Guild Wars 2

Behellagh.1468:

Flipping doesn’t increase costs

So a bolt of silk flipped 1x has the same cost as a bolt of silk flipped 10x?

and less gold in the overall economy is deflationary.

I’m pretty sure too much gold was why champ bags, CoF1, etc etc, have gotten nerfed. Evidently from the costs of ectos, T6, and precursors this still might not be enough.

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

Flipping doesn’t increase costs

So a bolt of silk flipped 1x has the same cost as a bolt of silk flipped 10x?

Exactly. The average price of an item is (buy order+sell listing)/2.
An item costs 80c/120c now and gets flipped 10 times. Now it costs 90c/110c but the average price of 1s stays the same.

Fenrir.3609:

1. It is both an overly convoluted and ineffective method of trying to combat RMT.

2. The current (exceptionally basic) market is still even in it’s vanilla form, seemingly too complex for many players to understand. Layering additonal complexity on top of that doesn’t seem the best idea in the world. Nor does it look like a very good educational tool.

3. In terms of getting people to “do other stuff”, well you make said “stuff” interesting and rewarding in and of itself. If Anet wants to see more people doing dungeons, they should stop neglecting dungeons. If they want to see more people doing WvW or spvp, they should balance them more effectively and more frequently. If Anet wants to see people jumping into events left, right and centre, stop making them autoattack snore fests.

The notion that you attempt to drive people into content because they have to do it, not because they want to do it, is a bad design ethos.

4. Improving the overall health of the economy by narrowing wealth disparity. Well that notion does require you to actually demonstrate that this is an issue and that it needs addressing. Thus far, no one has demonstrated it is an issue. You mentioned 25/50G a day from the TP earlier (if I recall correctly). You realise people can and are pulling that (and more) from PVE a day right? So shall we add a another quasi currency in place to stop them earning gold as well? Perhaps “red karma” which requires hardcore dungeon runners to earn red karma in spvp, otherwise they can’t enter a dungeon.

5. There are already more than enough currencies in the game.

That is before you consider that it simply flies in the face of what a player driven open market is and also before you consider the actual negative impact the proposed system could have.

EDIT: Hmm, perhaps I am being overly critical/cautious and there seems little point in me just repeating my issues with the idea so i’ll leave it at that. Again I applaud the novel idea and the effort put into it, good luck with the thread.

1. I dont see it primarily as a system to combat RMT´s, it would be more of a preemptive measure. Lets assume, this change would cut my profits from the tp in half.
I will play the game another year until i quit and make another 100k gold profit from the tp. Wouldnt i be tempted more to sell my account after leaving the game when i have an extra 100k gold in it instead of an extra 50k?

2. I concede that it will put an extra layer of complexity to the tp but i fail to see how that negatively impacts anyone (the complexity, i mean; i am aware that cutting into tp profits will negatively impact some people). Someone who didnt grasp basic economic concepts of the game/tp before, propably wont after the change. We will keep buying and selling directly, and sell his white karma for extra profit, which will make up for the higher price spread of items. Those that already know how the tp works and how to get the best bang for your buck, will have no problem to comprehend and adapt to the changes.

3. I agree with this but i would think that those measures are way harder and time consuming to implement than my proposal. Its a question of implementation costs and effect, a question only Anet can answer.

4. Even though I sometimes like to label myself as a hardcore trader, i actually play or played alot of, if not all other content. I got my dungeon master title, earned all account bound mats to craft a legendary, played every fractal, played PvP up to rank 20 and wvw to rank 800. I usually finish all LS and festival metas and i still go out in the world to farm stuff. Sometimes i find farming relaxing and it gives me a good overview of reward structures, which gives me a huge advantage in predicting market shifts.
I dont doubt that people can make 50g per day farming regular content but I also have no doubt that potential profits on the tp are still higher because they still accumulate when i dont actively play the game. I never claimed that my proposal will mend the growing wealth disparity between hardcore players and casuals. And dungeons dont need red karma because their gold generation is more or less capped by 1 run/day/path, is it not? Another big difference between your example and my proposal is that dungeon running creates gold while profits on the tp dont. Its just gold redistribution between players, which i would like to balance.

5. We got a wallet for currency, please give me a good reason, why another one added to it negatively impacts your gameplay.

Essence Snow.3194:

Starting off your post by insulting is not a very good way to add credibility to it.

That aside:
4) I provided logic/reasoning/citation to JS to why a necessity to prove there is an issue is an impossible condition while information is withheld. An expectation to fullfill such an impossible condition is a poor premise.

I also provided citation to Shiller (world leading economist…..ie expert to the experts) to why wealth disparity is an important issue not to be brushed aside. Eventually all the dirt swept under the rug will cease to remain unnoticed. I only hope the game’s life cycle ends b4 that happens.

You are repeating arguments that have already been addressed multiple times before, or which at the very least have been responded to and have lead to a circular argument.

The current “disparity is bad but we can’t give you any evidence of said disparity” line is not at all valid (imo). Regardless as to who you cite.

Ofc you don’t have the full data (even with said data you would struggle to convince everyone), no one expects you to have total and utter proof. We do though expect a heck of a lot more evidence than is currently be proffered up, evidence you could provide if you actually bothered to do as such. So present the data you do have access to and explain why said data points to there being an issue.

You have access to historical prices, you (that’s a general “you” not aiming it at you specifically here) have the ability to go and do the groundwork yourself (spend time making as much as possible via pve, spend time making as much as possible via flipping then present a detail breakdown of what you have made, how you have made it and then present a detailed report on how that is harmful).

Maybe then you can convince JS to release more data for you to pour over and convince those of us who are currently unconvinced by your arguments.

I don’t see anyone giving us a break down with screens of how much they have made flipping in a week, how much AUM they had, their fill rates, their average daily ROI. I don’t see people then presenting how much they have made from speedrunning and selling dungeons, comparing the two, factoring in risk, capital et al and then extrapolating out how many players are doing x and y and how that is impacting upon z.

Instead what we have is people pulling random(and often really quite clearly insane) numbers out of their heads (at best) and at worst simply saying “it’s out of whack, nerf it” (which is tantamount to “hurr durr” as far as I am concerned but I agree, it was a poor way to start a post (in fact it is a poor saying to use at any point really and no doubt weakend my argument)).

Not that it matters, it is somewhat off topic (sorry OP) and we are clearly never going to agree on this one, so it is best to leave it at that. If there is a disparity issue one would hope it gets addressed, if there isn’t I would like to think JS would not kneejerk and pander to the pro nerf/restriction crowd. Time will tell one way or another.

Fenrir.3609:

AUM

I actually have to confess that I had to look this one up. Cant say you dont learn anything on these forums.
AUM=Assets under Management, for those who wonder.

Wanze.8410:

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

Flipping doesn’t increase costs

So a bolt of silk flipped 1x has the same cost as a bolt of silk flipped 10x?

Exactly. The average price of an item is (buy order+sell listing)/2.
An item costs 80c/120c now and gets flipped 10 times. Now it costs 90c/110c but the average price of 1s stays the same.

I’m really not seeing this. I was trying to imply that a flip cycle should be expected to add 5-15% to an item’s value, simply because the 15% tax encourages the flipper to recoup the value.

I suppose the end result is perhaps not this simple. If we were to come up with a “flip index” (FI) , defined as the average number of flips an item should expect to get, I think FI would be between 0 and 1 for most items rather than multiple natural number values like my hypothetical implied.

