Regardless of who is right or wrong, I see no harm in discussing possibilities or alternatives. What else is there to do when the game is probably 2+ years from us being able to play it?
Sometimes it seems like people think Brad McQuaid is absurdly suggestible, to where if someone posts that we should all wear pointy hats, then Brad would automatically start coding hats. Brad's a pretty smart guy and a grown man to boot, so that fear I think is unwarranted. Hell I spent years in EQ posting that rangers ought to have epic bows, not swords lol. I got nuthin. Trust me he's not putty in anyone's hands.
Also keep in mind that the intent to keep economies localized and the seeming intent to allow more items to be tradeable than in some previous games add new considerations to trade systems that are worth discussing.
P.S. I also don't get rage quitting a game that hasn't even been made yet? Based on one or two people's opinions on an unofficial message board? Chill dude. Maybe take a break or something and then come back.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
P.S. I also don't get rage quitting a game that hasn't even been made yet? Based on one or two people's opinions on an unofficial message board? Chill dude. Maybe take a break or something and then come back.
More than a couple of yahoos amathe, look closely at the responses, their "agrees", etc... this a group of the Pantheon supporters and if the core group will attack with such fervor over simple discussion, then the game is already starting out on the wrong foot. I have seen too many alphas/betas over the years and where this leads. While in the end, Brad/VR will make the game they choose to make, they are always susceptible to player demands, especially if that comes from a core base.
Like I said, not interested in that circus act yet again. I think I am done with MMO gaming completely, It isn't worth the effort.
It's your call mate. Gonna be rather dull around here. You know it's not just in this forum? Mmorpg.com has been a flame fest for as long as I can remember. And I've been here a long time (coming up on "ancient" lol). I wouldn't draw any conclusions over the fate of Pantheon from the overall tone of these boards. Besides, you have to admit you have thrown a jab or two now and then?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
It's your call mate. Gonna be rather dull around here. You know it's not just in this forum? Mmorpg.com has been a flame fest for as long as I can remember. And I've been here a long time (coming up on "ancient" lol). I wouldn't draw any conclusions over the fate of Pantheon from the overall tone of these boards. Besides, you have to admit you have thrown a jab or two now and then?
Oh I know, if it were just the random morons flaming, I would have no issues, but to see key people in the Pantheon supporters list act so irrational and devoid of logical grounds while escalating these discussions past simple disagreement (ie showing up into threads, not providing any discussion and simply attacking as we have seen), well... it just seems all to familiar (you should have seen the progression of idiocy that came from LoTRO Alpha -> Release).
Yes, I have thrown a jab or two, that I do not deny, but there is a difference between taking pot shot from time to time, to trolling and stalking to try and shut down a topic with "OMG THIS WILL DESTROY THE GAME!!! ARRRG!" and then making up completely bullshit summaries of my position in order to get people to think that I am supporting something I am not.
You saw that my discussion here was not demanding and it was just spit balling. One has to be entirely irrational, illogical, and often immature to think continuing these attacks is justified or valid in the face of the issues. I expected resistance from people on this site, I expected childish behavior from people on this site, I did not expect that from the core Pantheon supporters.
What is even more astounding is you have people like Distopia who makes it no secret that they support mainstream gaming design in here willing to discuss civilly on actual design concepts that are counter to mainstream design goals all the while several Pantheon supporters, who claim to support the games tenants, to support the old school design are throwing tantrums and acting like a bunch of WoW players at any discussion that might get in the way of their golden goose.
That is what is truly amazing here and not what I expected.
It's your call mate. Gonna be rather dull around here. You know it's not just in this forum? Mmorpg.com has been a flame fest for as long as I can remember. And I've been here a long time (coming up on "ancient" lol). I wouldn't draw any conclusions over the fate of Pantheon from the overall tone of these boards. Besides, you have to admit you have thrown a jab or two now and then?
None of what's happening here has been a "flamefest". Its the rest of us getting sick and tired of Sinist's "I'm right, your wrong, and no amount of logic, rational thought, etc, is going to change my mind".
The guy really should submit an application to be a "spinner" for a politician or company executive, etc, he would be absolutely fantastic at it.
You wanna know the best part. Before this thread and the shitstorm of the other thread, he actually wasn't that hardcore about it, he just decided this was gonna be his magnum opus issue, and like always that means alarmist language and overblowing reality.
"Exactly! We have to consider every aspect of the game as form of game play with pros/cons, risk(effort)/reward. Trading is no different. Having to put effort into the trading creates opportunities for those who are willing to work for a result. This will effect how people sell and the effort they put into it for the return. Some may choose to forego the activity because it is too much of an effort, while others may spend most of their time doing it. Me personally, I can't stand trading for hours, I would rather be adventuring so I usually end up passing off my items to friends in need, or tossing it to some new player. I am not a big fan of buying my way through the game, even if it is with game money, but that is just me. "
"There really is no way to avoid this, as someone can just buy a second account, but I really would like to see them not cater to these types of conveniences. Convenience with the AH game leads to it becoming a fast money gimmick for every player. In the early days, people had to put effort to become wealthy in the trade game while these days, every type of convenience is afforded the player through automated systems, easy storage, etc..."
As for your point.. "All in all I don't really play roleplaying games to be a merchant.", that is the thing, if people don't like to do it, don't want to put the time to it, should they really be catered to when there are people who do play the games for that style of play? Everything should be a weight of time and effort as such systems is what creates the benefit of any selection of focus. It is why I also hope that Pantheon contains many skills that only level through play (as they did in EQ and how UO had them as well). The reason for such is because it also puts a balance of benefit on those who would choose to adventure. In that way, they guy that masters trade and becomes excessively rich maybe be able to buy their gear, but they still have to spend the time and effort to increase skills. It is a nice pro/con effort/reward system."
This shows that he actually had a reasonable stance that most of us agreed with. Basically that while he personally doesn't like player trade, at least in games like EQ people had to put time and effort into it to be "successful" and that the AH was the primary culprit of allowing the RMT'ers, and AH gimmicks, etc.
This then morphed into the "earning" gear BS and the "buying progression" BS, and everything else that ensued. Nobody in either of these threads was suggesting we "cater" to this type of behavior, as a matter of fact, exactly the opposite. We were arguing that we should highly promote grouping and getting gear in dungeons, where the disconnect was is that we are ok with someone doing it "the other" way, provided its much less efficient, etc, than doing it the "proper" way.
As I said, he just wanted a big ass pedestal to stand on and preach from.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
In before those quotes get twisted into meaning he always believed that trade was broken rather than what they clearly say: in EQ, trade was a legitimate means of advancement that took "time and effort."
