We really need a auction house for non-riven items.

[Graavarg]

3 hours ago, TheGuyver said:

It doesn't protect me financially, I can buy platinum whenever I want and after playing for seven years I have thousands of plat worth of items to sell. I'm speaking in terms of the company hurting itself by adding in an auction house system. They would de-value their premium currency to the point that nobody would buy it and people like me would still be loaded and running the markets.

Look, this is just a dumb argument, it doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter if there is thousands of plat in one player's account or a hundred in many player's accounts, it totally doesn't matter if a thousand players sell one part each for 10 plat or if one player sells one riven to a dumb buyer for 10000 plat. None of the above "de-values" plat, in fact all of the above is total misunderstanding of the "plat economy".

One half of the really real plat economy is when a player buys plat using real money. This keeps the game afloat.

The other half of the really real plat economy is when a player buys something from DE for plat, removing the plat from the in-game "plat economy". This is what determines the value of plat. If all bought plat stayed in the game economy, the value of plat would continuously go down.

So the argument that plat transactions between players would determine the value of plat is totally bogus, wrong, not true.

However, there is an indirect connection: the more plat a  player has the more he/she will use on cosmetics and other stuff, and on boosters, up to a point. This is in turn dependent on how active, interested and dedicated that player is. But the more active and invested players there are, the more plat flows back to DE, and the more real money flows to DE to get more plat. And, of course, ten players buying a booster is worth ten times one player buying a booster. But that is only if they can get their hands on the plat in the first place, and not only by buying it.

The current trading system is based on "serfs" selling their hard-earned stuff to "traders", who make their profit by paying less than the stuff is worth and selling it for more than it is worth (I am not including the kuva-plat & improving rivens in this, that is a special case). These traders are protected by the sub-par trading system. And this really hurts the really real plat economy, since the "serfs" will lose out on plat, and the plat will stack up in the traders' accounts. This means that that all those serfs doesn't buy as much boosters, cosmetics, slots, forma etc. as they would do if they had more plat. Which they would have if there was an option for them to trade easily and securely. So making sure that many more players could get a little more plat would be quite beneficial to the (real) plat economy, even if the small and rich trader segment loses out. 

[PublikDomain]

9 minutes ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

You don't improve something by making Bad changes. 

You are suggesting and supporting making BAD changes. 

Stop doing that. 

And what is so bad about having the same systems we have externally available internally?

What would you do to improve the trade system?

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

10 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

And what is so bad about having the same systems we have externally available internally?

This has been explained to you several times. I suggest that you take the opportunity to read the responses to the thread to date, and this time think. 

10 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

What would you do to improve the trade system?

To improve trade there would need to be a complete overhaul of how the game works, gear would need a degradation system requiring repair and replacement, creating a permanent demand for the items you already own. 

But that system would suck. So I can live with trade how it is, because that sucks far less. 

 

[(XBOX)The Neko Otaku]

Still don't know why anyone wants an auction when with how trade chat is you can have alot of intresting trades develop when directly interacting with a person. 

Because if the social element of trade chatalot of opportunities open up, maybe a person ask if you have another item or set after trading with them letting you sell of more stock,  a person giving a bit extra than you ask for cause your prices was fairer to them then what they been dealing with all day, or they substitute something you xan make use of later cause they're short of your asking price.

I hate if this element was taking out of warframe trading because without it it's another boring grind like any other auction house in a FTP,  and those suck, one i remembered  basically stole a 50% cut of all sales from its auction house with the only option to get full cut was pay a 20$ pass, and the result was massive inflation through out the auction house as people didn't want to pay for the pass their only option  was inflat the prices just to see a worthwhile amount

[PublikDomain]

13 minutes ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

This has been explained to you several times.

You've made some claims, sure.

• That not many people use external sites
• That improving trade will increase the number of sellers but will not increase the number of buyers
• That the market will experience a "race to zero"

Yet you provide nothing to back these claims up, except for condescendingly suggesting that I read "a basic economics textbook". You have no data to back up the claim that few people use external trade sites. You have provided no proof that an improved trade experience will not produce more active buyers. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that despite external trade tools improving the trading experience there has not been a race to zero, as can be seen by prices across the market increasing and decreasing over time. You also seem to be ignoring existing mechanics like Baro and the Prime Vault actively working to keep the ingame economy from stagnating.

If you don't mind, could you quote what this basic economics textbook says?

