How should player shops/trade/auction houses be handled?

[Kain]

Unlimited storage, shop, auction house buttons, no trading tax. I play games to kill stuff, with friends or solo. Not for running & storage managing simulators.

You'll have a dead economy because there was zero incentive for people who do play it for that

I doubt it will kill the economy and... do you play games for the economy or do you play games for fun? And if you have fun by messing around with the economy, then I suggest you do it in real life, much more productivity and satisfaction.

[rusty_shackleford]

Unlimited storage, shop, auction house buttons, no trading tax. I play games to kill stuff, with friends or solo. Not for running & storage managing simulators.

You'll have a dead economy because there was zero incentive for people who do play it for that

I doubt it will kill the economy and... do you play games for the economy or do you play games for fun? And if you have fun by messing around with the economy, then I suggest you do it in real life, much more productivity and satisfaction.

take your adhd meds

[Kain]

You'll have a dead economy because there was zero incentive for people who do play it for that

I doubt it will kill the economy and... do you play games for the economy or do you play games for fun? And if you have fun by messing around with the economy, then I suggest you do it in real life, much more productivity and satisfaction.

take your adhd meds

No, thanks, although you may need some.

[Xenich]

That is ultimately my point though. Without the "balance" of those consequences, in game economies are simply cheats without any consequence of play.

Well, I mean, the conversation is about how SHOULD, not how they end up being **** because they didn't. There shouldn't BE coin farms, and it's quite practical NOT to have coin farms. Just make sure that M1 is a fixed, known value. The moment you start allowing players to simply print more cash, especially through some kind of repetitive farming activity, you're going to introduce all that bot coin farming business, and inflation will rapidly skyrocket.

Like I mentioned in the thread before, I would prefer the entire concept of trade to be regulated by the game through an NPC or trade window that implements various control features to make it more like a trade system game.

That, or I would segregate the crafting game from the adventure and make all adventure aspects of play "no-drop". This way the crafting system could have an entire market for trade, but you couldn't circumvent adventure play by "buying" items you didn't complete yourself.

In the camping style games it would eliminate AH farmers from locking down camps and you wouldn't have people twinking out items they could never obtain themselves.

[Xenich]

Unlimited storage, shop, auction house buttons, no trading tax. I play games to kill stuff, with friends or solo. Not for running & storage managing simulators.

You'll have a dead economy because there was zero incentive for people who do play it for that

I doubt it will kill the economy and... do you play games for the economy or do you play games for fun? And if you have fun by messing around with the economy, then I suggest you do it in real life, much more productivity and satisfaction.

I don't care for economies for specific reasons, but "fun" is a meaningless word. It is used constantly by mainstreamers to remove all elements of risk vs reward/choice & consequence in play.

[Kain]

I don't care for economies for specific reasons, but "fun" is a meaningless word. It is used constantly by mainstreamers to remove all elements of risk vs reward/choice & consequence in play.

I don't know if you find risk vs reward/choice & consequence in managing storage and running back and forth to selling junk is entertaining. It's something best left to the computer as we humans should focus on doing something more engaging, like getting involved in a good story, facing worthy challenges and solving puzzles, etc.

[Xenich]

I don't care for economies for specific reasons, but "fun" is a meaningless word. It is used constantly by mainstreamers to remove all elements of risk vs reward/choice & consequence in play.

I don't know if you find risk vs reward/choice & consequence in managing storage and running back and forth to selling junk is entertaining. It's something best left to the computer as we humans should focus on doing something more engaging, like getting involved in a good story, facing worthy challenges and solving puzzles, etc.

There are layers to everything and they all interconnect to create various concepts of risk vs reward, choice and consequence.

I was talking more about features like maps/GPS, no death penalty, Run speed/fast travel, corpse runs, etc...

All of these are game play elements which are risk vs reward, choice and consequence based play.

Each element of play layers over the other with various risks and consequences for poor choices in how the player deals with them.

Consequence is removed leaving everything as a process of gain. There is no loss on failure, simply the result of not gaining. Consequence is removed, risk has little meaning, choice lacks any real purpose.

Some people enjoy there being consequences to a failure, not simply a "try again". Without meaningful failure, success is also meaningless.

This is a concept of play that doesn't exist much in game play anymore because "failure" is considered a bad thing rather than a process to success.