Just gonna throw this in here in a random fashion. Brainstorming as I write it so feel free to tear it apart.
This is gonna be long so I'll try to keep it somewhat entertaining therefore please feel free to click the links.
Let's start here. In real life there is no such thing as a "magical" sword. There are cheap, poorly constructed swords that tend to break, (as shown here)
And there are finely crafted, highly functional, practical, and attractive balances between all of those things such as those featured here (and this is not an advertisement, it is simply the truth.)
The mistakes that we make with the trade systems in our MMORPG's is that we do not subscribe to a few simple and single truth's.
Truth #1. All swords have to be crafted by someone. They require raw materials and skill both of which much be acquired and will affect the functionality of the sword.
Truth #2 The gathering of raw materials and the skill required to create such items is labor intensive. (This is where the gold farmers usually make out because their whole purpose to do be the scrubbing bubbles that work hard so you don't have to.)
Truth #3 No matter how finely crafted a sword is it will most likely, under wear and tear or poor maintenance, deteriorate or break.
Truth #4 If you go out and try to fight a dog with a sword and that dog gets the best of you, odds are you are going to drop that sword. If it kills you, you are going to drop everything.
So the MMORPG has to strike a balance between the mundane gathering of resources, learning of skill, maintenance of the item, and reality of loss and/or breakage and deterioration and boring it's players completely to deal with the real reality of how these things work in real life.
The farther it goes to make things easy on players, such as creating unbreakable, magically powered weapons that enhance the players abilities beyond that of their own acquired skills the easier it's systems become to exploit. This is because in doing these things the developer sets up a linear path towards that "best in slot" item that most players will skip through and circumvent through and exploit in order to attain that "best in slot item".
A proper system of trade however would pull WAY back on this kind of itemization and focus on the skills and abilities of the player instead. Items would be practical and desired, and in some cases even fancy, but all enhancements above and beyond durability and ascetics would reside within the individual players and be perishable, instead of residing within the particular piece of gear.
Imagine this then. Players who can enhance weapons with charges of this and that but only at the cost of certain skills and resources, both that could be depleted without maintenance, that said player would have to attain at the cost of time and effort on that player or that players associates part.
It's complicated yeah, but it could work.
Farmers still have a life but that life would have to be maintained and even then, if the server permissions such as how many character slots per account, no free to play setup where players can just make multiple accounts, and so on were set up properly, those farmers would still have to purchase multiple accounts and/or slots, as well as maintain them all, in order to set up shop.
In fact, in a system where you might drop your weapon or have your armor chewed up every time you went out, a farmer might even be a preferred player on some servers.
But then there comes the topic of the Auction House.
Now I gotta tell you, I have NEVER liked the idea of an ever ready Walmart styled shopping center that sits within a medieval MMORPG. It's just a stupid concept and something that I believe took hold out of the hubris of the folks that came up with the idea, and exploited later on by the folks that figured out a way to monetize it rather than something that any of us really needed.
I think that Age of Wushu had a much better idea then. Where at the
minimum players had to trade with each other openly on a one to one
basis or at the maximum players set up their own little Kiosks, which
coincidentally, and very realistically took them out of play, and sold
their own items at their own prices while shoppers had to actually
search out the best deals.
That central auction house deal then? I'd throw that away.
So
now you have the industry actually acting more like a real life
industry. Crafter's have to sacrifice time to craft. Resource farmers
have to sacrifice time to gather resources. Enchanters, smith's,
bowyers, etc.. have to sacrifice time to learn enchantments and designs,
as well as gather resources and maintain their skills in order to
enchant, craft, strengthen, and beautify things. And even then their
enchantments are only finite in the form of charges and their
strengthening subject to wear and tear.
Players rely more on
their training rather than their gear to get things done. Training does
NOT come that easily and is only slightly rewarding when it does. And
items and gear still have a purpose in spite of the fact that they might
break, get lost, get taken, and subsequently can end up in the hands of
another player for the simple fact that player B (or player B and his
or her friends) were able to kill the adversary that took the item or
items that player A (or player A and his or her friends) could not.
Finaly, and this is the coup de grace, for all of this to work. Currency must be eliminated and the barter system initiated.
See,
the problem that a lot of trade systems make is that they run on
currency, which is a hard enough thing for the real world to keep
straight. Barter, however, is much more clean. And in a system where
time = money, like I said before, the gold farmer can still flourish.
That farmer, however, would have to pay the subscription model fee per
account to do so and so whatever real money transaction they were taking
out of it at least the company would still be getting it's cut.
Who
cares if some whale want to go out and spend their hard earned cash on
an item or items that are only going to last them a short time anyway in
a world where everyone has to be careful about what they do with their
stuff? I don't think they could keep up anyway, and that would help
even the score between the players who would want to play the game in
the fashion that it was designed and those who would rather skip through
things in order to (whatever excuse they are using these days, catch
up, not waste time, whatever).
On top of this, the lack of skill
that the average whale has anyway would just populate the beasts of the
land with a better loot table for the rest of the population to go
after.
And why kill the beasts if they have no loot you ask?
Resources of course. Resources and the experience needed to become
better at killing that kind of beast.
As long as the edge
remained securely placed within the individual players, and there was no
way to circumvent what was needed in order to attain the skills to
produce that edge (i.e. macro bots meant to specifically power level
characters, etc...) I think everyone could probably get along with some
degree of this system.
Of course you would have to really sit
down and tweak it a little in order to keep in entertaining. But there
are a couple of games out there already that are SERIOUSLY close to
operating in this fashion anyway. The only problem is that they use
these systems to be pay to win instead of play to win.
Trade fundamentally impacts game play, no matter how much time you spend personally doing it. When there are lots of valuable items that can be traded in the game, the game is itemized with this in mind. So it is assumed that a certain number of players will buy a FBSS sash for example. There is simply no way that every single melee character is going to go to that one mob and get it personally.
The problem with this is that not everyone likes trading. But trading becomes necessary to stay on par. Personally, I usually find myself getting sucked into the trade world, despite that I generally dislike it. It just becomes too efficient to ignore.
The question really is, should itemization be designed with trade in mind?
In before those quotes get twisted into meaning he always believed that trade was broken rather than what they clearly say: in EQ, trade was a legitimate means of advancement that took "time and effort."
Oh what a tangled web he weaves.
Dullahan is stating a straw man. I encourage any of you to go back through my posts (in this thread and the TLC thread), and read the discussion. When you do, you will see that I argued that player trade does not provide proper risk vs reward balance.