Spoiler

Because here's a funzie from the World Bank:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2018/04/03/stronger-open-trade-policies-enables-economic-growth-for-all

Quote

Challenge

Although globalization and trade present new opportunities, it is not without challenges. Developing countries may struggle to compete on a global scale for many reasons.

• Inefficient or inadequate systems of transportation, logistics, or customs;
• Poor connectivity in telecommunications, financial markets or information technology;
• Complicated regulatory environments that discourage new investments;
• Anticompetitive behavior by major market players or cartels that stifle innovation, productivity, or market growth.

Sound familiar? And what do they recommend?

Quote

Approach

The WBG is supportive of an open, rules-based, predictable multilateral trading system, with the goal of helping countries participate in and enjoy the benefits of such a system.

Key strategies in this agenda include:

• Trade facilitation, logistics, and border management: helping countries integrate into global value chains (GVCs) through targeted reforms and investments;
• Trade agreements: advising countries on their technical details and supporting implementation of commitments made through these agreements;
• Emphasizing trade and competitiveness at the core of national development strategies
• Aid for Trade: Among multilateral institutions, the Bank Group is the largest provider of “Aid for Trade,” a multilateral initiative designed to assist developing countries, especially low-income countries, spur growth by integrating into the world economy. 
• Markets and competition policy: encouraging growth and shared prosperity by opening and transforming markets.

Oh... Facilitating trade, emphasizing competitiveness, and encouraging growth by opening and transforming markets.

 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

10 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

You've made some claims, sure.

• That not many people use external sites
• That improving trade will increase the number of sellers but will not increase the number of buyers
• That the market will experience a "race to zero"

Yet you provide nothing to back these claims up, except for condescendingly suggesting that I read "a basic economics textbook". You have no data to back up the claim that few people use external trade sites. You have provided no proof that an improved trade experience will not produce more active buyers. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that despite external trade tools improving the trading experience there has not been a race to zero, as can be seen by prices across the market increasing and decreasing over time. You also seem to be ignoring existing mechanics like Baro and the Prime Vault actively working to keep the ingame economy from stagnating.

If you don't mind, could you quote what this basic economics textbook says?

  Hide contents

Because here's a funzie from the World Bank:

https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2018/04/03/stronger-open-trade-policies-enables-economic-growth-for-all

Sound familiar? And what do they recommend?

Oh... Facilitating trade, emphasizing competitiveness, and encouraging growth by opening and transforming markets.

 

Still not reading or thinking? No significant surprises there. 

 

Perhaps if you bothered to, you would have seen several posts showing how what we have is already open and free.

Or why the in game economy doesn't follow the same rules that encourage repeat demand for items as in the real world.  

 

Had you bothered to read the posts to date you would have seen:

On 2020-12-10 at 11:26 AM, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

Nope. You are applying an economic theory that works well in a world where items:

1) can't get generated by every individual, leading to potentially infinite supply 

2) often need repair or replacement and are generally not going to last forever. 

3) may bring benefits to the owner if they are purchased in multiples, like having multiple cars, televisions, or fridges, per household 

4) change and become superior over time, like televisions becoming smart tv's, or cell phones becoming smart phones. 

 

All of those features add to the recurring demand for items in the economic theory you are trying to apply, but generally do not exist for most items in warframe. 

The vast majority of demand for most given items is when a new player joins, or a new item is added. However every single active player, creates supply as we passively farm items while trying to get other items that we want. 

So again giving tools to make it easier to hawk wares that nobody wants, only increases supply, in a system that already has a significant glut, will not increase demand, but will help to crash prices for everything other than rivens. This would make it worse for everyone in the game, not better. 

So you see, what you thought was a great point, has been dealt with days ago. 

 

Like I said before, go ahead and read some so that you can have a meaningful discussion on the topic. 

[TheGuyver]

1 hour ago, Graavarg said:

Look, this is just a dumb argument, it doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter if there is thousands of plat in one player's account or a hundred in many player's accounts, it totally doesn't matter if a thousand players sell one part each for 10 plat or if one player sells one riven to a dumb buyer for 10000 plat. None of the above "de-values" plat, in fact all of the above is total misunderstanding of the "plat economy".

One half of the really real plat economy is when a player buys plat using real money. This keeps the game afloat.

The other half of the really real plat economy is when a player buys something from DE for plat, removing the plat from the in-game "plat economy". This is what determines the value of plat. If all bought plat stayed in the game economy, the value of plat would continuously go down.