On the other hand, conditions that raise the incentive to flip an item will increase FI, and I believe this could increase (average) prices by a factor of up to about 0.15*(1+FI_new)/(1+FI_old)

This seems very complicated to fix something Im not sure needs fixing. Adding another currency will be something that needs explaining, and in my experience, there is already a lot of stuff new players need explained. Different currencies is already a big part of that.
It is also, as I see it, not fixing a problem, it is trying to fix a symptom. I believe the real problem is the race for gold, wich I believe we cant do much about, as this is a fundamental part of how Anet are making money of this game.
But if enough people think flipping is ruining the game, then it is something Anet need to take seriously, true or not.
Though I rather not add another currency or complicate things more, I do believe you have given this a lot of thought.
Just for the record, I dont use the tp much, and mostly for selling stuff. I dont think I would notice this change if I understand it correctly.

DaveGan.8065:

Wanze.8410:

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

Flipping doesn’t increase costs

So a bolt of silk flipped 1x has the same cost as a bolt of silk flipped 10x?

Exactly. The average price of an item is (buy order+sell listing)/2.
An item costs 80c/120c now and gets flipped 10 times. Now it costs 90c/110c but the average price of 1s stays the same.

I’m really not seeing this. I was trying to imply that a flip cycle should be expected to add 5-15% to an item’s value, simply because the 15% tax encourages the flipper to recoup the value.

I suppose the end result is perhaps not this simple. If we were to come up with a “flip index” (FI) , defined as the average number of flips an item should expect to get, I think FI would be between 0 and 1 for most items rather than multiple natural number values like my hypothetical implied.

On the other hand, conditions that raise the incentive to flip an item will increase FI, and I believe this could increase (average) prices by a factor of up to about 0.15*(1+FI_new)/(1+FI_old)

But a flipper doesn’t go into a market that already has a less than 15% gap and attempt to force it to be greater than 15% plus a profit. They are looking for markets where the game is already 20-30% between high bit and low sell order and work within the existing price gap.

The notion that flippers buy up all the inventory to just list it at a higher price point doesn’t work because a flipper would have to keep buying up new supply to prevent other players from constantly undercutting him. On very low supply (and I’m talking daily new supply not just the currently listed supply) highly desirable items one might be able to do that for a very short period of time but like the 2000g Dusk, it doesn’t last more than a few days before prices return to normal.

this isnt a bad idea but i think it would be a long time before we see any effect as most people have built up vast reserves of karma and will take a long while to burn through it. but this might make prices on some goods rise quicker as the traditional free auction method is now carrying a fee and some might not be so quick to just toss in an offer only slightly over the last one resulting in buy and sell orders becoming much closer together so sounds like an overall positive thing to me

Behellagh.1468:

DaveGan.8065:

Wanze.8410:

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

Flipping doesn’t increase costs

So a bolt of silk flipped 1x has the same cost as a bolt of silk flipped 10x?

Exactly. The average price of an item is (buy order+sell listing)/2.
An item costs 80c/120c now and gets flipped 10 times. Now it costs 90c/110c but the average price of 1s stays the same.

I’m really not seeing this. I was trying to imply that a flip cycle should be expected to add 5-15% to an item’s value, simply because the 15% tax encourages the flipper to recoup the value.

I suppose the end result is perhaps not this simple. If we were to come up with a “flip index” (FI) , defined as the average number of flips an item should expect to get, I think FI would be between 0 and 1 for most items rather than multiple natural number values like my hypothetical implied.

On the other hand, conditions that raise the incentive to flip an item will increase FI, and I believe this could increase (average) prices by a factor of up to about 0.15*(1+FI_new)/(1+FI_old)

But a flipper doesn’t go into a market that already has a less than 15% gap and attempt to force it to be greater than 15% plus a profit. They are looking for markets where the game is already 20-30% between high bit and low sell order and work within the existing price gap.

The notion that flippers buy up all the inventory to just list it at a higher price point doesn’t work because a flipper would have to keep buying up new supply to prevent other players from constantly undercutting him. On very low supply (and I’m talking daily new supply not just the currently listed supply) highly desirable items one might be able to do that for a very short period of time but like the 2000g Dusk, it doesn’t last more than a few days before prices return to normal.

With hourly/daily/weekly fluctuations 15% price gaps can be found at some point in most goods. Finding these gaps is also a skill for flippers (more relevant to another thread in this section).

I’m not even talking about stuff like Dusk. More like basic T1/T4/T5/T6 mats, although pretty much everything is flippable to some degree (back to flipping index reference earlier).

Just as a simple example: discarded garment → silk scrap → silk bolt → damask

At every → step there will be a series of flips (sometimes 0, sometimes 1, sometimes multiple), but I conjecture that the price of damask would be lower with fewer flips in the previous stages.

Research time, investment risk, and the 15% TP tax are all part of the cost of flipping, and these will all be passed off as much as possible. More cycles of flipping always will add more cost in this form.

Flipping does not increase prices, unless you’re competing with buy orders. Flipping raises buy orders while at the same time reducing sell order prices. Once prices reach buy+15%, the flipper either vacates the market entirely or takes a step back and watches for when it edges higher again. Even if the average price rises by a couple copper/silver (for most goods), it’s still a healthy end result.

The reason flipping doesnt increase prices each flip is because those items dont get flipped if that 15% spread does not exist in the first place. Some flippers may try to induce that spread by buying up sell orders (which smart people take advantage of), but that can backfire in many ways.

Doesn’t matter what we say Aidan. There will always be players who believe that flipping entails raising the price of sell orders and it’s flippers flipping each other to do so. Totally opposite to how it actually works.

Wanze is an absolute genius. He’s managed to convince the anti-TP players to all support his idea on the grounds of fairness and balance, and still recommend a system that will help a segment of TP Traders to have greater influence on market items.

Forget the alpha and beta testing. Let’s put this into the game right away!

Wanze what do you think about this?

Michael Walker.8150:

interesting proposition, what do you think will be bigger, the reduction in tp only players/their time spent on the tp or an increase in “buy now” orders because players don’t do the same amount of math when it comes to smaller purchases. As in where players might consider placing a buy order for luxury goods, they are more tempted to use the buy now option when they have no karma left.

I could see commodities being bought more via buy now and this benefits flippers especially whales.

Since this market is by far the biggest an fastest, do you see this as a potential risk?

I like the general idea though, more so if the karma tax increases with daily turn around perhaps? yes, artificially capping.

I really don’t think I’m the one living in my own reality this time, especially as Behellagh just created a bigger strawman than Duke Nukem and HHR combined.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Even if the average price rises by a couple copper/silver (for most goods), it’s still a healthy end result.

I don’t really consider being able to buy silk scraps and resell silk bolts for a bit of profit to be a “healthy end result”. Given the (lack of) cost of crafting I don’t think the cost of armorsmith/leatherworker/tailor/huntsman to lvl 300 is the cause.

In contrast to the red herring “2000g dusks”, this it’s these “couple copper/silver” differences that I had in mind. I do dispute that it’s taken for granted to be a “healthy end result”. Larger margins between buy and sell favor power traders/flippers only so long as they can do so without restrictions, which would no longer be the case with white karma, increasing tax with more transactions, or any other sort of DR.

In an unrestricted market, flippers will enhance accessibility to both buying and selling goods by improving the buy-it-now and sell-it-now prices. Limiting flipping will widen the buy-sell gap by some, but the average will be a “couple copper/silver less”.