Dullahan is misleading you people by claiming that player trade is balanced because he deviously defines its balance based on "time and effort" and purposefully ignores risk that is major part of that balance equation and one of the key elements of my position in this discussion.
You want to summarize me Dullahan, do it with some integrity and honesty.
Trade fundamentally impacts game play, no matter how much time you spend personally doing it. When there are lots of valuable items that can be traded in the game, the game is itemized with this in mind. So it is assumed that a certain number of players will buy a FBSS sash for example. There is simply no way that every single melee character is going to go to that one mob and get it personally.
The problem with this is that not everyone likes trading. But trading becomes necessary to stay on par. Personally, I usually find myself getting sucked into the trade world, despite that I generally dislike it. It just becomes too efficient to ignore.
The question really is, should itemization be designed with trade in mind?
Your very argument is exactly the point I am making. You call it "efficiency", but what that means is that the risk vs reward balance is not properly established between the two, which is why you get "sucked" into it. That is, getting the item via the trade market is a circumvention of the game play that you admit is "less efficient", not properly balanced. Obviously this is more "efficient" as the player does not have to meet the required design structure of risk/reward balance of obtaining it through the games content.
As for your question, trade should be designed to be part of the game system, and not simply a non-game element that is not factored into the games systems.
The problem here, is that too many people like the advantage that the trade market provides in its content circumvention and so any suggestions is met with hostility because they like the "efficiency" it provides over getting it themselves.
This problem can't be solved until people recognize that a disconnected player trade market is simply an accepted form of character advancement that circumvents the content itself and an imbalanced system of reward acquisition.
The issue here isn't that people want something like this, that they enjoy the circumvention, the means of "efficiency" that the system provides, rather it is the attempts to redefine it as something different so people can make themselves feel better about what is really going on.
While I disagree with a person who supports RMT or any other form of content circumvention system, I can respect their position. What I can't respect are people who claim they want risk/reward balance, claim they want the old school values of achieving this balance in consequence based play and then adamantly defend concepts that are contrary to that goal. It is completely dishonest.
It's your call mate. Gonna be rather dull around here. You know it's not just in this forum? Mmorpg.com has been a flame fest for as long as I can remember. And I've been here a long time (coming up on "ancient" lol). I wouldn't draw any conclusions over the fate of Pantheon from the overall tone of these boards. Besides, you have to admit you have thrown a jab or two now and then?
None of what's happening here has been a "flamefest". Its the rest of us getting sick and tired of Sinist's "I'm right, your wrong, and no amount of logic, rational thought, etc, is going to change my mind".
The guy really should submit an application to be a "spinner" for a politician or company executive, etc, he would be absolutely fantastic at it.
You wanna know the best part. Before this thread and the shitstorm of the other thread, he actually wasn't that hardcore about it, he just decided this was gonna be his magnum opus issue, and like always that means alarmist language and overblowing reality.
"Exactly! We have to consider every aspect of the game as form of game play with pros/cons, risk(effort)/reward. Trading is no different. Having to put effort into the trading creates opportunities for those who are willing to work for a result. This will effect how people sell and the effort they put into it for the return. Some may choose to forego the activity because it is too much of an effort, while others may spend most of their time doing it. Me personally, I can't stand trading for hours, I would rather be adventuring so I usually end up passing off my items to friends in need, or tossing it to some new player. I am not a big fan of buying my way through the game, even if it is with game money, but that is just me. "
"There really is no way to avoid this, as someone can just buy a second account, but I really would like to see them not cater to these types of conveniences. Convenience with the AH game leads to it becoming a fast money gimmick for every player. In the early days, people had to put effort to become wealthy in the trade game while these days, every type of convenience is afforded the player through automated systems, easy storage, etc..."
As for your point.. "All in all I don't really play roleplaying games to be a merchant.", that is the thing, if people don't like to do it, don't want to put the time to it, should they really be catered to when there are people who do play the games for that style of play? Everything should be a weight of time and effort as such systems is what creates the benefit of any selection of focus. It is why I also hope that Pantheon contains many skills that only level through play (as they did in EQ and how UO had them as well). The reason for such is because it also puts a balance of benefit on those who would choose to adventure. In that way, they guy that masters trade and becomes excessively rich maybe be able to buy their gear, but they still have to spend the time and effort to increase skills. It is a nice pro/con effort/reward system."
This shows that he actually had a reasonable stance that most of us agreed with. Basically that while he personally doesn't like player trade, at least in games like EQ people had to put time and effort into it to be "successful" and that the AH was the primary culprit of allowing the RMT'ers, and AH gimmicks, etc.
This then morphed into the "earning" gear BS and the "buying progression" BS, and everything else that ensued. Nobody in either of these threads was suggesting we "cater" to this type of behavior, as a matter of fact, exactly the opposite. We were arguing that we should highly promote grouping and getting gear in dungeons, where the disconnect was is that we are ok with someone doing it "the other" way, provided its much less efficient, etc, than doing it the "proper" way.
As I said, he just wanted a big ass pedestal to stand on and preach from.
I sought proper risk/reward balance, you argued against that numerous times.
Remember your arguments about casual/new players? Hmm?
Remember your arguments about how players should have more options and that grinding for cash is just another option of advancement?
Time and effort is not all of what risk/reward is.
I explained to you many times that a person grinding content for cash, or playing the player trade gimmicks, is not the same as a person having to go to the content, defeat it and obtain the item themselves.
So you and Dullahan can dishonestly argue that it is "equal" effort, but you avoid that effort is not the same as risk, which is why you and him never attend to it. Raidian tried to, but it pushed his argument into a corner where he had to defend with poorly supported reasoning (ie saying reward is more than item rewards, but fluffy concepts of self worth, and that should count for more!)..
Risk/reward is not "effort" entirely, which is why in the quote above I state "risk(effort)/reward" rather than simply stating "effort/reward". Player trade has no risk, it is simply an effort/reward concept and that being equal even in itself I would dispute (but I avoided in the arguments we had, as risk imbalance is a more clear point). So no, grinding for cash is not not the same as doing the content to get that item and no amount of your accusations, fallacies, and poorly contrived rationalizations will establish this. We even went over this numerous times with Raidian and Dullahan, so your attempt to try and say that my position is a 180 is false.
Also, I brought up numerous solutions to how trading can be more of a game system that allows the developers more control AND can have elements of risk added to it. All of you argued against it on all fronts, using your "optional/alternative" play dismissal, or the plea for the poor casual/new players. Your argument absolutely "caters" that behavior. You are "catering" to allowing players to circumvent content (risk/reward) in order to buy ones way up the market. I see it, many others do as well, heck... even the mainstream players see it, they just aren't in denial, they think such bypass should exist.
