Of course it does. All it needs is sufficient item variety.
This should be up to the players. It’s a major factor in what makes the most successful games so successful.
Some are, some aren’t. It’s not binary. I’ve known plenty of people who didn’t care for dungeons and raids and made it their own goal to complete every quest in the game. It was a totally valid play style.
This is a weird assumption, because I barely ever quested in WoW. I hated its quest structure (and still do). Most of my gear came from aoe farming world drops and dungeons. Also a valid playstyle.
Also not true. LE gives you a unique item in one of its first quests as a reward. Torchlight 2 constantly gave you gear for quest rewards. There’s nothing stopping these genres from inter-mingling, and indeed, they often do.
You really have an overly narrow view of these things and need to open up your mind about it.
The most successful MMOs, yes. Not the most successful ARPGs. Unless you want to argue that Diablo and PoE offered rich and diverse gameplay activities outside of loot-hunting.
Anything that you enjoy is valid, there is no “wrong” way to playing a game. But you cannot argue that because one person happens to enjoy a particular detail of a game that is mostly unrelated to its key appeal and design for the majority, that there is no reason why it shouldn’t be done “like that” everywhere.
So you’re telling me you grinded to max throughout every expansion and never engaged with quests, which after probably TBC were always designed to be the no-brainer straight upgrades, and raw drops were basically always mostly irrelevant and disenchanting material or transmog fodder? Come on, you’re really stretching this to the breaking point now. And you’re still not getting the main issue. Fine, let’s assume you played like that and happened to enjoy it. The game was never designed or intended for players to grind their entire progression without quests, it’s a possibility by virtue of the game mechanics, but not the design intent. And once again, you playing that way didn’t affect anyone else. You cannot transplant that same logic to an ARPG in respect to an economy. Nobody is affected in an MMO if Joe Shmoe farms trash mobs somewhere and drops a few world drops on the AH, because they’re not depending on the AH for their core character progression at all, and in fact things like crafting mat prices are a far bigger factor than anything else for the average players.
Switch to an ARPG, everyone is “grinding for World Drops”, because that is the game. And the existence of an economy affects everyone, it isn’t just you happily grinding away somewhere.
Quest rewards in forms of gear in ARPGs are far and few in between, and for good reason. They’re usually intended to somewhat mitigate bad RNG in raw drops up to that point (because that is the primary source of character progression from start to finish), and/or to demonstrate types of loot to look out for. They’re not the core of character power progression whatsoever.
To be honest, after you’ve started opening up more and more about where your particular views stem from, I find this comment to be incredibly ironic, and I say that with respect.
There’s nothing stopping ARPGs from including more stuff to do other than dev imagination and time.
But appealing to as many people as possible is something that should be attempted. This is one of the things that does make PoE the biggest ARPG on the market.
This is incorrect. Because I preferred this playstyle, I was putting in more material goods into the economy than what is average for that stage in my progression. I contributed to price deflation, which many players regard as a benefit to them, while still building up wealth for myself.
And no, it isn’t that I never quested at all. I just avoided it at every reasonable opportunity. If my character was capable of beating 3+ mobs per pull, that was my preference. If I had to pull single target for whatever reason, then I would run dungeons. Quests were a last resort.
Again, you’re falling into the fallacy of tradition here. Just because it has been done one way, doesn’t mean it’s the only way. You seriously need to get over this mental hurdle.
This is only a question of implementation. There’s nothing stopping an ARPG from designing around this concept. It wouldn’t be my personal preference, but it might be for someone else. I might still enjoy that game as long as it provided reasonable alternatives as well.
How is it ironic to have shown many ways things can be done differently and stating that such open-mindedness should be pursued by others? Either you don’t know what “ironic” means or you don’t know what “open-minded” means, because your statement doesn’t add up. Sharing my personal perspective changes nothing about that.
You have constantly stated things in either absolute terms, or close to them, with no room for the many alternatives laid out before you. It’s not at all “ironic” to call you out for being narrow-minded about it.