So the argument that plat transactions between players would determine the value of plat is totally bogus, wrong, not true.

However, there is an indirect connection: the more plat a  player has the more he/she will use on cosmetics and other stuff, and on boosters, up to a point. This is in turn dependent on how active, interested and dedicated that player is. But the more active and invested players there are, the more plat flows back to DE, and the more real money flows to DE to get more plat. And, of course, ten players buying a booster is worth ten times one player buying a booster. But that is only if they can get their hands on the plat in the first place, and not only by buying it.

The current trading system is based on "serfs" selling their hard-earned stuff to "traders", who make their profit by paying less than the stuff is worth and selling it for more than it is worth (I am not including the kuva-plat & improving rivens in this, that is a special case). These traders are protected by the sub-par trading system. And this really hurts the really real plat economy, since the "serfs" will lose out on plat, and the plat will stack up in the traders' accounts. This means that that all those serfs doesn't buy as much boosters, cosmetics, slots, forma etc. as they would do if they had more plat. Which they would have if there was an option for them to trade easily and securely. So making sure that many more players could get a little more plat would be quite beneficial to the (real) plat economy, even if the small and rich trader segment loses out. 

That's a lot of words for saying nothing. 

[MouadSaqui]

I cannot understand the point of being against auction house in warframe

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

2 hours ago, Graavarg said:

Look, this is just a dumb argument, it doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter if there is thousands of plat in one player's account or a hundred in many player's accounts, it totally doesn't matter if a thousand players sell one part each for 10 plat or if one player sells one riven to a dumb buyer for 10000 plat. None of the above "de-values" plat, in fact all of the above is total misunderstanding of the "plat economy".

One half of the really real plat economy is when a player buys plat using real money. This keeps the game afloat.

The other half of the really real plat economy is when a player buys something from DE for plat, removing the plat from the in-game "plat economy". This is what determines the value of plat. If all bought plat stayed in the game economy, the value of plat would continuously go down.

So the argument that plat transactions between players would determine the value of plat is totally bogus, wrong, not true.

However, there is an indirect connection: the more plat a  player has the more he/she will use on cosmetics and other stuff, and on boosters, up to a point. This is in turn dependent on how active, interested and dedicated that player is. But the more active and invested players there are, the more plat flows back to DE, and the more real money flows to DE to get more plat. And, of course, ten players buying a booster is worth ten times one player buying a booster. But that is only if they can get their hands on the plat in the first place, and not only by buying it.

The current trading system is based on "serfs" selling their hard-earned stuff to "traders", who make their profit by paying less than the stuff is worth and selling it for more than it is worth (I am not including the kuva-plat & improving rivens in this, that is a special case). These traders are protected by the sub-par trading system. And this really hurts the really real plat economy, since the "serfs" will lose out on plat, and the plat will stack up in the traders' accounts. This means that that all those serfs doesn't buy as much boosters, cosmetics, slots, forma etc. as they would do if they had more plat. Which they would have if there was an option for them to trade easily and securely. So making sure that many more players could get a little more plat would be quite beneficial to the (real) plat economy, even if the small and rich trader segment loses out. 

Did you really mean to point out that you were about to make a dumb argument? I mean that was nice of you and all, but we really didn't need the prompt. 

Basically you've failed to recognize that supply far outstrips demand. And while the whole serfs vs traders sounds terribly romantic and all, it's really far simpler than that. We have a few people who have more money than time, who spend their money to save time, and others who have more time than money, who spend their time to get the plat they don't have the money to buy. 

And what you want won't ensure that more people get money, because you haven't increased the demand for any of the items, only the supply. What it will do is rapidly reduce prices (for everything that is not extremely rare, so seriously end the silly riven talk already), while not substantially increasing the demand. This means less plat gets shared around, which in turn makes it more difficult for the f2p Tenno (the vast majority of players) to earn the plat they need to progress. 

That's a bad thing. 

[(XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA]

1 hour ago, MouadSaqui said:

I cannot understand the point of being against auction house in warframe

Reasons why have been explained here numerous times. Same with every other thread on the subject.

[_R_o_g_u_e_]

8 hours ago, Zeclem said:

has a bot problem.

has a bot problem.

RuneScape hasn’t had a bot problem for years, and I’ve never once seen a bot in path of exile.

Also, warframe already has bots?

[PublikDomain]

3 hours ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

Or why the in game economy doesn't follow the same rules that encourage repeat demand for items as in the real world.  

