In a game that specifically states that "greater risk, should provide greater reward" and hammers the concepts of proper risk/reward balance, the act of player trading bypassing that is a direct violation of those goals of this game and the stated intent of its design.
Fair enough, I understand your stance - but the quoted point is why I'll end my back and forth with you as we disagree fundamentally on what constitutes content bypass and we won't budge on our views. I view player trade as alternative style or emergent gameplay within the confines of the game. The only way I feel that content was bypassed in EQ with player trade was by twinks buying a Fungi tunic and due to them becoming severely overpowered it trivialized content; whereas, you do irregardless of the scenario, and I do understand your reasons for it - I just don't agree.
In a game that specifically states that "greater risk, should provide greater reward" and hammers the concepts of proper risk/reward balance, the act of player trading bypassing that is a direct violation of those goals of this game and the stated intent of its design.
Fair enough, I understand your stance - but the quoted point is why I'll end my back and forth with you as we disagree fundamentally on what constitutes content bypass and we won't budge on our views. I view player trade as alternative style or emergent gameplay within the confines of the game. The only way I feel that content was bypassed in EQ with player trade was by twinks buying a Fungi tunic and due to them becoming severely overpowered it trivialized content; whereas, you do irregardless of the scenario, and I do understand your reasons for it - I just don't agree.
I don't argue that trade "can" be a alternative style of play, rather I have issue with the state that trade is in now with most games where no rules or structure exist to which create it as even a form or "play" rather than just some gimmick where people bypass the "actual" play of the game.
I gave examples of how trade could be made into a game of equal risk/reward comparable to the adventure side of the game, but to be honest, the responses I see here, that is not what is wanted. It is the desire to have the ease of advancement in such a system without all the rules, restrictions and requirements that exist in the adventure side to which people seek, and why is that? For the reasons I stated and you as well as others even argued. That is to have an option to circumvent play to achieve reward without risk which is in all honesty, and all practical nature, an exploit to bypass game play.
There is no reasonable argument otherwise. The fact that people completely are resistant to any game play change in trade tells me that they want an easy way out, just as all mainstream game supporters do, with easy wins and bypasses to excel without actually attending to the designed content.
That said, such desire is also why the main component of RMT continues to thrive as it is exactly that desire of behavior to which such a business exists and so to do they rely on the player trade market to thrive and feed their model of play.
As I said, I think gamers and the games today may be past my time. I think maybe... I have nothing in common with them nor the people who play them. Maybe... it is time for me to give them up and let them die to the slow death they most certainly are creating for themselves.
VR will decide, but to be honest, with what I have seen of the advocates proclaiming to support the older more true concepts of game play of the past, I don't see the arguments of those who I gamed with of old, I see the arguments of those who paved the way to games we have today.
In a game that specifically states that "greater risk, should provide greater reward" and hammers the concepts of proper risk/reward balance, the act of player trading bypassing that is a direct violation of those goals of this game and the stated intent of its design.
Fair enough, I understand your stance - but the quoted point is why I'll end my back and forth with you as we disagree fundamentally on what constitutes content bypass and we won't budge on our views. I view player trade as alternative style or emergent gameplay within the confines of the game. The only way I feel that content was bypassed in EQ with player trade was by twinks buying a Fungi tunic and due to them becoming severely overpowered it trivialized content; whereas, you do irregardless of the scenario, and I do understand your reasons for it - I just don't agree.
Basically this ^, which is why I'll refrain from doing any specific point by point style of posts.
I essentially agree with Raidan and with his statement regarding Sinist. I feel we have a fundamentally different idea of what constitutes bypassing content, and cheapening content, etc. I would say that Fungi Tunic was probably the only item i would agree was "OP" to a lower level player in EQ and allowed them to truly trivialize lower level content. However, the fact a higher level could also just follow you around and cast regen etc on you wasn't hugely different, so there are some arguments to be made there...
However, my friend brought up a very good point tonight that i would like to just mention. Because items like this were so rare, especially in the beginning days of the game since that content was extremely difficult even in excellent gear late in the expansions life. The chances of something like a fungi tunic ever actually being sold were extremely minor. It was such a good/rare item, and there were so few people even able to get the item that it was either being used, given to an alt, given to a guild mate, friend, etc. It almost never went onto the market. It wasn't really until very late in the game that you ever actually saw them get sold with any regularity. By that point Velious was out and frankly i could care less if someone was trivializing old world content in the 1-30 range as a result. I'm honestly more concerned about power creep over time at the high levels, particularly when the game is several years old. I don't want a situation similar to WoW where everything got orders of magnitude better at each expansion and by proxy invalidated all the previous expansions content.
For example i remember being appalled at the fact that i was replacing a full suit of my hard earned T1 warlock armor (with some scattered T2 pieces) with green con solo quest rewards 5 levels into the new expansion. To me that was the height of absurdity. WoW did it because they wanted to cater to the casual players, and they didn't want them feeling like all the "hardcore" raiders had a significant leg up on them. So they essentially did a gear "reset" with every expansion.
IMO new players coming into a game 1 or 2 years into it and somewhat trivializing the lower level content because there is a significant amount of "good" items on the market is really a non issue. its already difficult enough for a new player to get into the community of a game that's been out a while, and especially in games that heavily promote grouping even to level like EQ, if there aren't enough players around for the person to find groups because the majority of that server's playerbase is at or close to max level, then there needs to be other methods for the person to get caught up, and if that means they essentially get to run around in what would have been amazing gear early in the game in the early levels....fine, it doesn't really hurt anyone or anything at the end of the day.
On a side note, does anyone know where i can find a guide on post formatting in the new MMORPG forums styles? Part of the reason i haven't been addressing points individually is i can't figure out how to do a quote, so to speak.
BTW @Sinist, once again i just want to point out, i have no hard feelings over any of this, i hope you don't either. I know we kind of danced around some potentially insulting areas. Hopefully you understand it was simply heated discussion ;-).
"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 a game that specifically states that "greater risk, should provide greater reward" and hammers the concepts of proper risk/reward balance, the act of player trading bypassing that is a direct violation of those goals of this game and the stated intent of its design.
