|
|
Blitzkrieg0, the arguments against an AH but for improved trading have already been laid out and are really simple:
- The lower the barrier to entry for trading is, the more goods will enter the market.
- The lowest possible barrier to entry is a fully functional, D3 like AH. You don't need to go to a forum, set up a shop, use 3rd party software, do advanced pricechecking research, none of that.
- The economy must remain fun (fun as in, your 1% drop might actually sell for a few chaos so the casual mapping player may aspire to run a small time shop and eventually buy a big ticket item) for about 3 months. During the last month of a league prices converge with standard league. In standard league, if you haven't been playing for a long while and/or don't have valuable legacy stuff to get you started, you're essentially out of luck as a seller, at the mercy of getting extremely good drops.
And the nitty-gritty:
- PoE item rolls follow a certain distribution ranging from vendor trash to perfect rares/uniques.
- Mid tier rares (aka, 50 total res, above average life and/or some defense related rolls) are not very hard to find. These have always been sellable from my personal experience of running shops in every SC league since last summer. But I need to bother running the shop, which relatively few people actually do because the barrier to entry exists.
- Equippable uniques have always been sellable at the start of leagues. At the end of leagues, even with the current unwieldy system, the uniques that could sell for 1c-5c during the first month of a league don't sell anymore, everyone has them. Contrast this with D3 uniques where the (astronomical) extent of randomization made them desirable for months.
Which leads us to:
- Introducing improvements to trading will accelerate everyone's gearing up. But it may not accelerate it by so much that the economy becomes unfun during the first few months of a league. The casual mapper can still sell his midtier drops and he can still hope to get his big ticket item eventually. 1c-5c uniques will be sellable for a while, maybe only for 1-2 months but still better than a few days.
- Introducing an AH will dramatically accelerate everyone's gearing up. I followed D3's midtier item deflation from their big unique revamp patch in Aug '12 to about Nov '12. Andy's helmets went from 15m+ in mid September to less than 5m in mid October, as an example. There is little reason to believe that PoE's economy wouldn't follow that sort of fast paced deflation too. It would have to be tested, sure, but there is both theory and precedent to back that theory up as to what is likely to happen. GGG (thankfully) doesn't plan to try it out.
Summing up: The goal is to keep the economy afloat for 3+ months. Trading barriers contribute to that, trading convenience doesn't. The goal is to also make trading not make you want to pull your hair out. AH would certainly accomplish that. The happy medium seems to be between the AH and the D2 era trading which is what we'll likely get in the end.
|
You're going to have to explain to me how better gear being affordable is a bad thing. The auction house accelerates this process because it makes gearing up easier. Is that really a bad thing? I don't want to spend hours looking up items on an index, negotiating deals, waiting for schedules to meet up. Do I care if everyone is in maps farming good items? As long as everything is relatively the same value then it doesn't matter. If I get a few rares and can only sell them for 1c each with the auction house instead of the old 5c each I'd get with an index, but the item I'm trying to buy costs 3c instead of 15c do I really care?
Andy helmets going down in price should be a given. You have a market with unlimited supply (an infinite number of Andy helmets can drop) and less and less demand (less people playing because the game sucks; people already own an Andy helmet and don't need a second one). More supply and less demand causes the price to drop is basic economics; that would happen whether there was an auction house or not. Deflation is bad in real life because of debt. There isn't debt in video games so deflation is good?
|
On July 29 2014 18:07 Miragee wrote:
You missunderstand the term "control the market". It's not about people ripping of others in order to make profit (aka flipping items etc.). That's not controlling a market. Controlling the market is, when someone buys every single Exalt (or whatever item of a single kind) that is offered and monopolising them. Then he uses the opportunity to feed-sell those back at a much higher price while buying all cheap offers to keep the monopol. An AH doesn't make that easier. It's simply only possible with an AH.