This will either spread the flipping to more people, or reduce the amount of flipping that is done. In the former case, the widening of the buy-sell gap is reversed. In the latter case the threat of lower velocity will reduce the offers at the edges.

I feel like the biggest benefit may not even be reduced flipping (I believe redistribution is probably more likely). As many have eluded to, the profits in the TP are somewhat zero-sum, and limiting the transactions/profit of power traders, compounded with higher buy-sell differences, will entice other players to enter and take some of it themselves.

Full disclosure: I don’t think Wanze’s proposal is a bad one, but I am also hesitant to call the addressed “issue” (some TP traders not participating in other parts of the game) a serious problem.

Michael Walker.8150:

Wanze what do you think about this?

Michael Walker.8150:

interesting proposition, what do you think will be bigger, the reduction in tp only players/their time spent on the tp or an increase in “buy now” orders because players don’t do the same amount of math when it comes to smaller purchases. As in where players might consider placing a buy order for luxury goods, they are more tempted to use the buy now option when they have no karma left.

I could see commodities being bought more via buy now and this benefits flippers especially whales.

Since this market is by far the biggest an fastest, do you see this as a potential risk?

I like the general idea though, more so if the karma tax increases with daily turn around perhaps? yes, artificially capping.

I think it will be balanced (Traders/direct purchases). If traders can still buy karma from other players, there wouldnt be a need to slow down their volume of trading. Sure, if a trader made 100g per day now, he will make less after the change but we will still thrive for the most profit possible.
One thing that will definatly happen is that the average pricespread will increase. Right now, the “ideal” spread is 15% to accomodiate gold fees and taxes but you would also have to consider the white karma costs now. This new equilibrium will be reached because people like to hoard stuff, so people will keep their white karma first (maybe to an amount that would cover 100g/500g/1000g before starting to sell excess. The time they spend hoarding it, will be the time that the spricespreads go into a new equilibrium.
Concerning luxury goods/commodities:
Even though the tax is applied and tied to filled buy orders, it is essentially a tax on profit margins, the higher the profit margin, the beeter invested your white karma will be, no matter how expensive the item is. IF its more effective for a trader to spend it on iron ore compared to a precursor, a trader will buy iron instead of a precursor to flip, bringing profit margins of both items closer together.

@Wanze

I really like your proposal….especially that of the addition of White Karma. I would like to offer a couple of modifications, or enhancements, though.

1. White Karma should be relegated to the act of trading only and would be restricted to the “buy order side” of transactions.
2. To place a buy order, the player is required to offer the White Karma up front, as they do the gold. If the player doesn’t have enough White Karma, they are unable to place a buy order. This is the way the gold side of buy orders works now, why not make the White Karma side work the same way?
3. When a player sells an item to a buy order, they would receive 85% of the White Karma the buyer put up. 15% of the White Karma would go to the BLTC as a service fee….just like the gold. This is the ONLY way to gain White Karma. You’re doing a “good deed” by selling an item at a lower price, which will in turn allow you to place buy orders for items.

For players that buy and sell items at the sell listing prices, White Karma is an unused, and ungained, resource. It is only gained and used on the buy order side of the TP.

The way I see it working for various types of players:

Flippers: They want to buy items using buy order and sell using sell listings. They will have difficulty buying generating White Karma to fuel their buy orders unless they sell other items to buy orders….which is against their normal way of doing things to generate the most amount of money.

Impatient Players: They want to sell their items as fast as possible, sacrificing the amount of gold they receive to sell their items right away. This type of player generally buys items from sell listings as well. They will end up generating White Karma, but never using it. They MAY use it if they want to place a buy order for a high value item like a precursor though.

Normal players that pay attention to their currencies: These players will likely generate and use White Karma fairly equally as they will sell off junk they don’t need to buy orders to gain White Karma for use in placing buy orders for items they DO want.

I’m sure there are GIANT holes in this proposal and I’m sure they will be pointed out, but I wanted to add to the conversation as I feel it’s a good proposal. It may add an unnecessary level of complication to the TP, but it could force all players to “play” other content and gain a more general knowledge of how all of the aspects of the game coordinate with each other.

DaveGan.8065:

Larger margins between buy and sell favor power traders/flippers only so long as they can do so without restrictions, which would no longer be the case with white karma, increasing tax with more transactions, or any other sort of DR.

In an unrestricted market, flippers will enhance accessibility to both buying and selling goods by improving the buy-it-now and sell-it-now prices. Limiting flipping will widen the buy-sell gap by some, but the average will be a “couple copper/silver less”.

This will either spread the flipping to more people, or reduce the amount of flipping that is done. In the former case, the widening of the buy-sell gap is reversed. In the latter case the threat of lower velocity will reduce the offers at the edges.

I feel like the biggest benefit may not even be reduced flipping (I believe redistribution is probably more likely). As many have eluded to, the profits in the TP are somewhat zero-sum, and limiting the transactions/profit of power traders, compounded with higher buy-sell differences, will entice other players to enter and take some of it themselves.

Full disclosure: I don’t think Wanze’s proposal is a bad one, but I am also hesitant to call the addressed “issue” (some TP traders not participating in other parts of the game) a serious problem.

One of the biggest problems i had with other suggestions that were made to limit TP Sharks" in the past, was that most of them wanted to introduce some kind of DR system. All suggestions that i have seen until now would have slowed down trade in general, which is not desirable, as the high velocity of the market is one of its biggest strengths. I think the fact that white karma tax would be applied to ONLY buy orders and ONLY retroactively, after they are filled is one of the biggest strengths of my proposal because trade will more or less still only be restricted by the amount of gold people are willing to spend.
People wont be restricted in placing a buy order, just because they might be low on karma atm. They can still put in a buy order and purchase stuff, as long as they got the gold. In general, the amount of white karma being earned each day will be in balance with the amount of white karma needed to cover taxes for the daily trade volume.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

@Wanze

I really like your proposal….especially that of the addition of White Karma. I would like to offer a couple of modifications, or enhancements, though.

1. White Karma should be relegated to the act of trading only and would be restricted to the “buy order side” of transactions.
2. To place a buy order, the player is required to offer the White Karma up front, as they do the gold. If the player doesn’t have enough White Karma, they are unable to place a buy order. This is the way the gold side of buy orders works now, why not make the White Karma side work the same way?
3. When a player sells an item to a buy order, they would receive 85% of the White Karma the buyer put up. 15% of the White Karma would go to the BLTC as a service fee….just like the gold. This is the ONLY way to gain White Karma. You’re doing a “good deed” by selling an item at a lower price, which will in turn allow you to place buy orders for items.

For players that buy and sell items at the sell listing prices, White Karma is an unused, and ungained, resource. It is only gained and used on the buy order side of the TP.

The way I see it working for various types of players:

Flippers: They want to buy items using buy order and sell using sell listings. They will have difficulty buying generating White Karma to fuel their buy orders unless they sell other items to buy orders….which is against their normal way of doing things to generate the most amount of money.

Impatient Players: They want to sell their items as fast as possible, sacrificing the amount of gold they receive to sell their items right away. This type of player generally buys items from sell listings as well. They will end up generating White Karma, but never using it. They MAY use it if they want to place a buy order for a high value item like a precursor though.

Normal players that pay attention to their currencies: These players will likely generate and use White Karma fairly equally as they will sell off junk they don’t need to buy orders to gain White Karma for use in placing buy orders for items they DO want.

