Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards


Player Guide
Fansites
News
Game Updates
Help

Follow important game updates on Twitter @Wizard101 and @KI_Alerts, and Facebook!

For all account questions and concerns, contact Customer Support.

By posting on the Wizard101 Message Boards you agree to the Code of Conduct.

New feature to bazaar

2
AuthorMessage
Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2425
Robobot1747 on Apr 30, 2017 wrote:
Let's just say I like to play Wizard, but I hate farming. I really want that Darkmoor gear so I can go PvP, but I lack the time and/or will to farm. Maybe there's someone else who has extras, or actually likes to run Darkmoor, but needs membership (either Darkmoor is unlocked or their membership is ending soon). I can pay this person a membership token if they give me items from Darkmoor. You act like that's so unfair. Is it unfair for me to pay someone else to cut my lawn if I do not wish to or cannot? Am I just "funding" their life? What's the difference here? I'm trading time for (an in-game item worth) money.

You didn't, but someone else did and you said that wasn't attacking me.

Simple fix: make orders for it viewable in the bazaar. I go up to Elik, look through a list of items, put my item up for someone else's (i.e. I have Malistaire's death hood, and I will trade it for a membership token) and anyone who uses that order will give me a membership token and recieve Malistaire's death hood. I don't even have to be online.
I think @SparkleTude explained it very well so I won't rehash it.

If something like this were to be implemented, it would soon be another game going down the tubes. There would be fewer and fewer farming for the desired gear because they would take the easy and LAZY way out to acquire the items they choose not to farm for. What would be the point of even playing the game?

As much as I dislike farming numerous times and often don't have the time myself, I still would not use another person in this manner. For example, it took me almost 2 years to get the Potent Trap for my main Life wizard. I finally did get it but it was MY efforts not someone else's. 4 more of my wizards already have PT through their own efforts and a couple have multiple PT. As much as many would like to see PT tradeable, it is not likely to happen anytime soon.

And don't claim that not being able to trade a TC is different than the proposed "Market Place" in the Bazaar. It isn't.

If you don't have the time or will to earn the items you want so you can go PvP, why should another player waste their time to do it for you? Too many have worked hard to farm for what they have.

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2425
Lukeskywalker1313 on May 1, 2017 wrote:
Robot did a better way to explain it then I did but yes that is the main idea. To me people will always argue and bark at this idea, but I believe this idea will help a lot more then people will not like it. REmember the people who apposite this idea are people who have a monopoly in game. New players are who game should be focused on. Not old players. This would help a lot of players. Old players can bark all they want.
No, those who would and do oppose this do not have a monopoly in the game. Not sure where you got that idea, but no player has a monopoly in W101.

Classifying players is not acceptable. KI tries to focus on ALL players regardless of whether they are long time players or new to the game.

Go take a look at the number of Views v Responses this topic has had. IF you had the support of the community, there would be more replies in support.

"Old players can bark all they want"????

Seriously? That is really uncalled for.

Defender
May 23, 2009
110
SparkleTude on May 1, 2017 wrote:
Question: Do those games allow players under the age of 18?
You do not seem to understand the idea. Sure, anybody can signed up for an account entering their birthdate as 18 or older.

What irks me in this topic is the flawed "logic" of fairness and unfairness. Let's say I'm regular customer at a candy store. One day, I see the store offering free samples of their newest confection. Does it makes sense to think it is unfair that I spent real money to the store often compared to those who do not buy as often as I do (or people who have never purchased before) take those free samples? The same can be said for people who buys membership with real money, and others who didn't spent real money to get membership.

Similarly, whether the prices are "messed" or inflate in the bazaar, is part of the fun, not unfairness among players (is up to you to decide when the best value is.) It has nothing to do with work ethic or child exploitation. You are thinking this idea doesn't work for the incorrect reasons.

Champion
Mar 05, 2012
452
Lukeskywalker1313 on May 1, 2017 wrote:
Robot did a better way to explain it then I did but yes that is the main idea. To me people will always argue and bark at this idea, but I believe this idea will help a lot more then people will not like it. REmember the people who apposite this idea are people who have a monopoly in game. New players are who game should be focused on. Not old players. This would help a lot of players. Old players can bark all they want.
"Old Players" are funding this game site.

there is no "monopoly".
New players should pay their way just like Everyone Else.
What is with the new attitude of 'everyone owes me' ?
Pay and Play like everyone Else.

