Guild Wars 2

When you list it, simply include the fee, problem solved. The buyer will pay all of it.

Iruwen.3164:

When you list it, simply include the fee, problem solved. The buyer will pay all of it.

This isn’t the question at hand.

Currently, no matter how you sell something on the Trading Post, you’re required to have 5% of the sale price in your inventory to cover the listing fee.

Several of us feel that when you fulfill and existing buy order, instead of placing your item up for sale as a sell listing, you shouldn’t need to have that 5% in your inventory and it should be taken out of the sale price.

When fulfilling an existing buy order, you’re making the sale instantly. There won’t be a listing you could cancel and avoid the 5% listing fee.

This is particularly important on very high price items, like precursors.

Let’s say that someone gets lucky and has a precursor drop for them. They don’t want it, so they decide to sell it. In this example, I’ll use numbers that don’t correspond to any specific item.

The current lowest sale price for this item is 500g.
The current highest buy price is 400g.
The player has 5g to their name.

So….they don’t have the 25g they need to cover the listing fee if they want to sell it for 500g. They should have the option to sell to the current highest buyer without having to pay the 5% up front since they will be making an immediate sale.

The situation should be this when selling items on the Trading Post:

Selling to the highest bidder: 15% taken off the back
Selling at any other price: 5% up front to create the listing, 10% off the back when the item sells.

When selling to the highest bidder….the sale ALWAYS happens.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Iruwen.3164:

When you list it, simply include the fee, problem solved. The buyer will pay all of it.

This isn’t the question at hand.

Well to be fair, the original question kind of got hijacked The original question was

Smuggler.6739:

why would you a tax in a game plus a listing fee with total of 15% of the item’s price

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Iruwen.3164:

When you list it, simply include the fee, problem solved. The buyer will pay all of it.

This isn’t the question at hand.

Currently, no matter how you sell something on the Trading Post, you’re required to have 5% of the sale price in your inventory to cover the listing fee.

Several of us feel that when you fulfill and existing buy order, instead of placing your item up for sale as a sell listing, you shouldn’t need to have that 5% in your inventory and it should be taken out of the sale price.

When fulfilling an existing buy order, you’re making the sale instantly. There won’t be a listing you could cancel and avoid the 5% listing fee.

This is particularly important on very high price items, like precursors.

Let’s say that someone gets lucky and has a precursor drop for them. They don’t want it, so they decide to sell it. In this example, I’ll use numbers that don’t correspond to any specific item.

The current lowest sale price for this item is 500g.
The current highest buy price is 400g.
The player has 5g to their name.

So….they don’t have the 25g they need to cover the listing fee if they want to sell it for 500g. They should have the option to sell to the current highest buyer without having to pay the 5% up front since they will be making an immediate sale.

The situation should be this when selling items on the Trading Post:

Selling to the highest bidder: 15% taken off the back
Selling at any other price: 5% up front to create the listing, 10% off the back when the item sells.

When selling to the highest bidder….the sale ALWAYS happens.

You need to look at the other thread discussing the posting fell.

Short version from my POV. The TP is a simulation of how it would work in the real world. Assume that there’s two clerks. Clerk A who accepts the item for sale, takes the fee and gives you paperwork about the sale while Clerk B takes the paperwork, checks to see if it sold and who dispenses money’s to the seller if it was.

Behellagh.1468:

You need to look at the other thread discussing the posting fell.

Short version from my POV. The TP is a simulation of how it would work in the real world. Assume that there’s two clerks. Clerk A who accepts the item for sale, takes the fee and gives you paperwork about the sale while Clerk B takes the paperwork, checks to see if it sold and who dispenses money’s to the seller if it was.

I fully understand how the Trading Post and it’s fees work currently. I have also read that thread.

The question that I asked is….

Does it need to work that way when filling an existing buy order? I am of the opinion that it does not.

If we think about how much money the average player has and realize that half the players have less money than that. How much do you think the average player has? 10g? 20g? Less?

If that’s the case, if one of those average players “gets lucky” and has a precursor drop for them…..they have no way of selling it. They don’t have enough money to cover the listing fee. If they were given the option to sell at a lower price and have the listing fee come off the back-end instead of the front end….it would really help a lot of that type of player.

Of course it doesn’t need to work that way. It’s just code. But it was how the devs chose to implement it, whether or not they thought of the same reason to do so or not.