I’m sure there are GIANT holes in this proposal and I’m sure they will be pointed out, but I wanted to add to the conversation as I feel it’s a good proposal. It may add an unnecessary level of complication to the TP, but it could force all players to “play” other content and gain a more general knowledge of how all of the aspects of the game coordinate with each other.

1. Thats they way I intended it to be. The reason why i switched my initial proposal from regular karma to white karma is that regular karma has a value for so many other things and the players would have to compare these values with profit margins on the tp. So it would complicate things for people unneccasarily. The only other use of white karma would be to craft a consumable out of it to sell for other players. This was laso a later addition to my proposal and i think it is a very good balance tool while it gives “tp only players” still a way to play their favourite game mode without having to play other content (while transferring some of their profits to another player) and those that absolutely cant be bothered to spend any more time on the tp than neccesary, to gain more gold through regular gameplay.

2. This is debatable and i dont really see a negative aspect right away. The reason why i only wanted to apply it to FILLED buy orders was to influence the velocity of trading as little as possible. As only a small margin of buy orders get filled, it would mean that that there needs to be less white karma in the economy overall.

3. If I have to pay 100 white karma to get a buy order filled, 15 karma get destroyed, you get 85 karma for selling directly to me and that is the only way to gain karma, there wouldnt be any white karma in the economy.
The game economy works quite simple, placing buy orders and sell listing brings prices into balance, while buying and selling directly unbalances it. So i dont think that selling directly should be encouraged.

This is the worst idea proposal I have ever heard for this game.

If I were an actual citizen of Tyria and you got anywhere near implementing this, I would raise an insurrection and there would be war.

A constraint on the ability of anyone to engage in commerce is distortion of the market. You will have fewer people participating which will mean shortages which actually makes the market easier for fewer people to control.

I don’t care if you’re a trader or a flipper or whatever – this is a horrible idea and it will only help power traders and hurt casual TP users.

Wanze, before you expand on this suggestion, you need to first take a look at the acquisition method of your “white karma”. If the white karma is farmed like normal karma, that’s one thing. But if you allow the transfer or trading of white karma via Buy Orders, I can easily exploit this using two or more accounts. Just saying.

Dreamslayer.7659:

This is the worst idea proposal I have ever heard for this game.

If I were an actual citizen of Tyria and you got anywhere near implementing this, I would raise an insurrection and there would be war.

A constraint on the ability of anyone to engage in commerce is distortion of the market. You will have fewer people participating which will mean shortages which actually makes the market easier for fewer people to control.

I don’t care if you’re a trader or a flipper or whatever – this is a horrible idea and it will only help power traders and hurt casual TP users.

Did you even read his proposal or the elaborate explanations he has given on many complex questions? If you provide no basis for your assumptions (shortages + fewer people participating as a result of a white karma tax) they can simply be ignored. I’m not saying that to be rude, but perhaps you don’t see you’re shooting yourself in the foot by not providing a more careful analysis for your very broad assumptions.

Wanze.8410:

One of the biggest problems i had with other suggestions that were made to limit TP Sharks" in the past, was that most of them wanted to introduce some kind of DR system. All suggestions that i have seen until now would have slowed down trade in general, which is not desirable, as the high velocity of the market is one of its biggest strengths. I think the fact that white karma tax would be applied to ONLY buy orders and ONLY retroactively, after they are filled is one of the biggest strengths of my proposal because trade will more or less still only be restricted by the amount of gold people are willing to spend.

Doesn’t a temporary 16% (or 17%-20%) tax do the same? We are not limiting the ability to trade, simply reducing the margins after a certain point each day. It basically just sends the message, “go find a bigger gap in the market to stabilize.”

One obstacle limiting more (casual) participation in the TP is the threat of short term “retaliation” from those who are already in a certain market. Place your foot in the doorway with a sell offer and someone already in the market will take a short term loss by putting their own product in between to send a message. Place a buy offer, and a seller will keep uppercutting you to get you to buy it now. I’ve done these things before, and I believe both you and Penguin have mentioned doing similar things.

This sort of “obstruction” (or simply threat of it) is what prevents and deters many players from entering the TP in the first place, and a DR on trade profit would make these blocking actions a bit more expensive to achieve.

Again, I agree that buy-sell gaps will be wider, but I think this can be offset by more people being able to participate. It will be easier for a casual player to make some profit when he’s paying 15% while a “TP baron” has reached 17% or 20% for the day.

On a side note, I wonder how your proposal might affect skill point conversion via material upcrafting. Profit from here is derived in a way similar to flipping, except some skill points and possibly refinement is involved. On one hand, I am optimistic as it may encourage more people to participate and take a share of the pie, but on the other hand I am worried it may significantly reduce the ability to get some value out of non-gold currency like skill points.

Quite a lot of constructive discussion here. How… unusual.

At any rate, while I don’t necessarily agree with the reasoning behind some of this; I completely support the proposal if it were balanced out properly. If you want to control a market for more virtual currency than you can spend; play a stock market simulator, or EVE.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Wanze, before you expand on this suggestion, you need to first take a look at the acquisition method of your “white karma”. If the white karma is farmed like normal karma, that’s one thing. But if you allow the transfer or trading of white karma via Buy Orders, I can easily exploit this using two or more accounts. Just saying.

How would you be able to exploit it?
I gave it some thought and couldnt find the flaw.

Chameleon Dude.1564:

f you want to control a market for more virtual currency than you can spend; play a stock market simulator, or EVE.

At least with GW2, you don’t lose all your Gold if a Dragon or another player blows up your airship.

DaveGan.8065:

Wanze.8410:

One of the biggest problems i had with other suggestions that were made to limit TP Sharks" in the past, was that most of them wanted to introduce some kind of DR system. All suggestions that i have seen until now would have slowed down trade in general, which is not desirable, as the high velocity of the market is one of its biggest strengths. I think the fact that white karma tax would be applied to ONLY buy orders and ONLY retroactively, after they are filled is one of the biggest strengths of my proposal because trade will more or less still only be restricted by the amount of gold people are willing to spend.

Doesn’t a temporary 16% (or 17%-20%) tax do the same? We are not limiting the ability to trade, simply reducing the margins after a certain point each day. It basically just sends the message, “go find a bigger gap in the market to stabilize.”

One obstacle limiting more (casual) participation in the TP is the threat of short term “retaliation” from those who are already in a certain market. Place your foot in the doorway with a sell offer and someone already in the market will take a short term loss by putting their own product in between to send a message. Place a buy offer, and a seller will keep uppercutting you to get you to buy it now. I’ve done these things before, and I believe both you and Penguin have mentioned doing similar things.

This sort of “obstruction” (or simply threat of it) is what prevents and deters many players from entering the TP in the first place, and a DR on trade profit would make these blocking actions a bit more expensive to achieve.

Again, I agree that buy-sell gaps will be wider, but I think this can be offset by more people being able to participate. It will be easier for a casual player to make some profit when he’s paying 15% while a “TP baron” has reached 17% or 20% for the day.

---

On a side note, I wonder how your proposal might affect skill point conversion via material upcrafting. Profit from here is derived in a way similar to flipping, except some skill points and possibly refinement is involved. On one hand, I am optimistic as it may encourage more people to participate and take a share of the pie, but on the other hand I am worried it may significantly reduce the ability to get some value out of non-gold currency like skill points.

