Diablo 4 to have NO item Trading and will have Guarantied Class Focused Drops...

[h4rr0d]

after playing D2R, trading was exhausting. just trying to make a simple transaction took an inordinate amount of time of spamming discords and listing on websites (Unless you had god tier gear, and had to fend off lowball offers).

it was an archaic method of transactions completely outdated now. we've already had 20 years or so of experience having auction houses, bazaar's and other QOL methods of trading.

let it go.

Dunno, poe has web based trading post and it’s pretty good experience.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the beauty of trading: You never actually have to! You can play an ARPG like PoE or D2 as long as you want and literally never trade with another person, even if the system exists to allow it.

It’s not that simple. If global trading is enabled, the game (read: loot) will be balanced around that. That means you will inadvertently get chase items for classes you might have no intentions of playing whereas if trading wasn’t an option, you’d get something useful for you instead.

[Djuntas]

Trading done right makes the game better, it adds more value to drops (finding the same rare item more than once, finding an ultra rare item early on and being able to deck your character, slowly building wealth towards that 1 big item you want etc.) but it is very hard to do right. All this really shows me is that the Devs aren't willing to put the effort into working out the more complex mechanics and are going for a much simplier, straight forward experience which fits with Blizzards style these days.

D4 will be fun for a week, maybe two. Which is all I expect from a Blizzard title. I don't expect Blizzard to be innovative and try to make an experience worth more time than this.

This. This. This. Man how many times don't you loot an item you would just wanna trade. I cant believe people are still anti-trading. They are probably people with extreme social anxiety or hate people then. Trading is what makes items have any actual value. Trading is a whole game on its own, but Blizzard can just tone it down also if they make the systems limited.

[Kumorii]

Trading done right makes the game better, it adds more value to drops (finding the same rare item more than once, finding an ultra rare item early on and being able to deck your character, slowly building wealth towards that 1 big item you want etc.) but it is very hard to do right. All this really shows me is that the Devs aren't willing to put the effort into working out the more complex mechanics and are going for a much simplier, straight forward experience which fits with Blizzards style these days.

D4 will be fun for a week, maybe two. Which is all I expect from a Blizzard title. I don't expect Blizzard to be innovative and try to make an experience worth more time than this.

How can you make trading right?
It's a transaction between players, that means players determine the rules of said transaction.
We saw it clearly in D2 where learning how trading works was a game in of itself.

Trading between players isn't a complex design dilemma that can be solved because players are the ones making the rules.
Just curious because you say a lot but not much at the same time. Just saying things as "it's complex and they are lazy" and "It can be done right" doesn't hold much weight.

[Fitsu]

How can you make trading right?
It's a transaction between players, that means players determine the rules of said transaction.
We saw it clearly in D2 where learning how trading works was a game in of itself.

Trading between players isn't a complex design dilemma that can be solved because players are the ones making the rules.
Just curious because you say a lot but not much at the same time. Just saying things as "it's complex and they are lazy" and "It can be done right" doesn't hold much weight.

I didn't go into depth because I am not a game designer so have neither the time nor the intellect to work out how to do trading correct but it's certainly a complex thing all I know is when trading has been done right I have preferred it. Look at how D3 did trading, with an AH easy access and it broke the entire game. Now look at how PoE does trading, it's a core mechanic of the game and the way the rest of the game is setup supports it.

It has multiple layers, multiple tiers of crafting/gear etc. Richer players wont bother to pick up alts they'll just buy them off poorer players. If you know how to craft you can profit off your knowledge because people will pay a premium for the end-result. Some people like to farm boss tokens, some people like to farm bosses so these people trade. etc. etc. Many items hold greater value Unid because of the gamble of it rolling good. There are multiple farming styles and each needs stuff the other gives so those players trade between eachother, I could go on but all of this creates a large and intricite economy and that is all very deliberately designed that way by the Devs, Chris talks about how the economy is the single most important part of their game.

You can't just throw trading into the game and expect it to work, it's probably one of the most complex mechanics to introduce into an ARPG. You may think players are the ones making the rules, but I can promise you almost everything is intentionally done that way by the devs if they intend to make a trade system that actually works.

With that being said, I am glad Blizzard aren't putting trading in Diablo 4 because Blizzard don't make complex games. They make simple, fun games. They always have and that's what Diablo 4 will be, simple and fun. Which is fine.

[Unseen Guest]

So...whats the issue? This is a good thing.