This already happens with BiS uniques like Shavs and Windripper. Chinese farmers do this but instead of selling them for Exalts they sell them for money.
|
On July 30 2014 13:09 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2014 18:07 Miragee wrote:
You missunderstand the term "control the market". It's not about people ripping of others in order to make profit (aka flipping items etc.). That's not controlling a market. Controlling the market is, when someone buys every single Exalt (or whatever item of a single kind) that is offered and monopolising them. Then he uses the opportunity to feed-sell those back at a much higher price while buying all cheap offers to keep the monopol. An AH doesn't make that easier. It's simply only possible with an AH. This already happens with BiS uniques like Shavs and Windripper. Chinese farmers do this but instead of selling them for Exalts they sell them for money.
But not to an extent that is near 100%. While a monopol on an item can be maintained to nearly 100% with an AH, without AH it doesn't even come close to that number.
For the rest: I fully understand blitzkriegs point of view. The AH brings advantages for the single player. And if someone values his own comfort over the well of everyone then the AH is obviously the better option. I don't like this way of thinking but I accept it. This discussion is at a point where it leads no further. Most points are argued and understood now and the decision whether one prefers an AH or not comes down to the single person. Both sides are understandable and depend on personal priorities for the aim of the trade system.
|
On July 30 2014 14:53 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 13:09 superstartran wrote:On July 29 2014 18:07 Miragee wrote:
You missunderstand the term "control the market". It's not about people ripping of others in order to make profit (aka flipping items etc.). That's not controlling a market. Controlling the market is, when someone buys every single Exalt (or whatever item of a single kind) that is offered and monopolising them. Then he uses the opportunity to feed-sell those back at a much higher price while buying all cheap offers to keep the monopol. An AH doesn't make that easier. It's simply only possible with an AH. This already happens with BiS uniques like Shavs and Windripper. Chinese farmers do this but instead of selling them for Exalts they sell them for money. But not to an extent that is near 100%. While a monopol on an item can be maintained to nearly 100% with an AH, without AH it doesn't even come close to that number. For the rest: I fully understand blitzkriegs point of view. The AH brings advantages for the single player. And if someone values his own comfort over the well of everyone then the AH is obviously the better option. I don't like this way of thinking but I accept it. This discussion is at a point where it leads no further. Most points are argued and understood now and the decision whether one prefers an AH or not comes down to the single person. Both sides are understandable and depend on personal priorities for the aim of the trade system.
Most BiS mirror items and uniques are actually controlled by Chinese farmers, the vast majority of them are. How else do you think they can afford to sell Windrippers by the hundreds or Shavs by the hundreds in Ambush league?
|
To leave my opinion here: I would cry at least two nights, maybe three, if they were to implement an AH.
Seeing exalts allready gettin monoploized as hard as possible in early stages of leagues this would go total nuts with an AH.
I don't need no artifical inflation of goods just to make some people richer.
edit: and if some of you didn't know but D3 had a major problem with this exact thing. Buying- and Biddingbots inflating marketprices via monopolizing.
|
Is there a liquid guild or does someone have a guild that plans to play on the next hardcore 4 month leagues, would be nice to join one.
|
On July 31 2014 04:16 BauerinJack wrote:
Is there a liquid guild or does someone have a guild that plans to play on the next hardcore 4 month leagues, would be nice to join one.
Post the name of a character here and a guild officer will invite you in due course.
The guild name is "Math of Exile" although the tag is Liquid.
|
On July 31 2014 03:23 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2014 14:53 Miragee wrote:On July 30 2014 13:09 superstartran wrote:On July 29 2014 18:07 Miragee wrote:
You missunderstand the term "control the market". It's not about people ripping of others in order to make profit (aka flipping items etc.). That's not controlling a market. Controlling the market is, when someone buys every single Exalt (or whatever item of a single kind) that is offered and monopolising them. Then he uses the opportunity to feed-sell those back at a much higher price while buying all cheap offers to keep the monopol. An AH doesn't make that easier. It's simply only possible with an AH. This already happens with BiS uniques like Shavs and Windripper. Chinese farmers do this but instead of selling them for Exalts they sell them for money. But not to an extent that is near 100%. While a monopol on an item can be maintained to nearly 100% with an AH, without AH it doesn't even come close to that number. For the rest: I fully understand blitzkriegs point of view. The AH brings advantages for the single player. And if someone values his own comfort over the well of everyone then the AH is obviously the better option. I don't like this way of thinking but I accept it. This discussion is at a point where it leads no further. Most points are argued and understood now and the decision whether one prefers an AH or not comes down to the single person. Both sides are understandable and depend on personal priorities for the aim of the trade system. Most BiS mirror items and uniques are actually controlled by Chinese farmers, the vast majority of them are. How else do you think they can afford to sell Windrippers by the hundreds or Shavs by the hundreds in Ambush league?