You and others here though, you want take sides on both sides of the coin.
I have a great solution. You and your buddies, off to ignore you go. I can continue to discuss with people who actually have an interest and you can protest as you like, without any of my concern.
If you played enough MMORPGs, you should know by now that any attempts to solve economic issues is a waste of time as long as there's a cash shop. Someone mentioned that one player will grind for hours to get the gold to buy x item, while another player will craft and gather for hours to get the gold to buy x item, but you got Mr Smarty Pants over there that will put 10$ on the cash shop on popular cash shop items and make 10x the gold in 5 minutes. So yeah, good luck fixing the economy in a MMORPG.
If you played enough MMORPGs, you should know by now that any attempts to solve economic issues is a waste of time as long as there's a cash shop. Someone mentioned that one player will grind for hours to get the gold to buy x item, while another player will craft and gather for hours to get the gold to buy x item, but you got Mr Smarty Pants over there that will put 10$ on the cash shop on popular cash shop items and make 10x the gold in 5 minutes. So yeah, good luck fixing the economy in a MMORPG.
Can't solve a problem when players refuse to accept that their actions are the problem. That is why I related this to the RMT issue. If you have ever argued against a position of RMT in a game that allows it, you get the same objections and hostility that we have seen by some here. They don't see it as a problem, they don't see how it harms game play, they see it as some form of "alternative" play where people have "options" and their effort of stacking widgets for hours on end is proper risk/reward to that of a player who successfully completes the content with all the elements of risk, effort, etc... that the widget stacker avoids.
That is why I think it is ironic. You see people go on and on about how RMT is PTW and circumvents game play, but then stretch and twist to claim that players trading items between each other in the game (which achieves the very same result) is somehow different because they mundanely farmed plat for hours rather than buying it from a plat seller. /facepalm
In before those quotes get twisted into meaning he always believed that trade was broken rather than what they clearly say: in EQ, trade was a legitimate means of advancement that took "time and effort."
Oh what a tangled web he weaves.
Dullahan is stating a straw man. I encourage any of you to go back through my posts (in this thread and the TLC thread), and read the discussion. When you do, you will see that I argued that player trade does not provide proper risk vs reward balance.
Dullahan is misleading you people by claiming that player trade is balanced because he deviously defines its balance based on "time and effort" and purposefully ignores risk that is major part of that balance equation and one of the key elements of my position in this discussion.
You want to summarize me Dullahan, do it with some integrity and honesty.
All you risk in an MMO IS time. Therefore, if success as a trader takes time (which you claim it does), there is risk involved.
Another interesting thing about in game currency. Why would anyone give another player currency in exchange for an item? The only reason is the same as in real life, which is that currency corresponds to something of value (once a fort full of gold, and now the "full faith and credit" of a nation). If you sell something you can use the coin to buy something else you desire more.
But in a game there is no fort full of gold or any real place to give full credit. So there have to be things you can buy in the game with coin from the game company that are highly desirable and expensive. A mount. Housing. Crafting materials. A gem needed to complete a major quest. There has to be something, or else currency is flat worthless and no one will give you items for coin.
Which means that the game expressly contemplates the use of coin to purchase expensive and highly desirable items. Trading is not cheating. It is a game necessity if there is to be coin at all.
But, and where I agree with Sinist, there still ought to be limitations on the trading of loot obtained from difficult and challenging encounters, or else the obtainment of the rewards from those encounters becomes trivialized. Having the best armor from killing the most dangerous dragon will feel less like an achievement if your buddy got the same loot on the AH from farming and selling spider silks.
Traditionally there have been checks and balances on such highly prized adventure items, such as making them no drop. Problem solved. The only way to get certain items is to complete the encounter or the quest.
But the Pantheon FAQ states:
"This means that no-drop and bind-on-equip items will be the exception, not the rule. Epic weapons or items used for quests may be restricted, but the majority of items will not."
Take careful note of that because it means Pantheon will not be like many games which posters in this thread have compared it to, and suggested that everyone has long since come to accept.
According to the FAQ, unless an item is Epic (and I'm not sure if that means a level of item, like a "Purple" or "Orange," or whether it means the product of an epic quest), you may see it being traded.
That is where people can have valid concerns that adventure content will be bypassed and people will just farm and buy whatever goods the server's largest guilds have on lock down.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
All you risk in an MMO IS time. Therefore, if success as a trader takes time (which you claim it does), there is risk involved.
Let it go.
Wait... so everything in an MMO is just "time"? There is no skill?
You get that people? There is no such thing as risk (ie the chance of loss based on ones ability to succeed), which means there is no such thing as skill: "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: "
You see, MMOs are just activities where stupid people do mundane things over and over without skill or any such delineation of effort to earn progress, or so Mr. Dullahan states, which is why... there is no difference between your effort in a dungeon and that of a guy farming mundane mobs for coin. You both are "equal" in your efforts! Rejoice in such! Never mind the guy sitting with his feet up drinking a soda and eating Dorritos, watching TV while he farms "cash". You see.... he is putting in the same effort as you, because you... you are not taking "risk" (it does not exist according to Dullahan) and you are most certainly not applying anymore skill than the guy with his feet up, you are both playing the game and "earning" your progression "equally".
Another interesting thing about in game currency. Why would anyone give another player currency in exchange for an item? The only reason is the same as in real life, which is that currency corresponds to something of value (once a fort full of gold, and now the "full faith and credit" of a nation). If you sell something you can use the coin to buy something else you desire more.
But in a game there is no fort full of gold or any real place to give full credit. So there have to be things you can buy in the game with coin from the game company that are highly desirable and expensive. A mount. Housing. Crafting materials. A gem needed to complete a major quest. There has to be something, or else currency is flat worthless and no one will give you items for coin.
Which means that the game expressly contemplates the use of coin to purchase expensive and highly desirable items. Trading is not cheating. It is a game necessity if there is to be coin at all.
But, and where I agree with Sinist, there still ought to be limitations on the trading of loot obtained from difficult and challenging encounters, or else the obtainment of the rewards from those encounters becomes trivialized. Having the best armor from killing the most dangerous dragon will feel less like an achievement if your buddy got the same loot on the AH from farming and selling spider silks.
Traditionally there have been checks and balances on such highly prized adventure items, such as making them no drop. Problem solved. The only way to get certain items is to complete the encounter or the quest.
But the Pantheon FAQ states:
"This means that no-drop and bind-on-equip items will be the exception, not the rule. Epic weapons or items used for quests may be restricted, but the majority of items will not."
