It sounds like you don’t fully have a grasp on the system, I’d recommend reading the FAQ at the bottom to answer those questions about how each group would interact with one another. I wouldn’t personally attempt to compare this to POE or other arpg systems but rather understand the intention being the system and it’s limitations.
3 Likes
If the dialogue starts, I assume that my opponent is not an imbecile - and if he makes a point, he’s certain that he DO have some intel to back it up.
I’d appreciate same treatment in return.
I. e. in this particular case I’d recommend asking ‘why do you think so?’ instead of making loud biased irrelevant attention-seeking statement.
lol no it doesn’t.
The only bit I see that could be obnoxious is farming up MG levels before being able to trade for any item, and you only have to do that once.
They appear to have a good idea of how competitive players would try to exploit these systems, and have put restrictions in to address them. What exploitation potential do you think they’ve left untouched?
I don’t see how it could, and even if it did, if you’re really concerned with that and aren’t a streamer or RMT company farmer you’re being kind of silly.
To me, the problems they appear to be seeing in other trade systems and are trying to address:
- People who want to be Fake Item Trade Czar instead of playing the actual game using large numbers of disposable alt accounts to engage in trashy/deceptive behavior in the marketplace.
- Instant, convenient, unlimited access to any item in the game.
- Spam sales of every item, no matter how low value it is (as seen in the D3 AH).
- Use of the item farming methods they want to give people who prefer farming over trade to radically increase the access to powerful items.
Whether or not you or I agree that any of those are problems is a different discussion, but based on the restrictions and their past commentary, those are my impressions.
I think you’re overstating the complexity by quite a bit.
4 Likes
@Bakageyama is 100% correct that your first comment makes it look like you didn’t fully read the post and don’t fully understand the system. Perhaps providing your “why you think so” up front would be a better approach than yelling nonspecific complaints and getting offended when it looks to everyone reading that you didn’t do your diligence before commenting.
2 Likes
Seems like you misunderstood this, and then made a lot of assumptions based on that. Player A could gift something to Player B, but Player B can’t do anything with it. Anything Player A finds would have a CoF requirement, so Player B couldn’t equip it. Anything with a CoF requirement can’t be sold in the market, so they couldn’t sell it either. All they could do with it is look at it, shatter it, or vendor it, unless they wanted to ditch all their purchased gear (anything they bought would have an MG requirement so it couldn’t be equipped if they changed faction) and re-grind up as CoF so they could use that one item.
The restrictions and complexity you’re talking about are there specifically to prevent exploits that try to utilize benefits from both factions at the same time. They’re not trying to fix trading, they’re trying to close all exploits of having (supposedly) equally viable trade-based and SSF systems in the same game. They’re adding obstacles that make it so profoundly inefficient to try to use both at the same time that the optimal path will always be to stick with one.
Now I have posted in this thread that I don’t think balancing these systems is possible (at least within the constraints mentioned in this announcement) and the system will likely be heavily imbalanced in favor of MG. That said, it is unlikely to be due to exploits involving manipulation of both factions. It will just be because trade is too powerful for CoF to keep up, so the optimal approach will be to go full trade and pretend CoF doesn’t exist.
2 Likes
Hey there, just wanted to clear up a couple things. I think that calling MG non-SSF guild and CoF SSF guild are misleading, mostly because (and I’m sure you know this) SSF means Solo Self Found. Neither MG or CoF restrict your play to solo and neither restrict the items you use to self found only. We do have an optional Solo Challenge mode which is the same as SSF mode that you can do if you want to.
All items obtained by using your factions special bonuses (Bazaar for MG and drops for CoF) carry a rank requirement to equip, similar to a level requirement. This means that if a CoF player is giving items to a MG player, those items are limited to being used only while the player is representing the CoF. The MG player would need to switch over to CoF and gain some ranks before being able to use it. The items can’t be sold at the Bazaar.
The main goals that we have for this system are:
- An optional asynchronous trade system.
- Comparable efficiency between trade and non-trade.
- Allow everyone to play together.
- Avoid exploit cases to prevent unfun burdens of optimal play.
This was the simplest and most complete system that we have been able to devise which satisfies all of these goals well. It is also important to note that interacting with these systems will be very low friction. So for example, if you are looking for a specific Helmet to buy from the Bazaar, you just have to go there, walk up to the helmet stall, apply filters for what type of item you’re looking for (very specific options), and then buy the one you want. Delivery is immediate and you can start using it right away.
