Guild Wars 2

What’s the goal of Guild Wars 2? From my perspective, it’s to engage in group environments where you can excel and have hours of fun. However what if we took it further? We should allow players to trade between each other, in a neutral interface trade table, were players can put items up. Players who wish to trade between each other do this often by using the mailing system. The short coming to this is that you could get ripped off very easily. I plead to our community and ANet to allow us to have a fair player trade system that we can integrate into our great community and prosperous economy.

I would like to hear your opinions and how we, as a community, can further GW2’s goal for its players

And in case there’s any confusion, when I say “player trade” I am referencing a closed 2 party trade off system in which players can agree on their own prices.

One of the primary purposes of the TP is to syphon 15% of in game currency away. The carrot is it’s a safe trading environment.

Now if ANet created a two player trade screen that acts as a third party, holding both item and money until both players click OK AND still take 15% away, then I’m all for it.

Problem is most who want private trade want to avoid the sink as well as any transaction record that ANet may keep. They want strictly “off book” trades. And that I can’t support.

Crampz.9120:

And in case there’s any confusion, when I say “player trade” I am referencing a closed 2 party trade off system in which players can agree on their own prices.

Ahem…

John Smith.4610:

No.

Player trading does not exist to force people to use the TP because the game is lacking any good gold sinks.

Imo they will never set this up. The gold sink is one reason. The second is that no matter how scam or idiot proof you make a player/player trade, there will still be scammers and individuals who find ways around the safeties. The number of scams will increase and each scam requires time and money (for salaries paid to support personnel) for ANet to fix. They also take support’s time away from fixing real problems. ANet is happy with the current system as it does two functions, a gold sink and a scam proof way of trading.

Gaile Gray
ArenaNet Support Liaison
“Please use the Trading Post. Please tell your friends — even your sworn enemies — to use the Trading Post. If we all use the Trading Post, scammers are out of business in the blink of an eye”!

As long as the players still get taxed I’m fine with it… Game needs a gold sink like the tp though and using it to just circumvent that I don’t support.

Well I think not having a trade is good. It really prevents A LOT of scam. If trade is within two very trusted people, then they can still do the mail thing.

I vote they add private trades between players, but charge 20% tax instead, for the added convenience.
however, private trades also would allow for “my dusk for your dawn” = zero gold traded. 20% of nothin’ is, let me do the math here… nothin’ and a nothin’, carry the nothin’…

Mystic.5934:

I vote they add private trades between players, but charge 20% tax instead, for the added convenience.
however, private trades also would allow for “my dusk for your dawn” = zero gold traded. 20% of nothin’ is, let me do the math here… nothin’ and a nothin’, carry the nothin’…

Or…

New Gem Store Item: “Private Trade Conduit” – 1,000 Gems for a single window*

*note – both players must have one in order to trade

John Smith.4610:

Pretty sure this has been discussed already with official responses as well, someone should link them.

Good idea, Mr Someone.

Someone should also ask if there’s been any progress on getting a better search function for the forums, so it’s easier to find those responses.

((But seriously, I’m surprised you don’t have a collection of standard replies to the repeating questions/suggestions in a file somewhere, so you can just copy/paste them as needed.))

[Edit] PS: Short version is they’ve said no. But I’m too lazy to look up the actual postings for you. Just… trust me. They’ve said no.

Pretty sure that was John Smith who simply replied “No”.

John Smith.4610:

Palador.2170:

John Smith.4610:

Pretty sure this has been discussed already with official responses as well, someone should link them.

Good idea, Mr Someone.

Someone should also ask if there’s been any progress on getting a better search function for the forums, so it’s easier to find those responses.

((But seriously, I’m surprised you don’t have a collection of standard replies to the repeating questions/suggestions in a file somewhere, so you can just copy/paste them as needed.))

[Edit] PS: Short version is they’ve said no. But I’m too lazy to look up the actual postings for you. Just… trust me. They’ve said no.

If I needed someone else to be lazy I would have asked for that ><

You know, you could just close this topic…

Developer John Smith, Thank you for taking the time to see and reply to my post. I have read through your posted article and I do have some things to say about it and a call to action, if I can have your attention for a bit.

I completely agree with ANet that stemming scamming is a good thing. However, no matter what you do to stop scamming, there will always be a scam from time to time just like people get sick from time to time. Developing a P2P trade system would enhance the community and, as stated in your link by a poster, “Bring Guild Wars 2 a step forward as an MMO”. Although you’re centralized trading post is a great idea, and still continues to be, P2P trade would add variety of options to our economy. Is it a risk? Absolutely! However in retrospect, isn’t everything added to the game a risk to the game economy? An example of a high risk DLC was adding champ boxes; people were farming them and adding a slew load of new products into the markets. My goal of this post is to plead to you, the developers, to offer more economic options to your players by enacting a P2P trade system that, as Behellagh stated, docks 15% from the seller end of the transaction.

This a different and innovative way to add variety to trading in guild wars 2 while supporting its goals for its players and not devaluing the Black Lion Trading Post. One of our great developers was able to kindly take time to reply and I just want to ask: Is it possible that I can have your support in this Developer John Smith? And in your perspective how can developers create a working P2P trade system?

Crampz.9120:

Developer John Smith, Thank you for taking the time to see and reply to my post. I have read through your posted article and I do have some things to say about it and a call to action, if I can have your attention for a bit.

I completely agree with ANet that stemming scamming is a good thing. However, no matter what you do to stop scamming, there will always be a scam from time to time just like people get sick from time to time. Developing a P2P trade system would enhance the community and, as stated in your link by a poster, “Bring Guild Wars 2 a step forward as an MMO”. Although you’re centralized trading post is a great idea, and still continues to be, P2P trade would add variety of options to our economy. Is it a risk? Absolutely! However in retrospect, isn’t everything added to the game a risk to the game economy? An example of a high risk DLC was adding champ boxes; people were farming them and adding a slew load of new products into the markets. My goal of this post is to plead to you, the developers, to offer more economic options to your players by enacting a P2P trade system that, as Behellagh stated, docks 15% from the seller end of the transaction.

This a different and innovative way to add variety to trading in guild wars 2 while supporting its goals for its players and not devaluing the Black Lion Trading Post. One of our great developers was able to kindly take time to reply and I just want to ask: Is it possible that I can have your support in this Developer John Smith? And in your perspective how can developers create a working P2P trade system?

See below:

John Smith.4610:

No.

and this:

Regina Buenaobra.6193:

The developers have stated the position on this issue. You might not agree with the stance, and we understand that. At this time, there are no plans to change it.
Thank you all for your feedback.