Why is there no auction house in POE?

"

As to my own biased perception, Chris is making it harder than it should be based on his stated design visions. If you design the game to encourage trading (and at least 80% of gear upgrades in non-SSF endgame players inventories come from trading)

This is what you said if in your mind this part (and at least 80% of gear upgrades in non-SSF endgame players inventories come from trading) is worded as an opinion you might need to take an English class or any other language. The in my biased opinion in no way shape or form can be attributed to the "data" you use to support your opinion.

And yes you have no clue or source for this 80% number you throw out and yet you had no issue representing as a fact as i called you out on. So please get your facts strait.

"

trixxar wrote:

"

Unquietheart wrote:

I've yet to see anything from you that doesn't boil down to you wanting trade to be "easier". The perils of "easy" trade are one of the key talking points of the Trade Manifesto.

You seem to have two basic arguments, and one other point
1 - Diablo failed at an AH, so its impossible and can't be explored or attempted here.
2 - Reduced drops rates are bad because... the trade manifesto says it is bad. Presumably it would hurt people who dont trade? and then your other point seems to be

3 - Wanting trade to be less clunky, faster or easy is somehow bad or lazy. People should want to have an unpleasant, slow, clunky trade experience. Or be ok with it.

No, incorrect. But hey, good job completely missing my point about how I was deliberately employing your own derogatory framing structure/Strawman style in order to illustrate why it's a bad idea.

The Diablo3 AH failed. It failed because it undermined key gameplay. That is Blizzards official statement on that, whether you like it or not.

"

trixxar wrote:

1 - Diablo failed at an AH, so its impossible and can't be explored or attempted here.

I argue against attempting to employ an AH mechanism in PoE Because:

A: The Diablo3 AH is the only valid example of an AH in this style of game (that I personally am aware of).
B: I have personal experience with just exactly that, something you apparently do not.
C: None of the proposals I have ever seen regarding an AH system in PoE appear to be substansively different from the one employed in D3.
D: None of the proposals I have ever seen regarding an AH system in PoE look like they would be successful for a majority of the player base (in my opinion).
E: As I've said before: I accept that it's certainly possible that the existing system could be improved.

I'm happy to consider improvements on said system (and offer my opinion on what I think of the likelyhood of said systems functioning as the proposer intends). However, most (all) of the proposals I've heard to date (yours included) are not nearly as intelligent, or inovative as the authors believe them to be. Many of those who make such proposals have not read, or do not understand the Trade Manifesto. Many of them focus only on the minority of the player base which the author belongs to, to the detriment of the other segements of the player base.

"

trixxar wrote:

2 - Reduced drops rates are bad because... the trade manifesto says it is bad.

Presumably it would hurt people who dont trade?

<sarcasm>
Yes, all I'm doing is parroting back something from the Trade Manifesto, I couldn't possibly have any personal experience with such a system. Clearly I'm too [redacted] to grasp any of the thinking behind the document.
</sarcasm>

A: Reduced drop rates would impact the entire player base, not just you.
B: Progression is one of the most tightly managed elements of any ARPG.
C: At higher levels of the game: Gear (and consumables) equate directly to progression.
D: If drop rates are reduced because of an AH, then that AH rapidly becomes the primary vector for upgrades. This in turn eliminates one of the key "carrots" built into this style of gameplay. Or, as Blizzard phrased it: It undermines core gameplay.
E: You, personally, have already implicitly agreed that drop rates would indeed have to be reduced. (I'm happy to link that if you'd like to try to pretend that you didn't).

"

trixxar wrote:

3 - Wanting trade to be less clunky, faster or easy is somehow bad or lazy. People should want to have an unpleasant, slow, clunky trade experience. Or be ok with it.

Nope. That's another of your (ridiculous) Strawman arguments again. I never said that nor implied that, nor do I think that.

A: The goal of (most) games and stories is to provide the audience with a specific emotional reaction. In the case of games this is (usually) the "feeling of victory". Victories that come too easily are hollow, thus, game design (usually) provides hurdles to overcome. That is: Games first provide the "feeling of adversity" before even being capable of providing the "feeling of victory".

B: Most people who dislike the "clunky, slow" trade do not understand why it is there. Most of them cannot grasp the idea that inefficiency might actually be good design. The idea that the friction imposed by the existing system might be anything but poor design. (It is actually excellent design, it's a viseral feedback loop intended to indicate to players that they're pushing a game system beyond it's intended goals).

C: It is regretable that the result of this feedback loop is player frustration (because said frustrations result in threads just like this one). I personally do not see a way to impliment such a feedback loop without the use of that frustration, and I glean (from the Trade Manifesto) that the designers couldn't either, which is why they utilized it.

