I've never understood the idea of loom + gold myself.
It should be:
"I've got a +3 YOU want, and YOU'VE got a +3 I want. Lets just trade em?"
But instead looms have a price tied to them for god knows what reason and causes marketplace playing, where you can make 10k-70k for looming something else wants when they have something you want. It seems odd to me.
I've never understood the idea of loom + gold myself.
It should be:
"I've got a +3 YOU want, and YOU'VE got a +3 I want. Lets just trade em?"
But instead looms have a price tied to them for god knows what reason and causes marketplace playing, where you can make 10k-70k for looming something else wants when they have something you want. It seems odd to me.
In fact, everybody would be forced to have encyclopedic knowledge of heirlooms to know their gold equivalent, instead of just exchanging one item they know for another item they can get decent info about.
It would also globally slow down market activity, as if you imagine the very frequent scenario of somebody wanting to trade say a 2h sword that person uses for another 2h sword they would prefer, having to do two trades instead of one introduces huge problems.
First, two trades cannot be immediate, and people are left with gold they have no direct use of, which is bad if you don't have any fallback options for the item category you just sold.
Second, there's no guarantee you will ever get your hands on the heirloom item you wanted, even after selling the item you had. In fact, if you don't want to be screwed over, you will have to create offers yourself for everything, which implies other people will maybe never accept your trades.
An example. I have an item some other player want.So sell your item for X gold.
I'm not particularly fond of the item he's offering
The other guy gets the item he wants, I probably end up with a profit when trading it again. Both happy, even though I never really wanted his item!
So sell your item for X gold.
So buy his item for X minus Y gold. You both get the items you want and you also make a net profit.
This is the hallmark of a terrible system. 2500 post count, multi-year veteran, game administrator can take advantage of the system to profit off of ignorance.
One problem with the current system is that understanding the implications of accepting any given offer requires a near encyclopedic knowledge of prior transactions and patch histories. Players are unable to sift through the labyrinthine amount of offers and requests
- Some players resent change. Players who have invested hundreds of hours into figuring out how to game the market will not like this change.
Let's say you are a relatively new player that put a lot of work into heirlooming a +3 Longsword, but you want to try out a +3 Danish for a while, so you offer up a straight trade. One of the "marketplace tycoons" with a booth/etc snatches up the trade immediately, with no intention of actually using the Longsword, just flipping it for profit. You just pissed away ~300k of your net worth, and probably didn't even realize it, because you'd have to have watched the marketplace for months to understand the relative value of these two items.
Meh, it's completely not true. You definitely don't need to invest "hundreds of hours" to know how market works. Market rules are really simple (first rule of the market - to rule them all - make your own offers) and you don't need to know the value of every loom to make good deals.
You're right that market lets ppl to gain gold and looms in a "fishy" way and plenty of ppl got fucked up by market sharks, but it's their own fault to some extent.
Please keep the -1s coming because it isn't like this thread is a well-intentioned attempt to identify a weak spot in cRPG and improve it.
Updated OP. It is a strange coincidence that everyone who has -1'd the idea has a lot to lose from improving the interface.
Currently, the only way to know a Danish Greatsword is relatively poor value is to click through multiple pages of offers and requests, click through even more pages of offers and requests for whatever item is being requested in exchange, add a touch of patch history knowledge, and make an estimate.
I don't understand your point. In a gold only system you would open the marketplace and could just search by item and sort by price. The only way to get "decent info" in the current system is to compare the various offers of item + gold + heirloom points and make a judgment about what the offer is really worth. That may work for people with 7000 posts who have been playing for years but the system is not intuitive or easy to use.
This scenario is actually incredibly infrequent. There are 46 different people trying to get rid of their 2h sword. The number of people currently wanting to trade a 2 handed sword for another 2 handed sword: only seven. Five of those seven want to trade their worthless Danish Greatswords for more valuable weapons; ie what they are really trying to do is get rid of a worthless item any way they can. Only 2 of them are trying to trade it for another. TWO PEOPLE out of FOURTY-SIX. 4.3%. Not "very frequent."
