Guild Wars 2

MithranArkanere.8957:

You may think that’s being “smart”, but not everyone is smart. Some simply copy what others did. A trained monkey can do differential calculus with a computer. They don’t even have to know what they are doing.

But that is not important.

The thing is, if there’s one single way to make the highest income possible, people who doesn’t do that may be tempted into doing that, to the point that the other things you can do get less and less people.

Do you know why they changed Dungeon rewards? Because there was too many people doing CoF1 repeatedly. PEople trying to do other dungeons had a hard time finding people to do them.
Do you know why they changed world boss rewards? Because people went to the same world bosses over and over and ignored the rest. People ended up alone in some world boss fights.

Right now there’s not many people just messing with the TP, but after they reduce income in the next update, you’ll have people looking for the next “get rich quick” scheme, and google will tell them the bragging stories of these TP meddlers. It wouldn’t be a problem if there was many, because the more people tries to do it, the less it’ll work for all of them, but in the process, they’ll raise prices and mess things up for those that will not do that.

“Use or sell, but never both” is what works best in a game economy. It’s one of the reasons why gear is bound. Prices going bonkers because of reselling is also one of the reasons that got Diablo III’s AH closed. Peope used items they bought to sell higher, then with that gain buy even more expensive items and selling them higher, and repeat the process until they have insane 12 figure prices. Then a new player comes along, and they see those prices, and they see how much they earn playing, and notice the gap that makes them feel that getting items like those is a hopeless and futile endeavor.

If a trained monkey can do it then everyone should be able to be rich. I don’t see what the complaint is.

Furthermore if there is one thing that people can do to get rich and everyone does it, then that thing would balance out after awhile and not be as lucrative anymore. This happens automatically in the TP more than dungeon farming which ArenaNet has to actively nerf if that becomes the case for one particular dungeon.

I have no problems with people playing the TP and I personally find that fun, even though some people don’t enjoy it and tries to dissuade others from playing it. Some people find crafting fun while others don’t. Why should these people define what is officially “fun” and expect everyone to follow? Fun is subjective, just leave it as that.

As for prices being too high, there must be people rich enough for these prices to be realistic. If they are too expensive for you then either don’t buy them or farm more gold.

LordByron.8369:

Its really nice to often try to derail posts…yet i explicitly said that the demand was infact really high due to an economy-breaking patch that led to this wonderful situation with SIlk more expensive than gossamer (as people predicted easily when they read patchnotes about ascended crafting…)

Aside that the issue was extremely aggravated and shown a clear sign of insider trading.

Expecially since even john Smith admitted there were suspects of insider tradings.

And once again another proposal.
Can we have similar balancing to the rest of the game?
Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

Every other part of the game creates pure inflation by spawning money out of thin air and dropping it into your hands.

The Trading Post is simply an exchange where you offer some of your gold/goods for goods/gold at a price you are willing to pay/receive.

That is why there are no diminishing returns on the trading post, it simply isn’t warranted.

LordByron.8369:

And once again another proposal.
Can we have similar balancing to the rest of the game?
Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

1. Because the systems are utterly different, with totally different core mechanics.
2. Because it’s not needed.
3. Because it’s a terrible idea.

LordByron.8369:

Its really nice to often try to derail posts…yet i explicitly said that the demand was infact really high due to an economy-breaking patch that led to this wonderful situation with SIlk more expensive than gossamer (as people predicted easily when they read patchnotes about ascended crafting…)

Aside that the issue was extremely aggravated and shown a clear sign of insider trading.

Expecially since even john Smith admitted there were suspects of insider tradings.

And once again another proposal.
Can we have similar balancing to the rest of the game?
Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

I’ll agree to this as long as whoever gets the killing blow on a champ drains money from all the surrounding players -15% that goes to TEPA (Tyrian environmental protection agency).

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

DarkSpirit.7046:

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

ROFL, I was thinking the same to both sentences independently

I SWEAR that damp djinn dufus starts holding back after about an hour.

DarkSpirit.7046:

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

It’s a flat tax not a progressive tax.

Essence Snow.3194:

DarkSpirit.7046:

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

It’s a flat tax not a progressive tax.

If you want the tax to be progressive then you might as well limit the number of times anyone can use the TP since it is not worth using it when it hits near 100% tax. Are you saying that each account can only use the TP, say 5 times, and not be able to use it forever after that? If yes then you might as well close down the TP since it would be a ghost town and stop all other forms of player trading while you are at it. Everyone would only be able to equip what they loot.

I am up for that.

Essence Snow.3194:

DarkSpirit.7046:

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

It’s a flat tax not a progressive tax.

From a literal interpretation, the more transactions you engage in, the more dollars that will be taxed, thus the more taxes that you will pay.

LordByron obviously intended a different interpretation, which of course would be that the tax rate increases with volume.

Essence Snow.3194:

DarkSpirit.7046:

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

It’s a flat tax not a progressive tax.

Oh, here we go. It was stated “the more you sell, the more you pay”. That is precisely what is implemented now.

KarateKid.5648:

Essence Snow.3194:

DarkSpirit.7046:

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

It’s a flat tax not a progressive tax.

Oh, here we go. You said the more you sell, the more you pay. That is precisely what is implemented now.

Wrong person….lol……Mt Pelion was smart enough to figure it out.