Fair enough, I understand your stance - but the quoted point is why I'll end my back and forth with you as we disagree fundamentally on what constitutes content bypass and we won't budge on our views. I view player trade as alternative style or emergent gameplay within the confines of the game. The only way I feel that content was bypassed in EQ with player trade was by twinks buying a Fungi tunic and due to them becoming severely overpowered it trivialized content; whereas, you do irregardless of the scenario, and I do understand your reasons for it - I just don't agree.
Basically this ^, which is why I'll refrain from doing any specific point by point style of posts.
I essentially agree with Raidan and with his statement regarding Sinist. I feel we have a fundamentally different idea of what constitutes bypassing content, and cheapening content, etc. I would say that Fungi Tunic was probably the only item i would agree was "OP" to a lower level player in EQ and allowed them to truly trivialize lower level content. However, the fact a higher level could also just follow you around and cast regen etc on you wasn't hugely different, so there are some arguments to be made there...
However, my friend brought up a very good point tonight that i would like to just mention. Because items like this were so rare, especially in the beginning days of the game since that content was extremely difficult even in excellent gear late in the expansions life. The chances of something like a fungi tunic ever actually being sold were extremely minor. It was such a good/rare item, and there were so few people even able to get the item that it was either being used, given to an alt, given to a guild mate, friend, etc. It almost never went onto the market. It wasn't really until very late in the game that you ever actually saw them get sold with any regularity. By that point Velious was out and frankly i could care less if someone was trivializing old world content in the 1-30 range as a result. I'm honestly more concerned about power creep over time at the high levels, particularly when the game is several years old. I don't want a situation similar to WoW where everything got orders of magnitude better at each expansion and by proxy invalidated all the previous expansions content.
For example i remember being appalled at the fact that i was replacing a full suit of my hard earned T1 warlock armor (with some scattered T2 pieces) with green con solo quest rewards 5 levels into the new expansion. To me that was the height of absurdity. WoW did it because they wanted to cater to the casual players, and they didn't want them feeling like all the "hardcore" raiders had a significant leg up on them. So they essentially did a gear "reset" with every expansion.
IMO new players coming into a game 1 or 2 years into it and somewhat trivializing the lower level content because there is a significant amount of "good" items on the market is really a non issue. its already difficult enough for a new player to get into the community of a game that's been out a while, and especially in games that heavily promote grouping even to level like EQ, if there aren't enough players around for the person to find groups because the majority of that server's playerbase is at or close to max level, then there needs to be other methods for the person to get caught up, and if that means they essentially get to run around in what would have been amazing gear early in the game in the early levels....fine, it doesn't really hurt anyone or anything at the end of the day.
On a side note, does anyone know where i can find a guide on post formatting in the new MMORPG forums styles? Part of the reason i haven't been addressing points individually is i can't figure out how to do a quote, so to speak.
BTW @Sinist, once again i just want to point out, i have no hard feelings over any of this, i hope you don't either. I know we kind of danced around some potentially insulting areas. Hopefully you understand it was simply heated discussion ;-).
Thing is Hrimnir, neither you nor Raidian are denying the very point I have been making (you affirm it in your conflicting position). You claim it isn't bypassing content, that it is an alternate form of play, that risk vs reward is not an issue and it is acceptably balanced, but then you explain right above that there needs to be a means for casuals and new comers to more easily obtain progression due to content being too difficult without the base of the population being present and that this "alternate" form or play provides that.
That is the problem as such allowance is no different than every allowed circumvention of game play in games today and one of the core positions of mainstream MMOs today. It also does nothing to deny my points made.
As I have said, there is absolutely no desire here for any means to make trade a game of risk/reward. When suggesting a game, the argument of it being a "virtual world" comes up in defense, when shown that it neither emulates a real world, the argument of catering to "options" comes up, when shown that those options are imbalanced, the argument of a need to cater to to new/casual players comes up. There is no logical consistency to the arguments, they are exception based remedies to deny the issue.
It has been clearly shown that it is a circumvention by the arguments made by you and others here and in all of the suggestions, all of the points, a firm desire to hold to absolutely no change is sought in the face of a change that might remove the advantage of such an "option" in the game.
As I told Raidian, this is not simply an issue of disagreement. There are elements of subjective evaluations to which are such, but opinions do not trump fact and logical result. The fact is, on the points I clearly showed the logic to be failing, it is the reality of the issue and it is this desire to cling to such loopholes in game design that continues to produce not only disappoint in its populations but the continued failure of its systems.
By the way, I am not angry at any of you, I don't care for the numerous fallacies that have been presented and I dislike when people cling to illogical positions out of a desire to hold on to something. Since none here see the problems that trade systems bring, those problems will never be resolved with any meaningful solutions which is why ultimately, the draconian solutions to which this very thread brought up will continue to be implemented over and over again.
Like I said, it may be time for me to give up on gaming as the audiences and products produced to appeal to them do not share the same values and desire for game play. It may be time to simply find another hobby.
As I told Raidian, this is not simply an issue of disagreement. There are elements of subjective evaluations to which are such, but opinions do not trump fact and logical result. The fact is, on the points I clearly showed the logic to be failing, it is the reality of the issue and it is this desire to cling to such loopholes in game design that continues to produce not only disappoint in its populations but the continued failure of its systems.
hubris
[hyoo-bris, hoo-]
noun
1.
excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely a matter of opinion. Your entire premise operates based upon the idea that player trade is bad, that being able to buy items is bad, and a lesser form of gameplay. That is 100% opinion. We've given plenty of arguments to support the fact, you just simply chose to dismiss them because you disagree with them. You don't get to claim the logic is failing simply based upon your opinion.
Either way. I'm gonna sign off on this. Consider it a win on your part if you'd like.
"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."
As I told Raidian, this is not simply an issue of disagreement. There are elements of subjective evaluations to which are such, but opinions do not trump fact and logical result. The fact is, on the points I clearly showed the logic to be failing, it is the reality of the issue and it is this desire to cling to such loopholes in game design that continues to produce not only disappoint in its populations but the continued failure of its systems.
hubris
[hyoo-bris, hoo-]
noun
1.
excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely a matter of opinion. Your entire premise operates based upon the idea that player trade is bad, that being able to buy items is bad, and a lesser form of gameplay. That is 100% opinion. We've given plenty of arguments to support the fact, you just simply chose to dismiss them because you disagree with them. You don't get to claim the logic is failing simply based upon your opinion.
Either way. I'm gonna sign off on this. Consider it a win on your part if you'd like.