My question to you is have you played a major MMO where the posting fee could be deferred? The few I’ve played with markets/auction/consignment houses all had posting fees up front, no exceptions.

Anyways this thread is about the need for taxation at all.

Charismatic,

Assuming that the listing fee is charged after the item is sold as you claim, then, what would happen if the item was not sold? Should the fee be charged? Should the item be stuck there until you have the fee’s gold to “un-stuck” it? Would it be better?

You see, I’m one of those players that have ~20g. But if a precursor dropped, i would work hard to place it on the market. I would even ask a friend for a loan until i get the income from that precursor!

We shouldn’t change a good solution although not quite the best for every case in the world, just because of that minority! It would ruin the balance in the trading post! We could see also Phantom listings just to increase or decrease the items value!

IMO, it’s necessary that when you fill a buy order you have to pay the fee up front! Doing this would make the trading post more effective as it makes players think if they are willing to spend the fee’s money and if the item is worth that cost!

/cheers

LHound.8964:

Charismatic,

Assuming that the listing fee is charged after the item is sold as you claim, then, what would happen if the item was not sold? Should the fee be charged? Should the item be stuck there until you have the fee’s gold to “un-stuck” it? Would it be better?

You see, I’m one of those players that have ~20g. But if a precursor dropped, i would work hard to place it on the market. I would even ask a friend for a loan until i get the income from that precursor!

We can’t chance a good solution although not quite the best for every case in the world, just because of that minority! It would ruin the balance and the trading post! We could see also Phantom listings just to increase or decrease the items value!

IMO, it’s necessary that when you fill a buy order you have to pay the fee in front! Doing this would make the trading post more effective as it makes players think if they are willing to spend the fee’s money and if the item is worth that cost!

/cheers

When you fill an existing buy order, you ALWAYS sell the item. It’s a guarantee…and the reason why I feel the 5% listing fee could be deferred to after the sale. The suggestion I made ONLY applies to filling buy orders. It in no way would allow a system where you could choose to defer the 5% to after the sale on other transactions. You’re still paying 15% of the sale price in fees.

This idea would in NO WAY allow for a player to post an item for sale without paying the 5% listing fee, nor the 10% sales fee for selling an item. It also would not allow a player to post an item up for sale for free, or have their listing fee returned to them.

Selling to a buy order is a guaranteed sale….unless someone beats you to it….but in that case, the sale would fail and the player would have to sell to a different (lower) buy order.

So this is about not having enough cash on hand to post a precursor you don’t want?

Or an equally expensive, high in demand item with ready buyers.

Behellagh.1468:

So this is about not having enough cash on hand to post a precursor you don’t want?

Or an equally expensive, high in demand item with ready buyers.

Yes….that pretty much sums it up.

To throw a little data behind this….

Currently there are:
Number of different items with a price of 100g or higher: 67
Number of sell listings for those items: 508
Number of buy orders for those items: 72094
————————————————————————-
Edit: I realized these values do not reflect the actual averages. They are simply the average of the current sell price and buy price of the 67 items. Don’t take too much stock in these values.
Average Sell Price: 769g95s73c
Average Buy Order Price: 417g71s49c
————————————————————————-

While it may seem to be a relatively small number of independent items, the demand for those items is considerable.

Edit: Before anyone says anything….

Yes…I realize buy orders =/= demand and sell listings =/= supply. :-)

Imo they should increase both the listing fee and the selling fee. I feel anything done to nudge players towards actual game content is a good thing. There is already enough incentive to use the tp, as it is the most effective means to almost every end in the game. Any step to “level the field”(if you will) would, imo, be more beneficial.

In a video game that prints money you have to have a drain somewhere that destroys money. If some of the money created cannot be destroyed then it will simply accumulate to infinity. People trading with each other are not destroying money; they’re simply moving money from one pocket to another.

There has to be mechanisms that destroys some of the money being created in order for the money to preserve value. In an economy that fails; the prices continue to rise exponentially until the numbers become redundant.

Calae.1738:

In a video game that prints money you have to have a drain somewhere that destroys money. If some of the money created cannot be destroyed then it will simply accumulate to infinity. People trading with each other are not destroying money; they’re simply moving money from one pocket to another.

There has to be mechanisms that destroys some of the money being created in order for the money to preserve value. In an economy that fails; the people lose faith in the value of the money and the result of that is they end up creating their own money.

