Charms Trading

Hi guys,

I have some suggestions.
- No registered ppl only see the first page (forum, trade, etc.), and can't "open" items for selling, and don't see ours Battle tags.

This will reduce traffic and improve privacy.

-PLEASE! Make a charm section, you can mark an item as CHARM, make it easy to find.

-Maybe, same to rares, magics items.

Sorry my bad english.

Hello there! Sounds good. We need place to trade charms since it is a big part of the gameplay. Cheers

Finding good charms to use requires a focus many orders of magnitude greater than searching for "charm". Similar to how poe.trade made a separate search for currency, if you added a separate search for "charm" based on charm size and affix (i.e. lion-branded for pally combat skill and vita for life) this site would become the de facto spot to find charms for your characters instead of always having to resort to other currency based forums.

You play this game, right?

+1

charm searching is bad

Teebling wrote: 5 years ago

Anomiaz wrote: 5 years ago

if you added a separate search for "charm" based on charm size and affix (i.e. lion-branded for pally combat skill and vita for life)

It picks up those keywords in the search, still not seeing what the issue is?

Hi. First of all: This is not criticism, you did an excellent job with this site. Thank you for it.

I believe the issue is, charms being a bit wild - for instance looking for a Pala Combat Skiller, i used 3 methods:


Entering the proper item name (Lion Branded Grand Charm) seems to be what is in line with the way unique/set items are traded. But not a lot of people know these affixes, they are usually being traded as "PC Skiller" or "Pala Combat Skiller". The lack of a stringent and intuitive Pattern to enter and search charms is what makes it a bit difficult.

I don't really have a good suggestion on how to improve it. The only thing that comes to mind is some sort of alias field (0..* aliases) where it's up to the vendor to make the item as easy to find as possible (in his/her best interest). Ofc this means having to query another field in the db with all the downsides related to it. So I'm not sure it's a good idea.
This would also benefit other items (for instance: Harlequin Crest being referred to as Shako). If you take a gander into what is currently being offered as Shako, there are some White shakos for sale with prices befitting a Harlequin Crest. Feels a bit "scammy"

After spending more time trading: In theory the present item name field could already serve that purpose, nothing is keeping us from entereing as many keywords as we choose to.

The only thing that's prohibiting this from functioning in the search is the way the search is working. My impression is it only looks for trades where the beginning of the item name matches the search term.

Seeing there is work going on improving the performance of the queries, the suggestion to change that is probably unwelcome at this time. But maybe something to keep in mind for later?

Fenris wrote: 5 years ago

After spending more time trading: In theory the present item name field could already serve that purpose, nothing is keeping us from entereing as many keywords as we choose to.

The only thing that's prohibiting this from functioning in the search is the way the search is working. My impression is it only looks for trades where the beginning of the item name matches the search term.

Seeing there is work going on improving the performance of the queries, the suggestion to change that is probably unwelcome at this time. But maybe something to keep in mind for later?

you're right tho. you need an exact match, otherwise there are no results.
further, it only searches the title, so for instance if someone posts a Smal Charm, and in the description speifies 5 FHR, and you search for Small Charm 5 FHR you wil get no hits.
you are also limited by the search results number. I suspect a great many postings for the vast majority of items go unnoticed because of this.

perhaps the best way to do it is to allow a filter based on items and attributes, though this may require an extensive rework. this being said, the search/sorting should be more efficient this way.

cheers and thx for the great job!

Great discussion though. Glad to see people are passionate about this website.