Let me get this straight. I disagree with you, I dislike the fact that you think that circumventing the contents design to get the item via mundane money collection, I show your own arguments to be lacking and you call me arrogant? prideful?
As I said, I dislike your continued use of fallacies. See that above there? That accusation of calling me arrogant? That is a fallacy, it is an attack on me personally because we disagree.
Again, you seem to have a very difficult time understanding the difference between opinion and fact.
A dungeon encounter and named mob is content that is designed for the player to succeed in such in order to gain the reward. A player who buys an item on the player trade market "circumvents" that contents design.
This is not an opinion, this is a fact that you, nor any other can deny. You are wrong here, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You don't get to play the trump card of subjective position in the face of logical failure and evidential process.
I have met every point you have made and showed it to be lacking in its position. You are unable to meet those points which is why you continue to avoid quoting me specifically and dealing with each point and why you resort to name calling above.
Your behavior in this thread has been unethical and counter to logical discussion. If you don't like being shown the failing in your arguments, then make an effort to form better arguments.
If you and those who support you are what represents the position of Pantheon, to dismiss and attack those who are trying to discuss the issues and point out possible problems with systems and suggesting alternatives (to which all of you have continued to dismiss as it concerns the trade system concepts of play), then frankly I have no hope for this game as you can neither logically establish yourself, nor ethically present yourself.
You should simply drop it Sinist., just like most of us did long before.
There is no point in discussing a topic if the BASIC for discussion is so differend.
You don't like trading. You feel it is circumventing "real" gameplay and consider it cheap cheating. We got that. We see your points, we see your argumentation. We simply don't agree at all. Not because you don't make valid points, but because we don't consider trading cheap or cheating. Most of us don't even consider trading cirvumventing anything.
No discussion can be had about this if we are all talking about whole differend basics and therefore have totally differend GOALS.
We could never agree to anything based on that. You simply want a Counter Strike game without weapons. And we don't agree on removing a part of the game that we consider integral, basic, needed.
So again: No point in discussing this anymore. Nothing good can come out of it.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
You should simply drop it Sinist., just like most of us did long before.
There is no point in discussing a topic if the BASIC for discussion is so differend.
The topic was TLC and as Brad mentioned, the concept of discussing ways to avoid issues that come up with such need in a system. I presented facts, pointed out what provides such, all you and others did is dismiss it. So far, you and your supporters have denied the thread, dismissed problems and promoted business as usual.
You don't like trading. You feel it is circumventing "real" gameplay and
consider it cheap cheating. We got that. We see your points, we see
your argumentation. We simply don't agree at all. Not because you don't
make valid points, but because we don't consider trading cheap or
cheating. Most of us don't even consider trading cirvumventing anything.
1) I did not say I disliked trading, I said I disliked what uncontrolled trading systems that are detached from the games systems due to the game. It is not trading that you an others here like, it is the uncontrolled systems that allow a player to circumvent having to obtain an item through the games play.
2) I do not "feel" my positions, that would be the illogical and unsupported arguments you and others here are making. I said buying an item on the player trade market circumvents having to gain that item through play by the player who is buying it. This is fact, not an opinion or feeling. This isn't an issue of disagreement of subjective nature in that respect.
Here is the subjective nature of the disagreement and the facts present:
Facts: (these are facts and can not be disputed) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Adventure content requires someone to conquer the content, kill the named, and obtain reward.
2) A player buying an item on the trade market circumvents (ie does not meet the conditions of #1) the requirements of #1.
Opinions: (subjective in nature, right or wrong is debatable in a sound/unsound format, not valid/invalid) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) You and others here see no problems with alternate methods that circumvent (avoiding having to actually do the content requirement) the required play of the adventure game to be rewarded the same reward as someone how does. You reason that this is acceptable (ie proper balance of risk/reward) using various subjective support to proclaim balance between, most of which I have shown to be unsound in its position (ie a subjective argument can still be unsound, or invalid if its logic is counter to its premise).
2) I think that circumvention of the content by "current" trade system design is not a proper balance of risk vs reward due to the lack of control structures, risk and consequence within that system. I think its completely disconnect from the actual games systems is what presents numerous balance problems within the game over time skewing the differences between risk/effort and proper balance of reward.
Those are the facts and the opinions. The facts are indisputable, and the subjective nature of our "beliefs" are established on the strength of our arguments, to which I believe yours to be unsound, as I have pointed out numerous times. Acting as if I am just arguing over petty aspects is dishonest.
No discussion can be had about this if we are all talking about whole
differend basics and therefore have totally differend GOALS.
The discussion that can be had is on how to improve the trade system. Even if you disagree trade as it is now is a problem (none of you do by the way, you just think it isn't a big problem), there is no reason to object to the "discussion" of making trade into a real system as I mentioned.
I speak of numerous ways to turn trade into a part of the game, integrating it into many different systems, giving it a sense of realism, attachment to the lore, etc... and not one of you will even attend to it.
It only strengthens the suspicion that people are afraid of losing the ease of advancement through the player trade system to which Hrimnir has mentioned several times (ie the claim that by making it balanced with adventure play, it would discourage new players and casuals from the ability to solo and catch up with the population).
So again: No point in discussing this anymore. Nothing good can come out of it.
I disagree, what you guys are doing is trying to bury this and you are worried that either VR might agree or find solutions in here that might get in the way of the current loop holes with trade OR others might see the logic in the points I am making. Either way, you want it pushed away as a means to avoid dealing with the argument here.
I haven't posted here since the Vanguard days but I figure I
would chime in since it's a hot topic and Brad is asking about it.
I would like to first address the idea of "Chinese gold farmers" or
whoever else is doing similar things. I think there's a big difference between
an organized effort to cheat, monopolize, or profit from the in-game economy
and someone who wants a specific item for a twink, nostalgia, or NPC payback (I’ve
been all three). Of course actions, such as bans, should be taken against the
people(s) who are participating in the former activity.
Returning to the main point, I think TLC is the wrong
solution for something that isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out
to be, nor is this preventable without instancing (which is something I am
totally against).
The people who are going to complain the most about the need
for TLC are most likely those who have been impacted by someone “farming” an
item that they want, preventing them or their group from (for a limited time) obtaining
it. Though nothing is actually permanently preventing them from obtaining it. At
a high level view, how is this scenario any different than others that would be
expected in a MMO which has contested content (raids, resources,
non-instancing, etc.)?