Delver
Mar 10, 2015
257
I would like to say dragon lady you are way of. In barter the top offer gets accepted automatically by highest bitter. There would be no 3rd party because it works all through king isle. King isle can still control which trades it feels are fair. If people all gave offers for a offer the winner would trade and all other people would receive there proposals back.

I feel personally offended by you saying kid trafficking because you don't know what it means. Having a kid trade what he wants for something he has is not child exploitation (child exploitation is slavery and is illiegal and no where're close to what I said).

3) king isle makes no money is not true, because people don't have to trade crown items at all, it's possible to trade without it all together. Giving people the ability to do that is up to the players as the player needs to buy X2 of a product to auction it. Example you need to be a member to auction a membership token, this means you need to buy a code of membership from king isle to trade to a person in the auction house. This means king isle is being paid 2 the amount meaning they still get paid.

4) people need to accept change, we all hated the pets in the bazaar vanishing, or certain pets going extinct, and SOOO what? We deal with it because it BETTER for the game. I think KIngisle should use my idea despite the nasty ness shown to my idea in this forum from players who to afraid to loose there ranking in the new system that I am proposing. People fear loosing there bubble, they fear critical, block, and speel about the system being unfair, and openly apose most ideas that lead to item equality, not from just me but other players. King isle just ignore them and their inability to see in 4D

Illuminator
Aug 03, 2016
1475
TPG Miserie on May 1, 2017 wrote:
You do not seem to understand the idea. Sure, anybody can signed up for an account entering their birthdate as 18 or older.

What irks me in this topic is the flawed "logic" of fairness and unfairness. Let's say I'm regular customer at a candy store. One day, I see the store offering free samples of their newest confection. Does it makes sense to think it is unfair that I spent real money to the store often compared to those who do not buy as often as I do (or people who have never purchased before) take those free samples? The same can be said for people who buys membership with real money, and others who didn't spent real money to get membership.

Similarly, whether the prices are "messed" or inflate in the bazaar, is part of the fun, not unfairness among players (is up to you to decide when the best value is.) It has nothing to do with work ethic or child exploitation. You are thinking this idea doesn't work for the incorrect reasons.
How do you know what I or others do or do not "understand?" It seems much more to me like they simply do not agree with this idea and for that, they've been insulted more than once.

I could return fire but I have no interest in that. Rather than presume you or anyone else does not "understand" the rebuttals or disagreeing opinions, I will correctly state that no one is actually responding to the differing opinions or the points others are making about or 'against' this idea of a third party marketplace.

Rather than compare "old" players to dogs barking, as someone else did, or imply they are dense or stupid, as you've just (hopefully unwittingly) done, how about actually responding to the points they make?

The analogy of a candy store is no more accurate than the analogy of mowing a lawn. Both analogies also ignore the points others keep making, all of which were made with care and thoughtful wording (other than the one insult which btw I defended the person it happened to, but, that didn't seem to matter...whatever.)

The game already gives out 'free candy' in the form of being free to play to a certain point and being free to make accounts. The game already gives out 'free candy' in that the free to play game drops free gear and other items. It offers free entertainment. THAT is the sample of 'free candy' and I haven't seen anyone gripe about it.

Farming for reagents, gold, or other in-game items leads to a third party economy and distorts the gameplay for everyone else. It abuses labor in other countries or the labor of minor children. Talk about a monopoly -- some would sit like 'fat cats' while others labor for them. Kings Isle would not profit from this other economy. And players would feel the game field is now uneven. I wouldn't have someone else 'farm' for me on principle. And I'd rather fund the game than a stranger's pockets.

You state that game distortion and price distortion is "fun." I disagree. And it's not up to you to judge my reasons as "correct."

Illuminator
Aug 03, 2016
1475
TPG Miserie on May 1, 2017 wrote:
You do not seem to understand the idea. Sure, anybody can signed up for an account entering their birthdate as 18 or older.

What irks me in this topic is the flawed "logic" of fairness and unfairness. Let's say I'm regular customer at a candy store. One day, I see the store offering free samples of their newest confection. Does it makes sense to think it is unfair that I spent real money to the store often compared to those who do not buy as often as I do (or people who have never purchased before) take those free samples? The same can be said for people who buys membership with real money, and others who didn't spent real money to get membership.

Similarly, whether the prices are "messed" or inflate in the bazaar, is part of the fun, not unfairness among players (is up to you to decide when the best value is.) It has nothing to do with work ethic or child exploitation. You are thinking this idea doesn't work for the incorrect reasons.
I just noticed you didn't answer my question.

Do the other games *allow* players under 18?