I don’t think this is really the opposite approach from PoE but just different. I think that it’s kinda hard to put it into PoE terms because the games are built on different systems.
Having said all that, if you have suggestions on how to improve the system, while maintaining our goals, we are always listening for good ideas.
Edit: aaaaaand it looks like other people already said half that stuff.
14 Likes
Hmm not really, GGG want to limit our interactions and it make it more difficult to trade in general but once that has been met we have no restrictions
You want to restrict many parts of the trading, its like reading an insurance policy PDS and finding out they dont cover for basic things or there is weird conditions
I also find it humorous many people wanted no trade, but since you propose this system; trading with restrictions…many people are on board. I dont understand this community at all
As someone who didn’t want trade - allow me to explain. Those of us who were against trade didn’t really care what other people did. Trade was never really the problem. The problem was that balancing trade also involves reducing drop rates, so even if you have no interest in trade you still have a very strong interest in the side effects it would bring.
The patch that has the notes “added a feature you won’t use” and “reduced drop rates by 90%” would not be well received.
If they were to actually hit their goals with this system, than the people who didn’t want trade could play CoH to avoid its side effects. CoH lets them opt out of trade, but also gives them compensation for those side effects that come from balancing the game around trade that they can’t choose to avoid. Taking EHG at their word that this system will meet their goals, it does look like it could satisfy both sides.
5 Likes
Its fine to lock players into a level 100 Lich and not to become a Necro, players should also have to decide if they want to trade or have better drops
Hmm lets see how that plays out if many people are in MG and spamming the same 10 bosses on a rotation.
Funny thing for me is I wanted trade to smooth out my experience, from what I read it would be a semi-nightmare of work-like style points system
Thank you for descending directly. Yes, descending, because we both see that they consider me as a lesser being. Lesser than themselves. But it’s completely different topic, a theme of which will be ‘community shaping’. The shaping of community you’d like to see. Of the community you yourself would like to play with, together as equals.
Agreed!
Do note, however, that I had no choice. Because the choice-in-question was “either write an adequate in-depth analysis noone would care about because ‘too many letters derp’ - or write a short yet somewhat unprecise pitch which shall start a discussion from which all relevant points would gonna surface eventually”.
However, as you can see, as example, from Voctor’s response to my micro-pitch, people are struggling even with reading such small yet intel-dense pitches. Still too many letters. He’d see otherwise that
implies that BOTH players receive a Resonance. For each other (because, obviously, player A can’t spend less time in party with player B than player B spends time in party with player A. They just don’t teach maths and logics as good as they should nowadays…) Which, in return, implies that they can arrange an exchange of any item for any item. Which, suprpisingly, IS act of trading. So Voctor’s statement
is, well, invalid. Invalid - or he was making a point via micro-pitch too (if it’s true, I’d be really proud of him).
Now, to avoid straying away too much, I’d like to take a liberty to actually try to highlight few disturbing points in your response.
That’s the problem. These are in a perfect balance already. That’s how real economics works, you know.
The player either grinds his rear out to loot his chase item from… whatever mechanics would gonna dispense it in PvE session - or the player grinds his rear out to obtain enough currency (and/or an item to barter it away) to get his chase item.
If the balance is tilted - the dreaded Invisible Hand of Market fixes it.
No extra development required.
I’d really appreciate if you’ll elaborate on the topic of exploits. I, however, surmise that I just wrote a response for it already.
Alas, what’s the point in this ‘simplest’ (nope) and ‘most complete’ (nope x2, apologies!) system?
I assume that you’re trying to solve the two chairs situation in a manner which would gonna help new (and socially active, and time-constrained - I mean us working class who can’t play the game 24/7 because families and jobs, you know) players to get at least some gear which would gonna allow them to enjoy the game at least marginally while letting tryhards, nolifers and souls-like enjoyers revel in their burutual (sic!) entertainment.
But the game delivers the former already, in a form of excellent crafting framework you devised.
Care for a fortune telling session, to wrap this up? Yes, a fortune telling. Because I simply can’t stick WHOLE research in this (already ‘obese’) post. And people pay hard cash for such researches…
So, the fortune telling.
I foresee that the Bazaar would gonna win regardless of how hard you try.