D: As I've said repeatedly before: The existing system is the lesser of two (or multiple) evils. It isn't perfect, but it does serve most portions of the player base equally well. Note specifically: This includes the sections of the player base which you don't think should count.

E: You appear to prefer arbitrarily imposed limitations to control player usage of any kind of trading system. Arbitrary limitations are usually bad design. Good design pushes as many relevant choices as possible down to the level of the individual player. Not all decisions can be pushed down to that level, but it's still a design goal (of most games) to give players as much direct control as possible.

"

trixxar wrote:

The diablo argument is simply done to death. One single data point proves nothing either way, nor does it explore the many options that could be included (no items on the AH, only consumables). To say one example proves a point forever without further exploration is a simplistic, silly argument.

Again, this is another one of your Strawman arguments. I never said that it "proves a point forever without further exploration" nor do I believe it.

That having been said: You being sick of D3 being presented as a negative example is irrelevant. It remains the only viable example. It is an actual case study of exactly what you say you want. It is the only such case study that I know of. Again, I'll point out that the D3 example is exactly the same type of game system that PoE is. Unlike all the MMO examples you've personally alluded to, which are not the same type of game system. (And thus, are not relevant to the discussion).

"

trixxar wrote:

Reduced drop rates - so much junk drops I actually think most people ignore all of it.

The drop rates of the "junk" isn't what we're talking about. And frankly, you know that perfectly well. Stop being disengenuous.

"

trixxar wrote:

Using reduced drops rates and/or power creep as an excuse ignores how the game functions currently. Most people I know, and most streamers, largely ignore all rare drops. Good gear is crafted already.

And once again, you are ignoring the fact that you, and the streamers, are tiny minorities of the player base. And note specifically: That's by Chris Wilson's definition. He's the Authority (yes, with a capital "A").

"

trixxar wrote:

It also ignores the fact that a huge portion of people asking for an AH simply want maps and other consumables

not to be a nightmare to buy. You have yet to address that. How sending 20 messages for a single consumable adds to gameplay. (The inevitable response - buy in bulk, or pay the highest price not the lowest, simply do not always work and don't address WHY its necessary in the first place.)

No, I'm not ignoring that. I've said it's working as intended. You being unhappy with a given game system doesn't mean it isn't doing exactly what it's designed to. The existing system is designed to work well for small volumes of high value trades (where both parties are highly invested in the success of the individual trade); it's also designed to work poorly for high volumes of low value trades (where the seller has little investment in making an individual trade work). And yes, that does include consumables (such as maps and currency).

You've mentioned this before, and I've asked for clarification on how you (or those like you) play the game. How you utilize the existing systems is a relevant question you consistently attempt to ignore. If you are using the existing systems in exactly the manner that the developers intended and still running into issues, then that's worth noting. However, if you're misusing the existing systems, then that's on you.

I'm also going to point out here that GGG is a for-profit business, and the game is finite. The existing game system intentionally ramps up the friction as you progress closer and closer to the game's end point and it always will. Dwell time within the game system is a factor in GGG's profit model. I personally do not think GGG's business model is unreasonable. You are of course entitled to make your own assessment of whether or not the dollars spent on your part is a reasonable exchange for the entertainment received, but attempting to suggest that GGG is not also a party to this, or does not have a right to profit from thier own IP will not impress me.

"

trixxar wrote:

Lastly, GGG has intentionally made a game mechanic more clunky, less fun, less immersive, more frustrating in an attempt to control player behavior. Players hating this mechanic and blaming GGG is not only normal, but its the natural result of Chris' decision. You can't intentionally try to frustrate, annoy, and piss off players to the point they avoid trade, but make a game balanced around trade (Chris's words, not mine), and then be shocked when players are pissed off at you.

They're not shocked. That's you, once again framing the situation as prejoratively as possible.

Once again, they built the existing system, because (for a variety of factors) they considered it to be the lesser of two (or multiple) evils. Nobody thinks it's perfect.

"

trixxar wrote:

There is an objective way to settle it, however. Try it out for a league.

Yeah, thanks but no thanks. Been there, done that. It failed, miserably.

Suggest something I actually think is viable and won't screw the portions of the player base that aren't you and I'll consider it.

"

Further, while I personally doubt that a well designed AH would ruin poe because it's itemization is vastly different than any other game on the market, I never asked for an AH, just trade improvements. What you, and Phrazz, and alot of other people don't seem to understand, is that just because someone wants to attempt to fix trade doesn't mean we want an always on AH, we just want the game to run smoothly and trade to perform it's intended function of making an item have value not hindered by lack of response, fraud, scams, and dealing with people's lag-inducing crossrealm garish hideouts.