Grow up. D4 isn't D2 or D3. It's not meant to be.

[glowpipe]

Good. This is much better. Means it much easier to play selffound, as many people prefer. Low drop rates to force trading can eat a human meat stick

[ParanoiD84]

As long as the gear drops are not all crappy looking and they save all the cool looking gear/skins for the cosmetics shop im good, always play ssf anyways.

[Kumorii]

I didn't go into depth because I am not a game designer so have neither the time nor the intellect to work out how to do trading correct but it's certainly a complex thing all I know is when trading has been done right I have preferred it. Look at how D3 did trading, with an AH easy access and it broke the entire game. Now look at how PoE does trading, it's a core mechanic of the game and the way the rest of the game is setup supports it.

It has multiple layers, multiple tiers of crafting/gear etc. Richer players wont bother to pick up alts they'll just buy them off poorer players. If you know how to craft you can profit off your knowledge because people will pay a premium for the end-result. Some people like to farm boss tokens, some people like to farm bosses so these people trade. etc. etc. Many items hold greater value Unid because of the gamble of it rolling good. There are multiple farming styles and each needs stuff the other gives so those players trade between eachother, I could go on but all of this creates a large and intricite economy and that is all very deliberately designed that way by the Devs, Chris talks about how the economy is the single most important part of their game.

You can't just throw trading into the game and expect it to work, it's probably one of the most complex mechanics to introduce into an ARPG. You may think players are the ones making the rules, but I can promise you almost everything is intentionally done that way by the devs if they intend to make a trade system that actually works.

With that being said, I am glad Blizzard aren't putting trading in Diablo 4 because Blizzard don't make complex games. They make simple, fun games. They always have and that's what Diablo 4 will be, simple and fun. Which is fine.

Both D2 and PoE have simple trading... a trade window between 2 players and then they decide to trade whatever they want, or give freely.

Both of these are examples of players mandating how the trading will take place and how the economy will turn out.
So once again, just throwing around certain games are complex in their trading doesn't say much. While I'm arguing that most of that complexity comes from players themselves.

Developers can certainly RUIN an established economy if they change up the game. However developers don't need to design with economy in mind for an economy to exist...

D2 is a good example, once again. The game wasn't DESIGNED to have chipped gems as a currency for trading purposes. Nor was runes designed to be the currency on how to value items later on. That was player mandated. It's also something you have abide by if you want to go into trading on a deeper level. Still very much player created. I'm sure there are examples of PoE utilizing the same thing.

Now if developers started to change their drop rates of runes for example that would absolutely destroy the D2 economy which is something developers have to be wary of. Developers have to think about a lot of stuff that they don't necessarily design themselves. The only thing D2 developers actually did to encourage trading was the insanely low drop-rate on a lot of items. The rest is just letting it play out. The same with blue and yellow items with their modifiers, they created lots of effects, put in some rules and then let the RNG take it from there. The insane amount of variety in their rolls is just inhuman to think of an economy around ahead of time. It simply developed over time based on players using those items and learning what's good and what not.

There's no "deep" trading systems from a game design perspective. A game with 200,000 different of items will however have a more complex economy than a game with just 10 items. That's figured out by the players though and rarely is tailored by the devs.

[Fitsu]

Both D2 and PoE have simple trading... a trade window between 2 players and then they decide to trade whatever they want, or give freely.

Both of these are examples of players mandating how the trading will take place and how the economy will turn out.
So once again, just throwing around certain games are complex in their trading doesn't say much. While I'm arguing that most of that complexity comes from players themselves.

Developers can certainly RUIN an established economy if they change up the game. However developers don't need to design with economy in mind for an economy to exist...

D2 is a good example, once again. The game wasn't DESIGNED to have chipped gems as a currency for trading purposes. Nor was runes designed to be the currency on how to value items later on. That was player mandated. It's also something you have abide by if you want to go into trading on a deeper level. Still very much player created. I'm sure there are examples of PoE utilizing the same thing.

Now if developers started to change their drop rates of runes for example that would absolutely destroy the D2 economy which is something developers have to be wary of. Developers have to think about a lot of stuff that they don't necessarily design themselves. The only thing D2 developers actually did to encourage trading was the insanely low drop-rate on a lot of items. The rest is just letting it play out. The same with blue and yellow items with their modifiers, they created lots of effects, put in some rules and then let the RNG take it from there. The insane amount of variety in their rolls is just inhuman to think of an economy around ahead of time. It simply developed over time based on players using those items and learning what's good and what not.