Essence Snow.3194:

KarateKid.5648:

Essence Snow.3194:

DarkSpirit.7046:

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

It’s a flat tax not a progressive tax.

Oh, here we go. You said the more you sell, the more you pay. That is precisely what is implemented now.

Wrong person….lol……Mt Pelion was smart enough to figure it out.

Obviously we all know what he was talking about, but he didn’t express it well enough.

Essence Snow.3194:

KarateKid.5648:

Essence Snow.3194:

DarkSpirit.7046:

LordByron.8369:

Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

That is already implemented.

It’s a flat tax not a progressive tax.

Oh, here we go. You said the more you sell, the more you pay. That is precisely what is implemented now.

Wrong person….lol……Mt Pelion was smart enough to figure it out.

Edited to remove my mis-attribution.

Wanze.8410:

I also agree fully with you that flipping shouldnt offer any rewards. Personally, i played the TP for thousands of hours and i never got a single copper or anything else as a reward, so i dont know what you complain about. I made plenty of profit though.

I am sure, i dont have to tell you the difference between reward and profit, do I?

READ THIS AGAIN.

LordByron.8369:

Its really nice to often try to derail posts…yet i explicitly said that the demand was infact really high due to an economy-breaking patch that led to this wonderful situation with SIlk more expensive than gossamer (as people predicted easily when they read patchnotes about ascended crafting…)

Aside that the issue was extremely aggravated and shown a clear sign of insider trading.

Expecially since even john Smith admitted there were suspects of insider tradings.

You gave 3 reasons for the silk price spike:
#Insider Trading
#Economy Breaking Patch (my TP still works btw, not sure why it broke for you)
#Speculators

The only time JS posted about Insider trading, it was in a topic about Quartz:

John Smith.4610:

As a quick note, this is NOT inside trading. I wouldn’t say that insider trading doesn’t exist, but 99% of the time it’s speculation you’re seeing rather than insider trading. I can’t go into details, but we have plans for insider traders.

I dont see how you can relate this post to admitting insider trading concerning silk.
IF you have another source for your claims, please link them.
I dont see how the high cloth prices broke the economy, otherwise, the tp would have shut down already.

Concerning speculators i already mentioned in my last post. 100k bolts of damask crafted per day require 30 million silk scraps. Even without the changes to 3 scraps per bolt and only 50 bolts of silk needed, it would have still been 10 million per day.

The highest supply silk has ever had on the tp (in July), was 5 million.

eithinan.9841:

Wanze.8410:

I also agree fully with you that flipping shouldnt offer any rewards. Personally, i played the TP for thousands of hours and i never got a single copper or anything else as a reward, so i dont know what you complain about. I made plenty of profit though.

I am sure, i dont have to tell you the difference between reward and profit, do I?

READ THIS AGAIN.

Anything that is either
1) more than what “we” deem what you “need”
2) more than what “we” have
is a reward… haven’t you learned that by now?

/sarcasm – in case it wasn’t intuitively obvious.

LordByron.8369:

And once again another proposal.
Can we have similar balancing to the rest of the game?
Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

Just to point out a huge flaw in this post. The Trading Post does not create Gold. How can you have DR on something that’s mainly a Gold Sink?

Smooth Penguin.5294:

LordByron.8369:

And once again another proposal.
Can we have similar balancing to the rest of the game?
Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

Just to point out a huge flaw in this post. The Trading Post does not create Gold. How can you have DR on something that’s mainly a Gold Sink?

hmmm, the more we trade, the less our gold sinks… I’m down with that.

Naevius.3185:

Please fill out form 1040T(yria).

Heh, now for some reason I’m really curious what my in-game W-2 would look like.

We should totally get them in the in-game mail around the first of the year. I can see a new player receiving the first one and thinking “WTF I have to do my taxes in this game? Whaaaat?” xD

KarateKid.5648:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

LordByron.8369:

And once again another proposal.
Can we have similar balancing to the rest of the game?
Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

Just to point out a huge flaw in this post. The Trading Post does not create Gold. How can you have DR on something that’s mainly a Gold Sink?

hmmm, the more we trade, the less our gold sinks… I’m down with that.

Can you imagine the forum rage if TP taxes had DR? Someone doing hundreds or thousands of transactions would have 0 tax.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

KarateKid.5648:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

LordByron.8369:

And once again another proposal.
Can we have similar balancing to the rest of the game?
Why not Diminishing returns on TP?
The more you buy/sell the more taxes you pay….every part of the game has it

Just to point out a huge flaw in this post. The Trading Post does not create Gold. How can you have DR on something that’s mainly a Gold Sink?

hmmm, the more we trade, the less our gold sinks… I’m down with that.

Can you imagine the forum rage if TP taxes had DR? Someone doing hundreds or thousands of transactions would have 0 tax.

I’d be a pebble-selling MF at that point.

I also agree fully with you that flipping shouldnt offer any rewards. Personally, i played the TP for thousands of hours and i never got a single copper or anything else as a reward, so i dont know what you complain about. I made plenty of profit though.

I am sure, i dont have to tell you the difference between reward and profit, do I?

There is no difference. They are both “things that you get in exchange for doing stuff.” I’m sure you have some semantic argument in your pocket, but save it.