Fair enough you have managed to insert yourself on the defending side of AH vs non AH argument without actually saying you want AH. That takes skill i applaud you for it. But frankly no one in the thread to my limited knowledge said there should be no improvements to trade, I most definitely said opposite of that. So no i am not entirely sure what where you arguing against me in that post anyway.

In fact you quoted me saying about improvements:
P.p.s.
Majority of the issues people have with trade can be mitigated without ah and with much smaller changes.

So did unqueuetHeart btw...

"

As I've said before: I accept that it's certainly possible that the existing system could be improved.

"

Mortyx wrote:

Dude, i am basing my assumptions on what actually happens in the game lol, of course you think that's not how it is because you play only ssf. There is nothing wrong in playing ssf or hardcore or trade, i also vary from time to time, but there is no doubt that the overall game is balanced around softcore trade league.

No, you're basing your assumptions around your own subjective impression of what the game is. You don't get to make the definitions. Like it or not, that's Chris Wilson's job.

He's already said, explicitly, that you, and everyone you know who plays the way you do are a minority of the player base. Most players do not trade. Most of those who do trade, make only a handful of transactions per league.

What *I* think has nothing to do with it.

Or, more to the point: Neither of our opinions of our subjective experiences of the game are relevant as anything more than anecdotal evidence.

"

Mortyx wrote:

Moral of the story: GGG has to choose if they want a trading arpg or a SSF arpg and commit in their choice. Staying in the middle is just bad for both sides.

Staying in the middle is the "lesser of two evils" that I've mentioned, repeatedly. Regardless of how much you find it annoying that is working as intended. Yes, that does include the degree to which you find the existing system frustrating.

"

jtggm1985 wrote:

API was never meant to be public is ignoring history. It was released public. If they didn't want it public there would be no poe.trade (which predates pathofexile.com/trade)or currencycop or poe.ninja etc. The devs here are lazy and using free code to make their game better. Now, there's nothing wrong with being lazy, but when the time comes to fix issues like an unnecessarily bad trade system, game crashing bugs, poor UI, and poor optimization then it's time to get to work.

I feel we're debating small things here, but you know poe.trade came before the public release of the API, right? Poe.trade used to index the forums, the threads and posts where people posted their items, creating so much traffic that GGG more or less had to release the API.

But you fail to tell us what "better trade" is. Will the GAME, with its in-game feel of progression, drops and difficulty be better with a better trade sustem? Look, no one in their right mind would be against a better trade system. As long as they'd keep the requirement of being online to trade - and that trade will never be automated, I really don't care what they'll improve. I welcome all improvements, as long as those to elements are being kept.

UNique, Your post is one contradiction after another. Perhaps you think length hides it, as if a wall of text makes it make sense.

Youve also admitted that you dont trade. So you are, from the start, talking from a point of ignorance. Based on your own description of your gameplay.

You are also talking from self interest. You dont care if trade sucks, or is great, since, again, you dont trade. While its tempting to ignore you, I dislike letting illogical arguments stand without exposing them, so lets go.

"

trixxar wrote:

You seem to have two basic arguments, and one other point
1 - Diablo failed at an AH, so its impossible and can't be explored or attempted here.

"

Unquietheart wrote:

No, incorrect.....

The Diablo3 AH is the only valid example of an AH in this style of game (that I personally am aware of).

So, Im wrong, except that Im exactly right. You can only jump back to D3 as an argument. Got it.

"

Unquietheart wrote:

However, most (all) of the proposals I've heard to date (yours included) are not nearly as intelligent, or inovative as the authors believe them to be.

Ok, but you dont explain WHY they are bad. This is just your random opinion. When you learn argumentation, law, debate, etc. one of the first things you learn is reason is king, opinions are worthless. State your opinion, but back it up. Reasons, logc. .

"

Unquietheart wrote:

-
D: If drop rates are reduced because of an AH, then that AH rapidly becomes the primary vector for upgrades. This in turn eliminates one of the key "carrots" built into this style of gameplay. Or, as Blizzard phrased it: It undermines core gameplay.
E: You, personally, have already implicitly agreed that drop rates would indeed have to be reduced. (I'm happy to link that if you'd like to try to pretend that you didn't).

E - No actually I think that the game should just be adjusted to the minor increase in gear level available with an AH. It would likely be less than the adjustment from, say, incursion gear level increases. However, if Im wrong, and the power creep is greater, that still is within the realm of adjustment, as this last league has shown us.