I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding your post, but that is wrong. People trading through the TP are destroying money through the tax.

Ursan.7846:

Calae.1738:

In a video game that prints money you have to have a drain somewhere that destroys money. If some of the money created cannot be destroyed then it will simply accumulate to infinity. People trading with each other are not destroying money; they’re simply moving money from one pocket to another.

There has to be mechanisms that destroys some of the money being created in order for the money to preserve value. In an economy that fails; the people lose faith in the value of the money and the result of that is they end up creating their own money.

I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding your post, but that is wrong. People trading through the TP are destroying money through the tax.

You misunderstood my post. People trading with each other in the absence of a tax are simply moving money around.

Calae.1738:

Ursan.7846:

Calae.1738:

In a video game that prints money you have to have a drain somewhere that destroys money. If some of the money created cannot be destroyed then it will simply accumulate to infinity. People trading with each other are not destroying money; they’re simply moving money from one pocket to another.

There has to be mechanisms that destroys some of the money being created in order for the money to preserve value. In an economy that fails; the people lose faith in the value of the money and the result of that is they end up creating their own money.

I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding your post, but that is wrong. People trading through the TP are destroying money through the tax.

You misunderstood my post. People trading with each other in the absence of a tax are simply moving money around.

Which is why tax is needed right?

Atroras.9481:

Calae.1738:

Ursan.7846:

Calae.1738:

In a video game that prints money you have to have a drain somewhere that destroys money. If some of the money created cannot be destroyed then it will simply accumulate to infinity. People trading with each other are not destroying money; they’re simply moving money from one pocket to another.

There has to be mechanisms that destroys some of the money being created in order for the money to preserve value. In an economy that fails; the people lose faith in the value of the money and the result of that is they end up creating their own money.

I’m sorry if I’m misunderstanding your post, but that is wrong. People trading through the TP are destroying money through the tax.

You misunderstood my post. People trading with each other in the absence of a tax are simply moving money around.

Which is why tax is needed right?

A tax on the seller serves multiple purposes.

-Money sink
-Avoid players from using TP as storage
-Reduces asset speculation by increasing risk
-Makes large volume trades more risky (reduces leverage)

I’m sure I could think of others but those are the main ones I can think of.

Every MMPORG has a couple of gold sink holes. Get used to it.

Tax is fine. I would rather implement a 5% tax in buying orders that you pay either you remove or not your order.
to limit large quantities of fakes orders that are removed as soon as prices falls with no loss for the “willing buyers”.

I used to think that a buy-order tax would be a good idea. Just 1%, to keep the fake buyers out.

Then I though about how much more cautious I would be in listing a buy order for crafting consumables (like mithril). I’d have to:

- Use small transactions to avoid losing money by being overbid. So if I needed a lot of an item I’d have to babysit the buy orders
– Be extra cautious when bidding on things whose value I think is going up (ie, the things we all want to buy)

Also, when you’re selling an item, you own the “value” of it. If you get undercut, then you still own 95% of the value of the item.

When buying an item, you own nothing. So when your buy order is overbid, you just lost 1% (or x%)

What is a fake buyer? If a seller clicks on the current top buyer’s price it sells to that buyer. How is that fake?

Do you think players are putting in large numbers of low buy orders just to suggest that there is high demand for an item? What good does that do if there are always a buyer listing at a much higher price?

Buyers commit the funds in their totality when putting in a buy order. That’s money out of their pocket and tied up at the TP.

Someone please explain the logic behind ginning up the demand with loads of extremely low offers.

While I haven’t observed it happening, there have been several posts on this forum showing it:

Imagine someone owns a lot of a certain item and wants to drive the price of it up, but the price is static.

The current buy price is 1s and the current lowest sale price is 1s 18c.

They can put in a significant # of buy orders from 98c to 1s to give the impression that there is demand for the item. This might encourage others to start bidding at 1s 1c, then 1s 2c, etc. All they have to do is monitor the price, and if their plan fails (ie, people start selling to them at 1s), cancel all orders. No losses.

There are other riskier options to combine with this, like buying out sell orders up to a limit, or even adding “real” buy orders at 1s 1c, 1s 2c, 1s 3c to drive the price up when you notice someone else is trying to buy a large amount of that item.

Tying up money in the TP is not much of a problem for most people. Without trying to manipulate the market I regularly put up 100g of buy orders, only expecting 10-20g of that to actually go towards buying something. Mostly because I get overbid, or supply just isn’t there at that price. And I am small potatoes.