But temporarily increasing the gold tax for high value trader wouldnt transfer gold to people who rather play content than get a cake of the profit margins on the TP.
My suggestion would just do that without the regular player having to look for those higher profit margins that the flipper doesnt service anymore by just seeling his white karma consumables that he crafted. And the incentive to look for the high profit margins would still be there because he would propably earn more profit doing the work himself rather then selling the karma to the trader (otherwise the trader wouldnt buy the karma and its price would be cheaper).

I dont think it will influence material promotion much. As you said, its basically some sort of flipping with an RNG factor and it will just be that with a tax.
The Return of Intereset per skillpoint already varies widely, depending on what you use them. Most casuals settle for 10-15s for skillpoint now (becasue the method they use requires not much time or initial investment) but if you do it right and on a regular basis, you can easily get several gold from it.

But temporarily increasing the gold tax for high value trader wouldnt transfer gold to people who rather play content than get a cake of the profit margins on the TP.

I think we might be seeing things a bit differently here. I think more people would like to make some profit off the TP, but barriers to entry (lowish margins per trade, threat of obstruction) make it difficult. A higher buy/sell gap with less flipping could create some lower hanging fruit by increasing the margin per trade.

I suppose I’m asking for the TP to be DR’d in a way similar to dungeons. Your lower hanging fruit would be like the AC13/CoF12/SE13 of the TP, and then there would be additional fruit for those more hardcore to climb for it.

As far as the skill points go, I ask because material promotion essentially means buying a ton of mats to promote. Wouldn’t it be ridiculously easy to go through your white karma allotment with just a few buy orders? I feel like some T2/T4/T6 mats may get pushed up because it would become more expensive to promote. I have no problem with T6 going up since players will see them regularly by doing content, but I don’t think higher T2 and T4 is good.

It’s hard for me to see the drop in material promotion getting picked up by other players either, as the data on return average is not well known information, and the variance/RNG alone can be a hard deterrent.

DaveGan.8065:

But temporarily increasing the gold tax for high value trader wouldnt transfer gold to people who rather play content than get a cake of the profit margins on the TP.

I think we might be seeing things a bit differently here. I think more people would like to make some profit off the TP, but barriers to entry (lowish margins per trade, threat of obstruction) make it difficult. A higher buy/sell gap with less flipping could create some lower hanging fruit by increasing the margin per trade.

I suppose I’m asking for the TP to be DR’d in a way similar to dungeons. Your lower hanging fruit would be like the AC13/CoF12/SE13 of the TP, and then there would be additional fruit for those more hardcore to climb for it.

As far as the skill points go, I ask because material promotion essentially means buying a ton of mats to promote. Wouldn’t it be ridiculously easy to go through your white karma allotment with just a few buy orders? I feel like some T2/T4/T6 mats may get pushed up because it would become more expensive to promote. I have no problem with T6 going up since players will see them regularly by doing content, but I don’t think higher T2 and T4 is good.

It’s hard for me to see the drop in material promotion getting picked up by other players either, as the data on return average is not well known information, and the variance/RNG alone can be a hard deterrent.

As i said, ROI for skillpoints already varies widely and the very high margins also involve flipping (buy t1 mats on buy order and sell as listing).
Will the high margins on skillpoints get initially a little wider? Propably, yes, and we could note that as a con.
But the problem with methods of skillpoint conversions that yield a high ROI is that they are not spammable.
I mainly use my skillpoints to promote kitten t2, refined. On average, I get more than 3g/SP, if I buy low and sell high and buy/sell at the right days of the week.
I get an average of 5 skillpoints per day (dungeon runners or champ trainers will get alot more), which means i can promote 25 stacks of t1 mats per day. Getting those takes some dedication of updating your buy orders. So its not a profit method that i can spam everyday because its not regulated by the amount of gold or skillpoints i have but the amount of t1 mats that are sold directly.

Buttercup.5871:

Did you even read his proposal or the elaborate explanations he has given on many complex questions? If you provide no basis for your assumptions (shortages + fewer people

participating as a result of a white karma tax) they can simply be ignored. I’m not saying that to be rude, but perhaps you don’t see you’re shooting yourself in the foot by

not providing a more careful analysis for your very broad assumptions.

Yes, I’ve read it.

It’s hard to take seriously because it’s transparently self serving, it’s goals are dubious and it’s ability to achieve the stated goals is completely unproven and equally dubious.

" if the wealth disparity gets too big, chances are higher that those rich players start to become Real Money Traders, which is not good for the game at all."

Make no mistake, the primary goal of this scheme is to curtail the ability of players to become wealthy and to make profit. The justification is that “bad things might happen” if people become “too wealthy”. Those bad things include “Real Money Trading” – which seems like an add-on to get the developers attention.

Equating the means to break the rules with the motive to break the rules has always been the argument of the tyrant. "We can’t let people be too free because they might become criminals – better to keep them locked up so they don’t do something that would cause them to end up in prison.

I’m not buying it at all. If someone wants to engage in illicit RMT, they don’t need to first become a successful TP player any more than an embezzler first needs to get a degree in accounting.

Imposing burdens on everyone to possibly reduce the illicit behavior of a very small minority of people is not OK. If you’re worried about RMT, go after RMT directly.

“A fundamental aspect of taking profits off the TP is acquiring items on buy orders. So in order to limit profits each individual can pick up, we need to limit the value (note: not quantity) of items that can be purchased through buy orders.”

To me, this is where the OP gives the game away. This is the abolution of consumer consent and the revocation of your power to set the prices of the goods you wish to sell.

This mentality enshrines the right of first seller to hold, as if it were land claimed, the price point of the items he wishes to sell.

I reject this mentality in whole and any policy supporting it because the market must have free consent from both the buyer and the seller and there must be room for competition.

What more could a TP power seller possibly want than to remove or inhibit your ability to easily place a buy order? Why, the alternative is that you must accept his selling price. Why?

Why is that seller price somehow more worthy of protection than the buying price? We are all equals here and we are all buyers and sellers. (Except that most people do a lot more buying than they do selling so giving even a small degree of protection to the sell price will significantly empower a dedicated trader)

“The karma tax will introduce a new market force that will help to spread the profits obtained from trading (no matter from who) more evenly over the whole player base, no matter which content they enjoy most. "

This is the most objectionable part of the proposal. First, because it’s blatantly ideological and second because it assumes that all current behavior will continue exactly as it would otherwise. This is demonstrably false – whenever you change tax rates, people adjust their behavior and move toward the thing that grants them the most utility – often they end up working less to recover more time (raising taxes makes time more valuable in relation to money)

All of these proposals distort the market. Most of the people who propose them have a specific angle and the term for this is “rent seeking”. It means petitioning the ruling powers to implement a law or regulation that tilts the playing field in their favor. You will often see large companies backing proposals to raise regulatory burdens (for the people – of course) because proportionally, it hits small, insurgent competitors much harder than it hits them and it buys them good PR with people who don’t understand economics.

Wanze,

Sorry if I missed it, but I don’t think you’ve answered my suggestion for Anet to take over flipping on the TP.

Anet could do the flipping far more efficiently than we can (always on-line, instant access to full market information, unrestricted ability to execute trades, able to sustain flipping at margins less than 15%, etc.) and instead of siphoning gold to a small portion of the player base, this would act as an even bigger gold sink than the 15% trading fees on their own, thereby further reducing inflation.

This seems to achieve everything you want from your proposal and does so in a way that increases (rather than decreases) the rate and efficiency of trades in the market (plus it acts as as even bigger gold sink with the corresponding deflationary benefits).