Examples:
Dach (downvoted the OP) adds a blanket 55k lazy tax to every item he requests in return for his 2h offers. Does Dach really think +3 Longsword and +3 Mallet are worth 55k more than their respective requests, or does he realize it is impossible to determine the value of the items he wants and just wants to be safe? I wonder why he doesn't like the proposed system. . .
Mwiw (downvoted the OP) adds a blanket 10k lazy tax in addition to his near-worthless Danish Greatsword and then makes 22 different, completely 1-sided offers. I wonder why he likes the old system? Because people are foolish enough to make these terrible trades that he knows he can get away with. Currently, the only way to know a Danish Greatsword is relatively poor value is to click through multiple pages of offers and requests, click through even more pages of offers and requests for whatever item is being requested in exchange, add a touch of patch history knowledge, and make an estimate.
I don't understand the difference between being left with an item you don't want (current) and being left with gold you can't use (proposed.) It isn't as though in the current system everyone is running around using Danish Greatsword + Crossbow thinking to themselves "I don't really like these items but I haven't traded them yet so I'll keep using them!"
In a system with direct trading, you only need to know the relative value of two items to create a good trade. One is slightly better ? Put a few dozen k in.
Your reasoning is innaccurate as hell. Listing standing offers is only a way to show what nobody accepts.
Imagine you are a 2h swordsman, and say you have a +3 GGS and want a shiny +3 SoW instead. Thing is, you use that +3 GGS because it is kinda good, you just want a +3 Sow because it is better. You don't want to be unable to use an heirloomed sword for an indefinite amount of time just because you wanted to change.
The bottom line is, having to do two trades instead of one for something as basic as exchanging items is not acceptable.
I don't see why you'd have to get rid of Item for Item trades. Why not just get rid of the ability to add gold to them?
Wrangham, you want evidence that what you propose would effectively hurt a majority of the trades that actually happen ?
Look at this : http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=marketplacestatistic&view=recent
I cba to make an exact count, but from what I can see, about 1 in 10 heirloom trades (actual trades, not gifts) are full gold/LP vs item trades and roughly 90% are the exchanges you are suggesting to make impossible, out of which about one half involve an additional small sum of gold. And that additional gold is present on both sides of the offers.
Mwiw - 22 offer on marketplace, all asking for X item in exchange for his near worthless Danish Greatsword.
Players should only exchange items/loom points for an amount of gold and the 5% tax on item exchanges should be lowered to 1%.
That's stupid... removing item for item trade is the base function of the market... why remove it???
One problem with the current system is that understanding the implications of accepting any given offer requires a near encyclopedic knowledge of prior transactions and patch histories. Players are unable to sift through the labyrinthine amount of offers and requests, let alone draw a meaningful set of conclusions about item value from that data.
lol, yeah I made a 3 year degree's in C-RPG market university to start my career as a trader. :rolleyes:
- Some players resent change. Players who have invested hundreds of hours into figuring out how to game the market will not like this change.
lol, again hundreds of hours... Yeah I put my item in the market to make profit, You got a problem with that?! Anyway your system wouldn't prevent me from doing profit, it would just make me change the way of doing it.
- Some players think the devs are removing everything from the game and that more complexity is always good. This change will bring about simplicity.
Where will be the simple I trade my item for your item?
- This change will complicate the ability of players to gift heirlooms by trading rocks or straw hats. But there is an easy workaround. Just make a post in the marketplace declaring your intention to trade to so-and-so player and then do it quickly. It isn't like there are many players spamming refresh on the marketplace waiting to grab a deal that an admin will just revert anyways.
Now gift are bad?!? The fuck... If I want to give some of my heirloom to a clanmate, that's my choice and you got nothing to do with that.
===Reduce the Tax===
The 5% tax rate is probably too high for pure gold transfers. I suggest reducing it to 1-2%. I suspect but cannot prove that 99.99% of gold taken out of the system is done so via item repairs and not the tax on transactions so reducing the tax should not affect gameplay.
