Trade options

Sion79

The game would be great if there was a trade option with other players in and out the guild. I’ll trade you a zeta for x etc. It would open up a new world of experience and could be a faster way of getting gear and things needed.

avihas

I think it'll be very problamatic.
We already had the auction house in diablo 3 and that did not go very well (even though I personally liked it). I'll make farming & hoarding far too easy and people would rather be in this auction house than actually playing the game. I mean, why spendind hours or even days in the game over something you can get in minutes in this auction house?
Not to mention it could devestate the balance in the game. Players could jump from rock bottom to complete dominance in no time.

I'm not completely against it, but think it should be very restricted. Maybe it'll be best just to expand what you could ask for donation inside the guild

DarjeloSalas

It would also be a way of people setting up a new account and trading the account ahead of the curve, which would be an unfair advantage over other players in same arena shard.

If an idea is exploitable, people out there would definitely exploit it.

Legend91

Its_not_a_moon wrote: »

DarjeloSalas wrote: »

It would also be a way of people setting up a new account and trading the account ahead of the curve, which would be an unfair advantage over other players in same arena shard.

If an idea is exploitable, people out there would definitely exploit it.

Yup, I would personally make 40 to 50 accounts and have them farm all sorts of gear and than just pass them back to me

This. Mod farming with hundreds of bot accounts would instantly be a thing. 25+ speed mods would sell for quite a lucrative amount considering how rare they are and even "just" 20+ speed ones would sell well. Also mod sharing could become a problem..
So yeah, it's better to never introduce a trading market to this game.

Kyno

I believe they also said in a QA they would never do this due to it leading to a "Black market" within the game.

But yes too open to abuse to ever be a thing.

Mephisto_style

What makes me mad about the responses to ideas like this is that people just choose to shoot it down instead of making it work. As if in 2020 we are just incapable of writing algorithms that can filter out cheaters. IP address-matching checks can be performed to find your 60 account players, = perma-ban for all associated IP addresses. There's 1 of your caveats solved.

Fine, IP address can have a maximum of 3 accounts. Oh, they're going to spoof the IP addresses you say, for 3 accounts? Fine, by implementing simple measures such as these they minimize cheating.

CG could get it to where the incenttive to cheat is just not worth it. I've seen other games do this.

In the last decade Florida's former Governor decided to drug-test all welfare recipients to ensure illegal drug-users weren't getting welfare. The problem? The statistical amount of people on welfare that use drugs is less than the national average as a whole. Not only does it not make sense to marginalize a group that is already doing better than the national average, but the testing itself would've been more costly than just giving the small group of drug users welfare. BUT, a groupnof principled **** still pushed for the program to be implemented even though it costs more money than it saves.

This reminds me of a math teacher I once saw chasing down, for at least an hour, 2 students that left her classroom to cheat on a test. She was in such a fervor that I wanted to tell her, "You know, if you just put that time and effort into the other kids and your lesson, your classes would benefit far more than you catching the cheaters. "

The game would be better off if CG put into place a few algorithms that weed out cheaters and make the game better. The lines of logic that all ofnthe posters I've seen above haven't provided enough depth of thought for me to not consider it as simply sophist.

Kyno

Mephisto_style wrote: »

What makes me mad about the responses to ideas like this is that people just choose to shoot it down instead of making it work. As if in 2020 we are just incapable of writing algorithms that can filter out cheaters. IP address-matching checks can be performed to find your 60 account players, = perma-ban for all associated IP addresses. There's 1 of your caveats solved.

Fine, IP address can have a maximum of 3 accounts. Oh, they're going to spoof the IP addresses you say, for 3 accounts? Fine, by implementing simple measures such as these they minimize cheating.

CG could get it to where the incenttive to cheat is just not worth it. I've seen other games do this.

In the last decade Florida's former Governor decided to drug-test all welfare recipients to ensure illegal drug-users weren't getting welfare. The problem? The statistical amount of people on welfare that use drugs is less than the national average as a whole. Not only does it not make sense to marginalize a group that is already doing better than the national average, but the testing itself would've been more costly than just giving the small group of drug users welfare. BUT, a groupnof principled **** still pushed for the program to be implemented even though it costs more money than it saves.