Since I have played all aspects of the game, including crafting, I deserve to get ascended items while you are picky on what you like to play so you don’t deserve to get them. If you don’t like flipping, you don’t have to, since it is one of the poorest form of investment anyway.

But since crafting from 400-500 costs a lot of gold, gold is the primary element involved. If someone is not at 500 Tailoring, it’s not necessarily because they are choosing to avoid that element of the game, but rather because they cannot afford to do it. A player with 0 gold and 400 Tailoring could take weeks or months of effort to be able to afford the bump to 500, while a player with 0 Tailoring and 500 gold could knock out 500 Tailoring in about an hour (maybe a couple days, tops, if they want to be reasonably thrifty about acquiring the resources needed).

Ascended crafting is only about 10% “playing all aspects of the game,” and 90% “having a lot of gold to burn.”

If you don’t like people flipping then it is easy to get rid of them, just don’t sell instantly but create sell orders instead. Similarly, with buys. This would narrow the spread between the min sale and max offer prices to make flipping unprofitable.

So flippers are entirely dependent on my personal behavior? If I stop instantly selling and instantly buying then flippers will collapse entirely? Man, I wish that were the case, but I imagine they’d go on doing their thing no matter what I personally do.

Most people talk about how they made money on the TP. I’m one of the few that has openly admitted that I made horrible decisions that lead to massive Gold losses. Last month, I was down to ~150 Gold in cash. Luckily some of my long term investments tripled in value, so I made up for a lot of the losses I took.

Then that is not a failure. It was a partial setback, but if you came out ahead overall then you came out ahead overall. Come back with a proper sob story when you end up with less total asset value than you started with.

Once I saw the number of Silver Doubloons required to build one of the legendaries, I realized it was not an Illuminati plot. If you wanna blame someone for inflation of certain items, blame the people creating legendaries – THEY set the price, traders react to THEM.

But here’s the thing, we aren’t blaming the traders, we’re blaming ANet. The traders are just reacting to the economy they were given, I’m not trying to convince traders to stop what they’re doing, I’m trying to convince ANet to change the system so that trading doesn’t work the way it does now. To use your example, it was ANet’s fault that they put in a popular recipe that required 250 Silver Doubloons, and then made those relatively tricky to get through natural gameplay (forcing people to farm them through unconventional means). The players are doing weird things, but it’s ANet’s fault that they are doing so.

At any given moment, ANet could just tweak the recipe to only require 100, or even 50 of the Doubloons, or add a more reliable method of acquiring Silver Doubloons naturally (like better MF recipes, or by making them more common drops in level 20-30 zones regardless of character level, etc.). If it ANet’s fault when certain markets “get weird,” because it’s ANet that has done a poor job of balancing the mechanisms of supply with the demand of the players, and it is ANet’s job to fix it.

I’m not anywhere in here saying “if you are trading right now, you should just stop,” although feel free to do so if you like. My own argument here is that ANet should step in and add mechanisms that make trading a less profitable system, one that is more of a waste of time, so that people trading now will not want to continue trading, and that even if they do they will no longer be able to amass huge fortunes through relatively little gameplay effort.

Continued. . .

Every other part of the game creates pure inflation by spawning money out of thin air and dropping it into your hands.

The Trading Post is simply an exchange where you offer some of your gold/goods for goods/gold at a price you are willing to pay/receive.

That is why there are no diminishing returns on the trading post, it simply isn’t warranted.

Stop raising inflation as though it’s the only concern. “If it doesn’t cause inflation then it can’t be a problem.” Inflation is a problem, but it’s not the only problem that needs to be worried about. The diminishing returns are not needed to prevent inflation, they are needed to prevent people from using that resource too often. Just as certain PvE content needed DR to reduce the amount of farming on them, the TP could benefit from DR too.

If you want the tax to be progressive then you might as well limit the number of times anyone can use the TP since it is not worth using it when it hits near 100% tax. Are you saying that each account can only use the TP, say 5 times, and not be able to use it forever after that? If yes then you might as well close down the TP since it would be a ghost town and stop all other forms of player trading while you are at it. Everyone would only be able to equip what they loot.

If it worked like other DR then it would rise and fall. The more trades you made in a given day, the higher the DR would rise, but then if you took some time off then it would fall again. A standard player that only makes a few orders in a day might not notice it at all, while a high volume trader would. A method I discussed a while back would involve having a rising tax based on each time you withdrew money from the TP.

The base is 15% on a transaction, but each time you withdrew 1g it might go up by 1% or more, on a bell curve so that it goes up faster and faster to a mid-point, and then slows back down so that it never quite gets to 100% (and even a soft cap around 75% would be reasonable). You then have a time-based cooldown on it, so that if your behavior is such that your tax rate might only rise 5% in a given week, the cooldown might also cause it to fall by 5% per week, so it would balance out and you really wouldn’t be dealing with more than a +1-2% penalty at any given time, while someone that would regularly incur a higher penalty than the cooldown and see a net increased penalty each week.

Just to point out a huge flaw in this post. The Trading Post does not create Gold. How can you have DR on something that’s mainly a Gold Sink?

Because the DR is on the amount of returns each player personally pulls in, not on its value as a gold sink.

Can you imagine the forum rage if TP taxes had DR? Someone doing hundreds or thousands of transactions would have 0 tax.