Yes, there is truly nothing stopping devs from adding whatever anyone can think of to any game. This isn’t an argument. We’re talking about LE specifically, and the concept of a trade economy in very specific ARPGs more generally here. LE is not an MMO, it never will be as diverse or varied, and trade economies fulfill far more specific and direct purposes in ARPGs compared to MMOs.
Again, the main driver behind PoE’s success is flat out content. HC is not balanced around (anymore). SSF is not balanced around, and was added fairly recently as something that didn’t require any real work on the devs side and made a very small subset of players happy.
There are no significant deviations from the key formula of gameplay in PoE, or any ARPG. You follow the progression paths available. You’re not sitting in a tavern somewhere cybering, or fishing for hours. The core of the game is kill mobs, loot things, make builds. The end.
Head → desk. Again, you are treating the economy in WoW as if it were translatable to an ARPG. It is not. Your contributions to the market had 0 effect on anyone else playing the game, outside of a few people buying world drops for ilvl or w/e, it’s just a non-factor. And you’re just. Not. Getting. How different it is in an MMORPG, where you can sit on a side and grind a few world drops, while the majority gets their gear from dungeons, raids, crafting, etc, and world drops become irrelevant after a few weeks in every expansion release, I might add, with incredibly few exceptions.
I think we are pretty much done here. We’ve had a largely enjoyable discussion, but you start drifting towards calling other people’s opinions short-sighted or narrow-minded because your own arguments fall short, and frankly don’t consider the bigger picture or general design considerations, and are largely based on your own bubble. Which is why I called it very ironic that you attempt to project this unto others - most notably, I must add, people who are attempting to view both sides of an issue and trying to take facts into account outside of their own preferred style of play. This is not to say that i’m right, but just that I do not attempt to reinforce my own arguments by calling you anything of any kind, and am focusing on your arguments.
On top of that, I really feel like we are indeed just circling around illogical comparisons that don’t hold water, outside of the same points we’ve discussed ad nauseum for many posts before, and there’s nothing more to be gleaned from this now.
Well, I don’t quite agree, I think there have been attempts to view the bigger picture from different sides of the spectrum, which I enjoyed.
But now we’re kind of stuck.
I’ve already addressed this ad nauseum. Don’t see a point in repeating it. It’s not an argument.
Content comes in many forms and flavors. You’re overly focused on what has been rather than what could be. If LE is just going to copy what other games have done, I don’t see it carving out any relevant niche in the market, especially without a trade economy for reasons copiously addressed.
Because it absolutely can be. Period. There is nothing special about ARPGs that precludes this.
Because there’s no significant difference outside of what has been tried so far. There’s no reason ARPGs can’t be built to incorporate various elements of MMOs and I have already given plenty of examples of games that have and of games that fall somewhere between the genres. It’s your own narrow definition getting in your way.
Now this is ironic.
It’s because you refuse to acknowledge the examples given as viable, despite those games seeing plenty of success in their own right–even if not to PoE’s level of success. Then you call them “failed arguments” that “don’t hold water” without providing a valid counter argument.
You see things in very narrow boxes, not both sides, so you aren’t being as objective or open-minded as you like to think/claim. I have pointed out multiple ways that this is the case, but you just resort to “no u” and repeating the same overly narrow definitions that don’t stand up to reality (examples given).
Agree to disagree. This is also basically what this thread boil down to. How much of the other side one is prepared to accept? You chose to see it a certain way. So did I. Will we converge? I dont think so. I think everyone is too invested in their own ideologies.
If the topic is “The case against a Trade Economy” and the case is poorly built, it will be critically examined and deconstructed. His defense is overly reliant on “ARPGs have always done it this way,” rather than why a trade economy can’t actually work. Both of these angles have been quite thoroughly dismantled.
Sure, most topics will always boil down to this. It is in the nature of online discussion, and frankly, almost any discussion always, that it is very unlikely to change the other side’s convictions. But it can develop some ideas and maybe open up some new attempts at compromises for topics as controversial and important as Trade in ARPGs, I feel. And most importantly, there are always far more people listening in than parcticipating, and they can make up their own mind.
I feel for developers at this point it’s also a good way to get some opinions on important aspects of the game outside of their own development bubble, but specific to their game (without making any claims as to which opinions are the valid ones here, just the discussion itself).