Take careful note of that because it means Pantheon will not be like many games which posters in this thread have compared it to, and suggested that everyone has long since come to accept.
According to the FAQ, unless an item is Epic (and I'm not sure if that means a level of item, like a "Purple" or "Orange," or whether it means the product of an epic quest), you may see it being traded.
That is where people can have valid concerns that adventure content will be bypassed and people will just farm and buy whatever goods the server's largest guilds have on lock down.
Good points Amathe and yes... this is (and was counter to peoples claims in early EQ) an issue as people did bypass content by buying it.
Also, as I asked before... what justifies making epic and raid content non-traded while not with group content rares and the like? Either fully traded items is acceptable, or it is not. You can't say it is "wrong" for the epic/raid ones and then say it is acceptable for group as all that says is that raiders and epic quests (usually involving raids anyway) are more important, that their risk is more important than that of a group player.
One can't take both sides as it makes them look ridiculous in their position.
Edit:
I wanted to add a bit more and discuss the first part of your comments, about currency and the need to spend it on something.
If you remember in EQ, there was things to spend currency on. EQ released without a player trade system, so all it had was a vendor based economy. Remember how little you made in your adventures and how expensive things were? Remember how much coin it took to buy plate armor or even an item someone sold to a vendor? Remember the costs of potions, gems for crafting, etc... from the vendors? They were insanely high priced.
Now why is that? It was because they balanced the amount of coin you earned to what they felt was proper for your purchase. Health potions were never supposed to be bought in bulk by the average player. Plate armor had nice AC, with no stats, but it was not intended that you be able to buy up gear as a form of basic progression in the game easily (a fully plate armored character early on was a massive power house, regardless if the armor was magical or not).
So there was a system to spend money on, but... the problem with the player trade market was that it allowed players to bypass that intended earning progression. What they initially designed based on an evaluation of plat dropping per mob, was imbalanced by bulk based currency collection and the ability for players to buy content via such. RMT worked hand in hand with this by pushing a massive influx of cash into the game. Heck, I remember seeing the devs scrambling to adjust vendor prices because players all of a sudden had massive amounts of cash.
But wait, why would they do that?
Player trade has tons of issues, tons of problems and in my opinion harms the game far more than it ever provided in game play throughout the years. That doesn't mean the concept of player trade is bad, merely it is the result of the unrestricted form of it and the lack of bringing it into the games systems.
This major disconnect you see between the NPC systems and the player trade market is because there is no "reality" in the player trade market. It exists without consequence, without means of reality as it concerns the other game systems, which is why it continues to be a major detriment. Until they tie player trade into the game systems, there will always be this imbalance.
Another point I want to bring out is that the reason you see so many objections to these arguments is because those objecting do not see player trade as imbalanced. That is why any discussion about creating risk/reward, tying the trade system into game play to any choice and consequence form of play is greatly resisted. To them, trade is perfectly balanced and working well to their idea of what a game system should be.
Which is why games that continue to apply these concepts continue to have failing economies and why Pantheon will as well. You can't solve a problem if you keep excusing the cause of it and player trade is the cause of the severe economic failures and numerous game abuses that occur in game systems.
Honestly, I've always liked carebear loot systems, or individualized loot systems I suppose. I'll further clarify. WoW recently started doing it in MoP (if I'm not mistaken) and FFXI did it years before there where people would get their own loot on certain things (raids etc) rather than competing against others and getting ninja lotted etc. The relevence is that I would like to see that on more things so it influences others to keep grouping up out of efficiency which can create social events. Most games have a grind or farm to get money so it might as well be fun, sorta how GW2 had the trains and everyone could get their own loot/level up etc. To the point, people that help each other should be rewarded so it can make them want to help. Most people dont want to help others if they dont get anything from it anyway.
Honestly, I've always liked carebear loot systems, or individualized loot systems I suppose. I'll further clarify. WoW recently started doing it in MoP (if I'm not mistaken) and FFXI did it years before there where people would get their own loot on certain things (raids etc) rather than competing against others and getting ninja lotted etc. The relevence is that I would like to see that on more things so it influences others to keep grouping up out of efficiency which can create social events. Most games have a grind or farm to get money so it might as well be fun, sorta how GW2 had the trains and everyone could get their own loot/level up etc. To the point, people that help each other should be rewarded so it can make them want to help. Most people dont want to help others if they dont get anything from it anyway.
That is kind of counter to the whole concept of this game though. The idea is that what a person has is related to their efforts in the world to obtain it. It is what gave early EQ (before people started buying their progression) value in accomplishment. If you obtained an item, had a given look, etc... it was a status of earning progression. That is why buying an item turned the whole system into a joke. I mean, who really cares that some guy has a certain look when any idiot grinding cash or someone buying plat online can obtain the same thing? Kind of defeats the point don't you think?
I am not saying that games that do attend to the "everyone is a winner" type of loot approach is "wrong", obviously that is a subjective issue, but it is certainly wrong in a game that wants individual achievement to have any meaning and I think we can reasonably agree, buying ones item from another is not equivalent to that of the one who earned it themselves?
So... the issue here becomes... how do you make the player trade concept at least equal in risk/reward (ie skill, effort, etc...) to that of the one who seeks it out themselves. A trade system that lives in reality (or at least attempts to emulate it) would go a long way to accomplishing that.
The crazy levels in this thread are at astronomical values. Pretty soon we'll be debating black holes and dark energy and show the rest of the world how some neckbeards behind monitors can solve the worlds mysteries.
Trade is a system that is so integral to an MMORPG that removing it or tweaking it can have some extremely serious side effects, and the level of flippant discussion about it without regard to the consequences of such changes makes nothing in here credible in the least. As is said, don't fix what ISN'T BROKEN to 95% of the players who are expecting to play Pantheon when it could BREAK the game without considering ALL repercussions.
I feel that this task, whether it be necessary or not, is not worth the risk for Pantheon to change, considering their budget, scope, and target audience.
Not gonna read wall of text and not sorry. I dont see any problem at all with any auction house trading. Not even the idea of buying and reselling. The only problem I see is if someone monopolizes the spawn so he can monopolize the market. Otherwise its all good.
Another point I want to bring out is that the reason you see so many objections to these arguments is because those objecting do not see player trade as imbalanced. That is why any discussion about creating risk/reward, tying the trade system into game play to any choice and consequence form of play is greatly resisted. To them, trade is perfectly balanced and working well to their idea of what a game system should be.
Which is why games that continue to apply these concepts continue to have failing economies and why Pantheon will as well. You can't solve a problem if you keep excusing the cause of it and player trade is the cause of the severe economic failures and numerous game abuses that occur in game systems.