D - Already is for a ton of players. I suspect most but who knows. (dont pretend to know, we both know you dont have any data I dont)

"

Unquietheart wrote:

A: The goal of (most) games and stories is to provide the audience with a specific emotional reaction. In the case of games this is (usually) the "feeling of victory"...

This is and the next 5 paragraphs are completely meaningless to people who already use trade to gear. I can judge by myself, the players I know, the build guides who recommend how to search for items, streamers, the trade system itself for how many items are listed, and a few more variables.

In short, there is at least a very large portion of the playerbase who already use trade as the primary mechanism. Its just unpleasant, for no reason. Hence, all your talk of item drops being the key are meaningless to this playerbase.

"

Unquietheart wrote:

The drop rates of the "junk" isn't what we're talking about. And frankly, you know that perfectly well. Stop being disengenuous.

Actually, they are. There are only four main types of drops that impact gear. Uniques. Crafting materials. Bad rares, which drop by the thousands per day. And then, the good rares, which drop VERY rarely if you have even mildly good gear already.

The junk in the third category prevents almost everyone I know from bothering with the fourth category. You have no more evidence than about how many people stop to identify a large amount of items so argument is moot.

"

Unquietheart wrote:

No, I'm not ignoring that. I've said it's working as intended. You being unhappy with a given game system doesn't mean it isn't doing exactly what it's designed to. The existing system is designed to work well for small volumes of high value trades (where both parties are highly invested in the success of the individual trade); it's also designed to work poorly for high volumes of low value trades (where the seller has little investment in making an individual trade work). And yes, that does include consumables (such as maps and currency).

I see, so when you dont have an argument, you stop trying to reason entirely and say "Working as intended" as if how it is intended is some univeral empirical constant that cant be questioned.

This, ultimately, is the greatest weakness in all your arguments. Everything I am saying has a simple logic.

Trade is part of the game for a significant portion of players and for many their primary mechanism -> trade is intentionally frustrating and annoying -> frustrating and annoying gameplay is generally bad and only should be used if nothing else is better -> there are multiple improvements possible from full AH to smaller improvements -> doing nothing for fear of D3 is harmful to the gameplay for at least a significant portion of the players.

There, thats it.

Your arguments have no logic, however. Vague fears about satisfaction (as if you were forced to use the AH instead of doing whatever you do now). Using arbitrary decisions as constants ("Well, thats how it is, so its working right" which is what you say above). These are not real arguments.

"

Unquietheart wrote:

You've mentioned this before, and I've asked for clarification on how you (or those like you) play the game. How you utilize the existing systems is a relevant question you consistently attempt to ignore. If you are using the existing systems in exactly the manner that the developers intended and still running into issues, then that's worth noting.

Not ignoring, its just not interesting. If I have a weakness in gear, and nothing drops, I try to use trade. If I cant craft or have other means, Ill try first, but it also depends on your drops from betrayal if you need a certain mod. You can run master missions but sometimes trade is the only option depending on pure RNG. If I need a unique, it never drops, so trade is the only option for certain builds. On the rare times I craft, if I dont get enough, say, fusings, but I get more chaos or alts, I trade for what I need to craft. If I get a high value drop I dont need at all and friends dont need, I try to sell it.

If I need a map to fill out the atlas, and it doesnt drop after... I dont know, 20 maps, I trade for it.

Its not complicated.

"

Unquietheart wrote:

I'm also going to point out here that GGG is a for-profit business, and the game is finite. The existing game system intentionally ramps up the friction as you progress closer and closer to the game's end point and it always will. Dwell time within the game system is a factor in GGG's profit model.

Back to Morts point earlier, GG gear is actually the easiest to trade so if the point is slow downing actual endgame progression, we have already failed, so the system is pissing on us for no reason.

You still didnt address an AH for consumables, you just were long winded about saying "working as intended" as if thats an answer.

"

trixxar wrote:

They're not shocked. That's you, once again framing the situation as prejoratively as possible.

Another random opinion, no explanation why the situation is other than I described. Remember, reason, logic, thinking. Opinions are wasted.

"

Unquietheart wrote:

Suggest something I actually think is viable and won't screw the portions of the player base that aren't you and I'll consider it.

Lots of people beside me are frustrated with trade, my suggestions help them.

I think what you mean is you only care about SSF or people who almost dont trade, and no one else. So, you want me to give an option that helps you, but I care no more about your experience than you care about mine. Human nature.

In reality, if you dont trade, an AH shouldnt impact you.

Alternatively, if GGG balanced around SSF, Id be fine with that. But Chris has said the game needs trade, yet they make trade suck, intentionally.