This reminds me of a math teacher I once saw chasing down, for at least an hour, 2 students that left her classroom to cheat on a test. She was in such a fervor that I wanted to tell her, "You know, if you just put that time and effort into the other kids and your lesson, your classes would benefit far more than you catching the cheaters. "

The game would be better off if CG put into place a few algorithms that weed out cheaters and make the game better. The lines of logic that all ofnthe posters I've seen above haven't provided enough depth of thought for me to not consider it as simply sophist.

How does this make the game better?
What are the implications on the in game economy?
Why only 3 per IP?
How would making someone spoof an IP reduce the issue, when you are talking about someone who may be willing to already run multiple accounts? The IP issue is the simplest part of that whole process.

Ideas like this are a literal can of worms with layers and layers of issues and only some slight tweak to the game play, which will likely have limitations installed (like guild trading maximums) just to help manage it. You can get mad if you wish, but you must realize that there are a mountain of issues here that far outweigh any perceived benefit.

Also, you do realize that "put in a few algorithms" is not an actual solution right? Life would be grand if things were that easy, but its not.

Mephisto_style

Kyno wrote: »

Mephisto_style wrote: »

What makes me mad about the responses to ideas like this is that people just choose to shoot it down instead of making it work. As if in 2020 we are just incapable of writing algorithms that can filter out cheaters. IP address-matching checks can be performed to find your 60 account players, = perma-ban for all associated IP addresses. There's 1 of your caveats solved.

Fine, IP address can have a maximum of 3 accounts. Oh, they're going to spoof the IP addresses you say, for 3 accounts? Fine, by implementing simple measures such as these they minimize cheating.

CG could get it to where the incenttive to cheat is just not worth it. I've seen other games do this.

In the last decade Florida's former Governor decided to drug-test all welfare recipients to ensure illegal drug-users weren't getting welfare. The problem? The statistical amount of people on welfare that use drugs is less than the national average as a whole. Not only does it not make sense to marginalize a group that is already doing better than the national average, but the testing itself would've been more costly than just giving the small group of drug users welfare. BUT, a groupnof principled **** still pushed for the program to be implemented even though it costs more money than it saves.

This reminds me of a math teacher I once saw chasing down, for at least an hour, 2 students that left her classroom to cheat on a test. She was in such a fervor that I wanted to tell her, "You know, if you just put that time and effort into the other kids and your lesson, your classes would benefit far more than you catching the cheaters. "

The game would be better off if CG put into place a few algorithms that weed out cheaters and make the game better. The lines of logic that all ofnthe posters I've seen above haven't provided enough depth of thought for me to not consider it as simply sophist.

How does this make the game better?
What are the implications on the in game economy?
Why only 3 per IP?
How would making someone spoof an IP reduce the issue, when you are talking about someone who may be willing to already run multiple accounts? The IP issue is the simplest part of that whole process.

Ideas like this are a literal can of worms with layers and layers of issues and only some slight tweak to the game play, which will likely have limitations installed (like guild trading maximums) just to help manage it. You can get mad if you wish, but you must realize that there are a mountain of issues here that far outweigh any perceived benefit.

Also, you do realize that "put in a few algorithms" is not an actual solution right? Life would be grand if things were that easy, but its not.

Again, you are getting caught in nuances that get decided while determiningbhow to implement it, not whether to implement it.

The obvious reason to me to implement is it would give players more venues to male their rosters unique to them. Anything that does that in my opinion makes the game better. I think the OP would agree. Other character-gearing and modding games implement trading platforms functionally, and I assume they did it for similar reasons as to fulfill what the OP wants.

I guess I am just a fantasy-thinker that believes this could be the greatest mobile game ever (that includes a mod-trading, character trading, and gear trading platform, but apparently we just can't do that in 2020 with a Star Wars mobile game.

Mastersbgames

It could work, but it would take a large amount of monitoring. For instance, if large amounts of resources are going into one account, something might be up, moniter it. Or have it less like a gift system, more like an auction house, which is less F2P friendly, thinking about it.

How about you can put up say, 5 stun guns. Someone else can either buy them straight up using crystals or credits or offer a trade. You can do one a week. The trade would have to be of an equal value. You can’t offer a zeta for 5 stun guns...

There must be a way that it can work, but more staff would be given more work for monitoring it, which could pull away fro, staff trying to make something for the game