Yes, the games success will hinge completely on its trade system.
Do you even realize how absurd the statements you keep making are? Honestly? I'm seriously asking.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Comments
Sometimes it seems like people think Brad McQuaid is absurdly suggestible, to where if someone posts that we should all wear pointy hats, then Brad would automatically start coding hats. Brad's a pretty smart guy and a grown man to boot, so that fear I think is unwarranted. Hell I spent years in EQ posting that rangers ought to have epic bows, not swords lol. I got nuthin. Trust me he's not putty in anyone's hands.
Also keep in mind that the intent to keep economies localized and the seeming intent to allow more items to be tradeable than in some previous games add new considerations to trade systems that are worth discussing.
P.S. I also don't get rage quitting a game that hasn't even been made yet? Based on one or two people's opinions on an unofficial message board? Chill dude. Maybe take a break or something and then come back.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Like I said, not interested in that circus act yet again. I think I am done with MMO gaming completely, It isn't worth the effort.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Yes, I have thrown a jab or two, that I do not deny, but there is a difference between taking pot shot from time to time, to trolling and stalking to try and shut down a topic with "OMG THIS WILL DESTROY THE GAME!!! ARRRG!" and then making up completely bullshit summaries of my position in order to get people to think that I am supporting something I am not.
You saw that my discussion here was not demanding and it was just spit balling. One has to be entirely irrational, illogical, and often immature to think continuing these attacks is justified or valid in the face of the issues. I expected resistance from people on this site, I expected childish behavior from people on this site, I did not expect that from the core Pantheon supporters.
What is even more astounding is you have people like Distopia who makes it no secret that they support mainstream gaming design in here willing to discuss civilly on actual design concepts that are counter to mainstream design goals all the while several Pantheon supporters, who claim to support the games tenants, to support the old school design are throwing tantrums and acting like a bunch of WoW players at any discussion that might get in the way of their golden goose.
That is what is truly amazing here and not what I expected.
None of what's happening here has been a "flamefest". Its the rest of us getting sick and tired of Sinist's "I'm right, your wrong, and no amount of logic, rational thought, etc, is going to change my mind".
The guy really should submit an application to be a "spinner" for a politician or company executive, etc, he would be absolutely fantastic at it.
You wanna know the best part. Before this thread and the shitstorm of the other thread, he actually wasn't that hardcore about it, he just decided this was gonna be his magnum opus issue, and like always that means alarmist language and overblowing reality.
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/441137/environment-based-character-development/p5
and the post right below it:
This shows that he actually had a reasonable stance that most of us agreed with. Basically that while he personally doesn't like player trade, at least in games like EQ people had to put time and effort into it to be "successful" and that the AH was the primary culprit of allowing the RMT'ers, and AH gimmicks, etc.
This then morphed into the "earning" gear BS and the "buying progression" BS, and everything else that ensued. Nobody in either of these threads was suggesting we "cater" to this type of behavior, as a matter of fact, exactly the opposite. We were arguing that we should highly promote grouping and getting gear in dungeons, where the disconnect was is that we are ok with someone doing it "the other" way, provided its much less efficient, etc, than doing it the "proper" way.
As I said, he just wanted a big ass pedestal to stand on and preach from.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Oh what a tangled web he weaves.
This is gonna be long so I'll try to keep it somewhat entertaining therefore please feel free to click the links.
Let's start here. In real life there is no such thing as a "magical" sword. There are cheap, poorly constructed swords that tend to break, (as shown here)
https://youtu.be/2kFgeZtkAb8
There are well crafted, heavy, hardy swords that do not break but are not always the most practical or efficient weapons in the field. (as shown here)
https://youtu.be/meAwcOISC-U
There are "pretty" but completely impractical swords that can be either/or (such as shown here).
http://www.fableblades.com/SwordsFantasy.html
And there are finely crafted, highly functional, practical, and attractive balances between all of those things such as those featured here (and this is not an advertisement, it is simply the truth.)
http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm
The mistakes that we make with the trade systems in our MMORPG's is that we do not subscribe to a few simple and single truth's.
Truth #1. All swords have to be crafted by someone. They require raw materials and skill both of which much be acquired and will affect the functionality of the sword.
Truth #2 The gathering of raw materials and the skill required to create such items is labor intensive. (This is where the gold farmers usually make out because their whole purpose to do be the scrubbing bubbles that work hard so you don't have to.)
Truth #3 No matter how finely crafted a sword is it will most likely, under wear and tear or poor maintenance, deteriorate or break.
Truth #4 If you go out and try to fight a dog with a sword and that dog gets the best of you, odds are you are going to drop that sword. If it kills you, you are going to drop everything.
So the MMORPG has to strike a balance between the mundane gathering of resources, learning of skill, maintenance of the item, and reality of loss and/or breakage and deterioration and boring it's players completely to deal with the real reality of how these things work in real life.
The farther it goes to make things easy on players, such as creating unbreakable, magically powered weapons that enhance the players abilities beyond that of their own acquired skills the easier it's systems become to exploit. This is because in doing these things the developer sets up a linear path towards that "best in slot" item that most players will skip through and circumvent through and exploit in order to attain that "best in slot item".
A proper system of trade however would pull WAY back on this kind of itemization and focus on the skills and abilities of the player instead. Items would be practical and desired, and in some cases even fancy, but all enhancements above and beyond durability and ascetics would reside within the individual players and be perishable, instead of residing within the particular piece of gear.
Imagine this then. Players who can enhance weapons with charges of this and that but only at the cost of certain skills and resources, both that could be depleted without maintenance, that said player would have to attain at the cost of time and effort on that player or that players associates part.
It's complicated yeah, but it could work.
Farmers still have a life but that life would have to be maintained and even then, if the server permissions such as how many character slots per account, no free to play setup where players can just make multiple accounts, and so on were set up properly, those farmers would still have to purchase multiple accounts and/or slots, as well as maintain them all, in order to set up shop.
In fact, in a system where you might drop your weapon or have your armor chewed up every time you went out, a farmer might even be a preferred player on some servers.
But then there comes the topic of the Auction House.
Now I gotta tell you, I have NEVER liked the idea of an ever ready Walmart styled shopping center that sits within a medieval MMORPG. It's just a stupid concept and something that I believe took hold out of the hubris of the folks that came up with the idea, and exploited later on by the folks that figured out a way to monetize it rather than something that any of us really needed.
..... continued next post.
That central auction house deal then? I'd throw that away.