4 hours ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

find yourself a basic economics textbook, and start at the beginning. Then think about what you're reading, and make sure you understand it all.

Then why are you bringing up economics textbooks?

You've got nothing to back up your claims of doom and gloom.

[Zeclem]

1 hour ago, _R_o_g_u_e_ said:

RuneScape hasn’t had a bot problem for years, and I’ve never once seen a bot in path of exile.

Also, warframe already has bots?

sure, you can deny the reality as much as you want. but those games do have bot problems as shown in the links.

warframes RMT scene is way, way smaller to the point of not existing thanks to not having an AH that automates trade.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

42 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

Then why are you bringing up economics textbooks?

You've got nothing to back up your claims of doom and gloom.

You would need to read one to figure it out. 

The book will explain things like supply and demand, and the effects on pricing, as well as the effects of pricing on demand. There will probably even be a section explaining what a Giffen Good is. (Hint, it's not the same as a Git Gud.) We have had some of those as well in game. 

You would then need to do some thinking, and see what applies here and what does not. I suppose that if you were truly ambitious you would then look into how other game economies work/don't work, and why so many economies fail drastically. 

 

The fact that there are quite a few of us  on this thread alone, who have said very much the same thing about what would happen if the system you want is implemented, suggests that the prediction is probably quite valid. Again, you would know this if you had bothered to read the comments to date, as I suggested. 

 

[PublikDomain]

11 minutes ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

You would need to read one to figure it out. 

The book will explain things like supply and demand, and the effects on pricing, as well as the effects of pricing on demand. There will probably even be a section explaining what a Giffen Good is. (Hint, it's not the same as a Git Gud.) We have had some of those as well in game. 

You would then need to do some thinking, and see what applies here and what does not. I suppose that if you were truly ambitious you would then look into how other game economies work/don't work, and why so many economies fail drastically. 

 

The fact that there are quite a few of us  on this thread alone, who have said very much the same thing about what would happen if the system you want is implemented, suggests that the prediction is probably quite valid. Again, you would know this if you had bothered to read the comments to date, as I suggested. 

 

In other words, you've got nothing except gO ReAd A BoOk to back up your claims. How persuasive.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

20 minutes ago, PublikDomain said:

In other words, you've got nothing except gO ReAd A BoOk to back up your claims. How persuasive.

You ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? 

Until you learn enough about the topic at hand, you will continue to believe that you currently know what you are talking about. 

After you have educated yourself, you will be in a position to be persuaded. Until then you will continue to believe that you know what you are talking about. 

[PublikDomain]

1 minute ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

You ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? 

Until you learn enough about the topic at hand, you will continue to believe that you currently know what you are talking about. 

After you have educated yourself, you will be in a position to be persuaded. Until then you will continue to believe that you know what you are talking about. 

Yes. and you're showing us quite a good example!

[_R_o_g_u_e_]

55 minutes ago, Zeclem said:

sure, you can deny the reality as much as you want. but those games do have bot problems as shown in the links.

warframes RMT scene is way, way smaller to the point of not existing thanks to not having an AH that automates trade.

One of your videos is TWO YEARS OLD, and for OSRS. I’m not denying reality, RuneScape no longer has a bot problem.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, PublikDomain said:

Yes. and you're showing us quite a good example!

I know that pointing out that you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect is a good example, but thank you for agreeing so readily. 🙂

If only you would have read the posts on the thread, thought about what you were suggesting, and educated yourself about basic economic principles, I'm sure it would have been a great conversation. 

[Graavarg]

8 hours ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

Did you really mean to point out that you were about to make a dumb argument? I mean that was nice of you and all, but we really didn't need the prompt. 

Basically you've failed to recognize that supply far outstrips demand. And while the whole serfs vs traders sounds terribly romantic and all, it's really far simpler than that. We have a few people who have more money than time, who spend their money to save time, and others who have more time than money, who spend their time to get the plat they don't have the money to buy. 

And what you want won't ensure that more people get money, because you haven't increased the demand for any of the items, only the supply. What it will do is rapidly reduce prices (for everything that is not extremely rare, so seriously end the silly riven talk already), while not substantially increasing the demand. This means less plat gets shared around, which in turn makes it more difficult for the f2p Tenno (the vast majority of players) to earn the plat they need to progress. 

That's a bad thing. 

If you want to make sense, explain how what you are saying would reduce/increase players buying plat from DE and, especially, buying stuff for plat from DE. Everything else is just shuffling that plat around in-game to no real effect.

