Firstly, a 30% tax will have an inflationary impact and not a deflationary one. A good real world example is to observe the increase in tax for 'vice' products e.g. tobacco etc. They will add to inflation because transactional costs are higher. E.g. Seller who wants 1000 crystals for a card, will only transact with Buyer who is willing to pay 1300 crystals for a card. So long story short, prices should increase and less cards traded on the marketplace.

Secondly, will Feerik make more money from this change? Unlikely. Prices are determined by the demand and supply of cards and crystals. Supply of cards are from players which purchase Feez and crystal is effectively constantly generated within the game. The 30% tax will effectively penalise the card suppliers, hence Feez purchasers as less crystals will be received on average due to the tax. As a result, there is a disincentive to purchase Feez unless card prices rise to compensate (see point 1). Net result, Feerik is likely to lose Feez revenue, since they are reducing the value of Feez relative to crystals and the incentive for players to sell cards. Perhaps it will be offset by more new players? We'll wait and see.

So why are prices higher now than before? Whilst the conspiracy is that rich players drive up prices, there are simpler explanations:
Firstly, specific rare cards are substantially rarer now than in the past due to the huge database of random cards one can get in a booster. e.g. ABC card may have used to be 1 card in a thousand originally, but now is 1 in 5000.
The number of Feez paying card supplying playes may be a smaller proportion of the player base.
Crystals is too easily generated nowadays compared to the past.

That said, even if rich players are overpricing cards for sale, they do not add to inflation as long as there are no buyers willing to pay those prices. Irregardless of the tax, not being able to sell a card will naturally push the price down as more copies of the card enter supply. If these 'monopolies' are successfully selling cards at these prices, then buyers are willing to pay for it and hence the pricing is appropriate. This situation does not change irregardles sof the tax percentage. To summarise, the tax system has no impact on monopolies, if they exist.

Overall, I am not entirely certain why Feerik has implemented a 30% tax, as it does not benefit them and it is likely to reduce the trading activity on the marketplace. As discussed by others, since cards are non-consumables the impact of this tax is actuallly larger than 30% as the cards will be subsequently traded for further losses (trading decks).

Hopefully, this makes some sense... I found a few earlier posts had assertions without explaining the logical though process establishing causation between the action and the expected result or hiding the 30% tax impact amongst the other changes...

Regards,

Dennis

P.S. I also thought it was hilarious that old cars were used as a comparison by another poster about why card prices should fall over times. I.e. technological improvement, depreciation (wear and tear), maintenance costs etc were not acvcounted for... Card equivalents would be power creep and rotation I guess, both I believe are undesirable?

jackal19 · 18-10-2011 16:10:21

DennisN a écrit :