So now you have the industry actually acting more like a real life industry. Crafter's have to sacrifice time to craft. Resource farmers have to sacrifice time to gather resources. Enchanters, smith's, bowyers, etc.. have to sacrifice time to learn enchantments and designs, as well as gather resources and maintain their skills in order to enchant, craft, strengthen, and beautify things. And even then their enchantments are only finite in the form of charges and their strengthening subject to wear and tear.
Players rely more on their training rather than their gear to get things done. Training does NOT come that easily and is only slightly rewarding when it does. And items and gear still have a purpose in spite of the fact that they might break, get lost, get taken, and subsequently can end up in the hands of another player for the simple fact that player B (or player B and his or her friends) were able to kill the adversary that took the item or items that player A (or player A and his or her friends) could not.
Finaly, and this is the coup de grace, for all of this to work. Currency must be eliminated and the barter system initiated.
See, the problem that a lot of trade systems make is that they run on currency, which is a hard enough thing for the real world to keep straight. Barter, however, is much more clean. And in a system where time = money, like I said before, the gold farmer can still flourish. That farmer, however, would have to pay the subscription model fee per account to do so and so whatever real money transaction they were taking out of it at least the company would still be getting it's cut.
Who cares if some whale want to go out and spend their hard earned cash on an item or items that are only going to last them a short time anyway in a world where everyone has to be careful about what they do with their stuff? I don't think they could keep up anyway, and that would help even the score between the players who would want to play the game in the fashion that it was designed and those who would rather skip through things in order to (whatever excuse they are using these days, catch up, not waste time, whatever).
On top of this, the lack of skill that the average whale has anyway would just populate the beasts of the land with a better loot table for the rest of the population to go after.
And why kill the beasts if they have no loot you ask? Resources of course. Resources and the experience needed to become better at killing that kind of beast.
As long as the edge remained securely placed within the individual players, and there was no way to circumvent what was needed in order to attain the skills to produce that edge (i.e. macro bots meant to specifically power level characters, etc...) I think everyone could probably get along with some degree of this system.
Of course you would have to really sit down and tweak it a little in order to keep in entertaining. But there are a couple of games out there already that are SERIOUSLY close to operating in this fashion anyway. The only problem is that they use these systems to be pay to win instead of play to win.
So yeah, that was completely out of my ass.
Ok, shields down. Fire when ready.
The problem with this is that not everyone likes trading. But trading becomes necessary to stay on par. Personally, I usually find myself getting sucked into the trade world, despite that I generally dislike it. It just becomes too efficient to ignore.
The question really is, should itemization be designed with trade in mind?
Dullahan is misleading you people by claiming that player trade is balanced because he deviously defines its balance based on "time and effort" and purposefully ignores risk that is major part of that balance equation and one of the key elements of my position in this discussion.
You want to summarize me Dullahan, do it with some integrity and honesty.
Your very argument is exactly the point I am making. You call it "efficiency", but what that means is that the risk vs reward balance is not properly established between the two, which is why you get "sucked" into it. That is, getting the item via the trade market is a circumvention of the game play that you admit is "less efficient", not properly balanced. Obviously this is more "efficient" as the player does not have to meet the required design structure of risk/reward balance of obtaining it through the games content.
As for your question, trade should be designed to be part of the game system, and not simply a non-game element that is not factored into the games systems.
The problem here, is that too many people like the advantage that the trade market provides in its content circumvention and so any suggestions is met with hostility because they like the "efficiency" it provides over getting it themselves.
This problem can't be solved until people recognize that a disconnected player trade market is simply an accepted form of character advancement that circumvents the content itself and an imbalanced system of reward acquisition.
The issue here isn't that people want something like this, that they enjoy the circumvention, the means of "efficiency" that the system provides, rather it is the attempts to redefine it as something different so people can make themselves feel better about what is really going on.
While I disagree with a person who supports RMT or any other form of content circumvention system, I can respect their position. What I can't respect are people who claim they want risk/reward balance, claim they want the old school values of achieving this balance in consequence based play and then adamantly defend concepts that are contrary to that goal. It is completely dishonest.
and the post right below it:
This shows that he actually had a reasonable stance that most of us agreed with. Basically that while he personally doesn't like player trade, at least in games like EQ people had to put time and effort into it to be "successful" and that the AH was the primary culprit of allowing the RMT'ers, and AH gimmicks, etc.
This then morphed into the "earning" gear BS and the "buying progression" BS, and everything else that ensued. Nobody in either of these threads was suggesting we "cater" to this type of behavior, as a matter of fact, exactly the opposite. We were arguing that we should highly promote grouping and getting gear in dungeons, where the disconnect was is that we are ok with someone doing it "the other" way, provided its much less efficient, etc, than doing it the "proper" way.
As I said, he just wanted a big ass pedestal to stand on and preach from.
I sought proper risk/reward balance, you argued against that numerous times.Remember your arguments about casual/new players? Hmm?
Remember your arguments about how players should have more options and that grinding for cash is just another option of advancement?
Time and effort is not all of what risk/reward is.
I explained to you many times that a person grinding content for cash, or playing the player trade gimmicks, is not the same as a person having to go to the content, defeat it and obtain the item themselves.
So you and Dullahan can dishonestly argue that it is "equal" effort, but you avoid that effort is not the same as risk, which is why you and him never attend to it. Raidian tried to, but it pushed his argument into a corner where he had to defend with poorly supported reasoning (ie saying reward is more than item rewards, but fluffy concepts of self worth, and that should count for more!)..
Risk/reward is not "effort" entirely, which is why in the quote above I state "risk(effort)/reward" rather than simply stating "effort/reward". Player trade has no risk, it is simply an effort/reward concept and that being equal even in itself I would dispute (but I avoided in the arguments we had, as risk imbalance is a more clear point). So no, grinding for cash is not not the same as doing the content to get that item and no amount of your accusations, fallacies, and poorly contrived rationalizations will establish this. We even went over this numerous times with Raidian and Dullahan, so your attempt to try and say that my position is a 180 is false.
Also, I brought up numerous solutions to how trading can be more of a game system that allows the developers more control AND can have elements of risk added to it. All of you argued against it on all fronts, using your "optional/alternative" play dismissal, or the plea for the poor casual/new players. Your argument absolutely "caters" that behavior. You are "catering" to allowing players to circumvent content (risk/reward) in order to buy ones way up the market. I see it, many others do as well, heck... even the mainstream players see it, they just aren't in denial, they think such bypass should exist.
You and others here though, you want take sides on both sides of the coin.
I have a great solution. You and your buddies, off to ignore you go. I can continue to discuss with people who actually have an interest and you can protest as you like, without any of my concern.
