Apparently, trading is controversial

The point is you shouldn't be instantly dismissive of a feature that many people think is a good idea because you're afraid of exploitation. Your argument is pessimistic and nihilistic.
[[Examples of similar arguments: Why is this game even free to play? People are just going to play the free game and never pay any money. "People are leeches." Why are missions replayable? People are just going to play the same missions over and over until they level up and get legendary loot. "People are bad at games." Why have a map editor? The only maps people are going to make are penis shaped ones. "People are scum."]]

It is far better for a game of this nature to be social instead of anti-social. The idea that sharing is wrong because everyone should have to earn their keep, period, no exceptions is absurd. The idea that the majority of people that just want to play and trade fairly are not allowed to do so because of an imaginary robot that may surface and possibly irritate you at some point in the future is not what gaming is about.

CH has a chance to be something outstanding. I am of the camp that believes that a trade system can help them achieve this goal.

I gave the example I did because it's the truth. In any other situation, in any other game, I would do the same thing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with helping out other players who want it, and there's nothing wrong with a fair trade. Stop trying to shame the playerbase.

 

History has proven that a trading system in games almost always does more harm than good. You can't argue with history. Period. If the devs want to add a traditional trading system to the game, that's their choice. But I guarantee it will lead to many problems. I've said my piece.

 

[citation needed]

 

Having a gold fee - or possibly even a pizza fee - would be a great compromise. If you want to send someone an item, then maybe you have to pay postage like many modern MMOs do.
Maybe only club members can trade.
It's definitely not ideal, but it would prevent a lot of the exploitation mentioned above.
I don't think there should be item or rarity based restrictions, though.

 

What? In Scrolls you spend gold on either booster packs or a single cards from a randomly selected set. In Card Hunter you spend gold on either chests or single items from a randomly selected set. It's exactly the same.

This could not be more wrong. We're not talking about the value of gold here, we're talking about the value of items. And really, this is Econ 101 stuff here - it's just supply and demand.

Here's what will happen if trading is ever implemented:
- The supply of any given item will never decrease - only increase. This is because as long as other players value said item above what the shop is willing to pay for it, people will simply sell the item to other players instead of the shop. This means that items stay in the economy forever.
- Over time, demand for any given item will decrease. This is because players will, over time, get enough copies of every item that they no longer need any more.

Since supply is always increasing and demand is always decreasing, we will (eventually) reach a point for each item (how long this takes depends on the rarity of the item) where the supply outstrips the demand. This leads to a lowering of the item's value.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that adding trading will mean that they'll have to balance the drop rates around that, making items much rarer - at current drop rates that point would be reached rather quickly for even the rarest items in the game, devaluing everything. So in order to ensure that rare-legendary items have value, they'd have to decrease their drop rates.

This is both incredibly naive and a gross misunderanding/misrepresentation of the problems with implementing trading.

We're not just saying this stuff because we're afraid of some "imaginary robot". We're saying this because we have hard evidence. We're saying this because we've seen this exact situation play out in countless other games time and time again. I dare you to prove me wrong - find a single game (that's been out for some time) with a free market economy, where items don't leave the economy and are constantly being generated (and maintain their usefulness over the life of the game), that DOESN'T have problems with items being near-worthless.

The core problem has nothing to do with social vs antisocial, earning vs buying, or how we feel about people with multiple accounts. It has everything to do with the basic economic principles that dictate how free market economies work.

I'd like to be able to fly. Unfortunately, the realities of how physics works means that if I jump off of a building the force of attraction exerted on me by the earth will lead to me falling to my death.
I'd like to win the lottery. Unfortunately, the realities of how statistics works means that if I buy lottery tickets I will, on average, lose money.
I'd like to be able to trade in online economies. Unfortunately, the realities of how economics works means that if trading is implemented every reasonably obtainable item will be worthless.

TL;DR: Someone is wrong on the internet

 

I like this idea. In some of the games I have played. Anything good/powerful gets traded a lot. People just buy cheap and put it back on the market for a profit. Leads to good items to be pretty much held by people who pay to win.