It seems clear that you are not out to discuss anymore, maybe never were, but to argue for the sake of it. So i’m just not interested anymore. Everyone can come to their own conclusions based on the rather lengthy discussion, which for the most part I think was good. So thank you for that.
There’s a fine line between the two, but where you really began to lose me is that you keep repeating certain false and/or fallacious statements. I don’t know how you think anyone is supposed to change their mind on the basis of that sort of argument when they can see through it.
Let me ask you something, since you keep insisting on these narrow boxes for ARPGs: Do you really want them to always boil down to just reskinned takes on what the echoes do? Enter map, kill a few monsters, a bunch of garbage drops with a teeny tiny chance at something you might vaguely care about, maybe a boss and/or chest at the end. Wouldn’t you like to see more variation and expression of the genre? Or would you rather keep them in that tiny box?
Actually, if you compare the replies to view count ratio to other recent threads in this forum, this thread seems mostly visited by the same people who are already here posting replies anyway. It doesnt seem too popular for the casual bystander.
The forums in general are largely like this. A tiny ratio of players actually use the forums. Many games are this way, so shouldn’t surprise anyone and doesn’t really mean much either way.
And I’m saying it’s typical. When reply counts reach a certain threshold, you will naturally see fewer participants because anyone who hasn’t been following along is unlikely read through hundreds of posts to catch up. Comparing it to threads with like 10-20 replies isn’t really relevant.
I tried to say this multiple times, but generally get texted down in the TLDR walls of text.
A three-part trade system is probably the most beneficial.
Barter: I have “A” I am looking for “B”. Another player has “B” and is looking for “A”… direct barter exchange. Just swap items and move on.
Profit makers: I have “X” amount of guardian glyphs, I do not craft, but I do spend gold gambling. So I will sell “X” for “Y” gold and gamble more.
Trade consortiums: should be limited to guild/league/party system. The ones pool resources to squeeze those who play just to have fun. Those that manipulate markets make it dreadful to engage in these types of markets due to gouging or over-valuation or risks.
Other rules as implemented by EHG as time and the natural growth of the MP economy takes shape. There are always market control systems (Central Bank) at work behind the scenes to help maintain a level of fairness/competitiveness.
Confused what you mean between your opening statement and your 3rd point. Are you saying those should be allowed, but controlled for? How would you go about something like that without impacting regular players who just want to engage with the system?
I’ll reply to this at least, since it’s a new take somewhat.
I just think you’re placing an expectation on LE that is far too grandiose and not rooted in what we’ve seen of the game so far. As an example, do you think the base itemization is going to change drastically from the 4 affix model? Because I don’t think so, else why keep it for so long thusfar, we arguably don’t have that long to go anymore towards 1.0, but more importantly towards MP in 0.9. And just based on that affix model, any attempt at the kind of Trade you want is going to pose a rather severe problem, as we’ve discussed.
You’re also reducing the core gameplay loop with hyperbole to make it seem less appealing than it really is. You could spin any iteration of any ARPG, or any genre for that matter, into seeming “it’s just X” that way, but that’s not a good basis for arguing either way. Instead, it would be more constructive to look at the facts at hand - what is the core function of the game, and what can be extrapolated from that for future additions (barring significant changes, which we’ve mentioned, and I think are quite unlikely given the state of things).
Instead of it being “just kill few mobs and hope for a small chance of a good drop”, it is “be motivated to kill mobs and get excited for the potential of good drops”, that’s the optimal state to be in, and what should be preserved as much as possible.
You seem to forget i’m not coming at this as a diehard SSF player, or would even refuse to play LE if it involved an economy. Far from it.
Instead, I with my “narrow view” am trying to look at something that quite simply hasn’t been done before - a box price, largely SSF or hybrid trade model, with a focus on consistent content delivery and making the Cycle mechanics as appealing and interesting as possible, and making SSF/hybrid trade (as in, bid-only or barter-only) progress as enjoyable as it could be in an ARPG.
I personally think the foundation (stressing this, the foundation, with room to expand and improve) is there for that, and would make for a fresh take on the genre not tried so far.