I’m struggling to see how your proposal would be better than that.

Your thoughts on this please, Wanze.

Zenguy.6421:

Wanze,

Sorry if I missed it, but I don’t think you’ve answered my suggestion for Anet to take over flipping on the TP.

Anet could do the flipping far more efficiently than we can (always on-line, instant access to full market information, unrestricted ability to execute trades, able to sustain flipping at margins less than 15%, etc.) and instead of siphoning gold to a small portion of the player base, this would act as an even bigger gold sink than the 15% trading fees on their own, thereby further reducing inflation.

This seems to achieve everything you want from your proposal and does so in a way that increases (rather than decreases) the rate and efficiency of trades in the market (plus it acts as as even bigger gold sink with the corresponding deflationary benefits).

I’m struggling to see how your proposal would be better than that.

Your thoughts on this please, Wanze.

Yes, in this age of technology and automation, why not let robots take over the whole process of playing the TP and just do it on our behalf, distributing the profits fairly among everyone.

This has potential.

Zenguy.6421:

Wanze,

Sorry if I missed it, but I don’t think you’ve answered my suggestion for Anet to take over flipping on the TP.

Anet could do the flipping far more efficiently than we can (always on-line, instant access to full market information, unrestricted ability to execute trades, able to sustain flipping at margins less than 15%, etc.) and instead of siphoning gold to a small portion of the player base, this would act as an even bigger gold sink than the 15% trading fees on their own, thereby further reducing inflation.

This seems to achieve everything you want from your proposal and does so in a way that increases (rather than decreases) the rate and efficiency of trades in the market (plus it acts as as even bigger gold sink with the corresponding deflationary benefits).

I’m struggling to see how your proposal would be better than that.

Your thoughts on this please, Wanze.

What you’re suggesting is turning the TP into a glorified Merchant, or as far as I understand it. Or are you trying to suggest an automated program that allows you to set Buy and Sell orders are predetermined prices?

I took it to mean – if you’re going to take the inherent PVP aspect out of it, why not go all the way and just have Anet handle all of it on our behalf.

I understand what Wanze is trying to do. And for those who are anti TP tycoons it makes sense. I’m just haggling over the ratio of 20c to 1 “trade Karma”.

And what strawman @DaveGan? Flippers do NOT buy items at high bid and then list them at a markup above the current low sell. You can’t make money that way. That’s not flipping, that’s speculation.

Behellagh.1468:

I understand what Wanze is trying to do. And for those who are anti TP tycoons it makes sense. I just haggling over the ratio of 20c to 1 “trade Karma”.

The ratio doesnt matter the discussions sake, as long as the daily white karma that gets earned by the whole player base per day can cover the daily value of buy orders filled by the whole player base (so this change doesnt slow down trading).

what strawman @DaveGan

You’ve been associating me with “2000g dusk flipping”, most likely because you’ve failed to read my posts. Anyone who disagrees falls into the category of “anti TP tycoon” and inherit all of the quality you’ve concluded they must have.

When I said flipping increased prices I absolutely meant they increased average cost, even if only by a “couple copper/silver” as Aidan conceded might be possible. Those coppers and silvers are where a lot of hardcore TP traders build their wealth so it’s kind of ironic to discount it (see the replies in a recent thread arguing about whether 1c undercuts were significant or not).

Given that I mentioned slight shifts in “flipping index of probably between 0 and 1”, I was clearly not talking about significant spikes. For example, put a gate or DR on buy orders and massive stacks of T1 mats can no longer be bought for upcrafting. As the T2 supply dries up, people become encouraged to promote their own mats, removing some middlemen and T1 transactions that were arguably unnecessary.

But apparently you weren’t reading and now you come back with another strawman about speculation.

DaveGan.8065:

what strawman @DaveGan

You’ve been associating me with “2000g dusk flipping”, most likely because you’ve failed to read my posts. Anyone who disagrees falls into the category of “anti TP tycoon” and inherit all of the quality you’ve concluded they must have.

When I said flipping increased prices I absolutely meant they increased average cost, even if only by a “couple copper/silver” as Aidan conceded might be possible. Those coppers and silvers are where a lot of hardcore TP traders build their wealth so it’s kind of ironic to discount it (see the replies in a recent thread arguing about whether 1c undercuts were significant or not).

Given that I mentioned slight shifts in “flipping index of probably between 0 and 1”, I was clearly not talking about significant spikes. For example, put a gate or DR on buy orders and massive stacks of T1 mats can no longer be bought for upcrafting. As the T2 supply dries up, people become encouraged to promote their own mats, removing some middlemen and T1 transactions that were arguably unnecessary.

But apparently you weren’t reading and now you come back with another strawman about speculation.

Explain, in steps, how a flipper could increase the price of an item when they don’t control supply? What prevents other players, flippers and non-flippers, from undercutting their sell orders to keep prices in check? That is what I’m not understanding by your statement that flippers raise prices.

Flippers will undercut one another to move their merchandise first because it’s all about turn around speed to recoup your capital for the next round of buying. And while I understand the individual simply underselling them on 1 of something isn’t a threat, there are a lot of individuals selling 1 of something due to the size of the player base. Posting your items in the upper portion of the daily/weekly trading range may maximize your income but that in and of itself doesn’t raise the overall average price.

So please, educate me how flippers can raise the price of items with the competitive pressure of selling guarantees a constant stream of undercutters to their selling price.

haha lol i like this tread

the real reason behind this?
more and more people start to trade, flip and spekulate on the trading post
and they get in my way
so lets find a way to stop some of them
first step
look at the bltc forum what people don t like …
oh yes so much complain about tp tax
so introduce another one to stop them… it maybe works?
lets watch my curent bag
oh i have 1.400.000 karma ah that should be enough and i dont need it
uhm maybe they are more crazy people out there with even higher amounts(screen)
so yes introduce a new one white karma seams fine

on the moment i read about the new curencie
this complet idea is only a bad joke
i can t wait to see something like this fail
and next year
you come up with black green blue orange yellow red … karma haha

RLY NO NEED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS!
the only players forced by this are the more casual players
and i can t wait to post a screen with a diferrent 8mio karma
but there are people out there with alot more
i wonder if theres a karma limit uhm lets check the wiki

Dreamslayer.7659:

Zenguy.6421:

Wanze,

Sorry if I missed it, but I don’t think you’ve answered my suggestion for Anet to take over flipping on the TP.

Anet could do the flipping far more efficiently than we can (always on-line, instant access to full market information, unrestricted ability to execute trades, able to sustain flipping at margins less than 15%, etc.) and instead of siphoning gold to a small portion of the player base, this would act as an even bigger gold sink than the 15% trading fees on their own, thereby further reducing inflation.

This seems to achieve everything you want from your proposal and does so in a way that increases (rather than decreases) the rate and efficiency of trades in the market (plus it acts as as even bigger gold sink with the corresponding deflationary benefits).

I’m struggling to see how your proposal would be better than that.

Your thoughts on this please, Wanze.

Yes, in this age of technology and automation, why not let robots take over the whole process of playing the TP and just do it on our behalf, distributing the profits fairly among everyone.

This has potential.

@Zenguy,

Maybe I am overseeing something or I dnt have a clear understanding of your proposal but I think this would easily be exploitable. Maybe try to explain a bit more in detail, how automated trading from Anet would work (how big are over/undercuts?).