I'm sorry to ask this but do you have proof? I actually see those rare items still going for ingame currency via trade chat/forums. And I also don't believe that one single item shop monopolises all of them but it is split over multiple shops, so there is still competition. I don't know how the course for Exalts vs $ was in Ambush because I usually don't check that. But right now its 1ex = 1,56 $ in standard which seems fair enough in comparison with the end of ambush especially with strong boxes. Non-linkedShavs go for ~100ex, so you are already in the hundreds with that. I think offering Shavs directly instead of exalts brings you a bit more because the buyer doesn't have to invest time looking for a Shav's in chat.
Seems hardly a monopol to me. You can't control the market to 100 % and not even close to that without a centralised trading system like a global AH. With you can come pretty close to 100 %. D3 and GW2 are good recent examples for this.
|
On July 31 2014 04:56 Miragee wrote:
Seems hardly a monopol to me. You can't control the market to 100 % and not even close to that without a centralised trading system like a global AH. With you can come pretty close to 100 %. D3 and GW2 are good recent examples for this.
I think that the difference between the current item-listing system and and AH wouldn't be a major one, since it's already possible to monopolize quite a bit.
That said, in addition, the AH could have anti-monopoly regulations to help curb that sort of action somewhat. Sold Items would develop a cumulative income penalty the more times it's bought by that account, and/or items bought would develop a cumulative tax the more times it's sold by that account.
The biggest problem with it might be related to free accounts, but anti-(AH-)botting measures could help deal with that.
This would force monopolizing to take place among large groups, which makes it more difficult to do.
Aside from anti-monopoly, it helps against standard buy-low-sell-high "abuse" which I was never a fan of either.
While on this topic, I would also like it if there were restrictions on (non-AH) trading in this game, but it would also require a change to the drop sharing system (individual pickup, like quest items), which would be too major/extreme of a change. (It would be in order to hinder/prevent bot farming and 3rd party RMT)
|
On July 31 2014 05:27 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 04:56 Miragee wrote:
Seems hardly a monopol to me. You can't control the market to 100 % and not even close to that without a centralised trading system like a global AH. With you can come pretty close to 100 %. D3 and GW2 are good recent examples for this. I think that the difference between the current item-listing system and and AH wouldn't be a major one, since it's already possible to monopolize quite a bit. That said, in addition, the AH could have anti-monopoly regulations to help curb that sort of action somewhat. Sold Items would develop a cumulative income penalty the more times it's bought by that account, and/or items bought would develop a cumulative tax the more times it's sold by that account. The biggest problem with it might be related to free accounts, but anti-(AH-)botting measures could help deal with that. This would force monopolizing to take place among large groups, which makes it more difficult to do. Aside from anti-monopoly, it helps against standard buy-low-sell-high "abuse" which I was never a fan of either. While on this topic, I would also like it if there were restrictions on (non-AH) trading in this game, but it would also require a change to the drop sharing system (individual pickup, like quest items), which would be too major/extreme of a change. (It would be in order to hinder/prevent bot farming and 3rd party RMT)
1. It actually makes a huge difference whether an item is actually monopolised or only 30 % is controlled by one party. Setting prices how you want only works if you have an absolute monopol not some wishy-washy-thingy-thing.
2. So you want to regulate the market artificially from outside and stop people from buying what they want? What happens with items that traded in high numbers such as currency items in this system?
3. You will never get rid of bots/hacks ever. You can fight to a good extend but it will never be completly clear. A single functional farm bot won't crash the economy. A single functional AH bot can control a part of the economy, depending on the wealth behind it.