The layers are numerous and subtly influence all aspects of play. Even run speed being reduced where it takes time to travel is an element of this as it will effect the failure, limitations of choices, etc...

Point is, there are many aspects of game play that aren't "fun" in and of themselves, but dealing with those obstacles in the process of play to a success or goal IS the fun for some.

[Kain]

Point is, there are many aspects of game play that aren't "fun" in and of themselves, but dealing with those obstacles in the process of play to a success or goal IS the fun for some.

You are not wrong. Games are about overcoming obstacles. But not all is worth keeping. For example, I would rather have the option to remove or skip some boring, repeating process like running back and forth between places. Once you discover a new place, you should have the option to fast-travel to it without running for 10–20 minutes to reach it again. Or keep a constant watch for storage limits, or you may miss some good loots and such.

[Xenich]

Point is, there are many aspects of game play that aren't "fun" in and of themselves, but dealing with those obstacles in the process of play to a success or goal IS the fun for some.

You are not wrong. Games are about overcoming obstacles. But not all is worth keeping. For example, I would rather have the option to remove or skip some boring, repeating process like running back and forth between places. Once you discover a new place, you should have the option to fast-travel to it without running for 10–20 minutes to reach it again. Or keep a constant watch for storage limits, or you may miss some good loots and such.

Well, when you consider that picking a class is a choice (ie may have features that aid in run speed/travel), then factor in risk in the encounters you select, the methods you use to explore and the actions you take in play, part of the consequence is that this may be a factor in how much or how easy this process of "running back and forth" is. It is a factor of play, a negative associated with that risk and the consequences there in.

You dislike it? Why? Because it sucks to have to run back and forth constantly, but here is the thing... if you are running back and forth constantly, why is that? Are you dying a lot? Why? Because you are playing stupidly? Likely.

In Pantheon (which is retardedly easy in CR) I hear people whine constantly about "running back to their corpse" and getting lost constantly in the process. Why? Because they are idiots. They rush into combat, don't pay attention to things, refuse to con, often can't play their character very well (likely for the same reasons they are not paying attention to things), refuse to take time to learn the zones, etc...

They hate the penalty because they are ********, hence the constantly running back and forth. The problem... is them being ******** and these types of people hate these negative consequences because they lack the attention span and discipline to adjust their habits. Instead they prefer all the consequences removed so they can continue bad habits in play. They don't want to play a game, they just want to hit that dopamine win button constantly for cheap ******** thrills.

[Kain]

They hate the penalty because they are ********, hence the constantly running back and forth. The problem... is them being ******** and these types of people hate these negative consequences because they lack the attention span and discipline to adjust their habits. Instead they prefer all the consequences removed so they can continue bad habits in play. They don't want to play a game, they just want to hit that dopamine win button constantly for cheap ******** thrills.

I mean running back and forth to sell loots. Like Black Desert Online. Your storage can be filled pretty quickly, and you have to go back to town to sell loot, and too many loots makes you move at snail speed, which makes it even worse...

[Xenich]

They hate the penalty because they are ********, hence the constantly running back and forth. The problem... is them being ******** and these types of people hate these negative consequences because they lack the attention span and discipline to adjust their habits. Instead they prefer all the consequences removed so they can continue bad habits in play. They don't want to play a game, they just want to hit that dopamine win button constantly for cheap ******** thrills.

I mean running back and forth to sell loots. Like Black Desert Online. Your storage can be filled pretty quickly, and you have to go back to town to sell loot, and too many loots makes you move at snail speed, which makes it even worse...

Which allows for more layers of play does it not? (I have no idea how this game works)

In a game like I am thinking, bag space, strength, spells, race specifics, even crafting skill, etc... all come into play. This creates layers of play and forces choices on the player. You want to be a loot ***** who can carry all the "phat" loot? Well, you pick a class, race, skill, trade, etc... that allows for benefits in this process. This creates choice in play and pros/cons to your selections.

Some classes will have a higher weight restriction due to various reasons and will be able to carry more. Others will have fast travel spells that allow them to more quickly get to locations to sell, etc...

This also creates choices in what you do. Do you loot everything or only the specifics you are looking for? Do you leave your camp to go sell, or stay and loot less?

Choices, consequences, pros/cons... etc...