DR stands for “diminishing _returns,”_ what you’re talking about would be “diminishing penalties.” A Trading Post DR would reduce the returns people make from playing the TP, not the penalties they would face, any more than PvE DR results in players having lower WP costs the more world events they clear.

Ohoni.6057:

Stop raising inflation as though it’s the only concern. “If it doesn’t cause inflation then it can’t be a problem.” Inflation is a problem, but it’s not the only problem that needs to be worried about. The diminishing returns are not needed to prevent inflation, they are needed to prevent people from using that resource too often. Just as certain PvE content needed DR to reduce the amount of farming on them, the TP could benefit from DR too.

Diminishing Returns are used to combat two things in PvE. Inflation is the one that gets talked about most because that’s the one that impacts most players. The other issue is botting which doesn’t get talked about because botters aren’t on here complaining about how they are getting banned/restricted for botting.

Diminishing Returns would not benefit any aspect of the Trading Post and would in fact directly harm the playerbase in aggregate by reducing the number of transactions.

Ohoni.6057:

There is no difference. They are both “things that you get in exchange for doing stuff.” I’m sure you have some semantic argument in your pocket, but save it.

The difference is more than semantic, one creates gold, the other removes it.

Ohoni.6057:

But since crafting from 400-500 costs a lot of gold, gold is the primary element involved. If someone is not at 500 Tailoring, it’s not necessarily because they are choosing to avoid that element of the game, but rather because they cannot afford to do it. A player with 0 gold and 400 Tailoring could take weeks or months of effort to be able to afford the bump to 500, while a player with 0 Tailoring and 500 gold could knock out 500 Tailoring in about an hour (maybe a couple days, tops, if they want to be reasonably thrifty about acquiring the resources needed).

Ascended crafting is only about 10% “playing all aspects of the game,” and 90% “having a lot of gold to burn.”

http://www.gw2crafts.net/tailor_400.html

At time of post going from 400 to 500 is ~75g not including gold recovery from selling back crafted items. That’s 3 dungeons a day for 25 days. If you include recovery its about 17 days.

Ohoni.6057:

So flippers are entirely dependent on my personal behavior? If I stop instantly selling and instantly buying then flippers will collapse entirely? Man, I wish that were the case, but I imagine they’d go on doing their thing no matter what I personally do.

Yeah actually it is that easy. If everyone sold their item for it’s value instead of fulfilling buy orders for instant gratification there is no margin to profit. If the garlic is only sold 79c how do I make a profit?

Ohoni.6057:

But here’s the thing, we aren’t blaming the traders, we’re blaming ANet. The traders are just reacting to the economy they were given, I’m not trying to convince traders to stop what they’re doing, I’m trying to convince ANet to change the system so that trading doesn’t work the way it does now. To use your example, it was ANet’s fault that they put in a popular recipe that required 250 Silver Doubloons, and then made those relatively tricky to get through natural gameplay (forcing people to farm them through unconventional means). The players are doing weird things, but it’s ANet’s fault that they are doing so.

At any given moment, ANet could just tweak the recipe to only require 100, or even 50 of the Doubloons, or add a more reliable method of acquiring Silver Doubloons naturally (like better MF recipes, or by making them more common drops in level 20-30 zones regardless of character level, etc.). If it ANet’s fault when certain markets “get weird,” because it’s ANet that has done a poor job of balancing the mechanisms of supply with the demand of the players, and it is ANet’s job to fix it.

I’m not anywhere in here saying “if you are trading right now, you should just stop,” although feel free to do so if you like. My own argument here is that ANet should step in and add mechanisms that make trading a less profitable system, one that is more of a waste of time, so that people trading now will not want to continue trading, and that even if they do they will no longer be able to amass huge fortunes through relatively little gameplay effort.

WHY does trading need to be less profitable? You say it’s wrong from a game play perspective and that it’s poor design of the devs. Why? The market that they have set up has done nothing but shown just how effective it is.

Also silver doubloons are rare because they make a legendary. Making it easier to obtain them devalues the legendary until it is no longer legendary. Not sure this was your best choice of example.

Ohoni.6057:

Can you imagine the forum rage if TP taxes had DR? Someone doing hundreds or thousands of transactions would have 0 tax.

DR stands for “diminishing _returns,”_ what you’re talking about would be “diminishing penalties.” A Trading Post DR would reduce the returns people make from playing the TP, not the penalties they would face, any more than PvE DR results in players having lower WP costs the more world events they clear.

The DR would apply to Anet’s end, where there would be “diminishing returns” on the taxes applied to sales.

But I digress. The fact is that the Trading Post acts as a Gold Sink. It does not generate Gold into the economy, thus by definition, DR wouldn’t apply. What you’re advocating for is a “luxury tax”.

On the topic of luxury taxes on high volumes, one can easily get around this by just selling goods using multiple accounts, and placing profits into a Guild Bank.

Ohoni.6057:

If it worked like other DR then it would rise and fall. The more trades you made in a given day, the higher the DR would rise, but then if you took some time off then it would fall again. A standard player that only makes a few orders in a day might not notice it at all, while a high volume trader would. A method I discussed a while back would involve having a rising tax based on each time you withdrew money from the TP.