Short example of a way of exploiting:

Item A cost 100g at lowest listing and 85g highest bid (because the Bot goes for the 15% spread). Lets assume, there are 10 more Item A listed, one each at 110g, 120g, 130g,…..up until 200g.

Now i buy out all 10 items valued from 100g-190g and the nlowest listing is 200g and the highest bid is still 85g. The bot would place a buy offer at 170g (85% of 200g), which i am happy to sell to and make a nice profit. Now Anet has an Item A, which it needs to sell, as it thrives for 15% pricespread, it will list it again at 100g, which I instantly buy again and to sell Anets new buy offer of 170g.

Rinse and Repeat.

Wanze.8410:

Dreamslayer.7659:

Zenguy.6421:

Wanze,

Sorry if I missed it, but I don’t think you’ve answered my suggestion for Anet to take over flipping on the TP.

Anet could do the flipping far more efficiently than we can (always on-line, instant access to full market information, unrestricted ability to execute trades, able to sustain flipping at margins less than 15%, etc.) and instead of siphoning gold to a small portion of the player base, this would act as an even bigger gold sink than the 15% trading fees on their own, thereby further reducing inflation.

This seems to achieve everything you want from your proposal and does so in a way that increases (rather than decreases) the rate and efficiency of trades in the market (plus it acts as as even bigger gold sink with the corresponding deflationary benefits).

I’m struggling to see how your proposal would be better than that.

Your thoughts on this please, Wanze.

Yes, in this age of technology and automation, why not let robots take over the whole process of playing the TP and just do it on our behalf, distributing the profits fairly among everyone.

This has potential.

@Zenguy,

Maybe I am overseeing something or I dnt have a clear understanding of your proposal but I think this would easily be exploitable. Maybe try to explain a bit more in detail, how automated trading from Anet would work (how big are over/undercuts?).

Short example of a way of exploiting:

Item A cost 100g at lowest listing and 85g highest bid (because the Bot goes for the 15% spread). Lets assume, there are 10 more Item A listed, one each at 110g, 120g, 130g,…..up until 200g.

Now i buy out all 10 items valued from 100g-190g and the nlowest listing is 200g and the highest bid is still 85g. The bot would place a buy offer at 170g (85% of 200g), which i am happy to sell to and make a nice profit. Now Anet has an Item A, which it needs to sell, as it thrives for 15% pricespread, it will list it again at 100g, which I instantly buy again and to sell Anets new buy offer of 170g.

Rinse and Repeat.

The best part of this is that it wouldn’t be considered an “exploit”, since we’re just following the natural patterns of the item value.

Behellagh.1468:

a flipper

We are not talking about one single flipper, but a population of them. Reducing the expected cycles/transactions (in case you need a stat lesson, expected value is an weighted average and we are speaking in decimals, not whole numbers) an item goes through before becoming a final good would create lower average prices, as every cycle adds cost and inefficiency through the 15% TP tax.

The rest of your scenario is again irrelevant because you either chose not to read or decided deliberately to keep pushing your own narratives which are irrelevant to the discussion.

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

a flipper

We are not talking about one single flipper, but a population of them. Reducing the expected cycles/transactions (in case you need a stat lesson, expected value is an weighted average and we are speaking in decimals, not whole numbers) an item goes through before becoming a final good would create lower average prices, as every cycle adds cost and inefficiency through the 15% TP tax.

The rest of your scenario is again irrelevant because you either chose not to read or decided deliberately to keep pushing your own narratives which are irrelevant to the discussion.

Until you first said flippers cause prices to increase, this post, I didn’t have a problem with anything you were saying but I can’t agree with that notion. There isn’t anyway they can raise the average price when they can’t control supply. Too many other players including other flippers will keep the price in check, within a trading range, due to undercutting. Prices increasing, and I’m talking average price, have more to do with changes in supply rate or actual demand rate due to content changes than a segment of TP users trying to squeeze a few % out of the inefficiency of players selling to the highest bidder and buying from the lowest seller.

You haven’t read anything I’ve said because you continue not to address any of my points or questions. You simply say I’m too dumb to understand your point or this thread.

Dreamslayer.7659:

Yes, I’ve read it.

It’s hard to take seriously because it’s transparently self serving, it’s goals are dubious and it’s ability to achieve the stated goals is completely unproven and equally dubious.

" if the wealth disparity gets too big, chances are higher that those rich players start to become Real Money Traders, which is not good for the game at all."

Make no mistake, *the primary goal of this scheme is to curtail the ability of players to become wealthy and to make profit. The justification is that “bad things might happen” if people become “too wealthy”. Those bad things include “Real Money Trading” – which seems like an add-on to get the developers attention.

Imposing burdens on everyone to possibly reduce the illicit behavior of a very small minority of people is not OK. If you’re worried about RMT, go after RMT directly.

I gonna reply to your 3 counter arguments in 3 posts for formatting reasons.

If my suggestion seems to be self serving to you, i cant comprehend in which way.
I dont know how much and how often you read my posts on this forum, so I am not sure,if you know what kind of player I am. I am a trader myself, even though I still play other content, I expect a profit loss through this change. So my ulterior motive cant be to gain even more profit.
I concede that this might look like an attempt to try to profit from all the karma and gold that i have stockpiled by making karma and gold harder to obtain. But with my later change to white karma I have proven that wrong, at least for karma.
You could still blame that I want to make the gold i have more valuable, I cant prove you otherwise, you have to take my word for it that this is not the case.
The truth is, I accumulated so much gold since release that gold has very little value to me personally. I got all that i need to play the game the way i want to play. If I want something form the gem store, i exchange gold to gems. Truth is, I barely exchange any gold for gems these days. I got all account upgrades that i need and if Anet occasionally releases a gimmick that i want, it doesnt cost me more than 1 day of farming my favourite content (the TP). Hallelujah!
If I need something in game, I just sell something from my Assets under Management.

Concerning the whole RMT argument:
It definately wasnt my primary goal and my prime argument when I formulated this proposal. It was something that i stated first in one of my later posts, AFTER i was already aware that i got a developer´s attention, through a PM.

Would the possible risk of traders becoming RMTS some time in the future warrant this change? Certainly not. But i think it is a point to be considered by Anet, if they decide, if the change overall is a good one or bad one. It shouldnt be outright neglected, so its a fair point to make.

It’s not like this idea is coming from someone who has already made a lot of money on the TP, so a karma tax is irrelevant to them.

I’m pro-TP trading and I don’t think that anything that adds barriers to people wanting to trade on the TP is a good thing. Especially if that barrier affects some groups over others.

Dreamslayer.7659:

“A fundamental aspect of taking profits off the TP is acquiring items on buy orders. So in order to limit profits each individual can pick up, we need to limit the value (note: not quantity) of items that can be purchased through buy orders.”

To me, this is where the OP gives the game away. This is the abolution of consumer consent and the revocation of your power to set the prices of the goods you wish to sell.
You either understood my implementation of the tax wrong or you just made an argument pro karma tax.
This mentality enshrines the right of first seller to hold, as if it were land claimed, the price point of the items he wishes to sell.
I fail to see how the tax would protect the seller price of the power trader, as karma tax wont be applied to sales. In fact, I expect quite the contrary to happen. Due to the higher pricespread, the farmer, who used to sell all his gathered stuff directly, is more inclined to post a listing and undercut the power traders price instead of selling directly to the power traders buy offer.
I reject this mentality in whole and any policy supporting it because the market must have free consent from both the buyer and the seller and there must be room for competition.
I wholeheartedly agree with last part of this statement and I dont see how it hinders free consent or eliminates competition.
What more could a TP power seller possibly want than to remove or inhibit your ability to easily place a buy order? Why, the alternative is that you must accept his selling price. Why?
Again, its quite the contrary, the power trader will be more inhibited to place buy orders than the average player because he relies on buying white karma from them.

