Trading Post; a bloke's conundrum

[mauried.5608]

The 10% tax for selling something is always paid , regardless of whether the item is listed for sale and sold , or whether an item is instantly sold as the result of a buy order.

The seller always pays this component.

So any reduction in the 10% selling tax reduces the gold sink effect and isnt something that Anet would be likley to consider.

The TP works fine as it is.

 

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > I tend to believe that games are better when players find a way to overcome the issues they run into rather than asking the developer to change things so they don't have to. How long does it take to earn 115 gold to sell a 2300 gold item? A week? 2? Less? More? Changing systems because players are too impatient to wait until they amass the gold does not seem like a needed fix.

>

> About, maybe 3-4 weeks. Crafting the legendary after finding the precursor will take about 3, maybe up to 4 months.

> Considering I can make about 10-20g a day. Not because sources of gold are scarce, but because playtime is limited and valuable. As someone with little playtime, I’d hate to have to sacrifice so much of it just for the *right* to trade with other people.

>

> I rarely if ever ask devs to change things if they’re hurdles. Went through all the hurdles and obstacles of raids, fractals, pvp and story, often getting annoyed at some design choices, but pulling out my own efforts everytime, heck, I even went and got the Griffon at only the cost of my human dignity. So i dont much like you calling me choosing the easy way out. I’m bringing this up specifically because its redundant, you’re not paying for the trade, you’re paying for the right to trade.

 

I don't see the listing fee as redundant. It's a fee, which is commonplace in both RW commodity exchanges and in economy simulations in games. I don't view "impatient" as a pejorative. It's a very common human emotion. If you take that choice of word as a negative comment aimed at you, then I apologize. That was not what was intended.

 

I cannot say that I support your request. I don't believe that listing something on the TP is a right. I see it as a choice which comes with a consequence. I'm fine with the consequence, and would be were I in your place.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

This isn’t advice that will help the OP with his immediate problem, but my advice is for people to keep a set amount of gold stashed away for unexpected needs/wants. I keep my gold stash as a buy order on a Legendary. I only spend it when I unexpectedly need a large amount of gold above what I have in my wallet and I replace the gold as soon as possible as another buy order. Keeping it as a buy order has two benefits. (1) if it’s not in your wallet then it’s ‘out of sight and out of mind’. (2) the extra steps of closing out the buy order and going to the trading post to pick it up helps to keep you from spending it unless you really need it. It also has the advantage of giving you flexibility when something you want comes up. You can buy immediately and then farm to replace the gold at your leisure.

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> This isn’t advice that will help the OP with his immediate problem, but my advice is for people to keep a set amount of gold stashed away for unexpected needs/wants. I keep my gold stash as a buy order on a Legendary. I only spend it when I unexpectedly need a large amount of gold above what I have in my wallet and I replace the gold as soon as possible as another buy order. Keeping it as a buy order has two benefits. (1) if it’s not in your wallet then it’s ‘out of sight and out of mind’. (2) the extra steps of closing out the buy order and going to the trading post to pick it up helps to keep you from spending it unless you really need it. It also has the advantage of giving you flexibility when something you want comes up. You can buy immediately and then farm to replace the gold at your leisure.

 

That at least sounds like solid advice. It indeed wont help me now, but its something worth considering once I'm done

[Brother.1504]

To help balance inflation, money needs to be destroyed. Where you think the tp cost go to, Evon Nashblades election fund?

[mauried.5608]

Money really needs to be destroyed at a similar rate to which it is created, but one of the problems with most MMos including this one is that vendors effectively have an infinite supply of money which they use to buy your junk items, and this part of the economy is not subject to supply / demand economics or indeed any kind of rational economics.

It would be better if there was some kind of link between vendors who buy your junk and the amount of gold which gets sunk by the TP, so that when lots of items are being sold on the TP, the vendors pay you more for your junk , and less when TP trading is lower.

Probably too hard for Anet to implement though.

Would also be better if there was some competition between vendors for your junk.

 

[casualkenny.9817]

I think the OP's suggestion is reasonable. If it is easy to modify by Anet, then it would be a minor qol.

 

 

 

 

Most of the objections so far are completely out of point anyway. The op is completely not talking about listing a sell price (please do not reply with the pointless technicality that has no bearing whatsoever), and not talking about adjusting the listing tax for sell bids.

 

He is specifically talking about the timing of taxes when selling to highest buy bid, namely between:

 

(current) the upfront list-tax payment, followed practically-instantaneously by the receipt of the sale proceeds sans sales-tax, which incidentally contains the full reimbursement for the upfront list-tax payment

 

(suggestion) selling instantly to the highest huy-bid, and receiving the sale proceeds sans (sales+list)-tax

 

The profit is exactly the same, the total taxes are exactly the same, there is no price-speculation or flipping involved whatsoever, there is no side effect on the market at all. Just a very simple minor qol for certain types of players.