Vast majority of players would gonna enroll there.
New players would enjoy extra means for fixing their builds in a jiffy.
Seasoned players would stick with it because they can afford fixing handicaps of not joining Circle of Fortune by simply playing more (which they’ll be doing anyway). AND would enjoy extra means for min-maxing their build in a jiffy.
Circle of Fortune would gonna remain as an enclave of extra sick persons which don’t have enough challenge in their life. You know, that special breed of persons which play Dark Souls with Guitar Hero controller, just for sense of pride and accomplishment.
Oh, and if you’ll try to keep pressing on with this idea, you’ll lose anyway. Ruthless have reached release. And, unfortunately, masochists are NOT eager to swap their current ‘entertainment’. Simply because they receive enough joy shots at where they currently are - and these are strong… too strong to counter CURRENT doze of joy HERE with PROMISES of stronger joy SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE.
I know already that the intel above would be of no use. Both you and me can’t imagine altering release plans because of a feedback of a single player, regardlss of how good that feedback is. We both know it.
Still, HOPEFULLY, it’ll gonna be of any utility for those who shall arrive after us.
After you, a developer of a legend in the making.
And after me, a veteran of gamedev which can tell you one thing for sure: the only thing which guarantees losing is giving up on improving. And there’s always some room for improvement…
Once you’ve ranked up MG all the way, you can buy and sell any item. That sounds pretty unrestricted to me.
Right but there is a favour cost and slot limit to sold items. The favour cost might be negligible or really impactful but there is still an element of restriction
I’m sorry we couldn’t see eye to eye on this.
7 Likes
Yes, this would allow Player A to transfer the item into Player B’s inventory. The game just wouldn’t allow Player B to equip or sell it, so it’s just a jpeg they can look at or vendor. All of the gear that drops for Player A gains an additional requirement beyond the normal level and class requirements - a requirement that the player who is trying to equip it must be a certain level in the CoF faction.
So yeah, it is a way for player A to give an item to Player B. It’s just pointless because Player B can’t sell it (you can’t sell items with CoF requirements), and could only equip it by switching faction and abandoning everything they gained from trade. Items that you buy have an MG requirement just like items that the CoF player found have a CoF requirement, so switching to use the CoF item means unequipping everything that they bought.
There is no way to equip both an item purchased via MG and an item found by a CoH player at the same time. They have mutually exclusive requirements, and meeting the requirement for one necessarily involves losing the requirement for the other. It’s like saying that you found a game breaking build that uses a bow and Fractured Crown at the same time, there is no way to meet both requirements on a single character so it isn’t a real exploit.
They aren’t because currently the game has no trade. He’s saying that they want to add trade, but doing so means that players who trade will gear up faster than players that don’t. The intention is to give players who don’t want to trade a way to attain gear as fast as a player who does want to trade. Just look at how fast players progress in PoE SSF vs trade league and it is very clear that having access to trade lets you advance faster. They’re giving players who voluntarily give up this boosted progression a different kind of boost in exchange, and they believe that they can balance the two such that they are roughly equivalent options.
For the rest, I already said I think that MG will be stronger so I guess I kind of agree with you on that part? Just not with the extremely abrasive way you’ve chosen to articulate it.
1 Like
I understand that this is a high tension topic and I would urge everyone to just remember to keep it respectful and about the issues. Taking little shots here and there isn’t constructive.
9 Likes
1 Can I use resonance to only dropped items? Can I use resonance to traded-items too?
2 If my mind change, can I remove the resonance from items before gifting them?(for example, actuary I want to sell it than gift / gift to another player)
Or does resonance consumes only at the same time when gifting the items, can not use in advance? 
edit
berore→before
You can use resonance on traded items. It however does not remove the MG tag from those items so it would need to be used by someone who also has the required rank of MG.
Resonancing an item can’t be undone. It’s like a crafting material in a way, you can’t unshatter an item.
4 Likes
My expectation is that they will have the numbers tuned so that they will almost exclusively impact Trade Lords. For the rest of us, restrictions you don’t/rarely bump into aren’t really restrictions.
I understand.
Thank you!
My Master’s degree in Philosophy causes me to shudder at the way you’re incorrectly using Philosophical terms to brow beat and verbally assault others. Please stop doing that so that we can have a productive discussion on these topics that provides valuable feedback which respects everyone’s viewpoint.
7 Likes