Auction house will destroy economy until you add this option

"

MkDdZZzAfZ#6959 написал:

"

Danny90x#3250 написал:

It's not destroying anything lol, people are actually able to sell items now, especially with ex, so they are more valuable, it has bought Divine Orbs in line and items are more affordable than ever, especially for casual players, it is currently so easy to earn divines running maps and stuff, this is such a bad take. It has helped the casual progression so much.

Economy does not work like that, just because there is not much bubblegum currency in the pool, it does not mean things will become cheaper - the flipper and price fixing will just adopt the currency pool so. The currency pool change will only affect crafters (to most extent)

"

iHiems#0168 написал:

This is essentially soulbinding. Soul bound items have been a thing in MMOs since forever and they're imo a terrible fix for this problem

As someone who studied economics irl, a good chunk of the fun of the game for me comes from the market, even more now after asynchronous trade was implemented

Let me tell you a few reasons on why soulbound items are bad in my opinion, despite being an easy (brute force) fix

In a micro (player level) you lose liquidity. Losing liquidity = worse trade for everyone. Soulbinding an item removes it permanently from the tradable pool. Fewer tradable units = tinner market depth. Thin markets make prices jumpy and create wide spreads between buyer and seller prices, which hurts both casual players and price sensitive traders. This is basic supply/demand, if you reduce supply (in the market) you will change the equilibrium, but not in a neat, predictable way

Players who get high value soulbound items keep monopoly power over that gear (good for them personally), but the rest of the playerbase wouldn't be able to access those items through trade, driving inequality in attainable power and playstyles

Thin markets are easier for bigger groups to corner. With async insta buy (first comes first serve) and soulbinding, I think the tactics used before async trade become even more of a problem because before the item pool was larger and you ha da wider pool of items to base your prices on. After soulbinding, bots would be sniping anything even remotely underpriced while selling other items higher, same with groups that do this in a cartel like way. We go back to the price fixing problem we had before asynchronous trade, but now in a much worse way for the market

In a macro level (whole game) you would also have a number of problems. First, lower velocity of items (fewer trade per unity) = less natural sinks and more fragile currencies

Overall transaction volhme falls and revenue sinks may shrink, which paradoxicaly might force the devs to create artificial sinks, which hurts the players and the game. Right now you can move all those resources like ex and nothing goes to waste (it just works), the price are starting to balance, but imo it's hard to believe we wouldn't go to pre 0.3 bad currency values with soulbinding

There are many more reasons I probably could think like a possible risk of massive inflation/deflation curves, but yea... I believe the market can be tuned in ways with certain rules to keep it healthy, but soulbinding in my opinion is definitely not it

Your idea only makes sense when the market and people play fair, but they do not actually. You can check the prices of items and how much you need to craft them. The profit margin is out of this world because there is no force to balance it out. There needs to be a soulbound system unless you have an alternative for it.
It all boils down to how much currency it takes to craft vs how much you are selling for. I don't want bots buying my stuff because of my low margin. I want people to use my items and get some currency back so I can craft more; it will not make fewer items in the pool, as most people craft like that. Hardcore profit crafting, flippers, and mirror shops destroy the economy in the long term.

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 написал:

They've also talked extensively over the years about why they make everything tradable and are extremely resistant to soulbound style items. I've actually been playing PoE2 more casually recently due to lack of time, but usually I'm a player that plays crafting and trading markets. Making items unable to be resold would kill the game for me long term.

No? You would just not buy them and buy the one u want to resell, that's why I suggest it as an option for ethical players, so I can constantly provide items for casual players for much less and get enough to craft more gear with an ethical profit margin, so I can provide even more gear. There will still be a market for people who want to drain other players by flipping and overpricing gear, but I don't want to be standard.

"

MkDdZZzAfZ#6959 написал:

I'm having fun too. An alternative to the mirror would be to put a limit on the item. One-time use for example. When game will become much bigger on release it will get much worse, this is still EA and we are not on full big economy.

I'm sorry, but cooldown and higher taxes would only make this more organised. An optional soulbound would fix the problem, and people would balance prices around it. So, soulbound items would become in equilibrium because they would show "true" value.

If there is someone who has better solution of course drop it here

"

diablofdb#3816 написал:

That was one of the things that destroyed D3

"

rawdmon#8799 написал:

I see this working a different way where you have the option as the seller to lock the purchase price onto the item so that if you go to re-sell it you can only sell it for what you paid for it. To me that would make the most sense.

"

KaosuRyoko#1633 написал:

"

rawdmon#8799 написал:

I see this working a different way where you have the option as the seller to lock the purchase price onto the item so that if you go to re-sell it you can only sell it for what you paid for it. To me that would make the most sense.

In what way would this benefit the seller and why would they ever choose that option?