The base is 15% on a transaction, but each time you withdrew 1g it might go up by 1% or more, on a bell curve so that it goes up faster and faster to a mid-point, and then slows back down so that it never quite gets to 100% (and even a soft cap around 75% would be reasonable). You then have a time-based cooldown on it, so that if your behavior is such that your tax rate might only rise 5% in a given week, the cooldown might also cause it to fall by 5% per week, so it would balance out and you really wouldn’t be dealing with more than a +1-2% penalty at any given time, while someone that would regularly incur a higher penalty than the cooldown and see a net increased penalty each week.

So what about people who get a precursor they don’t want but instead could sell it and use it to buy the one they do? The item that sells for 700-900g is now worth 175g-225g due to your proposed tax.

Or what about someone who is cleaning up their collections they don’t use for some extra change to that new macguffin they want. Selling their unused stacks of 250 will now give them a lot less than they were hoping for.

And both of these scenarios are more likely to be your average player you are trying to help instead of the “trader” who you are trying to hurt.

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol…actually reminds me more of the seagulls from Findng Nemo…..MINE!

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol…actually reminds me more of the seagulls from Findng Nemo…..MINE!

And 2 sheep with tunnel vision complaining that we eat too much.

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

I never said which side was which..it’s ya’ll decided on which you believe.

Essence Snow.3194:

I never said which side was which..it’s ya’ll decided on which you believe.

We all now since Hangover that 2 people dont make a wolfpack.

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

Sinking more gold isn’t necessarily a good thing. Putting in more gold sinks without more faucets just hurts the average player more than the wealthy.

No it would not because the wealthy will adjust their selling price to pass the tax along to the consumer, the average player. As stated multiple times already. The burden of proof is on you to show how your fix is better than an already working system. Which you people have yet to do.

Yes it would because as I stated above there would be less gold and thus reducing trade.

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

Sinking more gold isn’t necessarily a good thing. Putting in more gold sinks without more faucets just hurts the average player more than the wealthy.

No it would not because the wealthy will adjust their selling price to pass the tax along to the consumer, the average player. As stated multiple times already. The burden of proof is on you to show how your fix is better than an already working system. Which you people have yet to do.

Yes it would because as I stated above there would be less gold and thus reducing trade.

Do you know what a progressive tax is? To follow that up do you know what “at the end” means?

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

I yet have to see a solid suggestion on how to implement a progressive tax that would only hurt the rich and not the general player base.
But im sure you will enlighten me in a second.

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

But a progressive tax on what? Net worth?

A progressive tax on transaction price only “hurts” the wealthy, since that’s the whole point about this discussion, if their wealth only came from flippy high priced items instead of flipping a metric ton of low priced items, earning a little off of each.

“Hey, you won the lottery and found a precursor but it’s for a weapon you don’t use. Now you can sell it for a ton of gold but the new progressive tax will take a much larger chunk because you must be a rich flipper.”

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

Sinking more gold isn’t necessarily a good thing. Putting in more gold sinks without more faucets just hurts the average player more than the wealthy.

No it would not because the wealthy will adjust their selling price to pass the tax along to the consumer, the average player. As stated multiple times already. The burden of proof is on you to show how your fix is better than an already working system. Which you people have yet to do.

Yes it would because as I stated above there would be less gold and thus reducing trade.

Do you know what a progressive tax is? To follow that up do you know what “at the end” means?

Just so we are all on the same page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

And can we agree that “at the end” means when the player puts items on the trading post the gold that is made from the sale is then taxed and when the player picks up this gold from the TP it is the amount that the item sold for minus the tax?

If you can agree to both of these definitions than my points still stand and you have yet to prove anything other than you can insult me.

Edit: Also please see my earlier examples to show how a progressive tax can hurt an average player whether you are taxing by price and/or volume.

Diminishing Returns are used to combat two things in PvE. Inflation is the one that gets talked about most because that’s the one that impacts most players. The other issue is botting which doesn’t get talked about because botters aren’t on here complaining about how they are getting banned/restricted for botting.

And the third is just player concentration. If a given activity is much more efficient than others for making gold in PvE, then players feel compelled to migrating to that activity, whether they enjoy it or not. This leads them to burn out more quickly because it turns play into work, but they have to struggle to do other things because they know they will not recieve similar reward for them.

Wanting to avoid this, the devs add DR to certain activities, to encourage players to diversify their experiences, that maybe a given activity is most efficient for a little bit, but after some time they’ll have to do something else or lose that efficiency. The same philosophy applies to the trading post.

Diminishing Returns would not benefit any aspect of the Trading Post and would in fact directly harm the playerbase in aggregate by reducing the number of transactions.

Reducing the number of transactions would not harm the playerbase. The playerbase is only concerned with having items available when they need them, and having them sell when they put them up. At the end of the day, both of those functions are served by the standard players, the non-flippers, so reducing the number of players on the TP would not reduce either of those functions. The transactions that would be reduced would only be those in the middle, the juggling of the items back and forth between its origin and its end, and those transactions benefit nobody by the flippers.

The difference is more than semantic, one creates gold, the other removes it.