I only have acquired only 50-55g in the three months I played. So imagining someone tying up 100g just to prime the over cutting behavior of buy orders to run up the price a few copper each so they can then sell those items seems to be a tedious way just to scrape a few extra copper per item.

Charismatic, I totally understand your reasoning behind removing the 5% fee, but just thinking from Arenanet’s perspective, it makes things worse removing it

That’s 5% more gold in the economy that can influence inflation. Players right now are already content with this.

Vol.5241:

Charismatic, I totally understand your reasoning behind removing the 5% fee, but just thinking from Arenanet’s perspective, it makes things worse removing it

That’s 5% more gold in the economy that can influence inflation. Players right now are already content with this.

He’s not talking about removing it, just moving it to the back end only when you already have a buyer. You still will loose 15%, you just won’t need 1/3rd of it up front.

Behellagh.1468:

Vol.5241:

Charismatic, I totally understand your reasoning behind removing the 5% fee, but just thinking from Arenanet’s perspective, it makes things worse removing it

That’s 5% more gold in the economy that can influence inflation. Players right now are already content with this.

He’s not talking about removing it, just moving it to the back end only when you already have a buyer. You still will loose 15%, you just won’t need 1/3rd of it up front.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I guess I just haven’t been able to explain it well enough. I’ve tried a couple of times, but can’t think of a better way for people to understand my thought. I know some people get it right away and others get it a little later, while others never will. That’s ok….and maybe that means it shouldn’t be done as it would add a layer of confusion to the process.

My argument from a different thread is that the 5% up front fee is a normal, acceptable amount. If you can’t afford it, you then get the incentive to play and earn it, or not sell.

To add to that, Behellagh suggests a higher percentage (16%) charged to players who can’t afford the up front fees. My opinion is that if a system is in place to allow players to bypass the up front fees, the percentage taken should be 25% off the back end. That way, if you really want to sell something you can’t afford to sell in the first place, you make the choice to get less. Sorta like real life Payday Loans, where people pay insane interest rates for a short term cash advance. You can call it a “penalty” or an “opportunity cost”.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Behellagh.1468:

Vol.5241:

Charismatic, I totally understand your reasoning behind removing the 5% fee, but just thinking from Arenanet’s perspective, it makes things worse removing it

That’s 5% more gold in the economy that can influence inflation. Players right now are already content with this.

He’s not talking about removing it, just moving it to the back end only when you already have a buyer. You still will loose 15%, you just won’t need 1/3rd of it up front.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I guess I just haven’t been able to explain it well enough. I’ve tried a couple of times, but can’t think of a better way for people to understand my thought. I know some people get it right away and others get it a little later, while others never will. That’s ok….and maybe that means it shouldn’t be done as it would add a layer of confusion to the process.

There are a number of others that simply think the 5% fee is stupid so it’s understandable that others lumped you in with them without grasping your intent.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

My argument from a different thread is that the 5% up front fee is a normal, acceptable amount. If you can’t afford it, you then get the incentive to play and earn it, or not sell.

To add to that, Behellagh suggests a higher percentage (16%) charged to players who can’t afford the up front fees. My opinion is that if a system is in place to allow players to bypass the up front fees, the percentage taken should be 25% off the back end. That way, if you really want to sell something you can’t afford to sell in the first place, you make the choice to get less. Sorta like real life Payday Loans, where people pay insane interest rates for a short term cash advance. You can call it a “penalty” or an “opportunity cost”.

And my point the additional 1% represents a 20% increase in the posting fee for the seconds it takes before they are able to “pay” the posting fee with the profits of the sale. That’s would be a rather significant APR if one bothers to crunch out the numbers. Tripling it from 5% to 15% is grossly excessive “punishment” if someone simply got lucky and had Dusk dropped on them, they didn’t want it but didn’t have the 30g to post it on the TP. Remember this option is only available if they don’t have the money to post the item to an immediate buyer. Not sure if how a day trader could exploit this.

Behellagh.1468:

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Behellagh.1468:

Vol.5241:

Charismatic, I totally understand your reasoning behind removing the 5% fee, but just thinking from Arenanet’s perspective, it makes things worse removing it

That’s 5% more gold in the economy that can influence inflation. Players right now are already content with this.