[Norfleet]

Like I mentioned in the thread before, I would prefer the entire concept of trade to be regulated by the game through an NPC or trade window that implements various control features to make it more like a trade system game.

Well, most modern trade is already mediated by such functionalities, since "drop it on the floor" stopped being a mode of trade, or really, gameplay, years ago. What sort of "features" did you have in mind at that point, though? I mean, the only thing that I can think of would be that either you want to tax players on their trades, or that you want to otherwise prevent them from trading things in some way.

That, or I would segregate the crafting game from the adventure and make all adventure aspects of play "no-drop". This way the crafting system could have an entire market for trade, but you couldn't circumvent adventure play by "buying" items you didn't complete yourself.

The catch with such systems is that either adventure items are inferior in some way, or crafting items are inferior in some way. If the adventure items are inferior, then the adventure is pointless. If the crafted items are inferior, then the crafting rapidly becomes pointless as the values of items tank into the dirt due to nobody REALLY wanting them as anything other than filler trash.

In the camping style games it would eliminate AH farmers from locking down camps and you wouldn't have people twinking out items they could never obtain themselves.

Well, the entire POINT of trade IS to obtain items you couldn't otherwise obtain. If you can't offer me anything I can't already get, why bother? The entire point of money is to buy things you can't otherwise get for yourself.

The camping issue is, of course, an entirely separate problem, and you would have this even without trade, as long as people are able to actually lock down sites through tactics like murdering anyone who approaches or pool closure, and would exist even if there was absolutely no reward whatsoever for doing this. Pool is closed, pool has AIDS.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Well, most modern trade is already mediated by such functionalities, since "drop it on the floor" stopped being a mode of trade, or really, gameplay, years ago.

I do somewhat miss this. It makes items feel more physicalized, rather than it all being abstracted in a 2D menu UI.

[Norfleet]

I do somewhat miss this. It makes items feel more physicalized, rather than it all being abstracted in a 2D menu UI.

Let's just say there's a reason WHY they don't do that in a multiplayer online environment anymore, and I was part of the cause. Ever hear of the Cheesebang? Buy over 9000 wheels of cheese, load them onto a mule, then have then have the mule drop them all. Everyone in the immediate area now loses their link from the Cheesebang overloading their modems.

[Xenich]

Like I mentioned in the thread before, I would prefer the entire concept of trade to be regulated by the game through an NPC or trade window that implements various control features to make it more like a trade system game.

Well, most modern trade is already mediated by such functionalities, since "drop it on the floor" stopped being a mode of trade, or really, gameplay, years ago. What sort of "features" did you have in mind at that point, though? I mean, the only thing that I can think of would be that either you want to tax players on their trades, or that you want to otherwise prevent them from trading things in some way.

Well, not sure exactly what would work to be honest, but as it is now, nothing in games creates a negative cash flow that has to be accounted for in a business. Storage costs, store front fees, transaction facilitation costs, etc... and that isn't even getting into personal costs that you have to account for such as living expense, eating, etc... Taxes, licensing, etc... are also a component of that, but my point is not anything particular, but how this effects a businesses viability. That is, there is nothing to drive people to move product or be competitive due to a necessity.

In RL, many businesses have to weight the cost to be in business and that effects the businesses practice. They can't sit on a product indefinitely if they have a lot of product that is eating up with reoccurring costs or the result is they end up losing far more than they would ever make in the process. This reality spurs the need to move the product or be left with a loss and if the person is in debt, this can cause numerous issues as well.

Look how people price in the markets. It is always match the highest price, but mark down by a very small amount. There is no incentive to move and then you see 1000's of the same items all pricing back and forth by a single gold or the like. No incentive to sell, no need for real competition, just wait indefinitely and someone will eventually buy it.

So I guess my point is that game markets have no pressure, no responsivity, no consequence in the hoarding and manipulation of markets. Sure, there are some things where a person may try to manipulate the market, but then a game change occurs and the are left with a bunch of product nobody finds useful anymore, but this I never say happen very often (usually was due to a major nerf or the like).

How this would be implemented though, I am not sure. You can't simply put a negative on bank space as this would force people into the trade game. Maybe you could segregate trade or the like for extra storage but that could get a bit complex and create its own problems. You get the idea of what I mean though.

That, or I would segregate the crafting game from the adventure and make all adventure aspects of play "no-drop". This way the crafting system could have an entire market for trade, but you couldn't circumvent adventure play by "buying" items you didn't complete yourself.