There's no "deep" trading systems from a game design perspective. A game with 200,000 different of items will however have a more complex economy than a game with just 10 items. That's figured out by the players though and rarely is tailored by the devs.

I mean, Chris the owner of GGG has literally done multiple hour long interviews where he's discussed how the economy is intentionally designed by the devs. Yes ultimately players make the decisions but the Devs are the one that steer them in those directions. I agree it's rarely tailored by the devs that is also why why trade is so difficult and rarely works because it needs to be tailored by the devs, they need to understand their game to the finest of details to do it right.

D2 for example, how do you know runes weren't designed to be the currency?

A prime example, this patch GGG have said they want divines to be rarer than exalts, so they've changed some recipes around to make this so.

I am sure some parts of the economy don't go as the devs planned but to think they didn't have a plan at all is foolish.

[Biomega]

However developers don't need to design with economy in mind for an economy to exist...

No they don't, but not all economies are created equal. There's good economies and bad economies, and designing around the existence of an economy tends to make it more likely you end up with a good one rather than a bad one.

D2 is a good example, once again. The game wasn't DESIGNED to have chipped gems as a currency for trading purposes. Nor was runes designed to be the currency on how to value items later on. That was player mandated.

The developers knew trading existed, and they also knew runes were going to be one of the most important commodities in trading. That's immediately obvious to anyone with a brain. That doesn't mean they had the entire economy figured out the exact way it turned out to be, but the tendency for barter economies to invent currencies is not, like, some out-there exceptional phenomenon, it's WHAT THEY DO. And it's also why finding a Zod rune is basically impossible, and the vast majority of people who use Breath of the Dying DIDN'T find the Zod rune themselves, they traded for it. That is BY DESIGN, not by happenstance. The developers absolutely designed around the existence of a trading economy, with runes as a primary commodity.

There's no "deep" trading systems from a game design perspective. A game with 200,000 different of items will however have a more complex economy than a game with just 10 items. That's figured out by the players though and rarely is tailored by the devs.

That was PoE's answer to the trading problem: just make 20,000 different consumables that are constantly in demand, which prevents both the emergence of a centralized currency (though arguably it didn't even do that fully, as chaos/exalts are still the de-facto currency) and keep the economy moving as vast amounts of items are constantly destroyed and removed from circulation.

But that also came with downsides. PoE's complexity is a major turnoff for casual players. It's actively keeping people away from the game.

[Kumorii]

I mean, Chris the owner of GGG has literally done multiple hour long interviews where he's discussed how the economy is intentionally designed by the devs. Yes ultimately players make the decisions but the Devs are the one that steer them in those directions. I agree it's rarely tailored by the devs that is also why why trade is so difficult and rarely works because it needs to be tailored by the devs, they need to understand their game to the finest of details to do it right.

D2 for example, how do you know runes weren't designed to be the currency?

A prime example, this patch GGG have said they want divines to be rarer than exalts, so they've changed some recipes around to make this so.

I am sure some parts of the economy don't go as the devs planned but to think they didn't have a plan at all is foolish.

Because afaik, that wasn't the case when LoD came out... it took a while before players adapted it to make trading easier.
Nothing in game indicates it's a currency for trading, so unless they did mind control on players to use them there is no way they intended it become a currency because player could opt to not use it as one. I mean, even random items become a "currency" like trading X of this for 1 of Y. That makes X a currency in this regard and I don't think developers designed it to be one. They designed it to be an item. Then it's up to the players.

As I said, I don't know much of PoE.
But them saying they want divines to be rare than exalts isn't an indication that they tailor the economy to their liking. Unless they mean that they want X item to be rare is them determine the economy, which I guess they can, It means they want divines to be rarer than exalts. Just like blizzard want uniques to be rarer than rares and rares rarer than magic items. The change will AFFECT the economy, which they have to take into account in their decision.

Developers have a plan on drop-rates and which items should be rare and restrictions added to them if there are any.

I think everything has been said now though.
Will give the dude a listen at some point, because I'm curious what he means and I think there are some context that's important that I need to know.

[Itisamuh]

If this is actually true then that is all good in my book. I have no interest in a trade system in any game.

[Kumorii]

No they don't, but not all economies are created equal. There's good economies and bad economies, and designing around the existence of an economy tends to make it more likely you end up with a good one rather than a bad one.