Hi all,
Newish player here, but an old hand in economics and finance (which I have been professionally practising for 10 years or so) which perhaps is the key to this post as there is alot of pseudo-economic logic espoused on this thread which is flawed.
Just restricting my thoughts to the 30% tax here, as all other changes do not seem to be controversial. Also, if 'game' terminology has separate implications happy for my thoughts to be disputed.
Firstly, a 30% tax will have an inflationary impact and not a deflationary one. A good real world example is to observe the increase in tax for 'vice' products e.g. tobacco etc. They will add to inflation because transactional costs are higher. E.g. Seller who wants 1000 crystals for a card, will only transact with Buyer who is willing to pay 1300 crystals for a card. So long story short, prices should increase and less cards traded on the marketplace.
Secondly, will Feerik make more money from this change? Unlikely. Prices are determined by the demand and supply of cards and crystals. Supply of cards are from players which purchase Feez and crystal is effectively constantly generated within the game. The 30% tax will effectively penalise the card suppliers, hence Feez purchasers as less crystals will be received on average due to the tax. As a result, there is a disincentive to purchase Feez unless card prices rise to compensate (see point 1). Net result, Feerik is likely to lose Feez revenue, since they are reducing the value of Feez relative to crystals and the incentive for players to sell cards. Perhaps it will be offset by more new players? We'll wait and see.
So why are prices higher now than before? Whilst the conspiracy is that rich players drive up prices, there are simpler explanations:
Firstly, specific rare cards are substantially rarer now than in the past due to the huge database of random cards one can get in a booster. e.g. ABC card may have used to be 1 card in a thousand originally, but now is 1 in 5000.
The number of Feez paying card supplying playes may be a smaller proportion of the player base.
Crystals is too easily generated nowadays compared to the past.
That said, even if rich players are overpricing cards for sale, they do not add to inflation as long as there are no buyers willing to pay those prices. Irregardless of the tax, not being able to sell a card will naturally push the price down as more copies of the card enter supply. If these 'monopolies' are successfully selling cards at these prices, then buyers are willing to pay for it and hence the pricing is appropriate. This situation does not change irregardles sof the tax percentage. To summarise, the tax system has no impact on monopolies, if they exist.
Overall, I am not entirely certain why Feerik has implemented a 30% tax, as it does not benefit them and it is likely to reduce the trading activity on the marketplace. As discussed by others, since cards are non-consumables the impact of this tax is actuallly larger than 30% as the cards will be subsequently traded for further losses (trading decks).
Hopefully, this makes some sense... I found a few earlier posts had assertions without explaining the logical though process establishing causation between the action and the expected result or hiding the 30% tax impact amongst the other changes...
Regards,
Dennis
P.S. I also thought it was hilarious that old cars were used as a comparison by another poster about why card prices should fall over times. I.e. technological improvement, depreciation (wear and tear), maintenance costs etc were not acvcounted for... Card equivalents would be power creep and rotation I guess, both I believe are undesirable?

Finally we have a expert opinion about these changes

Lyquid · 18-10-2011 16:15:41

jackal19 a écrit :

Finally we have a expert opinion about these changes

Agree with you. If not an expert, someone who has depth and experience in understanding this kinds of situation. What he posted is something for all to think about (Feerik, sellers, buyers, etc.)

I hope something good happens based on his post.

Dernière modification par Lyquid (18-10-2011 16:16:34)

magius · 18-10-2011 16:22:47

Lyquid a écrit :

jackal19 a écrit :
Finally we have a expert opinion about these changes
Agree with you. If not an expert, someone who has depth and experience in understanding this kinds of situation. What he posted is something for all to think about (Feerik, sellers, buyers, etc.)
I hope something good happens based on his post.

+1.

However, his view is only on the 30% tax in general. I am curious about his opinion to combat multi-accounts that generate huge amount of crystals -> inflation. How do you combat those?

P/S I cannot believe that we're discussing economics on a virtual card game XD.

Dernière modification par magius (18-10-2011 16:35:45)

soulst3al3r · 18-10-2011 16:31:33

DennisN a écrit :