He’s not talking about removing it, just moving it to the back end only when you already have a buyer. You still will loose 15%, you just won’t need 1/3rd of it up front.

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I guess I just haven’t been able to explain it well enough. I’ve tried a couple of times, but can’t think of a better way for people to understand my thought. I know some people get it right away and others get it a little later, while others never will. That’s ok….and maybe that means it shouldn’t be done as it would add a layer of confusion to the process.

There are a number of others that simply think the 5% fee is stupid so it’s understandable that others lumped you in with them without grasping your intent.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

My argument from a different thread is that the 5% up front fee is a normal, acceptable amount. If you can’t afford it, you then get the incentive to play and earn it, or not sell.

To add to that, Behellagh suggests a higher percentage (16%) charged to players who can’t afford the up front fees. My opinion is that if a system is in place to allow players to bypass the up front fees, the percentage taken should be 25% off the back end. That way, if you really want to sell something you can’t afford to sell in the first place, you make the choice to get less. Sorta like real life Payday Loans, where people pay insane interest rates for a short term cash advance. You can call it a “penalty” or an “opportunity cost”.

And my point the additional 1% represents a 20% increase in the posting fee for the seconds it takes before they are able to “pay” the posting fee with the profits of the sale. That’s would be a rather significant APR if one bothers to crunch out the numbers. Tripling it from 5% to 15% is grossly excessive “punishment” if someone simply got lucky and had Dusk dropped on them, they didn’t want it but didn’t have the 30g to post it on the TP. Remember this option is only available if they don’t have the money to post the item to an immediate buyer. Not sure if how a day trader could exploit this.

I hear your point about the 1% being “20%” increase. But in the big picture, that means nothing in terms of the fees involved. For instance (and forgive me if I’m understanding it wrong), I have a Rare lv 80 Sparkling Helm of Awesome to sell for 1 Gold. The fee is 5 Silver to post on the TP, but if I couldn’t afford it, the 20% increase is only 1 more Silver. That’s pocket change, and not high enough to make it fair for players who can afford the fees.

My view is that if you can’t afford the 5 Silver fee up front, you could have the choice of selling the item for 1 Gold, but then get hit with a 25 Silver fee off the back end. The player would then have to weigh the costs of selling it now for a quick buck, or waiting until they can afford it. Don’t look at it as a “punishment” for the player, but more of an incentive to play more so they can afford it.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

My argument from a different thread is that the 5% up front fee is a normal, acceptable amount. If you can’t afford it, you then get the incentive to play and earn it, or not sell.

To add to that, Behellagh suggests a higher percentage (16%) charged to players who can’t afford the up front fees. My opinion is that if a system is in place to allow players to bypass the up front fees, the percentage taken should be 25% off the back end. That way, if you really want to sell something you can’t afford to sell in the first place, you make the choice to get less. Sorta like real life Payday Loans, where people pay insane interest rates for a short term cash advance. You can call it a “penalty” or an “opportunity cost”.

I tend to disagree with the increase of the transaction fees above the standard 15%. There’s no reason for it. There are many examples where the idea I posted early could be used by nearly everyone ranging from the broke to the rich.

The example of someone that’s broke getting lucky is the easiest to understand. No additional penalty is necessary due to the fact that the ONLY price you can sell something at that places the 5% listing fee onto the back end instead of requiring it up front is the price that the highest buyer has set. This means that the player is already taking a penalty by being forced to sell it at a lower price now, or hold on to it and sell it for a higher price (hopefully) later once they have the money to cover the listing fee.

Selling to the highest buyer has an opportunity cost and further “punishment” or “penalty” isn’t necessary.

Normal players could benefit from this as well. What if you just spent the last money you had on WP travel, then killed an enemy, but couldn’t pick up the drop. That player could sell some stuff from their inventory to the highest buyer without needing money on them to do so….right from the field of play….then pick up their item.

Not everyone carries a couple of gold around on their characters all the time….some players just can’t afford to. I have a feeling there are a LOT more poor players in the game with only a few gold to their name than there are rich players.

There are two costs the player incurs. The first is the opportunity cost of selling at a lower (much lower in some cases) price. The second is the standard 15% of the sale price placed on every sales transaction through the Trading Post.

If a player has the money to cover the listing fee, they can bypass the opportunity cost and sell at a higher price if they want to. They will still encounter the 15% fee if their item sells.