While that can include some players "getting more" of it due to the current sub-par options for trading, which is what you are clearly supporting, that is totally irrelevant if it has no effect on the really real "plat economy".

[Graavarg]

9 hours ago, TheGuyver said:

That's a lot of words for saying nothing. 

No. If "nothing" is what you get of it, the problem is with your understanding, not the words.

[PublikDomain]

3 hours ago, (PSN)guzmantt1977 said:

I know that pointing out that you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect is a good example, but thank you for agreeing so readily. 🙂

Wait, was I the one claiming to be some sort of ubermensch economist? I don't think I was... But hey, if this back and forth continues for too long this thread'll get locked. Let's wrap this up?

You still have not produced any evidence for the claims you've presented to me.

• There is nothing to back up the claim that people aren't widely using external sites for trade. To the contrary, there are 9,056 people viewing warframe.market right now, with 6,471 of them being traders. And with 33,942 players online on Steam as of an hour ago, warframe.market is the size of a full quarter of that playerbase.
• That a more accessible market wouldn't produce more buyers, even though you claim it would produce more sellers.
• That there'd be a race to the bottom, even though this hasn't happened with improvements to the trading system already existing externally.

Your central claim seems to solely revolve around prime sets and how a person buying a set is only a buyer once, which is certainly true! But you're omitting that this is already the case and would not be changed by an improved market. You've also ignoring mechanics like Baro giving recurring value to Prime Parts and taking them out of circulation, the Prime Vault controlling the supply of new parts, or that consumable items like Relics, Rivens, and Ayatans are also widely traded and have a constant demand. You're also ignoring that DE is the one that sets the value of plat by setting the real money price and the price of items in the premium market, not player-to-player trade.

And when you consider that this is all that I'm suggesting...

Spoiler

... there's basically nothing to your argument.

There are valid reasons to be against a fully automated auction house, sure, but there isn't a single valid reason to be against improving the trade system in any way. In your own words, the system we have is not ideal. Replicating something like what's already widely available with existing external tools is the best way to improve trade: since this kind of trade already happens, moving from a website to the game does nothing except make trade easier and more accessible from both ends. Not only does it make it easier to sell, it also makes it easier to buy.

You just want to keep the market slow and stupid to maintain your own personal value. You've said as much elsewhere. Ironically, of the things you mentioned sums this up quite well I think:

Quote

The tragedy of the commons is a situation in a shared-resource system where individual users, acting independently according to their own self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling the shared resource through their collective action.

And if you're just going to tell me to read a book, it'd be much more helpful if you posted a transcription instead so all of us here could read these holy economic texts you're so enthralled with.

[nms.]

Merge warframe.market features into warframe core, problem solved. Listings (opt-in) when player is online/logged-in, no listings when player is offline/logged-out, in-person trading is still required. Activity icons to reflect whether player is away, idle, in-mission or available.

Same impact, no more 3rd world pre-historic flea market tomato trading crap.

It's sad people still cling to the idea of a purely text based exchange and the god damn text buffer doesn't even have an option to copy or selecting. It's not even good at being "text" with actual modern features (ctrl+backspace deleting word, shift+arrows to select text). Welcome to 1989, we just figured out how to create an array of strings.

[TheQuartakkMain]

The sad thing is that people are arguing here for days, then nothing happens. There are great argument on each side! But don't go postal on each other which usually leads the closing of a topic. 

The trading system has it's own flaws, of course! An auction house is a bad word, what would be actually good. The exact same system what we have on a third party website, would make things just a little bit easier. The auction house is not the best thing for warframe. _{(Of course there was one game, which actually made it good, and it was spiral knights. There the premium currency could be exchanged to normal crown and vice versa. The prices even after the game become dead still stabile and always the same in the auction house. )}  

Just implementing the website into the game or making it officially connected would be a good start.

 

[sly_squash]

Agreed with OP. Current system is undeniably buggy, slow, needlessly pulls premade groups apart constantly, and is very prone to exploitation as not everyone is aware of the "real" trade chat that exists as a 3rd party framework outside of the game that properly grounds prices.

Don't be discouraged by the people saying that DE have rejected this proposal "over and over". They tweeted about this topic, once. A year ago. And they didn't even reject it; they just say they "currently had no plans" to implement one. Hopefully if we continue to push for a trading system that isn't antiquated trash DE will finally make it a priority.