Hi all,
Newish player here, but an old hand in economics and finance (which I have been professionally practising for 10 years or so) which perhaps is the key to this post as there is alot of pseudo-economic logic espoused on this thread which is flawed.
Just restricting my thoughts to the 30% tax here, as all other changes do not seem to be controversial. Also, if 'game' terminology has separate implications happy for my thoughts to be disputed.
Firstly, a 30% tax will have an inflationary impact and not a deflationary one. A good real world example is to observe the increase in tax for 'vice' products e.g. tobacco etc. They will add to inflation because transactional costs are higher. E.g. Seller who wants 1000 crystals for a card, will only transact with Buyer who is willing to pay 1300 crystals for a card. So long story short, prices should increase and less cards traded on the marketplace.
Secondly, will Feerik make more money from this change? Unlikely. Prices are determined by the demand and supply of cards and crystals. Supply of cards are from players which purchase Feez and crystal is effectively constantly generated within the game. The 30% tax will effectively penalise the card suppliers, hence Feez purchasers as less crystals will be received on average due to the tax. As a result, there is a disincentive to purchase Feez unless card prices rise to compensate (see point 1). Net result, Feerik is likely to lose Feez revenue, since they are reducing the value of Feez relative to crystals and the incentive for players to sell cards. Perhaps it will be offset by more new players? We'll wait and see.
So why are prices higher now than before? Whilst the conspiracy is that rich players drive up prices, there are simpler explanations:
Firstly, specific rare cards are substantially rarer now than in the past due to the huge database of random cards one can get in a booster. e.g. ABC card may have used to be 1 card in a thousand originally, but now is 1 in 5000.
The number of Feez paying card supplying playes may be a smaller proportion of the player base.
Crystals is too easily generated nowadays compared to the past.
That said, even if rich players are overpricing cards for sale, they do not add to inflation as long as there are no buyers willing to pay those prices. Irregardless of the tax, not being able to sell a card will naturally push the price down as more copies of the card enter supply. If these 'monopolies' are successfully selling cards at these prices, then buyers are willing to pay for it and hence the pricing is appropriate. This situation does not change irregardles sof the tax percentage. To summarise, the tax system has no impact on monopolies, if they exist.
Overall, I am not entirely certain why Feerik has implemented a 30% tax, as it does not benefit them and it is likely to reduce the trading activity on the marketplace. As discussed by others, since cards are non-consumables the impact of this tax is actuallly larger than 30% as the cards will be subsequently traded for further losses (trading decks).
Hopefully, this makes some sense... I found a few earlier posts had assertions without explaining the logical though process establishing causation between the action and the expected result or hiding the 30% tax impact amongst the other changes...
Regards,
Dennis
P.S. I also thought it was hilarious that old cars were used as a comparison by another poster about why card prices should fall over times. I.e. technological improvement, depreciation (wear and tear), maintenance costs etc were not acvcounted for... Card equivalents would be power creep and rotation I guess, both I believe are undesirable?

Best well thought-out comment so far

jackal19 · 18-10-2011 16:44:00

soulst3al3r a écrit :

DennisN a écrit :
Hi all,
Newish player here, but an old hand in economics and finance (which I have been professionally practising for 10 years or so) which perhaps is the key to this post as there is alot of pseudo-economic logic espoused on this thread which is flawed.
Just restricting my thoughts to the 30% tax here, as all other changes do not seem to be controversial. Also, if 'game' terminology has separate implications happy for my thoughts to be disputed.
Firstly, a 30% tax will have an inflationary impact and not a deflationary one. A good real world example is to observe the increase in tax for 'vice' products e.g. tobacco etc. They will add to inflation because transactional costs are higher. E.g. Seller who wants 1000 crystals for a card, will only transact with Buyer who is willing to pay 1300 crystals for a card. So long story short, prices should increase and less cards traded on the marketplace.
Secondly, will Feerik make more money from this change? Unlikely. Prices are determined by the demand and supply of cards and crystals. Supply of cards are from players which purchase Feez and crystal is effectively constantly generated within the game. The 30% tax will effectively penalise the card suppliers, hence Feez purchasers as less crystals will be received on average due to the tax. As a result, there is a disincentive to purchase Feez unless card prices rise to compensate (see point 1). Net result, Feerik is likely to lose Feez revenue, since they are reducing the value of Feez relative to crystals and the incentive for players to sell cards. Perhaps it will be offset by more new players? We'll wait and see.
So why are prices higher now than before? Whilst the conspiracy is that rich players drive up prices, there are simpler explanations:
Firstly, specific rare cards are substantially rarer now than in the past due to the huge database of random cards one can get in a booster. e.g. ABC card may have used to be 1 card in a thousand originally, but now is 1 in 5000.
The number of Feez paying card supplying playes may be a smaller proportion of the player base.
Crystals is too easily generated nowadays compared to the past.
That said, even if rich players are overpricing cards for sale, they do not add to inflation as long as there are no buyers willing to pay those prices. Irregardless of the tax, not being able to sell a card will naturally push the price down as more copies of the card enter supply. If these 'monopolies' are successfully selling cards at these prices, then buyers are willing to pay for it and hence the pricing is appropriate. This situation does not change irregardles sof the tax percentage. To summarise, the tax system has no impact on monopolies, if they exist.
Overall, I am not entirely certain why Feerik has implemented a 30% tax, as it does not benefit them and it is likely to reduce the trading activity on the marketplace. As discussed by others, since cards are non-consumables the impact of this tax is actuallly larger than 30% as the cards will be subsequently traded for further losses (trading decks).
Hopefully, this makes some sense... I found a few earlier posts had assertions without explaining the logical though process establishing causation between the action and the expected result or hiding the 30% tax impact amongst the other changes...
Regards,
Dennis
P.S. I also thought it was hilarious that old cars were used as a comparison by another poster about why card prices should fall over times. I.e. technological improvement, depreciation (wear and tear), maintenance costs etc were not acvcounted for... Card equivalents would be power creep and rotation I guess, both I believe are undesirable?
Best well thought-out comment so far

yes with out illogicality and rage rants

Dernière modification par jackal19 (18-10-2011 16:55:18)

CAPTUSA · 18-10-2011 20:05:25

Wow 30% Commission + You Can't Set your own Lowest Price No More, Wow U Guys Really need To take Sum Pointers From ***biiiiipppp***-bip, Sure they Have The Ebay Curse but at least I don't have to wait a whole hour b4 my card shows up in the market, they give you cards for reaching higher levels, no and I mean no bugs,a trading system, they actually care about their community, o yeah and they only charge a 5% commission on marketplace sales, and they don't charge you $15 damn dollars to buy two packs....I at least thought with this change ANS & Void will at least go down to 500k or sumethin but nope it's still at 970k...... so what dd you guys really do....but screw up the market, I admit it needed a little change but not this change, and may I add I don't even know why the hell u guys release cards every week bcuz I bought 5000 feez last release and only pulled one new card, u guys are really messing up eredan, while thinkin u r improvin it, as a player I'm really disappointed in this, it was hard enuff to survive on 10%, now 30%, what's next 50%.....f#$%^& idiots!

CAPTUSA · 18-10-2011 20:27:51

MrLordi92 a écrit :

30% taxing will do nothing but hurt this game even more. To put this in perspective, lets say you want to buy a new video game, so, lets start with $60 USD. Slap 30% tax on that, and you're being charged an extra $18...... Making a new video game almost $80.
Now think about it in game. For every 10 Crystals you make, they take 3 of them, and they just disappear into the Aether. It's not like they release the tax into something else, so those crystals just fade away. And you make what? 10-30 crystals per game? As if grinding wasn't already nearly required to make crystals in this game.
So what exactly am I trying to get at?
Think of it. You buy your cards, they drop in the market, and you want to play a new deck. Do you sell your cards for probably 45-50% less than what you bought them for (I added in the disgusting 30% tax in there.) and essentially half your crystals, or do you play stock market and wait for the cards to go up to break even if you're lucky? If you chose to play stock market, you have to sink either actual money into the game, or do some offers for free Feez if you have access to them to keep using the market.
I'm completely, 100% convinced now that Feerik does not give two brown monkey poo-balls about us. They just want our money. They've turned this game, which had so much potential into nothing but a funnel that leads to their pockets.
Eredan iTCG is dead. I feel this was the final shovel of dirt on their money-lined coffin. It's sad to see such a good game fall into a pit of greed. It reminds me of Challenge Games. Zynga bought them, and their great games went to the garbage pit (Have you played Warstorm on Facebook? It was a great Challenge Game until that Facebook game abomination bought it out. Now it's a hollow shell of its former glory.)