At a lower level, what does this say about the game design?
If there’s a single item that everyone wants because it’s the only decent item
for their class/level, maybe the game should be itemized differently, be more
or less rare, or more balanced across the content regarding distribution of
items?
Speaking about itemizing low end content with good items, I
get why Brad is suggesting doing that –it sounds really cool! But if this is
done, it just further emphasis what I said about contested content. Everyone is
just going to pile into the areas with the really sweet items. Some may be
better players and can more easily obtain these items with less resources or play a character that can solo better. Are they farming because they want the same good item as everyone else?
It also speaks to how bored players are. If higher level players are having fun
and have a lot of content to go through, they may be less likely to want to go
back to old content.
Eventually, if Pantheon does well and expands, even original
end-game content will be considered “low level” and be switched from raid to
farm status (unless they implement something like they did with original EQ
dragons where you are banished if over a certain level). Reality is you cannot
escape this because it’s simply part of progression through a game that has
level increases.
I don’t think you should artificially block players from
looting an item that maybe they missed, out-leveled, or forgot about. What if I’m
trying to obtain an item “the right way” through grouping or appropriate level
experiencing, but I out-level the content (without no way for me to stop
leveling) and no longer am able to obtain the item? That’s not right either.
Should we put in a button to click to stop gaining XP? Wow could that snowball,
just because you don’t want someone to loot an item from a lower level mob.
To be fair, yes, I have taken higher level characters back
into lower level content to farm items I want for twink characters or to sell in-game. And if I want to re-visit content in Pantheon with a high
level character because the NPC’s used to kick my ass and I want to pay them
back, or get an item for a new character, or want to make a few extra bucks I
don’t think that hurts anyone as long as there’s plenty for everyone to do.
The people who are going to complain the most about the need
for TLC are most likely those who have been impacted by someone “farming” an
item that they want, preventing them or their group from (for a limited time) obtaining
it. Though nothing is actually permanently preventing them from obtaining it. At
a high level view, how is this scenario any different than others that would be
expected in a MMO which has contested content (raids, resources,
non-instancing, etc.)?
It is a macro issue here. Yes, contested content brings competition, but that contest is for need based on use. People farm items for money sales and so some will farm multiples for stock, or later back up, etc... I experienced this on test before the trade market took off. Need as an item for use is limited, money is not and so since people didn't always need the drops, people weren't camping them consistently. When you can convert an items value to something else, this makes the spawn more valuable, and increases competition past simple use.
Some are trying to suggest it is a 1:1 ratio in that be it farmed for the market or for use, it is the same. This is not true, the market will always carry more items than what an individual will seek to obtain via use (which is why there are overstocks on some items in the market).
At a lower level, what does this say about the game design?
If there’s a single item that everyone wants because it’s the only decent item
for their class/level, maybe the game should be itemized differently, be more
or less rare, or more balanced across the content regarding distribution of
items?
Usually people seek lower items (using EQ as an example) because gear had a longer shelf life for players. That is, you could have an item at 20 and take it up into your 40's-50's before you found a replacement. Some items have unique abilities that are useful indefinitely (Hadens water breathing ring). I knew some who went back to farm that ring once we started doing Kedge.
Is that bad design? I don't think so, I think EQs design was quite good because your loot acquisition was over time/ Because the game was contested, because it took time to get rares, etc... you weren't gearing up each level, but over the course of many levels. This made items mean a lot more and so having items at lower levels is not a bad thing. Having a player go back and camp an item to use is not a bad thing.
What is bad is when those items are turned into a cash cow for easy farming to buy things off the market. The item is no longer camped due to use, but because it can make money and the fact is, not everyone is going to camp it for use because they weight the effort in obtaining it. For instance, I have seen casters who had spells that allowed them to breathe underwater actually buy Hadens ring because they had the cash and it was right there to buy, but would have NEVER spent the time to go camp it themselves. The cash market changed that process, made items more available to people who would otherwise not have bothered.
Eventually, if Pantheon does well and expands, even original
end-game content will be considered “low level” and be switched from raid to
farm status (unless they implement something like they did with original EQ
dragons where you are banished if over a certain level). Reality is you cannot
escape this because it’s simply part of progression through a game that has
level increases.
It is inevitable, certainly, but there are ways to slow it down greatly as I think has been discussed in many threads (side ways development, not doing level increases every expansion, different gear design approaches, etc... ).
I don’t think you should artificially block players from
looting an item that maybe they missed, out-leveled, or forgot about. What if I’m
trying to obtain an item “the right way” through grouping or appropriate level
experiencing, but I out-level the content (without no way for me to stop
leveling) and no longer am able to obtain the item? That’s not right either.
Should we put in a button to click to stop gaining XP? Wow could that snowball,
just because you don’t want someone to loot an item from a lower level mob.
This is why these artificial blocks are often bad. Ideally a good system will achieve its goals of stopping the abusing player while the normal player never even knows it exists.
To be fair, yes, I have taken higher level characters back
into lower level content to farm items I want for twink characters or to
sell in-game. And if I want to re-visit content in Pantheon with a high
level character because the NPC’s used to kick my ass and I want to pay
them
back, or get an item for a new character, or want to make a few extra
bucks I
don’t think that hurts anyone as long as there’s plenty for everyone to
do.
That isn't the big issue here. You camping an item for your alt (or revisiting an old zone for some pay back) is not the same as setting up shop to farm an item for money sales on the trade market. You will get what you want and move on, they will stay as long as it is making them money and like I said, just because someone buys it on the market, doesn't mean they were willing to go and camp it themselves. That is why there is a difference in the demand when it concerns doing it ones self and simply buying it off the market. Especially when it concerns people camping for alts. I knew some who were buying rare twink items off the market who would have NEVER went and camped them for their alt.
Like it or not, the player trade market is at the center of the abuses that occur and the issues as to why various anti-code implementations were added to the game over the years. Those however were attacking the symptoms, not the cause and in order to avoid silly code implementations that often slap honest players, the better solution I think is to implement game play into the market system and tie it to the other systems making is just as much as a risk/reward system as the rest of the games systems. By doing so, it gives the developers more control over the games systems and allows them easier ways to balance between them.
TLC was a good idea. There is nothing worse than seeing low level areas being monopolized by high level characters camping named to twink alts.