Economies in ARPG are usually items dropped in said game. Much of which don't need much tinkering with. To get a good economy in an ARPG like PoE and D2 has more to do with general game balance of said items. For example if the best items are from the most common stuff, then the need for trading will be diminished and thus a "weak" economy.

I also didn't say that developers don't and shouldn't design their game around an economy. I said multiple times developers absolutely have to take that into account, especially if they decide to add new things and / or change the current stuff.
I'm merely contesting the idea that an economy is intentionally designed, when in my eyes, it's player made.

The developers knew trading existed, and they also knew runes were going to be one of the most important commodities in trading. That's immediately obvious to anyone with a brain. That doesn't mean they had the entire economy figured out the exact way it turned out to be, but the tendency for barter economies to invent currencies is not, like, some out-there exceptional phenomenon, it's WHAT THEY DO. And it's also why finding a Zod rune is basically impossible, and the vast majority of people who use Breath of the Dying DIDN'T find the Zod rune themselves, they traded for it. That is BY DESIGN, not by happenstance. The developers absolutely designed around the existence of a trading economy, with runes as a primary commodity.

If we argue that rarer items will often have higher value in an economy as "tailoring and designing" the economy then I guess it's just us seeing it differently.
Zod rune is, afaik, not even the most valuable one. It got shaped by both rarity and what runewords they were in. All of these values were created by players.
Yes, anyone can see that items and currencies in a game with trading will be used for trading. The economy will however be shaped by the people playing and engaging in said trading.

That was PoE's answer to the trading problem: just make 20,000 different consumables that are constantly in demand, which prevents both the emergence of a centralized currency (though arguably it didn't even do that fully, as chaos/exalts are still the de-facto currency) and keep the economy moving as vast amounts of items are constantly destroyed and removed from circulation.

But that also came with downsides. PoE's complexity is a major turnoff for casual players. It's actively keeping people away from the game.

And I'm sure the values of these are determined by the players in said game.

At this point though I start to feel we just differ on what "designing an economy" actually means.
To me that means developers sets the value and prices of things. Which they didn't in D2, players did. And I'm sure players are doing that in PoE as well.
Adding things to the game to trade with can shake things up in the economy, but it will most likely still be player driven.

it's like if I'm giving you legos and you create something with it. I didn't design it to be how you decided it to be. I gave you some stuff and knew you would build something with it (same as I would know runes would be used for trading) but what you built and how you used them is on you. If I give you more legos, the designs will most likely become more vibrant over time. Just like an economy. And I think this is actually how you get a good economy. Let people who trade sort it out and be aware how the economy they used works so you don't mess with it with new additions or changes. And make sure you have balanced drop-rates which is key for the game to begin with.

Maybe these 2 paragraphs explains my view better and more concise because as I mentioned, I've talked enough about this for now ^^

[Biomega]

At this point though I start to feel we just differ on what "designing an economy" actually means.
To me that means developers sets the value and prices of things.

That's a very strange definition, but sure, no disagreement from me given that context.

Although one could nitpick and say that they DO set the VALUE of things by deciding how useful and how rare something is. They don't set the PRICE, but they absolutely set (relative) values of items.

[Ragedaug]

I honestly played Diablo 2 and 3 for the gameplay, not for trading items. I'd rather the gameplay has an endgame that supports progression instead of the players creating a patchwork to replace it through barter systems and endless grinds of boss runs that last a few seconds.

Same. I'm almost always solo in D3, outside of getting a new toon boosted. So the no item trade makes little difference to me. That said, I can see how it will hurt group play for those who prefer grouping.

[Beefhammer]

lemme just highlight that for you, because i don't know if you're just ignorant to that fact, or are dismissing it because you don't like it, but that was the entire point of the game loot system, it was tiered based on which act you were in, meaning that if you wanted the highest quality gear (baseline) you needed to be doing act 3/4 content, meaning the old keep depths 3 farms etc, it wasn't until if i remember right the 1.6 patch that blizz normalised all loot drops and untied base item level of gear from which act it could drop in, which is when the A1 farms became popular.