The catch with such systems is that either adventure items are inferior in some way, or crafting items are inferior in some way. If the adventure items are inferior, then the adventure is pointless. If the crafted items are inferior, then the crafting rapidly becomes pointless as the values of items tank into the dirt due to nobody REALLY wanting them as anything other than filler trash.

Well, you might be able to integrate them in some way eliminating the competition between them. So, base crafted gear becomes a interim for adventure gear and will be inferior at equal level to adventure gear, but... adventure gear could interact with crafted gear in a way where the crafting enhances the adventure gear improving it.

So in terms of progression of power, it would be:

1. Crafting gear.
2. Adventure gear.
3. Adventure gear crafting modified.

So basically, you would get an adventure gear drop, and to make it better, you would go to a crafter, it would be handed to them in a temp process where they modify/upgrade the gear through some type of trade between or at the crafting station that has a "no drop" slot provided where both players complete the process to make the gear which returns the modified no drop item to the player who offered it.

This would solve the competition issue between them, provide a natural progression and use between while allowing normal trade items to be traded on a normal basis.

In the camping style games it would eliminate AH farmers from locking down camps and you wouldn't have people twinking out items they could never obtain themselves.

Well, the entire POINT of trade IS to obtain items you couldn't otherwise obtain. If you can't offer me anything I can't already get, why bother? The entire point of money is to buy things you can't otherwise get for yourself.

The camping issue is, of course, an entirely separate problem, and you would have this even without trade, as long as people are able to actually lock down sites through tactics like murdering anyone who approaches or pool closure, and would exist even if there was absolutely no reward whatsoever for doing this. Pool is closed, pool has AIDS.

Well, this is an issue if there is PvP which honestly has serious problems in camp based games unless the entire game is designed ground up around PvP (ie Eve online) and even then, you have to live and breathe PvP to enjoy it.

For a standard PvE focused camp game, if there is no reason to need the item personally, the only benefit I guess would be trying to block progression from other players (which happened more with guilds in EQ if you remember the issues with Plane of Time and other key progression zones). It usually wasn't an issue with most group content so while there may be "some" issues, I don't see how it would be a big issue and in fact if you notice games where there is BoP mobs, they are usually left up once most people have what they need from them.

[Norfleet]

Look how people price in the markets. It is always match the highest price, but mark down by a very small amount. There is no incentive to move and then you see 1000's of the same items all pricing back and forth by a single gold or the like. No incentive to sell, no need for real competition, just wait indefinitely and someone will eventually buy it.

Well, the thing is, my experience with such markets is that those thousands of items actually MOVE, and if you want them to move faster, you don't mark down by one tiny gold. But usually they'll move within a reasonable economic cycle. And since you have a finite number of market slots in all likelyhood, you need to move your product fast enough that you don't backlog. But that's my experience with being a producer-seller.

How this would be implemented though, I am not sure. You can't simply put a negative on bank space as this would force people into the trade game.

Not to mention arbitrarily too small limitations on storage space encourages muling. An often-cited limitation on why storage space is restricted is because of DB space, but forcing players to resort to muling actually makes this worse since now the DB is encumbered with the extra baggage of entire mule accounts, guilds, and characters, rather than simply incrementing a number on an existing DB entry.

Well, you might be able to integrate them in some way eliminating the competition between them. So, base crafted gear becomes a interim for adventure gear and will be inferior at equal level to adventure gear, but... adventure gear could interact with crafted gear in a way where the crafting enhances the adventure gear improving it.

As you well know, if it's not best in slot, it's worthless trash, and the price reflects that, where a second-string item will command a price less than a thousandth that of the top-tier for maybe a 5% performance gain. Even more so if the item is simply CRAFTED, meaning it gets shat out by players who don't understand economics for less than the cost of the materials to produce it.

So basically, you would get an adventure gear drop, and to make it better, you would go to a crafter, it would be handed to them in a temp process where they modify/upgrade the gear through some type of trade between or at the crafting station that has a "no drop" slot provided where both players complete the process to make the gear which returns the modified no drop item to the player who offered it.

This would solve the competition issue between them, provide a natural progression and use between while allowing normal trade items to be traded on a normal basis.

Well, now you've created an official interface to trade in services rather than goods, so that's something, I guess.