And whether something creates gold or removes it is irrelevant, what matters is who HAS the gold. If an activity generates gold for a player, then it doesn’t matter whether that gold comes from ANet or another player, what matters is that the player has the gold. You may not agree, but accept that this is the position we are coming from. It is impossible to convince us that you are right if your endpoint is “nothing can be a problem unless it is inflationary.” There are plenty of problems that have nothing to do with inflation.

http://www.gw2crafts.net/tailor_400.html

At time of post going from 400 to 500 is ~75g not including gold recovery from selling back crafted items. That’s 3 dungeons a day for 25 days. If you include recovery its about 17 days.

Yes, that is the point I was making.

Yeah actually it is that easy. If everyone sold their item for it’s value instead of fulfilling buy orders for instant gratification there is no margin to profit. If the garlic is only sold 79c how do I make a profit?

Well now you’re changing your story from what I can do to stop flippers to what everyone can do to stop flippers. I have no control over “everyone,” only over myself. I put to you that if I were to stop selling and buying instantly it wouldn’t have any impact on flippers at all, since plenty of others would continue to do so. To be quite honest, ever since launch I almost never buy and sell instantly, only doing so in the rare occasions where it’s either a negligible difference or I absolutely need a little something immediately. Flippers still exist, so clearly you’re wrong.

Continued. . .

WHY does trading need to be less profitable? You say it’s wrong from a game play perspective and that it’s poor design of the devs. Why? The market that they have set up has done nothing but shown just how effective it is.

Because in an action-adventure game, players should not be reliant on economics to get the highest rate of return. If this were “Medieval Economic Simulator” then the systems would be fine, but I just believe they are corrosive to the vast majority of GW2 players who are in it to have fun playing a fantasy action-adventure game, and yet would be better served playing the markets in town if they want access to the coolest goods.

If they made it so that the process of gaining Ascended gear was 90% self-harvested resources and only 10% bought resources, rather than the other way around, and if they made Legendaries BoP and mad eit so that gold was a very minimal ingredient in their creation, then I suppose the markets could do whatever they like, but so long as a lot of the reward elements in the game require piles of money, and piles of money are far easier to accrue via the markets, there is a problem. Either the markets should not be the best way of earning money, or money should have less value for the average player.

Also silver doubloons are rare because they make a legendary. Making it easier to obtain them devalues the legendary until it is no longer legendary. Not sure this was your best choice of example.

They are required to make one specific weapon. Most other legendaries do not require any ingredients that are quite so rare, but if you want the hammer, you need the doubloons. And it’s not like their rarity makes the Juggernaut any more desirable, it’s just a money check. Almost nobody actually farms out their own doubloons, it’s not a mark of your accomplishment in the game that says you’ve done anything special, all it says is “I had 325 gold lying around to buy doubloons with,” or even worse, “I had 2700+ gold lying around to just pick it up off the market with.”

If you were forced to grind out the doubloons yourself then that might be an accomplishment of sorts, although it doesn’t sound particularly fun, but just buying them off the TP is no mark of personal accomplishment.

But I digress. The fact is that the Trading Post acts as a Gold Sink. It does not generate Gold into the economy, thus by definition, DR wouldn’t apply.

Again, it is DR, it’s diminishing returns on what the player receives. I don’t see what is difficult to understand about that.

On the topic of luxury taxes on high volumes, one can easily get around this by just selling goods using multiple accounts, and placing profits into a Guild Bank.

If high volume traders are forced to multi-box, that at least adds money to ANet, which is to every player’s value. It might not solve everything, but it would at least be a step in the right direction.

So what about people who get a precursor they don’t want but instead could sell it and use it to buy the one they do? The item that sells for 700-900g is now worth 175g-225g due to your proposed tax.

Yeah, maybe. Or perhaps the tax might not be applied to the initial purchase, so basically if you don’t trade much, and have a standing 15% tax, but then sell a Precursor, you only get charged the standard 15% tax on the precursor, but then after you collect on that your rate jumps to a high level for a bit, but then it would fall again over time. It would be a slight inconvenience to a player that doesn’t use a market a lot, but not the end of the world. The same could apply to someone who rarely trades dumping a ton of stuff at once, the rate would go up immediately after they collect, not before.

They could even add in a system by which players could exchange precursors directly, so if you get one and want another, you put yours into the pot and draw out the one you want. You might argue that some are more desirable than others, which I agree with, but the solution to that is to increase the drop rates of the more desirable ones, so that relative supply and demand balance out over time (ie if ten times as many people want Dawn than want Chaos Gun then ten times as many Dawns should enter the world as Chaos Guns). A direct precursor exchange would be a great way of tracking that value as well, since it could see that there are a lot more Chaos Guns lying around unclaimed and very few Dawns, so in response the game could make the next few precursor drops be Dawns and not Chaos Guns.

Or even better, they could just drop “precursor boxes” from which you could choose the one you wanted, rather than “lucking” into a precursor you have no personal use for and having to figure out what to do with it.

Behellagh.1468:

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

But a progressive tax on what? Net worth?

A progressive tax on transaction price only “hurts” the wealthy, since that’s the whole point about this discussion, if their wealth only came from flippy high priced items instead of flipping a metric ton of low priced items, earning a little off of each.

“Hey, you won the lottery and found a precursor but it’s for a weapon you don’t use. Now you can sell it for a ton of gold but the new progressive tax will take a much larger chunk because you must be a rich flipper.”

