30 replies to this topic

[Winterclaw]

One thing about GW was that you often had to use items such as ambraces or ectos as a form of barter currency once you agreed to buy something more than 100k in value from someone else.  Now as obscene as that was, in most cases, it seems obvious that something like that will come back in GW2 by necessity as long as there are rare items of some kind.

So why not help the system by assigning stackable trade items that have a fixed buy/sell value and can always be bought and sold for the same price from the xunlai bank or whoever?  Things like ectos fluctuate in value and if prices are down or up that week, I might be getting a good deal or a raw deal.  With a letter of credit, I'd be able to negotiate a 100k+ price for a fixed, stable value.

[Hexs]

If I ever get 100k at one time and need more.... I'll post a better Reply. :)

[Huginn]

Winterclaw said:

One thing about GW was that you often had to use items such as ambraces or ectos as a form of barter currency once you agreed to buy something more than 100k in value from someone else.  Now as obscene as that was, in most cases, it seems obvious that something like that will come back in GW2 by necessity as long as there are rare items of some kind.

So why not help the system by assigning stackable trade items that have a fixed buy/sell value and can always be bought and sold for the same price from the xunlai bank or whoever?  Things like ectos fluctuate in value and if prices are down or up that week, I might be getting a good deal or a raw deal.  With a letter of credit, I'd be able to negotiate a 100k+ price for a fixed, stable value.

/signed, always hate trading with ectos...

But I kinda don't see why it would be need, because wouldn't it just be the same as if they took away the limit altogether?

[Winterclaw]

The limit, as it stands, is of little worth.

[Corsair]

It would be nice, but I don't see that happening. I think it more likely they will increase the amount you are allowed to carry.

[raspberry jam]

This would be the exact same thing as removing the gold limit, with an added layer of impracticality.

[Winterclaw]

So buying, farming, or trading for 80 ectos or whatever so I can get a gwen doll, ugly spear, or whatever is practical?  If the gold limit in GW2 is 1 million, people will be selling rare items for 2 million.

[raspberry jam]

Winterclaw said:

So buying, farming, or trading for 80 ectos or whatever so I can get a gwen doll, ugly spear, or whatever is practical?  If the gold limit in GW2 is 1 million, people will be selling rare items for 2 million.

What's the diff between 80 ectos and 80 letters of credit? Just the fixed price, making them impervious to fluctuations of ecto supply. The actual trading part where you drag and drop items in a window (or put them on the auction house or whatever) is the same.

• If the buy price is the same as the sell price, letters of credit is identical to gold in every way, except being less practical.
  
• If the buy price is different than the sell price it would be a nice gold sink of sorts, though that would introduce value fluctuations of its own since the demand for them would never be exactly equal to that of gold.

Actually I like the idea but you might as well just have an infinite gold limit.

[pradine]

It SOUNDS like a good idea at first, but...

What's the difference between using a letter of credit at a fixed price of 100k instead of trading 100k cash (also fixed). In the end they are almost identical and it would have just the same effect raising the maximum gold amount.

[tmakinen]

Winterclaw said:

If the gold limit in GW2 is 1 million, people will be selling rare items for 2 million.

Um, no. The trade limit has nothing to do with the going price of items. The price is determined by supply (i.e., the relative rarity of an item) and demand, and as a rule of thumb it is around the equal yield point (i.e., it will take about the same amount of effort to farm an item directly or to farm the necessary amount of gold to purchase one - a strong deviation in either direction tends to get leveled out through the normal behavior of markets). The only thing the trade limit does is to make high end trades more cumbersome.

As a contrived solution to an artificial problem I must stay /unsigned since the simple solution would be to remove the trade limit altogether.

[Elk]

/signed i'd like there to be something like ectos that fluctuates in price, providing a stock market item that can be used for profit.

[Geikamir]

I'd like to have a fixed priced item like this, as well. It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Corsair]

People, its money in all but name, except you can't buy directly from traders with it! Why can't we just increase or do away with the trade cap? That would do the SAME exact thing, except for adding an extra layer of crap to deal with.

Crap is a technical term.

[pradine]

Corsair said:

its money in all but name

increase or do away with the trade cap? That would do the SAME exact thing, except for adding an extra layer of crap to deal with.

tmakinen said:

the simple solution would be to remove the trade limit altogether.

raspberry jam said:

Actually I like the idea but you might as well just have an infinite gold limit.

raspberry jam said:

This would be the exact same thing as removing the gold limit, with an added layer of impracticality.

Corsair said:

I think it more likely they will increase the amount you are allowed to carry.

Huginn said:

wouldn't it just be the same as if they took away the limit altogether?

Pattern?

Typing this just so that I have to pass over the minimum word limmit...

[Winterclaw]

Because you can do things like have it cost a little more to make one of them (50 gp) than they are worth to add a small money sink feature.  You could make gold take up inventory or weight if you wanted to be realistic.  You could have people lose a percentage of their GP 1% every time a mob kills them.

I dunno what else, but it could open up other options later.