I had a reason for asking.

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2425
TPG Miserie on May 1, 2017 wrote:
You do not seem to understand the idea. Sure, anybody can signed up for an account entering their birthdate as 18 or older.

What irks me in this topic is the flawed "logic" of fairness and unfairness. Let's say I'm regular customer at a candy store. One day, I see the store offering free samples of their newest confection. Does it makes sense to think it is unfair that I spent real money to the store often compared to those who do not buy as often as I do (or people who have never purchased before) take those free samples? The same can be said for people who buys membership with real money, and others who didn't spent real money to get membership.

Similarly, whether the prices are "messed" or inflate in the bazaar, is part of the fun, not unfairness among players (is up to you to decide when the best value is.) It has nothing to do with work ethic or child exploitation. You are thinking this idea doesn't work for the incorrect reasons.
Maybe it is you that doesn't understand what @SparkleTude was referring to. The question was directed toward the "completely free mmorpgs" you mentioned in a previous post.

"Flawed logic"? Membership to a game like W101 is not something to be traded in a Market Place. At some point in the game and I would think sooner than later, this would open the whole idea up to massive scams... Frankly, that is how I would look at it anyway.

Every argument that has been given in this discussion gives no EQUAL trade value anyway. You, the OP, and Robobot1747 reject the fact that it is unfair to paying members whether they pay real money or crowns. How long do you think this game will survive if all those "Paying" members suddenly decided they could get what they wanted as well by using this idea? Regardless of what you may think, the idea for making trades for membership is still a form of exploitation. Your idea of ethics or exploitation needs some rethinking.

Your comparison of a candy store offering free samples of their "Newest Confection" to this idea is no where near a fair comparison. Most stores at some point DO offer free samples of their NEWEST product, usually in the food category. That doesn't make it unfair to any customer. The regular customer has the same option to take the free sample as the new customer.

The whole issue boils down to the fact of using REAL MONEY for a membership to W101. There is NO other alternative. You either pay for a membership or buy crowns to buy the areas you wish to play. There are NO TRADE OPTIONS to acquire membership in any other fashion. Asking others to support/fund your game play is the most unethical way to have your cake and eat it too. If you want it, you will earn it just the same as the rest of the community.

Defender
May 23, 2009
110
DragonLady1818 on May 2, 2017 wrote:
Maybe it is you that doesn't understand what @SparkleTude was referring to. The question was directed toward the "completely free mmorpgs" you mentioned in a previous post.

"Flawed logic"? Membership to a game like W101 is not something to be traded in a Market Place. At some point in the game and I would think sooner than later, this would open the whole idea up to massive scams... Frankly, that is how I would look at it anyway.

Every argument that has been given in this discussion gives no EQUAL trade value anyway. You, the OP, and Robobot1747 reject the fact that it is unfair to paying members whether they pay real money or crowns. How long do you think this game will survive if all those "Paying" members suddenly decided they could get what they wanted as well by using this idea? Regardless of what you may think, the idea for making trades for membership is still a form of exploitation. Your idea of ethics or exploitation needs some rethinking.

Your comparison of a candy store offering free samples of their "Newest Confection" to this idea is no where near a fair comparison. Most stores at some point DO offer free samples of their NEWEST product, usually in the food category. That doesn't make it unfair to any customer. The regular customer has the same option to take the free sample as the new customer.

The whole issue boils down to the fact of using REAL MONEY for a membership to W101. There is NO other alternative. You either pay for a membership or buy crowns to buy the areas you wish to play. There are NO TRADE OPTIONS to acquire membership in any other fashion. Asking others to support/fund your game play is the most unethical way to have your cake and eat it too. If you want it, you will earn it just the same as the rest of the community.
Guess we have to agree to disagree. I have to wonder if you and Sparkletude have played a different mmorpg outside of KI. If you still think it is about fairness and unfairness, can you ask yourself to make the comparison on how this game and other mmorpgs work. Think about why this idea is suggested. Why would someone suggest an idea that encourages, in your terms, scamming?

Here's another analogy: Let's say someone who has no friends. Over the years, as they grew older, they only have their own perceptions to rely on. But in reality, their perceptions are wrong or aren't up to the standards of society, because they did not make the comparison between themselves to other people (a friend lets you have someone to compare yourself to.) The same is true if you keep thinking this idea is about fairness especially if you have never played another mmorpg before.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. I'm probably not going to waste anymore time trying to explain the idea. I have Atlantea to run today.