For a standard PvE focused camp game, if there is no reason to need the item personally, the only benefit I guess would be trying to block progression from other players (which happened more with guilds in EQ

Well, when you don't have an official outlet for PvP, PvP becomes griefing. The competitive desire never goes away, it just channels itself into more perverse forms when you can't directly oppose someone by naked force.

if you remember the issues with Plane of Time and other key progression zones).

I don't, since I'm religiously opposed to playing anything that costs me money. Or doing anything that results in me losing money. No profit in it. Don't make everything about money, they say, while being the first to bring money into the conversation. But I've heard of it.

It usually wasn't an issue with most group content so while there may be "some" issues, I don't see how it would be a big issue and in fact if you notice games where there is BoP mobs, they are usually left up once most people have what they need from them.

Content Death is also often the result of this. When people have what they need, they bugger off and the content becomes a ghost town, as there is no financial incentive for them to remain there. While it DOES mean that, in theory, a zone with resource contestation will be left uncontested, it also means you'll likely have problems finding any teammates to do it with and will be running it solo if that is even possible. Combined with the "best in slot or worthless trash" effect and 90% of an MMO ends up being wasted development effort.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Look how people price in the markets. It is always match the highest price, but mark down by a very small amount. There is no incentive to move and then you see 1000's of the same items all pricing back and forth by a single gold or the like. No incentive to sell, no need for real competition, just wait indefinitely and someone will eventually buy it.

The constant undercutting is to bump up your listing to the top (sorted by cheapest to most expensive) so it gets bought first. People don't want to put something up on the AH and wait months or weeks or days for it to sell. They want to get their money within the next couple hours or when they log on the next day, and to then immediately spend that money on something. The undercutting usually happens to relatively cheap, extremely high velocity items, ie stuff that everyone is accumulating a lot of like mats that drop from mobs or are harvested, or easily crafted gear. Once you start getting into quite powerful and/or rare items or difficult to craft items, of which there are a few, they will just sit there on the AH for a lot of gil until someone serious and adequately resourceful comes along and buys it at the listed price. Alternatively, these items are might not be on the AH but advertised in trade chat, and then a buyer PMs the player and offers a price.

Limited inventory space incentivizes the player to stop by the AH after/before every play session to put up the drops they got. You could have non-tradeable items like quest key items, equipment, transmog, toys, etc, be put into a separate inventory so that they do not compete with the AHable items.

This is a concept of play that doesn't exist much in game play anymore because "failure" is considered a bad thing rather than a process to success.

I think a few bad experiences being regurgitated have prejudiced gamers against loss. A player investing all of their money into buying a battlecruiser in EVE Online and then undocking and getting blown up and having lost everything and then they quit (God forbid they spent real money on PLEX to buy the big spaceship that gets blown up). Or a thief in Shadowbane robbing your most precious, hard fought for items while you are shuffling your inventory around at a bank. Or losing everything in a survival game like in multiplayer Minecraft servers over a decade and a half ago, or in Rust or Ark or whatever the current popular survival game is. Granted, part of the issue is that those games do not adequately communicate/prepare the player for such a possibility or present a path to a swift recovery. Perhaps loss need not be that devastating or total.

[Norfleet]

I think a few bad experiences being regurgitated have prejudiced gamers against loss. A player investing all of their money into buying a battlecruiser in EVE Online and then undocking and getting blown up and having lost everything and then they quit (God forbid they spent real money on PLEX to buy the big spaceship that gets blown up). Or a thief in Shadowbane robbing your most precious, hard fought for items while you are shuffling your inventory around at a bank.

You don't really need to be prejudiced against loss. Loss is fundamentally bad by its very definition. The thing is, it needs to exist, otherwise there's no such thing as winning.

Or losing everything in a survival game like in multiplayer Minecraft servers over a decade and a half ago, or in Rust or Ark or whatever the current popular survival game is.

Those are what we call Insomnia Games. Unless you're an insomniac and plan to NEVER SLEEP, just remain by your computer at ALL TIMES in case you are attacked, you re probably gonna lose.

Granted, part of the issue is that those games do not adequately communicate/prepare the player for such a possibility or present a path to a swift recovery.

If there's a swift recovery, then the ability to get there in the first place was also swift, so there's not much loss, and soon you're just playing Counterstrike, and the terrorists win.