If they don’t have the money to cover the listing fee, they can bypass the opportunity cost by holding onto the item until they DO have the money to cover the listing fee.

Either way….15% of the sale is removed from the economy.

I see your point. Yes the 15% is removed from the game regardless.

One could argue that selling your goods at the lower “Buy Order” is still profit. You make the choice to sell it now, rather than later for a chance at more. So it’s not much of a forced opportunity/penalty cost, but more of impatience.

Overall, I see the Trading Post as a tool, and you need to pay up front in order to use/access that tool. Just as I paid up front to buy Guild Wars 2 before I could play it.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

I see your point. Yes the 15% is removed from the game regardless.

One could argue that selling your goods at the lower “Buy Order” is still profit. You make the choice to sell it now, rather than later for a chance at more. So it’s not much of a forced opportunity/penalty cost, but more of impatience.

Overall, I see the Trading Post as a tool, and you need to pay up front in order to use/access that tool. Just as I paid up front to buy Guild Wars 2 before I could play it.

I see your point as well….and it’s a good one.

All I’m proposing is opening up the Trading Post to MORE people….which I don’t see as a bad thing.

It helps by allowing those with little money to bring some in…..and those with buy orders to get items a little cheaper.

It’s a win / win in my book. :-)

Perhaps a mid way point between the suggestion that Behellagh made (16% fee off the backend) and mine (25% fee off the backend). Without any additional fees/tax/penalties, it wouldn’t be fair to the players who do have the money to pay the up front fees.

In fact, you could then consider paying the 5% up front like a discount, should the back end fees go up.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Perhaps a mid way point between the suggestion that Behellagh made (16% fee off the backend) and mine (25% fee off the backend). Without any additional fees/tax/penalties, it wouldn’t be fair to the players who do have the money to pay the up front fees.

In fact, you could then consider paying the 5% up front like a discount, should the back end fees go up.

I guess what I don’t understand is….

Why would you want to punish poor players more just because they’re poor?

Selling to a buy order is already somewhat of a punishment in and of itself. You have to take less money if you want to sell it now. It’s the same when selling anything to a buy order. The lower income is punishment enough.

Why have 2 different sets of fees?

Nothing changes if you move the full 15% in fees to the backside of the trade when filling a buy order. 15% of the sale is still being removed from the economy. Players are still making sales. Other players are getting the items they want for less money.

I look at your idea as the reverse of what’s going on in the US economy. People complain constantly that the rich should have to pay more just because they make more money. This is a fundamentally flawed way of thinking. Everyone should pay the same. Rich. Poor. It doesn’t matter.

In this example regarding selling to buy orders in the Guild Wars 2 Trading Post, punishing the poor more than other players doesn’t help anyone. What it would actually do is make fewer people fill buy orders.

As a seller, If I knew I was going to lose even MORE money than the standard 15% just because I’m filling a buy order, why would I, or anyone for that matter, fill a buy order?

I’ve come to really like the 15% system, with 5% on the list and 10% on the sale.

As for the main reason why it’s not 15% on the sale and is 5/10 instead. It’s just so we don’t have to engage in a monotonous activity of listing/relisting anything of value 50 times while our 20 competitors remove their listings at no cost and put them back up at the lowest price.

For every one time the listing fee has kitten you off, you’d be kitten off 200 times having to relist things, if there was no listing fee.

Minion of Vey.4398:

I’ve come to really like the 15% system, with 5% on the list and 10% on the sale.

As for the main reason why it’s not 15% on the sale and is 5/10 instead. It’s just so we don’t have to engage in a monotonous activity of listing/relisting anything of value 50 times while our 20 competitors remove their listings at no cost and put them back up at the lowest price.

I completely understand why it’s 5/10…..and I’m NOT talking about moving everything to the back end for all trades…..ONLY when filling an existing buy order….a GUARANTEED sale. Not a sell listing. Not something that could be abused by putting up a listing for free, then pulling it later to abuse or manipulate the market.

This has obviously become far too difficult of a concept to explain, or people aren’t actually reading the posts.

Since it seems the concept is too difficult, I retract my opinion as it would obviously cause an insane amount of confusion when selling items on the TP if Anet were to actually implement such as system.

Thank you to those that understood my idea and were able to discuss it effectively.

Charismatic Harm.9683:

Minion of Vey.4398:

I’ve come to really like the 15% system, with 5% on the list and 10% on the sale.