Delver
Mar 10, 2015
257
I not once made a reference or analogy to cakes. I think your mixing stuff up.

A person does not need to be 18 to make a choice of barter, in fact you only need to be 14. People can work at 14 years old which means they make there own money. If a person wants to trade money for in game items it's completely fine.

You guys claimed people don't want this idea: did you know computer was originally an idea "no one wanted" and only used by computer people. People like the ability to choose what they want for what they want it. Don't tell me what people won't like because you don't like my idea. King isle can send the idea into beta easy and let actual players test it. And then tell kingisle if they like it or not. It's as simple as that. This is the final comment from me. Forum admin please close this topic after this comment. I made my point haters can hate topic needs to close.

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2425
Lukeskywalker1313 on May 2, 2017 wrote:
I would like to say dragon lady you are way of. In barter the top offer gets accepted automatically by highest bitter. There would be no 3rd party because it works all through king isle. King isle can still control which trades it feels are fair. If people all gave offers for a offer the winner would trade and all other people would receive there proposals back.

I feel personally offended by you saying kid trafficking because you don't know what it means. Having a kid trade what he wants for something he has is not child exploitation (child exploitation is slavery and is illiegal and no where're close to what I said).

3) king isle makes no money is not true, because people don't have to trade crown items at all, it's possible to trade without it all together. Giving people the ability to do that is up to the players as the player needs to buy X2 of a product to auction it. Example you need to be a member to auction a membership token, this means you need to buy a code of membership from king isle to trade to a person in the auction house. This means king isle is being paid 2 the amount meaning they still get paid.

4) people need to accept change, we all hated the pets in the bazaar vanishing, or certain pets going extinct, and SOOO what? We deal with it because it BETTER for the game. I think KIngisle should use my idea despite the nasty ness shown to my idea in this forum from players who to afraid to loose there ranking in the new system that I am proposing. People fear loosing there bubble, they fear critical, block, and speel about the system being unfair, and openly apose most ideas that lead to item equality, not from just me but other players. King isle just ignore them and their inability to see in 4D
Ok, first, I never made any comment about "kid trafficking" OR "child exploitation". You better go back and reread all the posts especially the 2 supporters you have for this idea.

This quote is EXACTLY what I said. "Regardless of what you may think, the idea for making trades for membership is still a form of exploitation. "

No one has attacked you personally but we have stated our opinions of your idea. Yet you seem to come back on those of us who fully understand what you are proposing. No matter how you look at it, It is still a form of exploitation. And this is based on your #3. It is exactly what it looks like. Some other member spends 2x the real cash for you or someone else to have a membership. No matter what you may have to trade for that membership code, you are still exploiting others. $10 a month, buys a membership for that month. $10 buys 5,000 crowns, which is equal to a month's membership. But that is not what this is really all about. It is about some players who don't want to farm numerous times for a single piece of gear. Instead, some players are trying to come up with an idea they think KI will take a look at that will allow some players to make exchanges of items outside their own account.

Do the work and earn the items yourself. Don't expect others to do the work for you. Since you either have to be a member or buy $10 in crowns in order to post on this message board, it makes me wonder why you suggested something of this nature.

This is not something KI is going to take a serious look at. They will lose money very quickly if this was used and the game would be gone not long after. Except for those who have bought areas with crowns, but there will be no new content because there won't be any developers creating them.

Illuminator
Aug 03, 2016
1475
Lukeskywalker1313 on May 1, 2017 wrote:
Robot did a better way to explain it then I did but yes that is the main idea. To me people will always argue and bark at this idea, but I believe this idea will help a lot more then people will not like it. REmember the people who apposite this idea are people who have a monopoly in game. New players are who game should be focused on. Not old players. This would help a lot of players. Old players can bark all they want.
Luke -- I find it ironic that yourself and Miserie keep insulting myself and DragonLady and I think others here as well, for not "understanding" your posts when your posts and Miserie's posts in fact have failed to assert any sort of logical defense.

And as DragonLady said it is others who have in fact not understood our responses to this idea.

If that wasn't the case then it's absolutely true, still, that our points were ignored. We and others made solid points as to why this idea in this topic wouldn't be good for the game or for the community.

I've made points and explained them at length and they've simply been completely ignored. What I get in reply from you both is patronization and insults. That sort of tells me where you are coming from as well, if I'm blunt. It doesn't speak well for your ideas either, since any worthy idea doesn't need to badger, bully or insult to make its way.

As to your other post, I didn't say you made an analogy about cake. I was replying to Miserie who made an analogy about a candy store.