There is a huge difference between:
1. I had items that I acquired in my 20-30s by the time I hit Kunark in EQ, and
2. I went back to level 20-30 areas on my high level character to twink my alt.
In one case, the items were just that good, and you got them through the normal progression of that character through that content at appropriate levels. This could have been in a group of similar level players in content that requires group play.
In the other case, you could have just ran to that place on a high level character, stormed past a group of players working the content, and just demolished the named MOBs and looted the items for your twink.
Trivial Loot Code avoided that.
To be fair, yes, I have taken higher level characters back into lower level content to farm items I want for twink characters or to sell in-game. And if I want to re-visit content in Pantheon with a high level character because the NPC’s used to kick my ass and I want to pay them back, or get an item for a new character, or want to make a few extra bucks I don’t think that hurts anyone as long as there’s plenty for everyone to do.
That only makes sense to you because you want to profit from that behavior. It doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things. High level characters should be in high level content. Elite Athletes don't go compete against beginners simply because they had a hard time competing when they were at those levels... They go compete against athletes in the same or similar tier.
Then again, they can always just make everything bind on pickup and only allow trading within the group present for a specific amount of time after looting, to destroy thinking, and let you get your ego boost anyways?
TLC was a good idea. There is nothing worse than seeing low level areas being monopolized by high level characters camping named to twink alts.
There is a huge difference between:
1. I had items that I acquired in my 20-30s by the time I hit Kunark in EQ, and
2. I went back to level 20-30 areas on my high level character to twink my alt.
In one case, the items were just that good, and you got them through the normal progression of that character through that content at appropriate levels. This could have been in a group of similar level players in content that requires group play.
In the other case, you could have just ran to that place on a high level character, stormed past a group of players working the content, and just demolished the named MOBs and looted the items for your twink.
Trivial Loot Code avoided that.
To be fair, yes, I have taken higher level characters back into lower level content to farm items I want for twink characters or to sell in-game. And if I want to re-visit content in Pantheon with a high level character because the NPC’s used to kick my ass and I want to pay them back, or get an item for a new character, or want to make a few extra bucks I don’t think that hurts anyone as long as there’s plenty for everyone to do.
That only makes sense to you because you want to profit from that behavior. It doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things. High level characters should be in high level content. Elite Athletes don't go compete against beginners simply because they had a hard time competing when they were at those levels... They go compete against athletes in the same or similar tier.
Then again, they can always just make everything bind on pickup and only allow trading within the group present for a specific amount of time after looting, to destroy thinking, and let you get your ego boost anyways?
TLC was a blatant block that disregarded all honest play. There is nothing wrong with people going back to old content and getting an item for their alt, etc... the problem is abuse and its effect on the rest of the game and players.
I ran into players on both sides of this issue.
You had the ones who were honestly there, who just wanted to pick up an item they missed that still had use, or they wanted for an alt or were helping friend. These types did not camp indefinitely and did not interfere with appropriate level campers. I have seen these people give up camps when a legitimate group came along.
Then you had those types who would farm 24/7 trying to make money in the player trade market. They would perm-camp popular items at that level and even farm entire zones training, harassing, and interfering with level appropriate groups.
All TLC did was punish the honest players trying to get at the abusers. Also, it completely invalidates the low level game making everything in it absolutely pointless to return to. EQ was often known for mixing content in various zones for both high and low levels. TLC is just a poor means to stop abusers. There is a better way to deal with abusers and not punish honest players. Putting up blatant walls is not a good way to handle it.
First, I'd like to say I found both sides of this debate interesting to read. So thanks to those who contributed.
I had the same argument trying to suggest that perhaps a limited form of trivial loot code that would allow you to go back to content, but not over and over again at the same camp, might make sense. However, you get into two competing goals. The social aspects of the game, of which trade is clearly a part, and the adventuring aspect.
There is no denying trade allows you to bypass content, in the strict sense. However, there's an underlying assumption in that statement, and that is that requiring the content was ever a goal. I think this is where you get into logical trouble with the argument. It would be foolish to claim that buying a FBSS didn't allow me to obtain the item without doing the content that drops it. What becomes a matter of opinion is whether the game should require that particular content be done for that particular item.
My contention is that to the largest extent practical, it should be required for certain prestige items, others disagree.
My contention is that to the largest extent practical, it should be required for certain prestige items, others disagree.
How is it legitimately determined whose effort is of value and whose is not? That is the issue. Some think the raiders effort should be protected, but the group player should not. Why is one more important than the other? What makes ones time valuable and the others not? Some might think the FBSS or the Fungi were not prestigious, but then some players weren't skilled enough to even break those camps.
My contention is that to the largest extent practical, it should be required for certain prestige items, others disagree.
How is it legitimately determined whose effort is of value and whose is not? That is the issue. Some think the raiders effort should be protected, but the group player should not. Why is one more important than the other? What makes ones time valuable and the others not? Some might think the FBSS or the Fungi were not prestigious, but then some players weren't skilled enough to even break those camps.
Developers already make those decisions by balancing the reward against the effort of an encounter. I guess I look at it the other way around. Which items do the developers think will be ones they want to protect the meaning of obtaining that item. The problem, in my opinion, with focusing only on raid encounters, is that they are losing the opportunity to add something to the game for those who don't raid.
I certainly am sympathetic to the idea that raid encounters should give the best items and that they should be more aggressive in making sure more of those items can't be obtained via trade, but I could never understand the hard line between raid and group encounters. Essentially what you are saying is if you raid then there are all these prestige items that you had to obtain yourself, but if you don't then there are none.
My contention is that to the largest extent practical, it should be required for certain prestige items, others disagree.
How is it legitimately determined whose effort is of value and whose is not? That is the issue. Some think the raiders effort should be protected, but the group player should not. Why is one more important than the other? What makes ones time valuable and the others not? Some might think the FBSS or the Fungi were not prestigious, but then some players weren't skilled enough to even break those camps.
Developers already make those decisions by balancing the reward against the effort of an encounter. I guess I look at it the other way around. Which items do the developers think will be ones they want to protect the meaning of obtaining that item. The problem, in my opinion, with focusing only on raid encounters, is that they are losing the opportunity to add something to the game for those who don't raid.