As for the main reason why it’s not 15% on the sale and is 5/10 instead. It’s just so we don’t have to engage in a monotonous activity of listing/relisting anything of value 50 times while our 20 competitors remove their listings at no cost and put them back up at the lowest price.

I completely understand why it’s 5/10…..and I’m NOT talking about moving everything to the back end for all trades…..ONLY when filling an existing buy order….a GUARANTEED sale. Not a sell listing. Not something that could be abused by putting up a listing for free, then pulling it later to abuse or manipulate the market.

This has obviously become far too difficult of a concept to explain, or people aren’t actually reading the posts.

Since it seems the concept is too difficult, I retract my opinion as it would obviously cause an insane amount of confusion when selling items on the TP if Anet were to actually implement such as system.

Thank you to those that understood my idea and were able to discuss it effectively.

Was responding to general concepts. You weren’t the only person that posted here.

As for why having the 5% listing fee still apply to directly filling buy orders, it’s necessary to keep inflation from arising.

As for why having a 5/10 concept apply to buy orders instead of a flat 15% on directly filling buy orders, I’d have no problem with it being just a flat 15% off the top in those cases. What you posted above regarding people not having the money on hand but wanting to fill an existing buy order and have 15% taken out of it that way, I think would be fine.

I don’t think it’s really a big deal and shouldn’t affect people much whether it’s 5/10 on filling buy orders or a flat 15% (Never has affected me), I don’t see any reason why it can’t be 15 instead of 5/10 when filling buy orders.

Basically, I agree with you.

@CH

We aren’t “punishing” them because they are poor. From my POV, treating the TP as a simulation of a TP, the extra 1% is just as I described, interest on a short term loan. The TP is advancing you the listing fee for an additional 1% of the selling price.

I know, you want a “penalty” free option to back end the listing fee on immediate sales. I’m suggesting that in the “rare” cases a player doesn’t have the listing fee due to the sell now price of an item a “sin/sumptuary/Pigovian tax” to insure that this use will remain “rare” and not develop into a popular way to sell to the market. I believe that’s also Pengy’s motivation behind his 10% tax Vs my 1%, to discourage this usage from becoming a standard modus operandi of market mavens who may be able to figure out a way to exploit it in some way (they are rather clever folks).

John Smith.4610:

When considering changing the fees (it’s not a tax) there are side effects that we must think about. For example, if we shift how the fees function between instant sell and sell later how does that effect the demand for buy orders? Small, seemingly innocuous changes like this can have a profound impact on how players interact with the market and change the nature of what’s happening on the trading post. In a live game you need a really good reason to make changes like this, and a lot of work making sure you know EXACTLY what’s going to happen when you do.

I agree completely. It’s our job as players to view the game from our side to see if changes could be made to the current systems that would make them “better”. I’m not saying the idea I proposed has to be implemented (like many players do). All I ask is that you review the idea and determine its impact and whether or not it could be an improvement over the current system.

At least you’ve read the idea and understand it. Whether or not it gets implemented….that’s your job to determine. I didn’t make the game, nor do I believe you “owe me anything”. I love GW2 and will continue to play it….and continue to offer my suggestions for improving it.

Thank you for your response. I have complete faith in ArenaNet.

Without us (the players), you wouldn’t have a need to develop a game. Without you (the developer), we wouldn’t have a game to play.

Keep up the good work!!!!

One potential problem occurred to me with regards to the suggestion of paying the 5% listing fee out of sales revenue when filling buy orders.

As the TP currently operates, if I try to sell a larger quantity of goods to a buy order than is ordered at that price, the remainder of my goods get listed at that price. So if I didn’t have to pay a listing fee up front for filling buy orders, then what stops me from creating a small buy order at my desired price point and then overfilling it to get my items listed for potentially zero fees (i.e. I only pay if they sell, otherwise I can remove them without incurring a loss of fees).

I know there are a few methods that could be used to fix such a problem, but it does add another layer of complexity to implementing such a change.

John Smith.4610:

When considering changing the fees (it’s not a tax) there are side effects that we must think about. For example, if we shift how the fees function between instant sell and sell later how does that effect the demand for buy orders? Small, seemingly innocuous changes like this can have a profound impact on how players interact with the market and change the nature of what’s happening on the trading post. In a live game you need a really good reason to make changes like this, and a lot of work making sure you know EXACTLY what’s going to happen when you do.