There is no such word as "apposite." So maybe there is a translation issue and that's why this entire topic is at odds. I don't know.

No one has a game monopoly. The same things are available to everyone, apart from some types of chat based upon age and such. That has nothing to do with a game "monopoly" but has to do with safety for minor children.

Your point about "people can work at age 14" not really -- not legally. Do you live outside the U.S.? Maybe your frame of reference is completely different. In the U.S. there are child labor laws, and you've also skipped over my point about *Exploitation* of children and of third world country labor, by adults in developed countries. I will be more blunt then: In games in which 'gold farming' is allowed, people hire third world labor to do nothing but farm gold all day and night. Then they resell it. It ruins the game, the community and its economy.

I can't explain moral compass much better than that.

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2425
TPG Miserie on May 2, 2017 wrote:
Guess we have to agree to disagree. I have to wonder if you and Sparkletude have played a different mmorpg outside of KI. If you still think it is about fairness and unfairness, can you ask yourself to make the comparison on how this game and other mmorpgs work. Think about why this idea is suggested. Why would someone suggest an idea that encourages, in your terms, scamming?

Here's another analogy: Let's say someone who has no friends. Over the years, as they grew older, they only have their own perceptions to rely on. But in reality, their perceptions are wrong or aren't up to the standards of society, because they did not make the comparison between themselves to other people (a friend lets you have someone to compare yourself to.) The same is true if you keep thinking this idea is about fairness especially if you have never played another mmorpg before.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. I'm probably not going to waste anymore time trying to explain the idea. I have Atlantea to run today.
Yes, I have played other mmorpgs. Most were Free play with options but they are no longer around since they were based on a system similar to what has been suggested here.. NONE of them come anywhere near the quality of game play or FUN W101 has to offer for a wide age range of players.. I play W101 because I enjoy it and I don't want to see it go down the tubes like other games have. Too many of the other games are NOT designed to support the kind of community that this game has. THAT is why many come to W101 and it is designed for players as young as 10+...

Scamming, exploiting, basically the same regardless of the term used. Why would someone suggest an idea like this? I could think of a few reasons but I am not going to make any assumptions here.

As for your analogies. None of them are relative to what is being discussed. But I will say this, I don't compare myself to any friend. That is not something anyone should do. In fact, one person should never compare themselves to another.

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2425
Lukeskywalker1313 on May 2, 2017 wrote:
I not once made a reference or analogy to cakes. I think your mixing stuff up.

A person does not need to be 18 to make a choice of barter, in fact you only need to be 14. People can work at 14 years old which means they make there own money. If a person wants to trade money for in game items it's completely fine.

You guys claimed people don't want this idea: did you know computer was originally an idea "no one wanted" and only used by computer people. People like the ability to choose what they want for what they want it. Don't tell me what people won't like because you don't like my idea. King isle can send the idea into beta easy and let actual players test it. And then tell kingisle if they like it or not. It's as simple as that. This is the final comment from me. Forum admin please close this topic after this comment. I made my point haters can hate topic needs to close.
Legally, yes, a person does have to be at least 18. Kids trading toys or other objects usually landed them in trouble with their parents. Legally, a 14 year cannot work in most states without the consent of a parent and then it is only part time after school or on weekends as long as they maintain a good grade in school.

But unless KI ANNOUNCES it is ok to trade cash for in game items, It IS NOT completely fine.

As for the computer idea? It was originally designed for MILITARY use during WWII.

All the staff a KI has to do is look at what has been posted and see what can happen if it was implemented. If it was such a desired change, there would have been more posts for others supporting the idea. KI doesn't have to put this in Beta to test it.

Yes, people like the ability to choose, but they want to choose what they do for themselves when it comes to gaining items in a game. Many of us have MULTIPLE accounts. If anything similar to what you propose were implemented, you can be sure those same players would be farming to pass over to another account but not to another player in the game.

But as I have already stated, there are only 2 ways to have full game access and those are paid membership or crowns to buy the areas of the game.

I do agree that it is time to close this discussion if @Dworgyn would please.

Survivor
Aug 21, 2015
14
I just wanted to comment, that is one of the rich and deep analogy I've seen. I don't believe it possible to make that kind of analogy out of thin air when type a simple response, unless you were referring to your actual life experience.

To people who disagree: just because you disagree with an idea doesn't make idea bad. The idea is far from kid exploitation, scamming. Play alot of different mmorpgs to understand their economies. Just my opinion.

Geographer
Jun 06, 2008
824
2