I certainly am sympathetic to the idea that raid encounters should give the best items and that they should be more aggressive in making sure more of those items can't be obtained via trade, but I could never understand the hard line between raid and group encounters. Essentially what you are saying is if you raid then there are all these prestige items that you had to obtain yourself, but if you don't then there are none.
Well, I think VR said that raid content would comprise about 15-20% of the game and that group dungeons would be the predominate focus of the game. So, when you consider the idea that raid drops should be treated with more respect doesn't make much sense. It sends a message that effort to obtain the group drops is not as important as raid drops, that someone being able to purchase their reward via the player market is acceptable if it was earned in group content, but not acceptable if it is earned from raid content.
My point is that either earning ones reward is important or it is not and raiding or group is irrelevant. One can't hold both sides of the position without looking hypocritical or biased to a given result. So, if group gear is to be traded, so should raid gear. If raid gear is not to be traded, so should not group gear otherwise it is saying the effort in group content is less important than raid content.
Comments
I gave examples of how trade could be made into a game of equal risk/reward comparable to the adventure side of the game, but to be honest, the responses I see here, that is not what is wanted. It is the desire to have the ease of advancement in such a system without all the rules, restrictions and requirements that exist in the adventure side to which people seek, and why is that? For the reasons I stated and you as well as others even argued. That is to have an option to circumvent play to achieve reward without risk which is in all honesty, and all practical nature, an exploit to bypass game play.
There is no reasonable argument otherwise. The fact that people completely are resistant to any game play change in trade tells me that they want an easy way out, just as all mainstream game supporters do, with easy wins and bypasses to excel without actually attending to the designed content.
That said, such desire is also why the main component of RMT continues to thrive as it is exactly that desire of behavior to which such a business exists and so to do they rely on the player trade market to thrive and feed their model of play.
As I said, I think gamers and the games today may be past my time. I think maybe... I have nothing in common with them nor the people who play them. Maybe... it is time for me to give them up and let them die to the slow death they most certainly are creating for themselves.
VR will decide, but to be honest, with what I have seen of the advocates proclaiming to support the older more true concepts of game play of the past, I don't see the arguments of those who I gamed with of old, I see the arguments of those who paved the way to games we have today.
/shrug
I essentially agree with Raidan and with his statement regarding Sinist. I feel we have a fundamentally different idea of what constitutes bypassing content, and cheapening content, etc. I would say that Fungi Tunic was probably the only item i would agree was "OP" to a lower level player in EQ and allowed them to truly trivialize lower level content. However, the fact a higher level could also just follow you around and cast regen etc on you wasn't hugely different, so there are some arguments to be made there...
However, my friend brought up a very good point tonight that i would like to just mention. Because items like this were so rare, especially in the beginning days of the game since that content was extremely difficult even in excellent gear late in the expansions life. The chances of something like a fungi tunic ever actually being sold were extremely minor. It was such a good/rare item, and there were so few people even able to get the item that it was either being used, given to an alt, given to a guild mate, friend, etc. It almost never went onto the market. It wasn't really until very late in the game that you ever actually saw them get sold with any regularity. By that point Velious was out and frankly i could care less if someone was trivializing old world content in the 1-30 range as a result. I'm honestly more concerned about power creep over time at the high levels, particularly when the game is several years old. I don't want a situation similar to WoW where everything got orders of magnitude better at each expansion and by proxy invalidated all the previous expansions content.
For example i remember being appalled at the fact that i was replacing a full suit of my hard earned T1 warlock armor (with some scattered T2 pieces) with green con solo quest rewards 5 levels into the new expansion. To me that was the height of absurdity. WoW did it because they wanted to cater to the casual players, and they didn't want them feeling like all the "hardcore" raiders had a significant leg up on them. So they essentially did a gear "reset" with every expansion.
IMO new players coming into a game 1 or 2 years into it and somewhat trivializing the lower level content because there is a significant amount of "good" items on the market is really a non issue. its already difficult enough for a new player to get into the community of a game that's been out a while, and especially in games that heavily promote grouping even to level like EQ, if there aren't enough players around for the person to find groups because the majority of that server's playerbase is at or close to max level, then there needs to be other methods for the person to get caught up, and if that means they essentially get to run around in what would have been amazing gear early in the game in the early levels....fine, it doesn't really hurt anyone or anything at the end of the day.
On a side note, does anyone know where i can find a guide on post formatting in the new MMORPG forums styles? Part of the reason i haven't been addressing points individually is i can't figure out how to do a quote, so to speak.
BTW @Sinist, once again i just want to point out, i have no hard feelings over any of this, i hope you don't either. I know we kind of danced around some potentially insulting areas. Hopefully you understand it was simply heated discussion ;-).
"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
That is the problem as such allowance is no different than every allowed circumvention of game play in games today and one of the core positions of mainstream MMOs today. It also does nothing to deny my points made.
As I have said, there is absolutely no desire here for any means to make trade a game of risk/reward. When suggesting a game, the argument of it being a "virtual world" comes up in defense, when shown that it neither emulates a real world, the argument of catering to "options" comes up, when shown that those options are imbalanced, the argument of a need to cater to to new/casual players comes up. There is no logical consistency to the arguments, they are exception based remedies to deny the issue.
It has been clearly shown that it is a circumvention by the arguments made by you and others here and in all of the suggestions, all of the points, a firm desire to hold to absolutely no change is sought in the face of a change that might remove the advantage of such an "option" in the game.
As I told Raidian, this is not simply an issue of disagreement. There are elements of subjective evaluations to which are such, but opinions do not trump fact and logical result. The fact is, on the points I clearly showed the logic to be failing, it is the reality of the issue and it is this desire to cling to such loopholes in game design that continues to produce not only disappoint in its populations but the continued failure of its systems.
By the way, I am not angry at any of you, I don't care for the numerous fallacies that have been presented and I dislike when people cling to illogical positions out of a desire to hold on to something. Since none here see the problems that trade systems bring, those problems will never be resolved with any meaningful solutions which is why ultimately, the draconian solutions to which this very thread brought up will continue to be implemented over and over again.
Like I said, it may be time for me to give up on gaming as the audiences and products produced to appeal to them do not share the same values and desire for game play. It may be time to simply find another hobby.
hubris
I'm sorry but this is absolutely a matter of opinion. Your entire premise operates based upon the idea that player trade is bad, that being able to buy items is bad, and a lesser form of gameplay. That is 100% opinion. We've given plenty of arguments to support the fact, you just simply chose to dismiss them because you disagree with them. You don't get to claim the logic is failing simply based upon your opinion.