It would be on the gold collected via the tp. So lets say in a given week you took out 70g, well then you’d be taxed at the normal rate of 15%. If you took out 140g, then you’d taxed at 20%, etc etc. Ofc this is just an example for the sake of providing an example.

The players that mostly use the tp for day to day transactions wouldn’t see any difference. Those that got lucky with a drop would still be lucky for the drop just not as much gold would come from it. They’d still be profiting from the drop much more than from any normal drop. Those that make massive profit on the tp would be the ones effected. They’d still be the richest, as playing the tp would still be the most profitable method of obtaining gold, but at a reduced rate. They just have to work a bit harder if the wanted what they don’t need.

You know what? This whole debate on rich people’s networth has us looking in the wrong direction. Right now, there’s no “sales tax” for when buyers purchase goods. So I propose we implement a 15% sales tax on all items purchased, and eliminate the “seller’s tax”.

By taxing only items that are purchased, that would in turn put more economic pressure on “Flippers”, since they buy a lot of stuff. Doing this should satisfy both sides of the debate at hand!

Edit – Moved my post so Ohoni’s 2-part post was together.

You know what? This whole debate on rich people’s networth has us looking in the wrong direction. Right now, there’s no “sales tax” for when buyers purchase goods. So I propose we implement a 15% sales tax on all items purchased, and eliminate the “seller’s tax”.

By taxing only items that are purchased, that would in turn put more economic pressure on “Flippers”, since they buy a lot of stuff. Doing this should satisfy both sides of the debate at hand!

Hmm, I’m thinking it over but I don’t see the value. If you put it on the buyer rather than the seller, it would make it easier on adventurers selling loot, and harder on flippers buying stuff in hopes of reselling it for more, but it would probably have other problems. One I can think of is that the current listing fees act to prevent reckless sell offers, since there’s a cost to you if the item doesn’t sell. Maybe adding a sales tax would be good though, but balanced along with a sellers tax, like keep the listing fees, but transfer the transaction complete fees to the seller rather than the buyer? I don’t know, I’m not an economist so I’m not sure whether that would do more harm than good.

Ohoni.6057:

… My own argument here is that ANet should step in and add mechanisms that make trading a less profitable system, one that is more of a waste of time, so that people trading now will not want to continue trading…
Continued. . .

Ohhh, well why didn’t you SAY so earlier!

No.

Ohoni.6057:

You know what? This whole debate on rich people’s networth has us looking in the wrong direction. Right now, there’s no “sales tax” for when buyers purchase goods. So I propose we implement a 15% sales tax on all items purchased, and eliminate the “seller’s tax”.

By taxing only items that are purchased, that would in turn put more economic pressure on “Flippers”, since they buy a lot of stuff. Doing this should satisfy both sides of the debate at hand!

Hmm, I’m thinking it over but I don’t see the value. If you put it on the buyer rather than the seller, it would make it easier on adventurers selling loot, and harder on flippers buying stuff in hopes of reselling it for more, but it would probably have other problems. One I can think of is that the current listing fees act to prevent reckless sell offers, since there’s a cost to you if the item doesn’t sell. Maybe adding a sales tax would be good though, but balanced along with a sellers tax, like keep the listing fees, but transfer the transaction complete fees to the seller rather than the buyer? I don’t know, I’m not an economist so I’m not sure whether that would do more harm than good.

This whole thread was based on the idea that some people want to punish “rich players”. So with this idea, you put more emphasis on Flippers. Maybe do a 10% sales tax on all items purchased, and keep the 5% listing fee for sellers.

Of course there’s two negatives I can think off right away.

1) It puts pressure on the “poor player” who now has to pay more for the same goods
2) Not all “rich players” are Flippers. Farmers who sell Rare/Exotic items they find will get richer faster, since they’re only hit with a 5% tax on listing fees.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Ohoni.6057:

You know what? This whole debate on rich people’s networth has us looking in the wrong direction. Right now, there’s no “sales tax” for when buyers purchase goods. So I propose we implement a 15% sales tax on all items purchased, and eliminate the “seller’s tax”.

By taxing only items that are purchased, that would in turn put more economic pressure on “Flippers”, since they buy a lot of stuff. Doing this should satisfy both sides of the debate at hand!

Hmm, I’m thinking it over but I don’t see the value. If you put it on the buyer rather than the seller, it would make it easier on adventurers selling loot, and harder on flippers buying stuff in hopes of reselling it for more, but it would probably have other problems. One I can think of is that the current listing fees act to prevent reckless sell offers, since there’s a cost to you if the item doesn’t sell. Maybe adding a sales tax would be good though, but balanced along with a sellers tax, like keep the listing fees, but transfer the transaction complete fees to the seller rather than the buyer? I don’t know, I’m not an economist so I’m not sure whether that would do more harm than good.

This whole thread was based on the idea that some people want to punish “rich players”. So with this idea, you put more emphasis on Flippers. Maybe do a 10% sales tax on all items purchased, and keep the 5% listing fee for sellers.

Of course there’s two negatives I can think off right away.

1) It puts pressure on the “poor player” who now has to pay more for the same goods
2) Not all “rich players” are Flippers. Farmers who sell Rare/Exotic items they find will get richer faster, since they’re only hit with a 5% tax on listing fees.

Not punish rich players, but moreso bring more balance to the game.

1) I understand and agree with that
2) Even the most successful farmer can’t hold a flame to high end tp players. They are not in the same league.