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"casualkenny.9817" said:

> there is no side effect on the market at all.

There is a side effect: if people don't have to come up with their own coin first, markets are more likely to race to the bottom. I don't know whether the impact is substantial in this game, but we likely wouldn't know until it was too late.

 

Besides that, this isn't a minor effort change. The UI change is nominal, but the TP runs on certain assumptions, including that the listing fee happens before listing. That is: they'd have to re-write the code to change the queuing and that always ends up being trickier than it sounds (lots of "what if this happens" logic). It probably isn't _hard_; it's just not as easy as it sounds.

 

Accordingly, my best guess is that ANet is going to be very reluctant to fix something that isn't broken, unless there's a stronger argument beyond, "simple minor QoL for certain types of players."

 

 

[Astraea.6075]

The biggest problem is that the trading post is asynchronous, so when you sell to the highest bidder you actually create a sell listing at the highest bidder's price first, which is then sold to any outstanding buy offers at that price.

 

If there aren't any buy offers left at that price,the listing will remain on the TP. In these cases, there is no completed sale to pay the 5% listing fee.

[casualkenny.9817]

Yep, hence my phrasing " If it is easy to modify by Anet, then it would be a minor qol." was as careful and exact as I could make it.

 

My personal guess is that it would require a re-ordering of some of the code involved, along with some editing, but I don't know how hard it would actually be, it would only positively affect 2-or-so small categories of players and in infrequent scenarios, and that Anet will choose to float this idea to their team or not, as per their prioritisation analysis (possibly even as 0 priority)

 

Just that, as a suggestion, I perceive no cons, and only a questioning of the necessity as some of you have pointed out.

 

I do disagree to your argument about racing to the bottom, precisely because of the low and isolated frequency of this minor qol coming into play.

 

My guess about the 2 groups of players that could potentially benefit are the casuals who farm irregularly, and the non-hardcore newbies who may be actively sinking their funds into asc-gearing up and haven't gotten into farming yet. And yes, I have a guild mate (2months) who lucked out on a free key and sold a blc merchant for 3k (the lucky bugger)

 

-

 

Tl:Dr - makes sense to me, let Anet decide

[Greener.6204]

> @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > @"Greener.6204" said:

> > > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > I will still pay the 5% tax like now, and the recipient 10%. However, what changes is that i can sell the items without needing to have that 5% up front.

> > Wait, when would the 5% be paid? Would it need to be taken from your account the moment that the sale goes through? What if there's no money in my account to cover that cost? Would it be taken from the funds you have waiting in the TP upon the sale? Then you now have an infinite storage option in the TP; you can store as many items as you'd like at a very high price on the TP at no cost.

> >

>

> no, currently, you **pay** 5%, and then when you **sell** something to the highest bidder, you get the gold immediately, minus 10% *now*

> in my suggested form, you **sell** something to the highest bidder, you get the gold immediately, minus 15%.

>

> The end result is the same. You sold the item, the recipient gets the item, the recipient loses 100% of the transaction value, and you get 85% of the transaction value. Those values are the same before and after. 15% disapears into the void, which all goes out to sea, as Zommos would call it. so nothing would change in the economy **except** for the fact that I don't need to have the 5% **up front**

 

I understood your suggestion; that's why I pointed out the large flaw that it has. It creates an infinite storage system for players.

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @"Greener.6204" said:

> > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > @"Greener.6204" said:

> > > > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > > I will still pay the 5% tax like now, and the recipient 10%. However, what changes is that i can sell the items without needing to have that 5% up front.

> > > Wait, when would the 5% be paid? Would it need to be taken from your account the moment that the sale goes through? What if there's no money in my account to cover that cost? Would it be taken from the funds you have waiting in the TP upon the sale? Then you now have an infinite storage option in the TP; you can store as many items as you'd like at a very high price on the TP at no cost.

> > >

> >

> > no, currently, you **pay** 5%, and then when you **sell** something to the highest bidder, you get the gold immediately, minus 10% *now*

> > in my suggested form, you **sell** something to the highest bidder, you get the gold immediately, minus 15%.

> >

> > The end result is the same. You sold the item, the recipient gets the item, the recipient loses 100% of the transaction value, and you get 85% of the transaction value. Those values are the same before and after. 15% disapears into the void, which all goes out to sea, as Zommos would call it. so nothing would change in the economy **except** for the fact that I don't need to have the 5% **up front**

>

> I understood your suggestion; that's why I pointed out the large flaw that it has. It creates an infinite storage system for players.

 

But *how*?

Because when you sell to a highest bidder, there's an instant transaction.

There is no moment of storage. It goes from my inventory to the collection box of the other person, and their money appears in my collection box.

 

Do you see? There is no free infinite storage

[Astralporing.1957]

Wait, isn't this how it already works?

[Greener.6204]

> @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > @"Greener.6204" said:

> > > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > > @"Greener.6204" said:

> > > > > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > > > I will still pay the 5% tax like now, and the recipient 10%. However, what changes is that i can sell the items without needing to have that 5% up front.

> > > > Wait, when would the 5% be paid? Would it need to be taken from your account the moment that the sale goes through? What if there's no money in my account to cover that cost? Would it be taken from the funds you have waiting in the TP upon the sale? Then you now have an infinite storage option in the TP; you can store as many items as you'd like at a very high price on the TP at no cost.

> > > >

> > >

> > > no, currently, you **pay** 5%, and then when you **sell** something to the highest bidder, you get the gold immediately, minus 10% *now*

> > > in my suggested form, you **sell** something to the highest bidder, you get the gold immediately, minus 15%.

> > >

> > > The end result is the same. You sold the item, the recipient gets the item, the recipient loses 100% of the transaction value, and you get 85% of the transaction value. Those values are the same before and after. 15% disapears into the void, which all goes out to sea, as Zommos would call it. so nothing would change in the economy **except** for the fact that I don't need to have the 5% **up front**

> >

> > I understood your suggestion; that's why I pointed out the large flaw that it has. It creates an infinite storage system for players.

>

> But *how*?

> Because when you sell to a highest bidder, there's an instant transaction.

> There is no moment of storage. It goes from my inventory to the collection box of the other person, and their money appears in my collection box.

>

> Do you see? There is no free infinite storage

 

Oh dear. I conflated "sell something to the highest bidder" with "selling to the person who will pay your price." You are _not_ removing the 5% up front fee for people who put up sell orders. My apologies.

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @"Greener.6204" said:

> > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > @"Greener.6204" said:

> > > > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > > > @"Greener.6204" said:

> > > > > > @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> > > > > > I will still pay the 5% tax like now, and the recipient 10%. However, what changes is that i can sell the items without needing to have that 5% up front.

> > > > > Wait, when would the 5% be paid? Would it need to be taken from your account the moment that the sale goes through? What if there's no money in my account to cover that cost? Would it be taken from the funds you have waiting in the TP upon the sale? Then you now have an infinite storage option in the TP; you can store as many items as you'd like at a very high price on the TP at no cost.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > no, currently, you **pay** 5%, and then when you **sell** something to the highest bidder, you get the gold immediately, minus 10% *now*

> > > > in my suggested form, you **sell** something to the highest bidder, you get the gold immediately, minus 15%.

> > > >

> > > > The end result is the same. You sold the item, the recipient gets the item, the recipient loses 100% of the transaction value, and you get 85% of the transaction value. Those values are the same before and after. 15% disapears into the void, which all goes out to sea, as Zommos would call it. so nothing would change in the economy **except** for the fact that I don't need to have the 5% **up front**

> > >

> > > I understood your suggestion; that's why I pointed out the large flaw that it has. It creates an infinite storage system for players.

> >

> > But *how*?

> > Because when you sell to a highest bidder, there's an instant transaction.

> > There is no moment of storage. It goes from my inventory to the collection box of the other person, and their money appears in my collection box.

> >

> > Do you see? There is no free infinite storage

>

> Oh dear. I conflated "sell something to the highest bidder" with "selling to the person who will pay your price." You are _not_ removing the 5% up front fee for people who put up sell orders. My apologies.

 

To recap briefly, there’s a hghest bidder, waiting for his order to be filled, and a lowest seller, waiting fir a buyer.

In my perfect world, the following happens.

When an item is listed by a seller, the seller pays 5% tax in advance. Then, when a buyer approves, they pay the full sum requested, of which another 10% is substracted.

In the other case, a buyer stores gold in the TP, and requests an item for that gold. Then, when I come along, i offer that item, there is an instant transaction, and 15% is withheld from the transaction value.

 

In these scenariae, the person who lists items awaiting buyers, will lose 15% of the intended profit, of which 5% is paid in advance. The person who fulfills buy orders however, also loses 15% of the transaction value, but wouldn’t have to cough up the 5% **in advance**

 

The difference between these two scenariae is simply that, when fullfilling sell orders, you’re enlisting the service of the trading post, by storing items, awaiting a buyer.

When fullfilling buy orders however, the only reason you go through the Trading Post is because anet doesn’t allow hand to hand trading. So you have to do it via the TP, or hire a middleman from Reddit.

 

..

 

But all of this hassle wouldn’t even be necessary if anet just gave us trade menus again...

[mauried.5608]

About the only thing Id like to see with the TP , and its not directly the TP itself, but an upmarket version of the portable trading post express which players can buy from the gem store.

The upmarket version would cost a LOT of gems , but instead of all the fees going to the rip off merchant Gnashblade, the player who spawned the TP express would get

50% of the selling and listing fees, of any / all transactions made using the spawned express.

Sort of in a way allows players to compete against Gnashblade and his ripoff cartel.

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Ayakaru.6583" said:

> In the other case, a buyer stores gold in the TP, and requests an item for that gold. Then, when I come along, i offer that item, there is an instant transaction, and 15% is withheld from the transaction value.

That means the buyer is now paying 15%, since all the gold is from them.

 

There remain issues, which haven't been addressed in this thread:

* Mechanics: the current queuing depends on not worrying about whether all transactions are available every second. For example, what happens if two sellers simultaneously want to take the highest buy offer? The current system has both pay 5% listing and fulfills only the first one, leaving the second on the TP.

* Fairness: right now, every seller pays 5% upfront; your system would mean some do and some don't.

* Market forces: not having to come up with 5% upfront causes people to think differently about pricing than the status quo. That is likely to cause falling markets to drop faster and have a variety of effects on markets for new items. Often, this will tend to advantage power traders more than the average person who doesn't want to pay attention to the markets.

 

Each of these issues can be addressed, in theory. The question is: why would ANet want to, given that the current system works except for two situations identified by the OP: (1) a new player, without resources, gets a super-high-value drop and (2) the OP's situation, in which they spent 1-2k producing a legendary but don't want to pay the 5% fee upfront to sell it. The proposed system would have its own issues replacing those two and cost ANet time & focus to develop, test, and implement.

 

tl;dr it's not a horrid idea to give coin-poor people a way to sell high-value items. But it's not cheap. To get ANet to consider investing in the suggestion, it would be helpful to have a more compelling argument or try to address the other issues, rather than ignoring them.

[mauried.5608]

Coin poor people can sell hi end items now , by selling them instantly.

You wont find too many hi end items for which there are no current buyers for.

You obviously will take a price hit by doing it this way , but at least you get some money which is better than getting none.

Same goes for hi end crafted items.

Its also a bit hard to beleive that someone who has gone to the trouble of crafting a hi end item, is so broke that they cant afford the listing fee.

You can easily make around 5G just by running the AB meta, which takes under worst case conditions 15 minutes, usually much less.

 

[casualkenny.9817]

@na, there is a technicality that you got wrong in the previous and recent post, because of how you conceive of and are phrasing it.

 

1) The (successful) transaction price is fixed

2) the buyer pays the full transaction price (gold comes from the buyer always. The list tax that a seller pays for gets reimbursed in a certain sense when the transaction goes through. The seller always ends up with a net 85% of the transaction value)

3) the seller pays a list tax up front in order to penalise speculation and item storage.

 

i.e. In the net result (emphasis on net) for a completed transaction, the person who paid for the gold for the 15% tax is the buyer, as an inclusive tax, and that this distinction isn't relevant.

 

It is actually less correct to describe it as the buyer paying the tax, because that suggests that the buyer is paying tax in addition to the listed transaction price, which is wrong. Ie exclusive tax.

 

Rather, for a successful transaction, the buyer pays the listed transaction price, the seller receives only 85%, the rest being lost as taxes. The gold, technically, came from the buyer, and the listing tax that was collected is better understood as a deposit, where successful transactions are concerned. (i know It also has other more important purposes).

Another way of describing it is, the buyer paid exactly the exact listed price that he agrees to, and doesn't have to care about the taxed amount, while the seller gets less than the price he listed it as, and from his point of view has therefore lost that money through taxes. These are just different ways of looking at it from different perspectives, and the distinction would normally be merely technical and not necessary to elaborate on, though in your case it might be needed.

 

As to your 1st point, this is a non-issue, isn't it? Because the only reason why refund for a failed-sell list-tax has to be collected is because the system is programmed to take ur list tax before finalising the transaction, which then aborts if someone made the purchase split seconds before you (or due to higher ping), and before the unavailability error message is triggered. The system would instead simply check which seller clicked first, and finalise with that seller.

 

Second point - I am assuming that you are referring to different systems for selling to buy offers and for listing a sell offer. This is immaterial because the current way for transacting for successful buy-bids is a technical issue. It happens pseudo-instantly and the sequence has no real discernable purpose other than functionality. (I am assuming that you don't mean that some direct-sellers will pay list tax while others without capital will have it subtracted)

 

Third point, given how the transaction happens in split seconds either way, could you elaborate on this?

 

 

I am not saying that the implementation would be simple or hard, I'm not a tech guy. I'm just arguing that this would be a low-level (minor) qol improvement, that I cannot see systemic cons to, but ultimately depends on whether Anet firstly considers it significant enough of an improvement, and secondly whether it is costly to implement based on the difficulty.

 

(i have been keeping 150 cracked encryptions on my storage char as my financial reserves, but I am also a 1year player)