Either way. I'm gonna sign off on this. Consider it a win on your part if you'd like.
"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
As I said, I dislike your continued use of fallacies. See that above there? That accusation of calling me arrogant? That is a fallacy, it is an attack on me personally because we disagree.
Again, you seem to have a very difficult time understanding the difference between opinion and fact.
A dungeon encounter and named mob is content that is designed for the player to succeed in such in order to gain the reward. A player who buys an item on the player trade market "circumvents" that contents design.
This is not an opinion, this is a fact that you, nor any other can deny. You are wrong here, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You don't get to play the trump card of subjective position in the face of logical failure and evidential process.
I have met every point you have made and showed it to be lacking in its position. You are unable to meet those points which is why you continue to avoid quoting me specifically and dealing with each point and why you resort to name calling above.
Your behavior in this thread has been unethical and counter to logical discussion. If you don't like being shown the failing in your arguments, then make an effort to form better arguments.
If you and those who support you are what represents the position of Pantheon, to dismiss and attack those who are trying to discuss the issues and point out possible problems with systems and suggesting alternatives (to which all of you have continued to dismiss as it concerns the trade system concepts of play), then frankly I have no hope for this game as you can neither logically establish yourself, nor ethically present yourself.
Good luck with that.
There is no point in discussing a topic if the BASIC for discussion is so differend.
You don't like trading. You feel it is circumventing "real" gameplay and consider it cheap cheating. We got that. We see your points, we see your argumentation. We simply don't agree at all. Not because you don't make valid points, but because we don't consider trading cheap or cheating. Most of us don't even consider trading cirvumventing anything.
No discussion can be had about this if we are all talking about whole differend basics and therefore have totally differend GOALS.
We could never agree to anything based on that. You simply want a Counter Strike game without weapons. And we don't agree on removing a part of the game that we consider integral, basic, needed.
So again: No point in discussing this anymore. Nothing good can come out of it.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
1) I did not say I disliked trading, I said I disliked what uncontrolled trading systems that are detached from the games systems due to the game. It is not trading that you an others here like, it is the uncontrolled systems that allow a player to circumvent having to obtain an item through the games play.
2) I do not "feel" my positions, that would be the illogical and unsupported arguments you and others here are making. I said buying an item on the player trade market circumvents having to gain that item through play by the player who is buying it. This is fact, not an opinion or feeling. This isn't an issue of disagreement of subjective nature in that respect.
Here is the subjective nature of the disagreement and the facts present:
Facts: (these are facts and can not be disputed)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1) Adventure content requires someone to conquer the content, kill the named, and obtain reward.
2) A player buying an item on the trade market circumvents (ie does not meet the conditions of #1) the requirements of #1.
Opinions: (subjective in nature, right or wrong is debatable in a sound/unsound format, not valid/invalid)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) You and others here see no problems with alternate methods that circumvent (avoiding having to actually do the content requirement) the required play of the adventure game to be rewarded the same reward as someone how does. You reason that this is acceptable (ie proper balance of risk/reward) using various subjective support to proclaim balance between, most of which I have shown to be unsound in its position (ie a subjective argument can still be unsound, or invalid if its logic is counter to its premise).
2) I think that circumvention of the content by "current" trade system design is not a proper balance of risk vs reward due to the lack of control structures, risk and consequence within that system. I think its completely disconnect from the actual games systems is what presents numerous balance problems within the game over time skewing the differences between risk/effort and proper balance of reward.
Those are the facts and the opinions. The facts are indisputable, and the subjective nature of our "beliefs" are established on the strength of our arguments, to which I believe yours to be unsound, as I have pointed out numerous times. Acting as if I am just arguing over petty aspects is dishonest.
The discussion that can be had is on how to improve the trade system. Even if you disagree trade as it is now is a problem (none of you do by the way, you just think it isn't a big problem), there is no reason to object to the "discussion" of making trade into a real system as I mentioned.
I speak of numerous ways to turn trade into a part of the game, integrating it into many different systems, giving it a sense of realism, attachment to the lore, etc... and not one of you will even attend to it.
It only strengthens the suspicion that people are afraid of losing the ease of advancement through the player trade system to which Hrimnir has mentioned several times (ie the claim that by making it balanced with adventure play, it would discourage new players and casuals from the ability to solo and catch up with the population).
I disagree, what you guys are doing is trying to bury this and you are worried that either VR might agree or find solutions in here that might get in the way of the current loop holes with trade OR others might see the logic in the points I am making. Either way, you want it pushed away as a means to avoid dealing with the argument here.
I haven't posted here since the Vanguard days but I figure I would chime in since it's a hot topic and Brad is asking about it.
I would like to first address the idea of "Chinese gold farmers" or whoever else is doing similar things. I think there's a big difference between an organized effort to cheat, monopolize, or profit from the in-game economy and someone who wants a specific item for a twink, nostalgia, or NPC payback (I’ve been all three). Of course actions, such as bans, should be taken against the people(s) who are participating in the former activity.
Returning to the main point, I think TLC is the wrong solution for something that isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, nor is this preventable without instancing (which is something I am totally against).
The people who are going to complain the most about the need for TLC are most likely those who have been impacted by someone “farming” an item that they want, preventing them or their group from (for a limited time) obtaining it. Though nothing is actually permanently preventing them from obtaining it. At a high level view, how is this scenario any different than others that would be expected in a MMO which has contested content (raids, resources, non-instancing, etc.)?
At a lower level, what does this say about the game design? If there’s a single item that everyone wants because it’s the only decent item for their class/level, maybe the game should be itemized differently, be more or less rare, or more balanced across the content regarding distribution of items?
Speaking about itemizing low end content with good items, I get why Brad is suggesting doing that –it sounds really cool! But if this is done, it just further emphasis what I said about contested content. Everyone is just going to pile into the areas with the really sweet items. Some may be better players and can more easily obtain these items with less resources or play a character that can solo better. Are they farming because they want the same good item as everyone else? It also speaks to how bored players are. If higher level players are having fun and have a lot of content to go through, they may be less likely to want to go back to old content.