[raspberry jam]

Winterclaw said:

You could have people lose a percentage of their GP 1% every time a mob kills them.

I'm actually shocked over how many bad ideas come up in those forums. It's like everyone wants to play Tibia or something.

[Corsair]

Oh god no... Don't take my money or xp when I die, that is cruel. GW has enough money sinks anyway.

No longer shall I post here, time for this thread to go its natural course...

[XxxTenebraexxX]

Yeah...I'm with those who don't understand why we just don't do away with the money limit.

[Winterclaw]

raspberry jam said:

I'm actually shocked over how many bad ideas come up in those forums. It's like everyone wants to play Tibia or something.

1.  Deposit money in bank so you have less on you
2.  Learn not to die (best motivation to become a better player IMO)
3.  Spend money on things that won't drop
4.  The idea of GP loss on death, it was just a thought on the spur of the moment.

[Faer]

Winterclaw said:

If the gold limit in GW2 is 1 million, people will be selling rare items for 2 million.

I'm afraid that isn't how it works. The character holding gold limit in WoW is 214,748 gold, 36 silver, and 48 copper. People are not selling items for 214,748g 36s 49c. That would be ridiculous.

100k is 100k is 100k. You can trade 200k flat, or you can trade 100k + 1 item worth 100k, but it's still going to be 200k either way. At the end of the day, the only difference is how many inventory slots are being wasted. Personally, I don't like my slots being wasted.

[Winterclaw]

Well, in GW people trade over the limit and in WoW they don't.  In some games people need to barter in others they don't.  If this is a simple up the trade limit thing, I'd be fine with it.

Though, assuming in GW2 the limit is too low, what would be the most effective use of inventory and would people prefer a stable barter item, a fluctuating one, or both?

[Geikamir]

So, what would the money cap be set at? Right now people are buying some mini pets for 50 million+, this could be even crazier in GW2.

[johnny manhands]

Eliminate rare items and the problem is solved!

:)

[raspberry jam]

Winterclaw said:

Though, assuming in GW2 the limit is too low, what would be the most effective use of inventory and would people prefer a stable barter item, a fluctuating one, or both?

People who just want to play would (I assume) prefer a stable one, while the power-trader type likely wants one with a fluctuating price.

[Winterclaw]

Exactly.  Without knowing beforehand if the trade limit is going to be high enough this is why we'd need something like this, even if people don't like it.

[Neon]

I must say I REALLY REALLY REALLY do not understand the point of this. Why would they introduce an item to be used for the sole purpose of being used as currency rather than just remove the 100k at a time limit?

Ectos were never "meant" to be used as currency, but they were rare enough to actually be worth something, they were common enough so that people could actually get them and people started getting them in the first place because they could be used. The players decided to make ectos currency, not arenanet. This does bring up the question of how arenanet thought trade was going to work. Hmmz.

[Winterclaw]

Neon, if you read my previous post, you'd see that I said:

Me said:

Without knowing beforehand if the trade limit is going to be high enough this is why we'd need something like this

Upping the trade limit it too vague a request.  Anet will pick some number and until we get into the game and rare and expensive items start coming out, we won't know if the new limit is high enough.

[tmakinen]

High end trade is a rather specific niche of the game economy anyway. For me the account storage limit has been much more inconvenient. You can put one million to bank and distribute another across the toons (assuming one of each profession) and that's it, you're stuffed and unable to handle any more gold before converting some of it to stackable assets like picks or ecto.

I hope that GW2 sets the cap so high that it is effectively nonexistent. If ANet fears that some players become astronomically rich (which, I assume, was the original and rather misguided rationale for the GW1 cap since the accumulation of astronomical riches was actively encouraged by some other actions like issuing limited edition minis) and can crash the in-game economy they can slap a progressive tax on gold (e.g., zero tax on 1 million and below, 0.3% per day of gold above 1 million) to encourage the circulation of gold without artificial trade caps.

[Lurker]

tmakinen said:

I hope that GW2 sets the cap so high that it is effectively nonexistent. If ANet fears that some players become astronomically rich (which, I assume, was the original and rather misguided rationale for the GW1 cap since the accumulation of astronomical riches was actively encouraged by some other actions like issuing limited edition minis) and can crash the in-game economy they can slap a progressive tax on gold (e.g., zero tax on 1 million and below, 0.3% per day of gold above 1 million) to encourage the circulation of gold without artificial trade caps.

Players will simply find a low game-value stackable to take the place of gold in the manner of ectos (100g merchant value, high variable player value), rather than holding taxable gold.

[Neon]

Winterclaw said:

Neon, if you read my previous post, you'd see that I said:



Upping the trade limit it too vague a request.  Anet will pick some number and until we get into the game and rare and expensive items start coming out, we won't know if the new limit is high enough.

Well again as I said it doesn't make sense for them to impliment your idea whether they have decided what the new limit (or if to use a new limit at all) will be. It would just be much simpler if they removed the trade limit alltogether. The fact that players will just start trading in items again makes any trade limit pointless.