Bye!
Can't solve a problem when players refuse to accept that their actions are the problem. That is why I related this to the RMT issue. If you have ever argued against a position of RMT in a game that allows it, you get the same objections and hostility that we have seen by some here. They don't see it as a problem, they don't see how it harms game play, they see it as some form of "alternative" play where people have "options" and their effort of stacking widgets for hours on end is proper risk/reward to that of a player who successfully completes the content with all the elements of risk, effort, etc... that the widget stacker avoids.
That is why I think it is ironic. You see people go on and on about how RMT is PTW and circumvents game play, but then stretch and twist to claim that players trading items between each other in the game (which achieves the very same result) is somehow different because they mundanely farmed plat for hours rather than buying it from a plat seller. /facepalm
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Let it go.
But in a game there is no fort full of gold or any real place to give full credit. So there have to be things you can buy in the game with coin from the game company that are highly desirable and expensive. A mount. Housing. Crafting materials. A gem needed to complete a major quest. There has to be something, or else currency is flat worthless and no one will give you items for coin.
Which means that the game expressly contemplates the use of coin to purchase expensive and highly desirable items. Trading is not cheating. It is a game necessity if there is to be coin at all.
But, and where I agree with Sinist, there still ought to be limitations on the trading of loot obtained from difficult and challenging encounters, or else the obtainment of the rewards from those encounters becomes trivialized. Having the best armor from killing the most dangerous dragon will feel less like an achievement if your buddy got the same loot on the AH from farming and selling spider silks.
Traditionally there have been checks and balances on such highly prized adventure items, such as making them no drop. Problem solved. The only way to get certain items is to complete the encounter or the quest.
But the Pantheon FAQ states:
"This means that no-drop and bind-on-equip items will be the exception, not the rule. Epic weapons or items used for quests may be restricted, but the majority of items will not."
Take careful note of that because it means Pantheon will not be like many games which posters in this thread have compared it to, and suggested that everyone has long since come to accept.
According to the FAQ, unless an item is Epic (and I'm not sure if that means a level of item, like a "Purple" or "Orange," or whether it means the product of an epic quest), you may see it being traded.
That is where people can have valid concerns that adventure content will be bypassed and people will just farm and buy whatever goods the server's largest guilds have on lock down.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
You get that people? There is no such thing as risk (ie the chance of loss based on ones ability to succeed), which means there is no such thing as skill: "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: "
You see, MMOs are just activities where stupid people do mundane things over and over without skill or any such delineation of effort to earn progress, or so Mr. Dullahan states, which is why... there is no difference between your effort in a dungeon and that of a guy farming mundane mobs for coin. You both are "equal" in your efforts! Rejoice in such! Never mind the guy sitting with his feet up drinking a soda and eating Dorritos, watching TV while he farms "cash". You see.... he is putting in the same effort as you, because you... you are not taking "risk" (it does not exist according to Dullahan) and you are most certainly not applying anymore skill than the guy with his feet up, you are both playing the game and "earning" your progression "equally".
Learn to reason. /boggle
Also, as I asked before... what justifies making epic and raid content non-traded while not with group content rares and the like? Either fully traded items is acceptable, or it is not. You can't say it is "wrong" for the epic/raid ones and then say it is acceptable for group as all that says is that raiders and epic quests (usually involving raids anyway) are more important, that their risk is more important than that of a group player.
One can't take both sides as it makes them look ridiculous in their position.
Edit:
I wanted to add a bit more and discuss the first part of your comments, about currency and the need to spend it on something.
If you remember in EQ, there was things to spend currency on. EQ released without a player trade system, so all it had was a vendor based economy. Remember how little you made in your adventures and how expensive things were? Remember how much coin it took to buy plate armor or even an item someone sold to a vendor? Remember the costs of potions, gems for crafting, etc... from the vendors? They were insanely high priced.
Now why is that? It was because they balanced the amount of coin you earned to what they felt was proper for your purchase. Health potions were never supposed to be bought in bulk by the average player. Plate armor had nice AC, with no stats, but it was not intended that you be able to buy up gear as a form of basic progression in the game easily (a fully plate armored character early on was a massive power house, regardless if the armor was magical or not).
So there was a system to spend money on, but... the problem with the player trade market was that it allowed players to bypass that intended earning progression. What they initially designed based on an evaluation of plat dropping per mob, was imbalanced by bulk based currency collection and the ability for players to buy content via such. RMT worked hand in hand with this by pushing a massive influx of cash into the game. Heck, I remember seeing the devs scrambling to adjust vendor prices because players all of a sudden had massive amounts of cash.
But wait, why would they do that?
Player trade has tons of issues, tons of problems and in my opinion harms the game far more than it ever provided in game play throughout the years. That doesn't mean the concept of player trade is bad, merely it is the result of the unrestricted form of it and the lack of bringing it into the games systems.
This major disconnect you see between the NPC systems and the player trade market is because there is no "reality" in the player trade market. It exists without consequence, without means of reality as it concerns the other game systems, which is why it continues to be a major detriment. Until they tie player trade into the game systems, there will always be this imbalance.
Which is why games that continue to apply these concepts continue to have failing economies and why Pantheon will as well. You can't solve a problem if you keep excusing the cause of it and player trade is the cause of the severe economic failures and numerous game abuses that occur in game systems.
I am not saying that games that do attend to the "everyone is a winner" type of loot approach is "wrong", obviously that is a subjective issue, but it is certainly wrong in a game that wants individual achievement to have any meaning and I think we can reasonably agree, buying ones item from another is not equivalent to that of the one who earned it themselves?
So... the issue here becomes... how do you make the player trade concept at least equal in risk/reward (ie skill, effort, etc...) to that of the one who seeks it out themselves. A trade system that lives in reality (or at least attempts to emulate it) would go a long way to accomplishing that.
Trade is a system that is so integral to an MMORPG that removing it or tweaking it can have some extremely serious side effects, and the level of flippant discussion about it without regard to the consequences of such changes makes nothing in here credible in the least. As is said, don't fix what ISN'T BROKEN to 95% of the players who are expecting to play Pantheon when it could BREAK the game without considering ALL repercussions.
I feel that this task, whether it be necessary or not, is not worth the risk for Pantheon to change, considering their budget, scope, and target audience.
I dont see any problem at all with any auction house trading. Not even the idea of buying and reselling. The only problem I see is if someone monopolizes the spawn so he can monopolize the market. Otherwise its all good.
Do you even realize how absurd the statements you keep making are? Honestly? I'm seriously asking.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche