The progressive tax rate in the US applies to income earned through wages which is how most of the middle class earn money.
The wealthy generally become wealthy through other mechanism which are taxed quite differently.
It is not a stretch at all to say that the progressive tax system is what keeps the middle class from becoming wealthy.
Now you can argue about whether this was the intent or just an effect but it’s been understood to be this way for most a century so we can surmise that this effect is acceptable to the people who write the tax code.
You noted that generally the wealthy become so via means that aren’t subject to the same regulations. That sounds a lot like the trading post. Lack of similar regulations allowing one avenue to excel while holding back others.
In rl it’s no secret that one of the biggest influences to politics is the wealthy. It’s no wonder they continue to lobby…ie because it works.
The real reason for the TP tax is to create some level of economic friction to slow down trading volumes on the TP. You can’t just flip massive volumes for a 1-2% uptick in price – you have to have enough margin to overcome the TP tax of 15% – the best way to do that is to actually acquire something through normal play (at essentially zero out of pocket cost) and then sell it.
I’ve been lead to believe that keeping the economy more liquid was a good thing and actually encouraged.
Trading for profit requires players to anticipate market movements of over 15% which requires either excellent luck, planning and time or a good speculation insight.
Putting aside the technical problems with implementing tax brackets in GW2 (which would be trivial to circumvent and you could eventually see people banned for tax evasion and money laundering of in game currency having nothing to do with RMT – and that would be insane)
Kinda sounds like banning for exploiting.
It seems to me that this idea is driven by the belief that it is somehow wrong for a player to want to become wealthy in the game through trading but not wrong to become wealthy by “playing the game”.
It’s the unbalance of all vehicles being regulated while one is not, allowing a growing distinction between it and everything else. It really doesn’t matter that it’s trading. It could be wvw. It’s the inequality of the principle, not the mechanic itself.
This is a highly ideological viewpoint and one that not everyone shares with the OP. While real life progressives can at least point to social programs supported by tax revenue as cover for the social engineering and behavioral distortions caused by the tax code, there is no such thing happening in GW2.
It happens all the time just not while considering the economy. Look at profession balance, farming balance, wvw balance…basically anywhere you see balance being a concern.
The Supply vs Demand concept may sound simple to many non-business minded players, but it’s more complicated than just “1,000 players want Item A when there’s only 10 available”. Many factors play a role in determining demand for an item. This is where behavior research comes in to determine how to create more demand. Making an item rare may increase demand on some items, but the same strategy isn’t a “one size fits all” solution.
Anet, as with any company, can help to influence demand. They cannot create it outright. Just as they can influence value, but not determine it. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise doesn’t understand how businesses work.
Each person sees an item differently. Just because one player feels Dusk is overpriced, doesn’t mean that Anet should alter the entire economy to make that one player happy. Some items were meant to be rare. In the same breath, some items that were meant to be rare get a drop buff. Monocles and Mini Monkey Kings were super rare, and had a value that matched the rarity and demand. Anet comes in and buffs the drop rates with insane amounts, thus making the item less valuable. Yes they have the power to increase Supply, but it’s not something they should do with Precursors.
I like how your pedantic post about supply and demand concludes in straight up opinion.
Also, ascended crafting. Cough. Pricey to acquire and much less subject to supply&demand cost disparity. In fact, the disparity is almost entirely caused by the supply of silk and the disparate amount needed for each armor class (e.g. very little influence from players themselves).
For someone who is talking about how much goes into supply and demand, you seem to be ignoring how simple it is to make a system that isn’t so easily skewed in cost. It’s not about Anet making precursors easy to acquire. It’s about them making the cost to acquire them relatively balanced, instead of letting them be completely subject to the player market.
I see your business economy and raise you game design.
Hope you’re not bluffing.
I’ll go all in with common sense.
Everything in the TP economy is interconnected. Sorta like how the real world works.
Natural disaster in Asia caused hard drive manufacturing output to stop, thus leading to an increase in price to available hard drives, which lead to increase priced in PCs and/or downgraded specs to maintain price points.
Large car manufacturer on the verge of closing due to a bad economy, putting panic on smaller suppliers who provide key parts to the vehicles. If the car manufacturer goes out of business, they take all the smaller suppliers with them.
Dusk availability increased, leading to a mad rush to collect necessary mats from the TP. Dusk gets cheaper, but all T6 mats triple in value. Market panics, and John goes home early with a headache.
If Anet wants to provide an alternate method to get Precursors, that’s fine. But the problem here is also balancing what happens after such a mechanic is released. Some players don’t think beyond the “make it easier to get” argument.
Side note – to truly control the costs of high demanded items, you would need to eliminate them as drops, and just sell them for Gems in the Gem Store. 8k Gems sounds like a good price point.
Sounds like you feel Entitled to keep the status quo.
Didn’t read penguins post b/c I know is says entitlement b/c he feels entitled to do so.
Its valid because it doesnt create anything, why is it so had to understand the fundamental difference of rewards that are created out of thin air through a faucet and items/gold traded through the tp between players?
Counter question:
Why do you think its not valid?
Why is it so hard to explain why not creating anything is justification for being unregulated when everything else is, even when they don’t create anything.
I’ll give you a hint…….it’s not b/c it doesn’t create anything….lol That’s like trying to answer why something is blue by saying b/c it’s blue…ie not a valid answer. Evidently this is a hard concept.
The trading post isn’t “regulated” because it isn’t creating anything.
All it is doing is allowing players to trade their unwanted items for a wanted currency.
This suggestion would only hurt the economy in general and would not achieve any of the goals of the suggestion.
Once again, progressive taxes are used in the real world to fund social assistance programs. We argue that the negative impact on the economy is worth it in exchange for preventing starvation, death by exposure, etc. amongst the poorest members of society. We have no such programs in this game, primarily because permanent death is not a factor, thus there is no need for a progressive tax.
Why is “it doesn’t create anything” valid? It creates a wealth gap, artificial demand, artificial supply, and quite a bit of resentment.
How would it hurt the economy? Why wouldn’t it achieve efficiency and the ability to introduce more rewards?
Equality/fairness is a huge factor in games. I believe that alone should be basis for not having stand alone aspects. Much like profession balance. If one profession were way beyond all the rest, what would it matter? Everyone could just play that class. It doesn’t create anything. Just try to apply the same logic used with the tp to professions.
To add to the above..if you are going to use a stone in a forge do not use greatswords, swords, daggers, or staves. Use the cheapest rares or exotics than you can buy b/c the stone will randomize the forge anyways If you get any of those 4 back, a weapon with a collection attachment, or valuable sigil sell them back on the tp instead of reforging them and buy more cheap ones with proceeds.
If you are that unhappy with the reward (which I am vocal about not likely as well) buying gems is about the last thing you should have done. Buying gems shows you support the game as is.
And to be honest, I’m baffled by those players. If you were going to spend thousands of gold/hundreds of dollars entering the raffle, why wouldn’t you just convert those gems to gold and just buy the skin directly anyway?
They are basically byproducts for those going for the mini and other super rare tot drops.
The raffle is kinda bogus imo. Some players have put in 10s of thousands of chances alone. If we were limited to entries, then it would be more palatable.
I just love how the economy works as a whole and I argue against most suggestions because they usually wont do what they are intended to do, to cap profits on the tp, but would either damage the economy as a whole or also put restrictions on other players than the wealthy.
If someone now miraciously found a way to cap profits on the tp, that would be fine by me, as i already accumulated enough wealth to not be affected by it, in fact, it would eliminate my competition.
I actually made my own suggestion on how to redistribute profits generated on the tp to the general player base a couple of months back, by adding a white karma tax (white karma is being earned like regular karma and can be traded for gold) for buy orders only (because most profits earned on the tp involve putting in buy orders).
So you cant say that I am against change in general.
You argue by saying things are bad, wrong, and/or won’t work, but never explain why. It’s basically repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
I like that you admit here that you wouldn’t mind change now that you have made yours and it really wouldn’t effect you. Is that your issue with things? If they don’t directly benefit you, you’ll argue till blue in the face against them? I think there’s a word for that.
The basis of my end is that it is the only method that is unregulated via the game. So why not have give a little more for that allowance. If it were regulated like everything else, then ofc adding something like this would be unreasonable, but it’s not. On top of that this would allow greater rewards on the low end that (guess what) trickle back to the tp. So it ends up win win for everyone. Low end gets rewarded more and the high end has more to work with/profit from. This game is renown for poor rewards. Why on earth is it a good thing to keep that status quo?
For the scripting/coding. I really don’t think it would be too complex. After all they already have the tax code imbedded.
Have you ever programmed anything? If you have, you’ll understand why 1 simple coefficient is much, much much easier than trying to calculate a multi-level scheme based on the end result of the process you’re calculating off of.
Coding the kind of thing you’re talking about would be a nightmare (besides being utterly counterproductive). There’s a reason tax agencies are so large.
There’s no reason to change how the TP works, and this thread’s OP is badly thought out to boot.
Why would it be counter productive?
You’re stating that tax agencies are so large b/c of coding?
If there are 5 items and 10000 ppl want it 200 that are “doing fine” 2 that are loaded" and the rest are “struggling”, what will happen? Considering that there will constantly be few players “moving” up and more joining …the numbers replenish and the items are always dominated by the “top end”. It’s how the game works and it’s how society works. Only difference is that this is a GAME…..and I’m not too sure what’s so hard to understand about that.
As for evidence…just take a look around at the player base. How many are pleased with rewards? I am sorta ok with mine since I’m in the top end, but I can’t turn a blind eye to all those who those who are not. I can’t turn a deaf ear to their concerns. I can’t close myself off to what is happening just because it is not happening to me.
But this isnt a problem derived from wealth disparity but from the general rarity of the item.
The superrich person might have 100 times more gold than the 10000 and qualify for wealth disparity but he wont buy all 5 items because he only needs 1. If the item costs 1000 gold and the 200 reach that threshold while the 10000 are still at 990 gold, i wouldnt call that wealth disparity.
Apart from that, the chances of someone of the 10000 selling those 5 items is 50:1. If they do so, 5 people of the 201 will not create any additional demand anymore because theirs is satisfied. The 5 that sold it, also dont create demand (because they didnt want it in the first place). Thats the demand of 10 people satisfied with the sale of 5 items, i call that a good satisfaction rate.
Anyways, i thought your goal was to add some more credibility towards your original suggestions.
So why did you bring wealth disparity up? You can’t exactly bring something up, discuss it, then tell the other person they are wrong because they are talking about what you brought up. That’s flawed logic, but ofc look who I’m talking to.
You brought it up.
I asked why people, who already sink alot of gold out of the economy (high value traders) should carry the burden of a progressive tax, even though dungeon runners are responsible for a big chunk of gold entering the economy.
By specificially targeting wealthy players, you bring wealth disparity into the discussion.
You are basically asking to take gold from rich players and allocate it into faucets for all players.
Why stop there? Why not remove 1 legendary skin from every players wardrobe, who got more than 3 unlocked and raffle it off under players that havent unlocked a single one yet? They would still have more legendary skins unlocked than the average player.
Sounds reasonable to you?
Opps sorry it was Ensign that brought it up, you just went with it.
I’m not sure why you always resort to extremes. Some one suggest a marginal increase and you claim the sky is falling and it couldn’t possibly be marginal b/c that doesn’t exist.
The info you’re mentioning only tells about the specific 3 days. It is not automatically valid for the rest of the game’s 2+ years.
The data was simply grabbed at the time of posting, it wasn’t cherry-picked and there is no reason to think that it was not a typical example of TP transactions.
I have two hands, and the majority of people I’ve met have two hands. I haven’t met all seven billion or so humans on the planet, but from my experience it’s reasonable to conclude that the majority of people have two hands. Exceptions exist, but when I meet a person with one hand I don’t conclude that everyone I haven’t met yet has only one hand.
Way too different to be comparative. One has countless possibilities the other only has 3.
Assuming that the 1 sample is typical is like assuming that most cars must be white b/c the one gas station you saw on a Tuesday last month had mostly white cars there.
Is it a possibility? Ofc it is, but should we consider more data before claiming these things as fact? Without question we should.
The nature of random distribution doesn’t work that way.
The system functions on those who are lucky, and average. The losers are not a part of supply.
You got lucky, I can tell you most people haven’t got a precursor in two years from a monster. There is no guarantee except the market.
That’s why precursors are tradeable instead of account bound. In practice, it’s not the best way to handle things, but that’s what they designed before the game launched and they’re stuck with it now.
There’s nothing special about my account. It has already been demonstrated by JS that Dusk sells at a rate of about one per hour, and nearly every sale within the 60-hour period he posted is a different seller and a different buyer. Every day, hundreds of accounts get lucky drops/forges and hundreds of accounts have accumulated enough gold to buy precursors from the lucky players. I believe mine sold in less than a day, probably a few hours.
By design, obtaining a Legendary weapon is a lengthy and expensive process. As a singular event that is critical to obtaining that Legendary (as opposed to an incremental requirement like 100% map completion or collecting stacks of materials), the precursor is also a lengthy and expensive process. Dedicated players are naturally going to seek the path of least resistance, and if it’s too easy to obtain the pieces they need, the game will be flooded with Legendaries and that is a situation the devs do not want.
So, in your search for a precursor, persistence, patience, and luck are rewarded. Crying “it’s not fair!” on the forums is not rewarded, nor should it be. Any additional routes to obtaining the precursor need to respect existing methods, if it is much harder then the devs work will be ignored, and if it is much easier then alters the game in ways they don’t want.
During the life of this thread, hundreds, if not thousands, of players have “gotten lucky” and obtained a precursor of some sort. Thousands more have saved up gold and exchanged their riches with some of those players to obtain the precursors they want. If an individual is not among them, he should examine the way he is playing and whether he is actually moving towards his goal, or if the Legendary really is his goal at all. Demanding the devs bend the game to his liking is simply not going to lead to a Legendary. Playing the game and working towards that goal will eventually lead to it.
The info you’re mentioning only tells about the specific 3 days. It is not automatically valid for the rest of the game’s 2+ years.
If there are 5 items and 10000 ppl want it 200 that are “doing fine” 2 that are loaded" and the rest are “struggling”, what will happen? Considering that there will constantly be few players “moving” up and more joining …the numbers replenish and the items are always dominated by the “top end”. It’s how the game works and it’s how society works. Only difference is that this is a GAME…..and I’m not too sure what’s so hard to understand about that.
As for evidence…just take a look around at the player base. How many are pleased with rewards? I am sorta ok with mine since I’m in the top end, but I can’t turn a blind eye to all those who those who are not. I can’t turn a deaf ear to their concerns. I can’t close myself off to what is happening just because it is not happening to me.
But this isnt a problem derived from wealth disparity but from the general rarity of the item.
The superrich person might have 100 times more gold than the 10000 and qualify for wealth disparity but he wont buy all 5 items because he only needs 1. If the item costs 1000 gold and the 200 reach that threshold while the 10000 are still at 990 gold, i wouldnt call that wealth disparity.
Apart from that, the chances of someone of the 10000 selling those 5 items is 50:1. If they do so, 5 people of the 201 will not create any additional demand anymore because theirs is satisfied. The 5 that sold it, also dont create demand (because they didnt want it in the first place). Thats the demand of 10 people satisfied with the sale of 5 items, i call that a good satisfaction rate.
Anyways, i thought your goal was to add some more credibility towards your original suggestions.
So why did you bring wealth disparity up? You can’t exactly bring something up, discuss it, then tell the other person they are wrong because they are talking about what you brought up. That’s flawed logic, but ofc look who I’m talking to.
i went from the FX8350 to the i7 4790l and ive gained 100% more FPS on average agross all areas of game play. stay away from AMD. go intel i5/i7 if you can afford
So you basically went from a $180 processor to a $300 processor and are comparing them as if they cost the same?
The Trick or Treat Bags aren’t going away. They’re going to stay available all throughout the year, and the Maize Balm consumable item has been added to let players continue to generate new Trick or Treat Bags even in December or February or whenever we want. So the mini will remain available in the bags, at least up until next year’s Hallowe’en event where we might see new items dropping.
Go grab your Maize Balm recipe (it’s time-gated, one per day) so that if you can’t get the mini before the event ends, you’ll still have a source for new bags all year long. Then hit up Godslost Swamp with the Balm every now and then to get more bags and keep trying.
Thanks for sharing this tip, Xiahou Mao.
I have passed along feedback about the miniature, so that your concerns can be reviewed.
Please note that once the event is over prices for the ingredients for the recipe will surely rise, thus the item’s price will rise. That is a recipe for one truly expensive mini hunt. Reasonable?
If there are 5 items and 10000 ppl want it 200 that are “doing fine” 2 that are loaded" and the rest are “struggling”, what will happen? Considering that there will constantly be few players “moving” up and more joining …the numbers replenish and the items are always dominated by the “top end”. It’s how the game works and it’s how society works. Only difference is that this is a GAME…..and I’m not too sure what’s so hard to understand about that.
As for evidence…just take a look around at the player base. How many are pleased with rewards? I am sorta ok with mine since I’m in the top end, but I can’t turn a blind eye to all those who those who are not. I can’t turn a deaf ear to their concerns. I can’t close myself off to what is happening just because it is not happening to me.
But as you mentioned, most people dont realize that all the t5 mats they farm in the labyrinth just lost 30% value as well, so their income is diminished.
Most ppl farming lab arent even considering t5 mats. They are there for tots/candy corn consideration only.
Funny though, how your goal went from
“Trying to make the TP as a sink more efficient.”
and
“It helps keep markets liquid”
To
Potential Earnings on the TP should be brought more in line with the rest of the reward structures.
Well the first two are very obviously not consistent with the proposals made. I don’t want to immediately pivot from well-intentioned but misinformed to disingenuous.
If you’re really concerned about the impact of wealth disparities on the typical experience you should be lobbying for more robust crafting trees; sufficiently robust crafting eliminates virtually all the potential negative impacts of big piles of wealth.
I never said that im concerned about wealth disparity because wealth disparity isnt an issue in GW2.
Even if I have 100k gold, Average Joe, who had a hard time farming his first 100g, should be more concerned about the 2000 people that have 500 gold in their wallet because those 2000 people, even though they only have as much gold combined as me, can create a far higher demand for an item or mats than me.
They all might go for an ascended armor set or a precursor but they demand 2000 each of them while I only demand 1 each.
You do realize you just explained what the problem with wealth disparity is right? I’m not sure why you put the constraints on it that you did, but the result is the same more or less.
Funny though, how your goal went from
“Trying to make the TP as a sink more efficient.”
and
“It helps keep markets liquid”
To
Potential Earnings on the TP should be brought more in line with the rest of the reward structures.
Well the first two are very obviously not consistent with the proposals made. I don’t want to immediately pivot from well-intentioned but misinformed to disingenuous.
If you’re really concerned about the impact of wealth disparities on the typical experience you should be lobbying for more robust crafting trees; sufficiently robust crafting eliminates virtually all the potential negative impacts of big piles of wealth.
if it’s pricey, i don’t think that is a problem; it is simply supply and demand. the same can be said for ANY item that is highly sought after but very very few supplies. Say Mini Karka, they don’t even do anything.
And I’ll say for the millionth time that “Supply and demand is NEVER an excuse for anything in a game where the developers are capable of adjusting both supply AND demand as they see fit.”
Devs can’t change demand for certain precursors, since they are tied to player preferred weapons. New recipes, collections can increase demand for some items but precursors are pretty much one trick ponies, a necessary step for a legendary.
Yes they can. They can change the usefulness of certain weapons or underwater play. Make a mace devastating………boom increase demand. Make torch skills OP….guess what..just increased demand. Make underwater play more rewarding/interesting/enjoyable….boom increase underwater precursor demand.
Maybe the suggestion wasnt credible in the first place.
Why? Please explain. Please make your comment worth reading.
The whole point behind the suggestions is to create better efficiency in the sink which allows for more reward faucets. This does two things. 1) Increases possibility of rewarding the masses (which is needed). 2) Funnels to traders which acts as compensation for added taxes. So while they might be taxed more there is more for them to “feed” upon.
But guys, we fixed fractal weapons drop rates.
But guys, Final rest IS dropping from Behemot. But guys there’s virtually no DR active on any given day.
You get the idea.
They did. My wife and I have gotten almost 10 fractal skins between us (all different) in the past two weeks from lvl 19, 29, 38, and 49s (we try to run 3 a day when I’m home).. I got final rest last week from SB. So, yeah, I might actually believe them when they say that DR isn’t really active on any given day.
And I was in lab for 6-8 hours straight (read: constant) the first night and never hit DR.
Just noting that they only fixed the fractal bug 2 days ago so yeah.
Fixed a bug that caused the drop rate of fractal weapon skins to decrease above fractal level 40.
Still catching up, but I wanted to stop to be clear. No to this. This doesn’t happen, it’s a cognitive bias. There’s virtually no DR active on any given day.
DR definitely does exist. Just go and farm lab till it becomes applied to you.
In that comment he was referring to the game as a whole. So while some individuals may get hit by DR most of the players are not because they are not staying in a localized area for long enough.
If he was not talking about the macro and was talking about individuals, well then I’d call him a liar.
At the heart, there’s 3 basic options:
1. Mostly RNG
2. No RNG
3. Hyrbid RNG (where most games are)
starter concepts for cons of each system:
1. Many players can feel like they have “bad luck”, in fact players with standard to pretty good luck are still likely to feel bad because of how humans interpret data.
2. A completely predictable experience lacks moments when something fantastic happens.
3. You run the risk of getting the cons of both systems without very precise design
An important question may be to ask if a model is still a good concept and a great implementation just needs to be focused on or if the model doesn’t work fundamentally.
I really have to comment on leading in both this post and the OP. By all means post, but please, please, please leave the leading biases out if the intent is to have a productive honest discussion.
edit……I’ll give you an example of what I am referring
Which would you rather have
1) A savory treat which leaves you wanting more
2)A sweet treat which puts on the pounds
3)A sour treat which tests your bravado
The biases are in the 2nd and 3rd. The former being negative and the latter being positive. Given this leading most are apt to choose option 3 and less likely to admit to 2.
Both the OP and this post are reiterations of what’s been said already, I’m not adding new or personal content to the discussion yet.
It’s written right in the posts.
In the OP one option had the negative connotations added to it that it was manipulating players and more complicated. Both of those words manipulate and complicated are leading biases.
In the last post one option’s con was eluded to be nothing more than a figment of players minds basically nullifying it.
Noting that they are reiterations does not change their effect.
If these are unintentional…sure fine those things happen, but please don’t use these type of things when wanting unabated responses. It’s rather important to research to take heed of such things and not disregard them ofc unless you want results to be skewed.
At the heart, there’s 3 basic options:
1. Mostly RNG
2. No RNG
3. Hyrbid RNG (where most games are)
starter concepts for cons of each system:
1. Many players can feel like they have “bad luck”, in fact players with standard to pretty good luck are still likely to feel bad because of how humans interpret data.
2. A completely predictable experience lacks moments when something fantastic happens.
3. You run the risk of getting the cons of both systems without very precise design
An important question may be to ask if a model is still a good concept and a great implementation just needs to be focused on or if the model doesn’t work fundamentally.
I really have to comment on leading in both this post and the OP. By all means post, but please, please, please leave the leading biases out if the intent is to have a productive honest discussion.
edit……I’ll give you an example of what I am referring
Which would you rather have
1) A savory treat which leaves you wanting more
2)A sweet treat which puts on the pounds
3)A sour treat which tests your bravado
The biases are in the 2nd and 3rd. The former being negative and the latter being positive. Given this leading most are apt to choose option 3 and less likely to admit to 2.
I know which ones. I was asking what would they need or want them for.
What do you need lots of gold for?
Most every reward in the game that’s based on rng (which is by far the majority) if you are not on the lucky side of the curve. Judging by current topics….that means quite a bit. As well as allowing one to save copious amount of time which we all know is a limited/very valuable resource.
Gold can bypass 2 of those 3 things as well as bypass the time gates associated. The cultural weapons aren’t needed and some of the skins are purchasable via gold.
At the very least this topic was to counter the insensate wailing of some players that precursors were priced out of the range they could afford and thus was totally unfair. The thread at it’s most basic shows that demand is behind the high price of certain precursors but if demand isn’t there, prices are allot more reasonable. If anything it encourages players not to use such a broad brush when they say a whole group of items are not affordable.
Ignoring posters saying they weren’t talking about these inexpensive ones were either ignored or countered in the same manner when players post on the complaint threads when they inform why or suggest ways to get the gold to buy them. Thus satire.
If you find this thread annoying just understand the feeling some of us get when we defend the TP and economy.
noun: satire
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature
Funny though, how your goal went from
“Trying to make the TP as a sink more efficient.”
and
“It helps keep markets liquid”
To
Potential Earnings on the TP should be brought more in line with the rest of the reward structures.
Under these revisions they wouldn’t be brought in line with other methods. They would still be unlimited and by far the most profitable. It’s simply adding a condition for that privilege.
To coin Smooth…Why do players with the highest reward allocation feel so Entitled as to not have the added condition, specially since it would allow them to remain with the highest allocation?
Curbing the faucets would be more detrimental as rewards are already seen as substandard by most who profit from them.
Using a “progressive” tax system would result in one of two situations:
1. Income threshold set low-medium: Tax on significant portion of player base results in overall trading volume decreasing to the point where gold sink no longer functions. Inflation rampant.
2. Income threshold set high: Tax on insignificant number of accounts, adds no value in terms of inflation control, but does cause significant price increases on high end goods in order to get around taxes while remaining profitable.
In both cases, you’ve only succeeding in hurting the general economy (as all “progressive” tax systems do when you strip away the “funding welfare” aspect of them).
EDIT: Yes, adding more items to offset the reduced gold would be a good approach.
on #2…Those accounts use the TP to funnel gold……ie sorta like crowd sourcing from the masses to a few. By placing higher taxes on those few, it would indirectly tax the masses from which those accounts draw from. It would simply be the price paid to have such privilege to make the most profit in the game.
Time and time again we have been told high end items are not the ones flipped/profited from consistently. So either this is a non issue or they have not been forthright with eluding to such.