the whole thing of the loot system was any item could drop for any class and could roll with (minus a few exceptions on certain legendaries and set items) any stat combinations that existed on the loot in the game, it was because of that extremely wide and variable system that meant if you played a 'solo self found' type of game, your chances of getting anything that you actually wanted were astronomically low, and to get it to roll with stats that were of benefit to you was another layer of RNG that was astronomically low, meaning that if you wanted the best items in the game, with the perfect stats for your build, you either needed to get a back to back lottery win, or rely on the MILLIONS of other players who played the game to list that item they found on the AH and you have the gold to buy it.

but here's the thing, even on inferno MP10 difficulty you could easily build a set of gear that cost 5-10 million gold to farm that difficulty, the more you spent on higher quality pieces and items that had greater synergy together increased your efficiency sure, but that's it, you didn't NEED the tippy top best gear in the game in every slot for every character, i used to build CM wizard sets for MP10 difficulty and gave them away to people, i made basic sets that were 1-2 million gold in cost with items you could actually easily find multiples of from a single farm run, to sets worth 1-2 billion gold (these were rare though due to how long it took me to get that kind of gold back to back while also improving my own characters), which could farm any MP10 inferno content as well as clear Uber bosses in no time flat, so this notion that the AH ruined D3 is false, what ruined it was the RMAH and people bitching because they couldn't get a slice of the pie, because as mentioned, how ridiculously bad the loot quality was on average, getting an item worth selling, then getting an item worth selling for real money was levels above what most casual players were ever gonna see, and as such they cried the loudest to get the thing removed and so, it was removed, while i don't care about the RMAH being gone, the outright removal of the gold AH was stupid, if they were that concerned about loot trading they could have just made it impossible to list legendary/set items on the AH, like they had done with some items in the game, because now i'm swimming in trillions upon trillions of gold, with almost full BiS for a few of my characters and the only thing i want to do is reforge legendary/set items in the cube to get primal items in the few slots i'm still missing to be 'perfect', but i can't do that because i lack enough resources to be able to facilitate that, and you can bet your ass i ain't wasting my time farming days on end just to be able to reforge a handful of times at the cube, when if the AH still existed i could buy the crafting materials i need with the trillions of gold i have that has literally no use for anything and could play how i want to play.

- - - Updated - - -



or i can just pay so no life rift farming russian kids to boost me through speed rifts and get any and all loot i want for no effort whatsoever, totally 'earned' amiright?

I play solo, never had a carry. Still better than CC warriors.

[khazmodan]

Why are people talking as if ARPGs used to have this deep, complex endgame where you didn't farm but you did really creative, exciting, varied tasks or something?

ARPGs have been about grinding shit over and over to get marginal increases in power over long periods. They've always been that way. Why this weird revisionist history about how D3 somehow stole the endgame from the genre?

You are right that these games have a ton of grinding but D3 doesn't hold a candle to D2 when it comes to atmosphere, immersion and storytelling. I bought D2 back in the early 2000s and loved it for years until I started playing WoW and enjoyed it until it was obvious that the OG geniuses had left the building. I bought D3 when it came out and while it had some fun gameplay, the immersion, atmosphere and storytelling felt phoned in and not worth paying attention too. I even bought D2 resurrected and played it for a while until I realized I was getting addicted and needed to get back to real life. While it's very easy to discount the music, sound effects and storytelling while grinding, it matters and this is why even the hardcore grinding players will stick to these high quality immersion games longer.

[Beefhammer]

So...whats the issue? This is a good thing.

Grow up. D4 isn't D2 or D3. It's not meant to be.

Gatekeeping manchildren need something to bitch about.

[BeepBoo]

Good. This is much better. Means it much easier to play selffound, as many people prefer. Low drop rates to force trading can eat a human meat stick

You act like they won't continue the low drop rates. So much for being able to beat the old casino shit luck system, eh? Just have to either be the lotto winner or enjoy being fucked until you are!

Sounds fantastic /s

This is why deterministic loot > endless low-probability loot. Someone else getting something I want that would be build-enabling while I do the same thing they do 10-20-50-100 times would make me want to go to the game dev's office in person and shit on their door step.

I'm not saying trading is good, but trading at least lets me circumvent retarded loot luck, which is still undoubtedly going to exist in diablo 4.

[Deventh]

I saw this coming a mile away, the way they talked about powers and loot it seemed obvious. No trading though.. it might not be that bad. At least then bots won't ruin the economy like in every other Blizzard game with trading. I haven't really minded no trading in D3, the thing that sucks in D3 is no content.

lul, "just have no economy at all so bots can't ruin it in the first place."