallacy and fear.
We have an example of what not to do with regard to how their attitudes and approach toward loot–again, misguided because of fear. Blizz was so afraid of AH being too good that they made it so it couldn’t be any other way. They completely lacked sufficient non-gear loot to chase/trade. They killed the drop rates for the game. They cut the integrity of the game out at the knees with RMAH. There were a thousand things they could have done differently and still had the AH be usable, but they bought into the same poor logic people always cite when using D3 as an example. I just don’t buy the circular reasoning that goes into all that.
Thinking that ARPGs are some special case regarding trade is simply specious reasoning. I think it’s the lack of proper analysis and courage that actually prohibits it from seeing implementation, nothing more.
How do you explain so many other studios deciding against such a trade system then, not just ARPGs but numerous other examples we’ve already covered such as Warframe etc.?
I have a very hard time imagining that all these professionals and people with a vested monetary interest in the success of their projects haven’t applied copious amounts of analysis to the issue, or lacked entrepeneurial courage.
I think it’s precisely the fact that they are all professionals in the industry that has them stuck in these bubbles. It’s not a lack of intelligence.
I can somewhat see that, but i’m not convinced. I do believe plenty of smarter minds than the two of us have attempted to tackle this conundrum and come up empty, hence the blatant lack of examples after D3 to point to for such models in ARPGs (or any loot grinder genre, for that matter).
I don’t think it’s really been attempted. It may have been discussed, but I don’t see the evidence for attempts. I just see fear and echo chambers.
Well to be clear I meant internal discussions, hypothetical back and forth, obviously no such plan has been put into practice.
I don’t think the entire genre is permeated with echo chambers, all repeating GGG’s credo though, if that’s what you’re going for here.
I just think nobody has so far come up with a good model to implement a functional ingame AH, or an economic system with comparable ease of access and QoL, which doesn’t - as we come full circle here - endanger the core gameplay loop to an unreasonable degree.
That’s exactly the issue. The belief that it would endanger that loop rather than enhance it makes such discussions only end one way. That’s the echo chamber reasoning.
I don’t think it fits the description of “echo chamber” when it’s probably one of most discussed topics in game design, period, and has many different, quite vocal opinions on the subject, i’m sure among developers as well as among players.
I think it is when we frequently hear the same excuses and reasoning from the dev side of it. I’m not someone who agrees with it just because others do when there is plenty of reason to think another approach could work. Just need people brave enough to try.
I think the reasoning just makes a lot of logical sense, hence why many incorporate it.
But we’re starting to circle around the same points again now.
Going to take a break here again, maybe i’ll pop back in if I can think of something interesting to add or discuss further.
The reasoning for the other approach makes sense too, but it depends on how you view the various elements of gameplay. People who are scared of trade, don’t consider it “gameplay,” or think that existing models are the only approaches to base anything off are going to reach the same conclusions. People who are more imaginative, analytical, and open-minded to possibility will see what can be done differently.
I’m neither scared of it nor do I not consider it gameplay, i’m just approaching it from a somewhat neutral perspective, looking at what has worked, what hasn’t, and trying to imagine what could work. And I think many developers have done the same. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible, far from it, but I just think there is a very good reason why it hasn’t really been attempted since.
I do believe if you are holding out hope for a buyout AH in LE you’re probably going to be disappointed though, it doesn’t strike me as likely.
Is it reasonable to describe it an echo chamber if devs can’t come up with an innovative way round the common problems inherent in player trade? If you face the same problems as someone else & can only come up with the same solutions it’s reasonable to expect the same result. To expect a different result is a description of madness.
Not that that will stop everyone from thinking that they have a different solution that will work & trying it.
I would welcome more attempts at different solutions. I don’t see them. And I think the description as an echo chamber is perfectly reasonable. They come up with the same (perceived) problems and “solutions” because they are using the same framework to approach it.
I don’t think EHG will do this either, but I’m hoping they don’t go to some catastrophic other extreme (such as bid-only bazaar) either. I’m waiting to see what they do come up with, but I’m explaining why they (and we) shouldn’t be afraid of an AH system and what I believe it requires to work.
I mean, that’s probably because the genre has certain fixtures and a framework to work within, and you don’t want to make something that derails out of that genre too much.
I don’t see those as different from many examples I’ve cited thus far, except that some have some of the missing elements I described that ARPGs frequently don’t (but could).
Going back to my WoW example, having played from near the end of Vanilla until MoP released, I very frequently did play my mage fundamentally the same as an ARPG. With an isometric view from fairly far off my character, I would round up a bunch of mobs, CC/AoE them down, mass loot, repeat. I would vendor all the trash and AH anything that had any value and that I didn’t need for crafting. There wasn’t a significant difference between that and typical ARPGs other than the AH/trade side of things, so it’s pretty easy to see what kind of loot can be in a game to make AH trade viable.
PSO2 is another example where lots of non-gear loot has value on the player market. That’s really the main/important ingredient missing from typical ARPGs and there’s honestly not a good/valid reason that it should be.
lol
most of the gear you looted was insignificant then. because the loot that matters the most (especially true after vanilla) is bound when looted. (some, rather rare and forgettable can be bound when equipped).
The only reason endgame has a sense in WoW, is because 99% of the best gear can only be looted there.
Oh and sense of progress.
PS : i’ve been in top EU / World guilds in PVE at multiple expansions in the past. just for reference
PPS : what could work taking example from WoW though, could be that the gear in L.E wouldn’t be able to be traded, but improvements to it could be. Like enchantements, runes, or other (temporary) upgrades could be made. Like flasks and other things that can cross your mind.