Edit Admin: You need to contact support for issues related to this. http://support.feerik.com/index.php

CAPTUSA · 18-10-2011 20:33:23

magius a écrit :

jugglajr a écrit :
magius a écrit :
Look... the commission of sale is to prevent the players from abusing the system using multi-accounts (which is rampant btw from what I can see). By reducing the amount of 'crystals' in circulation, you will reduce the price of cards in general. In addition, it will force people to price the cards appropriately (less card sale value == less tax).
Btw, I think overall this is a great move Although they can actually implement a tiered Tax system (i.e. 10% if card value < 1000, 20% if card value < 10000, etc.)
Force people to do what now? We don't have control over these ridiculous prices...400k cards are now 150k...2k rares are now 55k...this entire setup is ridiculous...the only thing they NEARLY got right was adding the sell instantly button. This entire patch was poorly thought out and completely ruined the market.
The buyers now have more control to the cards (except legendaries I suppose):
- A card which does not sell, will gradually decrease in value, until finally the card is at the lowest set price point for each rarity.
- The current listing price will be on a daily bases and will be calculated on the actual sales of the card.
If you don't think a rare is worth that much, don't buy it. It will reduce in price eventually. Sellers can't do much when the price limit reduce while the card doesn't sell. Possibly force a seller to lower their price expectation for it to sell.

catcatcat a écrit :
30% commission is ludicrous. The only thing needed to be done to eliminate monopolies was to set a limit for the number of a certain card a player can have.
The 30% commission is never to overcome monopoly. It is used to combat multi-accounts where you can easily sell a common for a ridiculous amount of crystal to fuel your main account. 30% will limit the amount of crystals these abuser gains.
On the contrary to the nay-sayers, I am personally very interested to see the effects of these changes to the market place. It will take time to regulate the card prices, and if the sellers are confident enough that they are able to sell the cards at 30% extra, let them. The buyers will determine if the prices are outrages or not.
My observation: More tax == less crystal gain -> less crystal gain == less crystal in circulation -> less crystal in circulation == less buying power -> less buying power == lower card prices
I'm intrigued and will see if this is true for weeks to come

That's a valid point bro, but do you really wanna have to wait a week+ just so price can lower so you can complete a new deck?

CAPTUSA · 18-10-2011 20:36:14

You are so right, Eredan is buying is own tumb and is sad...couse I lost a lot of money playing this game...

You & Me Both Bro!

Zurga · 18-10-2011 21:33:37

CAPTUSA a écrit :

I DID 2 SO CALLED "FREE FEEZ" SURVEYS WHERE I ACTUALLY PAID OUT MY POCKET TO RECIEVE ABOUT 780 FEEZ ON ONE AND 550 ON THE OTHER (STILL CHEAPER THAN PAYMENT WALL), AND NEVER RECEIVED THEM THEN I CONTACTED FEERIK WITH PROOF (CUZ AFTER EVERY OFFER I COMPLETE I TAKE A SNAPSHOT WITH MY MAC SCREEN CAMERA, IN CASE SITUATIONS LIKE THIS) AND THEY TOLD ME THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE...HERE'S WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SENT ME BACK, INSTEAD OF JUST ADDING THE FEEZ TO MY ACCOUNT: http://s1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd4 … ure7-3.png SO I CONTACTED NETFLIX AND THE AUTO INSURANCE

Before shouting like that, if you completed a Free Feez offer, you have to contact the partner offering the offer, not the site on which you register or pay something, but the partner allowing the offer like SuperRewards, Tokenads or offermatch.
They all have a button on right upper corner to letting him know there is a trouble with the offer, and you will have your answer and the people responsible for paying the Feez.

CAPTUSA · 18-10-2011 23:37:46

Zurga a écrit :

CAPTUSA a écrit :
I DID 2 SO CALLED "FREE FEEZ" SURVEYS WHERE I ACTUALLY PAID OUT MY POCKET TO RECIEVE ABOUT 780 FEEZ ON ONE AND 550 ON THE OTHER (STILL CHEAPER THAN PAYMENT WALL), AND NEVER RECEIVED THEM THEN I CONTACTED FEERIK WITH PROOF (CUZ AFTER EVERY OFFER I COMPLETE I TAKE A SNAPSHOT WITH MY MAC SCREEN CAMERA, IN CASE SITUATIONS LIKE THIS) AND THEY TOLD ME THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE...HERE'S WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SENT ME BACK, INSTEAD OF JUST ADDING THE FEEZ TO MY ACCOUNT: http://s1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd4 … ure7-3.png SO I CONTACTED NETFLIX AND THE AUTO INSURANCE
Before shouting like that, if you completed a Free Feez offer, you have to contact the partner offering the offer, not the site on which you register or pay something, but the partner allowing the offer like SuperRewards, Tokenads or offermatch.
They all have a button on right upper corner to letting him know there is a trouble with the offer, and you will have your answer and the people responsible for paying the Feez.