@Ohoni
Working 17 days maximum to unlock the best crafting seems rather short to me and should seem even shorter to you since your philosophy seems to be all about PvE grinding to get rewards. But if you disagree there is nothing I can do about this and willing to chalk it up to perspective in order too focus on the more important point. The core behind your belief. That everyone should play the game the same as you.

You make it sound easy to just drop thousands of gold on something. But what about the work that went into building up that wealth? The months, the research, the failures, everything to earn the wealth theses people have today? Is this really not “personal achievement”? This " action adventure" game is meant to simulate a living world and all facets of it, including the economy. You have no right to determine how these people use this world to obtain their own sense of achievement. Nor does their acheviement affect you. Unless you are petty enough to feel they don’t deserve the money they made like you because “you played the game properly”.

And the easiest way to access the coolest content is through buying gems, not actually playing the game or the TP. If you want the best gear handed to you through minimal grind then go pay $15 a month for WoW where they now have a literal loot island where you kill things and they drop the epic equipment.

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

ALL OVER this anti-rich envy thing… I get the external influence that’s causing this, but this irrational disdain of anyone with anything more than you simply BECAUSE they have more than you is really gonna lead to a miserable life… for all involved

In this game, the fact there exist those who have built (or bought, btw) in-game wealth AND are “richer” than others will ALWAYS be the case. At a bare minimum, because new players keep joining, establishing a new have-not class… under y’all’s redistribution thing, we’d have to stop and revamp the economy every.single.time or we wouldn’t all be equal.

Please accept this fact: No master planning whatsoever will keep the players BOTH 1) completely “equal” in level of wealth and 2) playing the game. The former will result in negation of the latter. If there are no players, this entire conversation is ethereal.

Ohhh capitalist shiny object just popped in my head: I need a couple experienced game coders… given the increasing number of people going down this road in games lately, I think I have a great idea for a new game tailoring to them… thinking Forward!Online is kinda catchy.

Essence Snow.3194:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Ohoni.6057:

You know what? This whole debate on rich people’s networth has us looking in the wrong direction. Right now, there’s no “sales tax” for when buyers purchase goods. So I propose we implement a 15% sales tax on all items purchased, and eliminate the “seller’s tax”.

By taxing only items that are purchased, that would in turn put more economic pressure on “Flippers”, since they buy a lot of stuff. Doing this should satisfy both sides of the debate at hand!

Hmm, I’m thinking it over but I don’t see the value. If you put it on the buyer rather than the seller, it would make it easier on adventurers selling loot, and harder on flippers buying stuff in hopes of reselling it for more, but it would probably have other problems. One I can think of is that the current listing fees act to prevent reckless sell offers, since there’s a cost to you if the item doesn’t sell. Maybe adding a sales tax would be good though, but balanced along with a sellers tax, like keep the listing fees, but transfer the transaction complete fees to the seller rather than the buyer? I don’t know, I’m not an economist so I’m not sure whether that would do more harm than good.

This whole thread was based on the idea that some people want to punish “rich players”. So with this idea, you put more emphasis on Flippers. Maybe do a 10% sales tax on all items purchased, and keep the 5% listing fee for sellers.

Of course there’s two negatives I can think off right away.

1) It puts pressure on the “poor player” who now has to pay more for the same goods
2) Not all “rich players” are Flippers. Farmers who sell Rare/Exotic items they find will get richer faster, since they’re only hit with a 5% tax on listing fees.

Not punish rich players, but moreso bring more balance to the game.

1) I understand and agree with that
2) Even the most successful farmer can’t hold a flame to high end tp players. They are not in the same league.

Want to say that to Vol?

KarateKid.5648:

Essence Snow.3194:

Schizo.1375:

Essence Snow.3194:

Like a pack of rabid wolves……..lol

Are we wrong? If so than please provide some input that shows it instead of snide insults.

You haven’t provided any insight on why you are right. Most all you do is argue semantics.

What would be wrong with a progressive tax placed at the end?

It would sink more gold.
It would slow the widening of the wealth gap.
It wouldn’t slow liquidity of trade.

I don’t see anything negative about it tbh. The rich wouldn’t be as rich, but they don’t need to be<—isn’t that one of ya’lls….lol

ALL OVER this anti-rich envy thing… I get the external influence that’s causing this, but this irrational disdain of anyone with anything more than you simply BECAUSE they have more than you is really gonna lead to a miserable life… for all involved

In this game, the fact there exist those who have built (or bought, btw) in-game wealth AND are “richer” than others will ALWAYS be the case. At a bare minimum, because new players keep joining, establishing a new have-not class… under y’all’s redistribution thing, we’d have to stop and revamp the economy every.single.time or we wouldn’t all be equal.

Please accept this fact: No master planning whatsoever will keep the players BOTH 1) completely “equal” in level of wealth and 2) playing the game. The former will result in negation of the latter. If there are no players, this entire conversation is ethereal.

Ohhh capitalist shiny object just popped in my head: I need a couple experienced game coders… given the increasing number of people going down this road in games lately, I think I have a great idea for a new game tailoring to them… thinking Forward!Online is kinda catchy.

For the overall balance of the game……..yeah you got me. I am selfishly only concerned with the overall health of GW2..busted!