Honestly, we could go another 100 pages but anyone who can read "The game needs X, but we made X annoying and frustrating because Diablo III" and not see it as a problem wont be convinced by any reason, logic, or discussion.

"

Phrazz wrote:

"

jtggm1985 wrote:

API was never meant to be public is ignoring history. It was released public. If they didn't want it public there would be no poe.trade (which predates pathofexile.com/trade)or currencycop or poe.ninja etc. The devs here are lazy and using free code to make their game better. Now, there's nothing wrong with being lazy, but when the time comes to fix issues like an unnecessarily bad trade system, game crashing bugs, poor UI, and poor optimization then it's time to get to work.

I feel we're debating small things here, but you know poe.trade came before the public release of the API, right? Poe.trade used to index the forums, the threads and posts where people posted their items, creating so much traffic that GGG more or less had to release the API.

But you fail to tell us what "better trade" is. Will the GAME, with its in-game feel of progression, drops and difficulty be better with a better trade sustem? Look, no one in their right mind would be against a better trade system. As long as they'd keep the requirement of being online to trade - and that trade will never be automated, I really don't care what they'll improve. I welcome all improvements, as long as those to elements are being kept.

There can't really be any functional improvement to trade without some small scale of automation. I do however agree that the requirement of being online should be kept, and I feel like they should work their premium tabs into the solution, just not as a primary, because then we kickstart the p2w argument again. Now this part is secondhand as I didn't start before the api was enabled, but according to people in my guild who have played since closed beta, poe.trade was damn near useless before the api due to the situations we have now, but tenfold due to how it trawled the forums. I stress again, that was before my time in the game, but I have heard from others. As to the feeling of progression, at one point GGG said less than 10% of the playerbase makes it to maps, and of those, 1% makes it to endgame levels. Here's the kicker, though, is that of the 10% who make it to maps, I would be willing to wager the overwhelming majority traded to get mapping gear (excluding SSF because that doesn't apply to trade). And then, out of the 1% who make it to endgame that all of those traded again to get better gear, either through outright buying or trading for bases and crafting mats. That's not even including the major sticking point of the excessive RNG to get the map you need to drop, or get the master you need to spawn, etc.

Only read the title.

I can see an action house for some items in the game. Maps and low value currency. Only benefit I see is offline trading which could be easier to exploit. In game UI for trading, similar to trading websites is a better solution to engage more players.

One of PoE's most proud achievements from day one is the currency system. Each currency actually does something. Each is different. They all have "purpose".

Allowing easy exchange of currency would invalidate that. Everything would have value in terms of "points". Kind of how you can easily think of an Alt dropping as being 1/8 of a fusing. That's because there's an easy way to make it happen.

If there was a currency exchange, every currency would simply be expressible in terms of "points"... what ever they were. Drops would lose their "purpose". You would count every drop as being the same stuff, just different denominations. Traders probably already think this way to a great degree. But the difficulty trading them makes them different.

So even a commodity house gets a no vote from me.

"Better trading" is:
1. Not having to {Alt}Tab out of the game to do item searches.
2. Not having to copy/paste the WTB.
3. Not having to whisper dozens of times because majority of sellers are off-line.

Ok. So how can GGG fix these problems?
1. Integrate their own search function into PoE as a pop-up window.
2. By having the item search in-game the WTB is a one button click to whisper the seller.
3. By making a smart phone app for sellers to get WTB notifications.

GGG has needed to bring item searching in-game for many years now. The fact that they think that anything done to improve trading is equivalent to making trading "too easy" is total bullshit. Item searching for trading/buying should be in-game from long ago.

The 3rd fix is the most controversial. If sellers were notified and allowed to sell while not in-game with a smart phone app, does that make the buying of items "too easy"? The buyer still has to be in-game to whisper the WTB, and still would need to accept the seller's invite, and still have to go into the seller's hideout stash to do the trade. The only "convenience" would be that the seller doesn't have to be in-game (chained to his/her gaming rig) 24/7 to get the WTB notification and would be able to conduct the trade while off-line. The buyer wouldn't be spamming dozens and dozens of WTB whispers all the time with no response as the sellers would be messaged to know someone wants to buy an item and can respond in real time to conduct the trade. There would still be times when a seller wouldn't respond (sleeping, work, away from phone or phone is off like at movie theater, etc.) so some whispers would go unanswered, but many more sellers could/would respond and take a few minutes break from what they're doing to conduct the trade if there was a PoE smart phone item selling app.

Come on GGG, we're now in year 2020 so get with the modern communication times and fix trading.