Eventually, if Pantheon does well and expands, even original end-game content will be considered “low level” and be switched from raid to farm status (unless they implement something like they did with original EQ dragons where you are banished if over a certain level). Reality is you cannot escape this because it’s simply part of progression through a game that has level increases.
I don’t think you should artificially block players from looting an item that maybe they missed, out-leveled, or forgot about. What if I’m trying to obtain an item “the right way” through grouping or appropriate level experiencing, but I out-level the content (without no way for me to stop leveling) and no longer am able to obtain the item? That’s not right either. Should we put in a button to click to stop gaining XP? Wow could that snowball, just because you don’t want someone to loot an item from a lower level mob.
To be fair, yes, I have taken higher level characters back into lower level content to farm items I want for twink characters or to sell in-game. And if I want to re-visit content in Pantheon with a high level character because the NPC’s used to kick my ass and I want to pay them back, or get an item for a new character, or want to make a few extra bucks I don’t think that hurts anyone as long as there’s plenty for everyone to do.
Some are trying to suggest it is a 1:1 ratio in that be it farmed for the market or for use, it is the same. This is not true, the market will always carry more items than what an individual will seek to obtain via use (which is why there are overstocks on some items in the market).
Usually people seek lower items (using EQ as an example) because gear had a longer shelf life for players. That is, you could have an item at 20 and take it up into your 40's-50's before you found a replacement. Some items have unique abilities that are useful indefinitely (Hadens water breathing ring). I knew some who went back to farm that ring once we started doing Kedge.
Is that bad design? I don't think so, I think EQs design was quite good because your loot acquisition was over time/ Because the game was contested, because it took time to get rares, etc... you weren't gearing up each level, but over the course of many levels. This made items mean a lot more and so having items at lower levels is not a bad thing. Having a player go back and camp an item to use is not a bad thing.
What is bad is when those items are turned into a cash cow for easy farming to buy things off the market. The item is no longer camped due to use, but because it can make money and the fact is, not everyone is going to camp it for use because they weight the effort in obtaining it. For instance, I have seen casters who had spells that allowed them to breathe underwater actually buy Hadens ring because they had the cash and it was right there to buy, but would have NEVER spent the time to go camp it themselves. The cash market changed that process, made items more available to people who would otherwise not have bothered.
It is inevitable, certainly, but there are ways to slow it down greatly as I think has been discussed in many threads (side ways development, not doing level increases every expansion, different gear design approaches, etc... ).
This is why these artificial blocks are often bad. Ideally a good system will achieve its goals of stopping the abusing player while the normal player never even knows it exists.
That isn't the big issue here. You camping an item for your alt (or revisiting an old zone for some pay back) is not the same as setting up shop to farm an item for money sales on the trade market. You will get what you want and move on, they will stay as long as it is making them money and like I said, just because someone buys it on the market, doesn't mean they were willing to go and camp it themselves. That is why there is a difference in the demand when it concerns doing it ones self and simply buying it off the market. Especially when it concerns people camping for alts. I knew some who were buying rare twink items off the market who would have NEVER went and camped them for their alt.Like it or not, the player trade market is at the center of the abuses that occur and the issues as to why various anti-code implementations were added to the game over the years. Those however were attacking the symptoms, not the cause and in order to avoid silly code implementations that often slap honest players, the better solution I think is to implement game play into the market system and tie it to the other systems making is just as much as a risk/reward system as the rest of the games systems. By doing so, it gives the developers more control over the games systems and allows them easier ways to balance between them.
There is a huge difference between:
1. I had items that I acquired in my 20-30s by the time I hit Kunark in EQ, and
2. I went back to level 20-30 areas on my high level character to twink my alt.
In one case, the items were just that good, and you got them through the normal progression of that character through that content at appropriate levels. This could have been in a group of similar level players in content that requires group play.
In the other case, you could have just ran to that place on a high level character, stormed past a group of players working the content, and just demolished the named MOBs and looted the items for your twink.
Trivial Loot Code avoided that.
That only makes sense to you because you want to profit from that behavior. It doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things. High level characters should be in high level content. Elite Athletes don't go compete against beginners simply because they had a hard time competing when they were at those levels... They go compete against athletes in the same or similar tier.
Then again, they can always just make everything bind on pickup and only allow trading within the group present for a specific amount of time after looting, to destroy thinking, and let you get your ego boost anyways?
I ran into players on both sides of this issue.
You had the ones who were honestly there, who just wanted to pick up an item they missed that still had use, or they wanted for an alt or were helping friend. These types did not camp indefinitely and did not interfere with appropriate level campers. I have seen these people give up camps when a legitimate group came along.
Then you had those types who would farm 24/7 trying to make money in the player trade market. They would perm-camp popular items at that level and even farm entire zones training, harassing, and interfering with level appropriate groups.
All TLC did was punish the honest players trying to get at the abusers. Also, it completely invalidates the low level game making everything in it absolutely pointless to return to. EQ was often known for mixing content in various zones for both high and low levels. TLC is just a poor means to stop abusers. There is a better way to deal with abusers and not punish honest players. Putting up blatant walls is not a good way to handle it.
I had the same argument trying to suggest that perhaps a limited form of trivial loot code that would allow you to go back to content, but not over and over again at the same camp, might make sense. However, you get into two competing goals. The social aspects of the game, of which trade is clearly a part, and the adventuring aspect.
There is no denying trade allows you to bypass content, in the strict sense. However, there's an underlying assumption in that statement, and that is that requiring the content was ever a goal. I think this is where you get into logical trouble with the argument. It would be foolish to claim that buying a FBSS didn't allow me to obtain the item without doing the content that drops it. What becomes a matter of opinion is whether the game should require that particular content be done for that particular item.
My contention is that to the largest extent practical, it should be required for certain prestige items, others disagree.
Close to 100% of the playerbase hated it.
I certainly am sympathetic to the idea that raid encounters should give the best items and that they should be more aggressive in making sure more of those items can't be obtained via trade, but I could never understand the hard line between raid and group encounters. Essentially what you are saying is if you raid then there are all these prestige items that you had to obtain yourself, but if you don't then there are none.
My point is that either earning ones reward is important or it is not and raiding or group is irrelevant. One can't hold both sides of the position without looking hypocritical or biased to a given result. So, if group gear is to be traded, so should raid gear. If raid gear is not to be traded, so should not group gear otherwise it is saying the effort in group content is less important than raid content.