Why is that seller price somehow more worthy of protection than the buying price? We are all equals here and we are all buyers and sellers. (Except that most people do a lot more buying than they do selling so giving even a small degree of protection to the sell price will significantly empower a dedicated trader)
I hope i already explained above, how the karma tax wouldnt protect sell prices of power traders frm competition.

Ansers in bold.

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

a flipper

We are not talking about one single flipper, but a population of them. Reducing the expected cycles/transactions (in case you need a stat lesson, expected value is an weighted average and we are speaking in decimals, not whole numbers) an item goes through before becoming a final good would create lower average prices, as every cycle adds cost and inefficiency through the 15% TP tax.

The rest of your scenario is again irrelevant because you either chose not to read or decided deliberately to keep pushing your own narratives which are irrelevant to the discussion.

Just a fair warning, Behe is one of the economic minds in the BLTP forums. If you’re going to debate with him, be prepared to have a firm grasp on economics.

Behellagh.1468:

DaveGan.8065:

Behellagh.1468:

a flipper

We are not talking about one single flipper, but a population of them. Reducing the expected cycles/transactions (in case you need a stat lesson, expected value is an weighted average and we are speaking in decimals, not whole numbers) an item goes through before becoming a final good would create lower average prices, as every cycle adds cost and inefficiency through the 15% TP tax.

The rest of your scenario is again irrelevant because you either chose not to read or decided deliberately to keep pushing your own narratives which are irrelevant to the discussion.

Until you first said flippers cause prices to increase, this post, I didn’t have a problem with anything you were saying but I can’t agree with that notion. There isn’t anyway they can raise the average price when they can’t control supply. Too many other players including other flippers will keep the price in check, within a trading range, due to undercutting. Prices increasing, and I’m talking average price, have more to do with changes in supply rate or actual demand rate due to content changes than a segment of TP users trying to squeeze a few % out of the inefficiency of players selling to the highest bidder and buying from the lowest seller.

You haven’t read anything I’ve said because you continue not to address any of my points or questions. You simply say I’m too dumb to understand your point or this thread.

I think you, Aidan, and perhaps others seem to be going on the notion that flippers bring “equilibrium” to a market. On the other hand, I believe the population in this game is big enough to easily bring things into equilibrium, even if the buy-sell spread is wider.

As far as my conjecture that flipping does increase costs, it is based on my notion that while flipping narrows the buy-sell gap, it does not create an equilibrium; rather, it simply shifts the old one.

Every transaction is 15% inefficient due to the TP tax, and flipping adds an additional transaction. In the end someone has to eat this cost, and this is why I mentioned reducing flipping. I should add that I am not looking at flipping from simply buy item A, sell item A. It is probably more like, buy item A, modify a bit, sell item B (in the realm of crafting or promoting/refining).

Perhaps I should have simply stated that I think it would be more efficient to encourage more people to promote/refine/craft their own raw mats.

As far as your other points and questions, I didn’t address them because either I agreed with them (definition of speculation, etc), or I felt they were deviating from the topic of flipping vs average cost/efficiency.

Dreamslayer.7659:

“The karma tax will introduce a new market force that will help to spread the profits obtained from trading (no matter from who) more evenly over the whole player base, no matter which content they enjoy most. "

This is the most objectionable part of the proposal. First, because it’s blatantly ideological and second because it assumes that all current behavior will continue exactly as it would otherwise. This is demonstrably false – whenever you change tax rates, people adjust their behavior and move toward the thing that grants them the most utility – often they end up working less to recover more time (raising taxes makes time more valuable in relation to money)
I get a little confused if you claim I have ulterior or blatantly obvious ideological motives because I am a Trader that asks for his profits to be nerfed. I am very happy with the way the tp and the economy works now because it enables me to earn more gold than i need while playing the game the way I want to play. I dont need more gold, so why would I put all this effort in this discussion, if my expected outcome would “only” be that my accumulated wealth is now worth more, when gold is a commodity that i care very little for?
I never claimed that all current behaviour would continue exactly how it would otherwise. I made my predictions, how people would react and what consequences it would have for the economy. Will it all go down exactly like that? Propably not, otherwise Anet would have hired the wrong guy for the job. But for the discussions sake, I have to assume that my predictions are accurate.
If you think you have more accurate predictions on how people´s behaviour and the market will behave after the change, I would like to hear them.
Your demonstrative analogy about tax rates seems to be something from real economics that proves that people´s behaviour does adjust to such a change. I agree with that.
All of these proposals distort the market. Most of the people who propose them have a specific angle and the term for this is “rent seeking”. It means petitioning the ruling powers to implement a law or regulation that tilts the playing field in their favor. You will often see large companies backing proposals to raise regulatory burdens (for the people – of course) because proportionally, it hits small, insurgent competitors much harder than it hits them and it buys them good PR with people who don’t understand economics.

Of course do these suggestions distort the market, would they get implemented. You cant change something without changing it. Anet distorts the market with every update.

Answers in bold again, thanks for your detailed feedback.

Wanze.8410:

@Zenguy,

Maybe I am overseeing something or I dnt have a clear understanding of your proposal but I think this would easily be exploitable. Maybe try to explain a bit more in detail, how automated trading from Anet would work (how big are over/undercuts?).

Short example of a way of exploiting:

Item A cost 100g at lowest listing and 85g highest bid (because the Bot goes for the 15% spread). Lets assume, there are 10 more Item A listed, one each at 110g, 120g, 130g,…..up until 200g.

Now i buy out all 10 items valued from 100g-190g and the nlowest listing is 200g and the highest bid is still 85g. The bot would place a buy offer at 170g (85% of 200g), which i am happy to sell to and make a nice profit. Now Anet has an Item A, which it needs to sell, as it thrives for 15% pricespread, it will list it again at 100g, which I instantly buy again and to sell Anets new buy offer of 170g.

Rinse and Repeat.

Wanze, you’ve assumed a very dumb bot that is programmed to place buy offers 15% below the highest buy price. Why would someone programme it that way?

Far better for Anet to programme their bots to incrementally close buy and sell prices.

Taking your example: Item A cost 100g at lowest listing and 85g highest bid (because the Bot goes for the 15% spread). Lets assume, there are 10 more Item A listed, one each at 110g, 120g, 130g,…..up until 200g. You buy out all 10 items valued from 100g-190g leaving the lowest listing at 200g and the highest bid at 85g. You now have 10 items at a cost of 1450g or 145g each.

This is low volume turnover item, so lets assume the bot closes the margin in larger increments than normal – say 30% steps for this item. Bot places a buy orders at 130g and waits to get an item. The first one it gets it places on the market at 179g. If no one places a new buy order above 100g the bot replaces it’s buy order at 124g (30% of the difference between the highest buy 100g and lowest sell 179g prices), and the process continues.

How are you going to exploit that profitably?
By placing your own buy orders to inflate the buying price? That’s exactly what the bot wants you to do. (Don’t forget, in your scenario you have spent 1450g on stock that will only return a profit if you sell if for over 170g average.)