01.10.2013, 21:18
Danke, sehr nett, aber der Thread wurde mittlerweile geschlossen. 
Falls es dich interessiert, meine Antwort wäre diese gewesen:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/1...861?page=1
Falls es dich interessiert, meine Antwort wäre diese gewesen:
Show ContentSpoiler:
1.) You are right. But this can only frustrate the player who is used to the instant gratification device that is the AH. Another way to deal with this might be to just play the build that your gear allows you to and develop some constraint regarding builds you don't have the gear for.
Also, a great many people actually consider playing your way towards your dream build/gear-setup one of the most fun (and rewarding) aspects of arpgs. It is not impossible to become one of them.
2.) First of all, overpricing is not scamming. Second, the value of the most sought after items will be common knowledge soon enough. It has been like that in D2 and it is like that in Path of Exile. There is no reason why it shouldn't be like that here. Even more so actually since - compared to the aforementioned games - D3's game mechanics are rather simple, making it easy for even the most casual players to figure out what's good and what's not.
3.) Are you defining elite players as players for whom "want to have" equals "must have right now" so overwhelmingly that they will feel "forced" to visit 3rd party sites?
4.) This is assuming that D3 with all the 2.0 features will not be different from the current D3. It is also assuming you know what constitutes "fun" for the average player (whoever that may be).
5.) Blizzard could propably put a server right into every active player's bedroom and would still have enough money to buy Switzerland.
The notion that the removal of the RMAH leads to less funds for patches and updates is downright silly. You do realize that, I hope.
6.) This is assuming that post-AH ingame trading will be so abysmally ineffective that the instant gratification crowd will feel "no other choice" but to go to 3rd party sites. Do you have to be reminded that you have no knowlegde whatsoever about 2.0 trade features?
It also assumes that itemization and trading will not be sufficient for this gap to eventually even out.
7.) Since apart from violating the EULA, buying accounts would mean an investment of several hundreds or thousands of dollars - with a heavy risk involved - I think it's safe to say that the number of accounts being bought for their gear will be insignificant.
8.) Sure there will be trolls. But not an "infinite army." Also, 30-60 minutes for one single trade, really? Only trade fetishists would do such a thing and only because they love haggling. Also, stuff like that is reportable.
9.) Blizzard could also buy Greece and Italy, make them fuse and call it Gritaly. Apart from that, as of now support is probably quite busy with AH issues often enough. And even if you were right (which I'm pretty sure you're not), an increase of budget for support does not automate a decrease in budget for game development. Even a poor company would strain to avoid just that.
10.) Maybe in the first weeks and months, but they will become less in time. Also, Blizzard might install a subforum etc. for price checks. Also, with all the 2.0 features players might become less interested in trading and more in playing the game, and in being rewarded for it.
11.) You are assuming that bartering item for item will be the most common way to trade, and not an exception. You don't know enough knowledge of 2.0 to make such an assumption. There might be a considerable gold sink, for example. making gold a very sought after commodity.
Also, you do not have to trade just one piece of gear for just one other piece of gear. If you feel there is an imbalance you can always ask for or provide additional "small change" like gems etc.
12.) Sorry, but this is just ridiculous.
13.) Freedom is not generally a good thing, e.g. laws limit one's personal freedom for the benefit of society as a whole. Accordingly every freedom or lack thereof must be judged individually.
The removal of the AH might be beneficial to the game or it might not. We won't know until we know more.
14.) You are assuming that Blizzard is not aware of or ignores this. You might be right but, then again, you might not be.
Also, a great many people actually consider playing your way towards your dream build/gear-setup one of the most fun (and rewarding) aspects of arpgs. It is not impossible to become one of them.
2.) First of all, overpricing is not scamming. Second, the value of the most sought after items will be common knowledge soon enough. It has been like that in D2 and it is like that in Path of Exile. There is no reason why it shouldn't be like that here. Even more so actually since - compared to the aforementioned games - D3's game mechanics are rather simple, making it easy for even the most casual players to figure out what's good and what's not.
3.) Are you defining elite players as players for whom "want to have" equals "must have right now" so overwhelmingly that they will feel "forced" to visit 3rd party sites?
4.) This is assuming that D3 with all the 2.0 features will not be different from the current D3. It is also assuming you know what constitutes "fun" for the average player (whoever that may be).
5.) Blizzard could propably put a server right into every active player's bedroom and would still have enough money to buy Switzerland.
The notion that the removal of the RMAH leads to less funds for patches and updates is downright silly. You do realize that, I hope.
6.) This is assuming that post-AH ingame trading will be so abysmally ineffective that the instant gratification crowd will feel "no other choice" but to go to 3rd party sites. Do you have to be reminded that you have no knowlegde whatsoever about 2.0 trade features?
It also assumes that itemization and trading will not be sufficient for this gap to eventually even out.
7.) Since apart from violating the EULA, buying accounts would mean an investment of several hundreds or thousands of dollars - with a heavy risk involved - I think it's safe to say that the number of accounts being bought for their gear will be insignificant.
8.) Sure there will be trolls. But not an "infinite army." Also, 30-60 minutes for one single trade, really? Only trade fetishists would do such a thing and only because they love haggling. Also, stuff like that is reportable.
9.) Blizzard could also buy Greece and Italy, make them fuse and call it Gritaly. Apart from that, as of now support is probably quite busy with AH issues often enough. And even if you were right (which I'm pretty sure you're not), an increase of budget for support does not automate a decrease in budget for game development. Even a poor company would strain to avoid just that.
10.) Maybe in the first weeks and months, but they will become less in time. Also, Blizzard might install a subforum etc. for price checks. Also, with all the 2.0 features players might become less interested in trading and more in playing the game, and in being rewarded for it.
11.) You are assuming that bartering item for item will be the most common way to trade, and not an exception. You don't know enough knowledge of 2.0 to make such an assumption. There might be a considerable gold sink, for example. making gold a very sought after commodity.
Also, you do not have to trade just one piece of gear for just one other piece of gear. If you feel there is an imbalance you can always ask for or provide additional "small change" like gems etc.
12.) Sorry, but this is just ridiculous.
13.) Freedom is not generally a good thing, e.g. laws limit one's personal freedom for the benefit of society as a whole. Accordingly every freedom or lack thereof must be judged individually.
The removal of the AH might be beneficial to the game or it might not. We won't know until we know more.
14.) You are assuming that Blizzard is not aware of or ignores this. You might be right but, then again, you might not be.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/1...861?page=1
![[-]](https://www.diablo-3.net/forum/images/d3net/collapse.png)