4. Hinder drop sharing, Souldbound/Accbound is a terrible solution for an online game to fight against bots/RMT.
|
Vatican City State2902 Posts
|
Im rock hard reading this!! FUCK YES
|
HYPPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
So much cool shit wow....Im impressed
|
Vatican City State2902 Posts
i actually don't think i'm going to be able to wait 20 days for this
|
Yeah, screw all that AH business. Who needs a damn AH when you get actual proper crafting ingame?
(inb4 rep grind is worse than empower lvl3 grind!)
|
On July 31 2014 09:42 Taguchi wrote:
Yeah, screw all that AH business. Who needs a damn AH when you get actual proper crafting ingame?
(inb4 rep grind is worse than empower lvl3 grind!)
Daily quests and random encounter grinds are not exciting me in the slightest. We already had proper crafting; now we're getting enchanting to add onto it ^_^ I wonder if they're account bound or character bound.
I also came to the realization that I'm not going to be able to play if the leagues start the day the patch is released. Please be delayed a week
|
HYPE. Not gonna be able to play a lot either when the leagues are released, but it's fine. They are 4 months, more than enough time... 1 month is plenty.
|
On July 31 2014 04:56 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2014 03:23 superstartran wrote:On July 30 2014 14:53 Miragee wrote:On July 30 2014 13:09 superstartran wrote:On July 29 2014 18:07 Miragee wrote:
You missunderstand the term "control the market". It's not about people ripping of others in order to make profit (aka flipping items etc.). That's not controlling a market. Controlling the market is, when someone buys every single Exalt (or whatever item of a single kind) that is offered and monopolising them. Then he uses the opportunity to feed-sell those back at a much higher price while buying all cheap offers to keep the monopol. An AH doesn't make that easier. It's simply only possible with an AH. This already happens with BiS uniques like Shavs and Windripper. Chinese farmers do this but instead of selling them for Exalts they sell them for money. But not to an extent that is near 100%. While a monopol on an item can be maintained to nearly 100% with an AH, without AH it doesn't even come close to that number. For the rest: I fully understand blitzkriegs point of view. The AH brings advantages for the single player. And if someone values his own comfort over the well of everyone then the AH is obviously the better option. I don't like this way of thinking but I accept it. This discussion is at a point where it leads no further. Most points are argued and understood now and the decision whether one prefers an AH or not comes down to the single person. Both sides are understandable and depend on personal priorities for the aim of the trade system. Most BiS mirror items and uniques are actually controlled by Chinese farmers, the vast majority of them are. How else do you think they can afford to sell Windrippers by the hundreds or Shavs by the hundreds in Ambush league? I'm sorry to ask this but do you have proof? I actually see those rare items still going for ingame currency via trade chat/forums. And I also don't believe that one single item shop monopolises all of them but it is split over multiple shops, so there is still competition. I don't know how the course for Exalts vs $ was in Ambush because I usually don't check that. But right now its 1ex = 1,56 $ in standard which seems fair enough in comparison with the end of ambush especially with strong boxes. Non-linkedShavs go for ~100ex, so you are already in the hundreds with that. I think offering Shavs directly instead of exalts brings you a bit more because the buyer doesn't have to invest time looking for a Shav's in chat. Seems hardly a monopol to me. You can't control the market to 100 % and not even close to that without a centralised trading system like a global AH. With you can come pretty close to 100 %. D3 and GW2 are good recent examples for this.
Rofl.
It's not difficult. Sure some people have legitimate uniques, but it's hilarious to think the botters don't control the vast majority of the elite level markets. Mirror items are pretty much all from botters; they are the only ones who had the currency to expend to create BiS items in the temporary 4 month leagues. The problem isn't whether or not an AH would be bad for the game. The only reason why the AH would be bad is because there's such a heavy focus on economy in the game, when there shouldn't. GGG and Chris Wilson are taking steps to move away from this, as evidenced to the self-sufficient crafting that is being introduced. You won't be able to make perfect items, but it allows you to progress much easier.
|
illsick
United States1770 Posts
On July 31 2014 14:58 HolydaKing wrote:
HYPE. Not gonna be able to play a lot either when the leagues are released, but it's fine. They are 4 months, more than enough time... 1 month is plenty.
It's a 3 month league now... but yeah, still plenty of time to play around to the endgame. However, there will now be micro-transaction reward for challenges (getting 5 of 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