Bro I did that also, and sponsorpay is the only one that got back to me, and peanutlabs don't even have a way to contact them and they owe me 800 feez, and btw thanks for your input!

Dracatis · 19-10-2011 00:43:10

DennisN a écrit :

Hi all,
Newish player here, but an old hand in economics and finance (which I have been professionally practising for 10 years or so) which perhaps is the key to this post as there is alot of pseudo-economic logic espoused on this thread which is flawed.
Just restricting my thoughts to the 30% tax here, as all other changes do not seem to be controversial. Also, if 'game' terminology has separate implications happy for my thoughts to be disputed.
Firstly, a 30% tax will have an inflationary impact and not a deflationary one. A good real world example is to observe the increase in tax for 'vice' products e.g. tobacco etc. They will add to inflation because transactional costs are higher. E.g. Seller who wants 1000 crystals for a card, will only transact with Buyer who is willing to pay 1300 crystals for a card. So long story short, prices should increase and less cards traded on the marketplace.
Secondly, will Feerik make more money from this change? Unlikely. Prices are determined by the demand and supply of cards and crystals. Supply of cards are from players which purchase Feez and crystal is effectively constantly generated within the game. The 30% tax will effectively penalise the card suppliers, hence Feez purchasers as less crystals will be received on average due to the tax. As a result, there is a disincentive to purchase Feez unless card prices rise to compensate (see point 1). Net result, Feerik is likely to lose Feez revenue, since they are reducing the value of Feez relative to crystals and the incentive for players to sell cards. Perhaps it will be offset by more new players? We'll wait and see.
So why are prices higher now than before? Whilst the conspiracy is that rich players drive up prices, there are simpler explanations:
Firstly, specific rare cards are substantially rarer now than in the past due to the huge database of random cards one can get in a booster. e.g. ABC card may have used to be 1 card in a thousand originally, but now is 1 in 5000.
The number of Feez paying card supplying playes may be a smaller proportion of the player base.
Crystals is too easily generated nowadays compared to the past.
That said, even if rich players are overpricing cards for sale, they do not add to inflation as long as there are no buyers willing to pay those prices. Irregardless of the tax, not being able to sell a card will naturally push the price down as more copies of the card enter supply. If these 'monopolies' are successfully selling cards at these prices, then buyers are willing to pay for it and hence the pricing is appropriate. This situation does not change irregardles sof the tax percentage. To summarise, the tax system has no impact on monopolies, if they exist.
Overall, I am not entirely certain why Feerik has implemented a 30% tax, as it does not benefit them and it is likely to reduce the trading activity on the marketplace. As discussed by others, since cards are non-consumables the impact of this tax is actuallly larger than 30% as the cards will be subsequently traded for further losses (trading decks).
Hopefully, this makes some sense... I found a few earlier posts had assertions without explaining the logical though process establishing causation between the action and the expected result or hiding the 30% tax impact amongst the other changes...
Regards,
Dennis
P.S. I also thought it was hilarious that old cars were used as a comparison by another poster about why card prices should fall over times. I.e. technological improvement, depreciation (wear and tear), maintenance costs etc were not acvcounted for... Card equivalents would be power creep and rotation I guess, both I believe are undesirable?

Yay for semi faulty logic! Yes, you are correct with a 30% tax instead of 10% a seller would be inclined to sell for $1300 rather then $1100(fixed your example). However, 30% wasn't the only thing they implemented. They also implemented a ROOF. You can want to sell for more all you want, but you can only sell so much higher and that roof falls if the cards don't sell.