Fees/Taxes – Potatoes/Potatoes

But what would you suggest to the unfortunate lucky bloke who got a Precursor dropped on them that they could sell to someone right now for an enormous win fall if only then had the rather substantial listing fee? In the 3 plus months I’ve been playing I’m now sitting on 50 gold and maybe spent another 15 gold in game on equipment and Gems but for someone who just got into the high levels, buying rares or cultural pieces, unlocking assigning trait points above 10 then 20, they may only have 10g on hand on that lucky day.

So are you suggesting it’s better to hold on to a precursor they can’t use until they saved up the money over the next few months, buy Gems for cash and convert, or post it for as much as their bank account can afford as a fee (I don’t even know if you can do that?)? While buying gems for cash and then convert them into gold is best for ArenaNet, that idea is likely to be anathema to some just as saying “to bad, you have to settle on selling a 600g item for 200g”.

This discussion is simply examining suggested ways to grant them their just reward without knocking over the apple cart for all.

Thank you for chiming in.

Astraea.6075:

One potential problem occurred to me with regards to the suggestion of paying the 5% listing fee out of sales revenue when filling buy orders.

As the TP currently operates, if I try to sell a larger quantity of goods to a buy order than is ordered at that price, the remainder of my goods get listed at that price. So if I didn’t have to pay a listing fee up front for filling buy orders, then what stops me from creating a small buy order at my desired price point and then overfilling it to get my items listed for potentially zero fees (i.e. I only pay if they sell, otherwise I can remove them without incurring a loss of fees).

I know there are a few methods that could be used to fix such a problem, but it does add another layer of complexity to implementing such a change.

This is a very good point and one I hadn’t thought of. I think it could be solved fairly easily though and I’d like to toss an example out to see if I understand the situation you’re describing.

Let’s say you have 200 items you want to sell. The current highest buy order is at 50c each. There are 180 of these buy orders in place, by one, or multiple buyers. If you were to sell to them, 180 of the items would be sold immediately and the other 20 would be placed up for sale as a sell listing (and without additional checks in place….listed for free).

If you were only able to sell to those 180 existing orders at a single price and the other 20 didn’t get listed, it would solve that problem. You, as the seller, would then have to decide if you want to sell the remaining 20 at the next highest price. What if there’s only 15 orders at the next highest price? Well….you could sell 15 of them at the next highest price, then decide what you wanted to do with the remaining 5.

As it exists now, many savvy sellers (or maybe a more appropriate term is “dedicated TP players”) don’t sell to buy orders as they are trying to maximize their profits. It would actually be a little more inconvenient to sell to buy orders when you have more items than other players currently want at the current price, but would give those players that “get lucky” without the 5% up front a way to sell their wares.

@Charismatic Harm: Yep, that describes the situation I was thinking of. It’s not an unsolvable problem (e.g. change it so that you can no longer oversell (overlist?) to the current highest buy offer) but it does complicate any potential implementation of the changes some of the posters here would like to see made.

Astraea.6075:

One potential problem occurred to me with regards to the suggestion of paying the 5% listing fee out of sales revenue when filling buy orders.

As the TP currently operates, if I try to sell a larger quantity of goods to a buy order than is ordered at that price, the remainder of my goods get listed at that price. So if I didn’t have to pay a listing fee up front for filling buy orders, then what stops me from creating a small buy order at my desired price point and then overfilling it to get my items listed for potentially zero fees (i.e. I only pay if they sell, otherwise I can remove them without incurring a loss of fees).

I know there are a few methods that could be used to fix such a problem, but it does add another layer of complexity to implementing such a change.

Well that explains why I see the price drop down to within coppers of the current high order. Wish that wouldn’t happen, the automatic sell order on the excess. Simply because you don’t know if that buy order for X number is still valid between the time you call it up and the time you hit the button.

can anyone remind me what the gold sink in gw1 was? because that economy fluctuated from time to time but they were never ridiculous fluctuations and imo worked much better than the tp we have in gw2.

The 5% fee needs to be there so people take the Trading Post seriously. If there was no risk to posting Sell orders you’d lose nothing trying to milk every last bit of silver out of people. At worst you fail to shift the item and repost it with a slight discount until it eventually sells to someone who doesn’t have the patience to wait for further price drops.

With a 5% cut you’re encouraged to post items at a price you think will actually sell, rather then holding onto hope of that one person with more money than sense.