 

That's also a cool idea. Can we expand that to equipment rental? I can put my unused equip on the rental market . Lets say 10gc for a week? I get gc for unused items and people can use items they haven't got yet! win win

 

I've experienced trading in Magic the Gathering Online, and it often got rather nasty. Experienced players were ripping off new players offering them unfavourable trades because the new players didn't know better and gave away their rares for commons. I also played Diablo III, and getting better items for cheap on the auction house than I would be able to find myself took away lot of the fun of the game for me. The basic problem in all virtual economies is mudflation, items getting worthless because they accumulate with time. As the game rewards you with items, trading makes the awards from playing appear less good.

 

Anyway, implementing secure trading is hard enough. Doing so while attempting to keep any sort of player balance is very difficult as well. Additionally it could remove incentives for monetary investment from the players. I could see it becoming a need as the game ages and competitive MP becomes the main focus but I don't think it's well suited for it currently.

 

I would suggest looking to the Kingdom of Loathing for how to successfully implement a trading system. When last I played one had to engage in trading behavior that was obviously risky in order to get scammed. Also the ability to sell a Mr. A (an item you got for donating that could be exchanged for a powerful item that changed on a monthly basis) or an item that had been purchased with a Mr. A with other players for items and/or in game currency actually increased the number of players donating to the game.

 

This thread has gone way off the rails. People are just making personal attacks at this point, instead of discussing the actual topic. I think we need to either reign it in or get this thread locked.

 

I came to the forum today to see a lot of negativity, it seems. Please, people: we all want the same game to be the same awesome thing it deserves to be.

 

In typical CCGs there's no conversion, the cards you get you're stuck with, or trade. The ability to sell items for gold takes the place of trading, making it unnecessary.
On the other hand, trading would skew the balance, create a real-money-exchange market, and worse of all, promote account phishing.

-1 to trading.

 

In Kingdom of Loathing the trading system works great. But still 90% of items are practically worthless. The items that are not are consumables (high demand) and mr.store items (low supply).
Plus ultra rares (really low supply)
In MTGO trading is also fine.
But you just can't transfer either of those trading systems to Card Hunter, IMHO.

 

I don’t support the idea of trading. I’ll try to explain my point logic-emotionally.
0) I play CardHunter to have fun and enjoyment.
1) The moments when I get the most joy are when:

• a) I’ve just won an interesting and challenging match
• b) I’ve got smth very cool from a slot machine – here chests.
• c) I’ve achieved one of my long-term goals: reached a certain rank in MP, finished building a dream-deck.

2) Trading is less fun than opening chests. (b)
With a trading system I’ll start building my decks mostly by trading. Overall significance and excitement of getting good cards will drop. So it’ll certainly replace or lower the role of 1b (the joy from opening chests). When I trade I don’t feel excited, my body doesn’t produce adrenaline, my brain doesn’t receive endorphins. It's more like a boring commitment, a requirement. I can’t compare it to a slot machine (which is exciting and addictive). So the more fun part would yield to the more effective one – and I believe, that's not a very good replacement.
(In MTG I stopped buying boosters almost from the very beginning – not effective).

3) Since I’ve got all the desired items I’ll lose some motivation. (c)
With any form of trading I could build the deck of my dream much sooner. Considering that CardHunter has not so many items altogether, I could finish one of my long-term goals very quickly (within a week), thereby crossing out another motivation that keeps me playing.

P.S. The only problem I see now is that most items that you get from chests aren’t applicable. Their price in a shop is low, selling them is another routine, and shops don’t offer much. I like Neofalcon’s idea of crafting. Perhaps it should be random crafting (X commons to 1 random uncommon), or, even more, quest-like crafting like in Dofus (X particular (listed) items for 1 random (or named) better item). Some items may not even be obtainable other way but by crafting (18 lv legendaries for instance). That way players could get rid of the cards they don’t need more meaningfully.

 

People. Please.

 

In MTGO all the cards cost real money, which is why trading in that game is fine - cards aren't being generated through gameplay.

I don't know anything about Kingdom of Loathing, but it sounds like exactly the sort of situation I don't want Card Hunter to turn into as a result of trading. 90% of items being worthless makes getting loot not fun, and it sounds like the few items that do have value are just ones that are exceptionally rare.

Part of what makes Card Hunter so fun right now is that even Legendaries aren't all THAT rare. If they implemented trading, they'd have to be much, much rarer in order to have value.