Here I could agree, fuck tax! That's actually why I charge 55k instead of 50k... Someone need to pay for the stupid tax... and it's not me. :wink:
Overall you are just removing options, which is bad... Options are good.
The option to sell things at ridiculously inflated values to players who don't care to study dozens of pages of items is a great addition to C-RPG! My bad, I am only just realizing this. Deleting OP now . . . Viva la options.
I'm not forcing them to accept my offer... if they don't like it than can just put their own offer for the item they want...
It's called CHOICE...
Also if you are going to quote something which I have clearly labelled under a section titled "===CONS===" it would be decent to leave that in the quote. You seem to have taken a huge chunk of my OP out of context so I won't respond to the rest of your post.
And those who lack patience.
What does this matter? Yes, people are making do with the current system to trade items.
That does not change the fact that the system needlessly encourages over pricing and mindless clicking through two dozen trade screens.
I down voted you for editing your OP with ad hominem.
Next time argue the merits of your case.
It's ad hominen to post people's publicly listed trade offers? Isn't that an acknowledgment that the behavior is disgusting? Please consult with your forum hivemind before responding!
It's ad hominen to post people's publicly listed trade offers ?
You finished high school, right ? It is ad hominem to argue that this publicly available information about them is what motivates people to criticize your terrible suggestion, and not its flaws.
Why don't you defend the current market system instead of snarky 1-liner responses tearing my suggestion down? I have 37 posts in over a year and had an idea to improve a game I enjoy. You can't honestly believe raising an army of 8000-post hiveminders -1'ing every post I make regardless of its content is the way to improve c-rpg? When the guy telling me to read a book about death camps gets better treatment I question whether I even care to try any more.
You may disagree with my ideas but please point to one other thread that at least tries to be a critical and intelligent discussion on a controversial topic. GranPappy, a forum admin, accuses me of posting one-sided marketplace activity to insult forumites to win an internet argument, and obviously not because someone's bias is relevant to his opinion. Meanwhile the "poletorch platform" receives overwhelming support. I am slowly realizing that's the way things are on this disservice to the word "forum."(click to show/hide)
Maybe my idea would not work. I do not have a Ph. D. in economics or years of experience and even people who do still manage to make huge mistakes about markets. But almost every response in this thread has been about how I am a monkey who didn't finish high school instead of about ways to improve an imperfect system.
I suck at marketplace and loose money constantly because i dont know how to find good trades
I'm sorry you got the impression I (and others ?) was insulting or attacking you personally in any way.
Then out of nowhere you start implying that I only do this because I have a trade booth. At that moment I thought "fuck this guy" and - ed all your posts.
Just like I said before, if you want a civil discussion, start by being civil yourself.
["Wrangham:"] I suck at marketplace and loose money constantly because i dont know how to find good trades
Bartering, bargaining, and locking down trade deals is half the fun of this game for me. Leave the market alone, and have a -1, OP.
It's impatient traders like you that make me rich!
it's the same message that he and Kafein and a dozen other posters embarrass themselves by repeating: "System is fair, say profiteers of system."
I would just like to reiterate that the Large Booths are the worst part of the market. It prevents us from having a truly free market economy, and 6 (or is it 5) players are allowed to control the entire loom point economy. So if your main concern is people who are already rich getting richer, this mechanic is the worst offender.
I wonder where I got that impression?
Oh that's right you gave me the impression when you insulted me!
Asking Kafein's opinion about the c-rpg marketplace is like asking Larry Page's opinion about "Bing!" or inviting whoever made War of the Roses to critique C-RPG. In America it is entirely civil to point out another's bias in a matter. Senators do not write laws which would profit themselves. Judges do not decide cases which impact their assets. I am sorry if this is not the case in your culture but I will not apologize if the sensibilities of freedom offend you. So when Kafein says he can transcend bias, I question whether he is really a supremely altruistic and intelligent person descending from his pedestal of reason; or if he is reacting to a suggestion which would significantly and materially impact him.
Zaren(blacktiger28) has a gigantic peni.......heartwhy thank you