Also there is the fact that only the 6 lowest priced cards show up in the market, so selling higher is near pointless unless you know a lot of lowers are gonna sell soon. Your tobacco example is flawed because most fag addicts(I like the british word for it) are dependant on one certian brand and type even and rarely get another version, meaning ZERO competion. And what do we call that mister economics? A Monopoly, which means they can inflate prices however they want, addicts will pay through the nose tell they can't.

I'm doing pretty well in the game but really I wish I had 300K crystals to throw around at new decks every time I had a whim. I don't even have half the 10% old tax you'd pay to spend on other cards currently. Then again I haven't been lucky enough to pull a legendary from packs yet...

Dernière modification par Dracatis (19-10-2011 00:44:09)

Anihilate · 19-10-2011 01:03:31

Dracatis a écrit :

Yay for semi faulty logic! Yes, you are correct with a 30% tax instead of 10% a seller would be inclined to sell for $1300 rather then $1100(fixed your example). However, 30% wasn't the only thing they implemented. They also implemented a ROOF. You can want to sell for more all you want, but you can only sell so much higher and that roof falls if the cards don't sell.
Also there is the fact that only the 6 lowest priced cards show up in the market, so selling higher is near pointless unless you know a lot of lowers are gonna sell soon. Your tobacco example is flawed because most fag addicts(I like the british word for it) are dependant on one certian brand and type even and rarely get another version, meaning ZERO competion. And what do we call that mister economics? A Monopoly, which means they can inflate prices however they want, addicts will pay through the nose tell they can't.
I'm doing pretty well in the game but really I wish I had 300K crystals to throw around at new decks every time I had a whim. I don't even have half the 10% old tax you'd pay to spend on other cards currently. Then again I haven't been lucky enough to pull a legendary from packs yet...

Pretty much my point. If it doesn't sell, you either lower the price, or you don't sell it. If you want to keep playing a game, ya have to play by it's rules.

You can't ask 50k for a card that was previously worth 2k, but suddenly became useful.

If people just want to be stingy about virtual, non refundable cards and digital, nonrefundable money, there are plenty of other players out there.

@Dennis

Okay we lose 20% profit, but due to the min and max values of any given thing, don't crystals themselves have more value?

I think of it in comparison of the American Economy, thirty, forty years ago, ONE DOLLAR, used to be a decent amount of money. Now there are countless more units of currency in circulation, and ONE DOLLAR, is laughable. Think of that, just, on a reverse level.

By lowering the denomination of a single value, each object of value, be it ticket/bill/crystal is worth more. The cards will always have the same worth, the numbers are just on a different, smaller scale.

Dernière modification par Anihilate (19-10-2011 01:04:54)

<(^.^<) · 19-10-2011 02:11:11

DennisN a écrit :

Firstly, a 30% tax will have an inflationary impact and not a deflationary one. A good real world example is to observe the increase in tax for 'vice' products e.g. tobacco etc. They will add to inflation because transactional costs are higher. E.g. Seller who wants 1000 crystals for a card, will only transact with Buyer who is willing to pay 1300 crystals for a card. So long story short, prices should increase and less cards traded on the marketplace.

First I want to thank you for your post, it's very insightful.
But I can't help but question your comparison with the tax for 'vice' products. Since the floor and roof prices of a card are determined by demand only (it's determined by the amount of cards sold at the current price), wouldn't the seller have close to no power on the price?

Then again I'm no economist, and since there's no system like this IRL we'll probably have to wait and see what happens.

Gent M · 19-10-2011 07:20:37

<(^.^<) a écrit :

DennisN a écrit :
Firstly, a 30% tax will have an inflationary impact and not a deflationary one. A good real world example is to observe the increase in tax for 'vice' products e.g. tobacco etc. They will add to inflation because transactional costs are higher. E.g. Seller who wants 1000 crystals for a card, will only transact with Buyer who is willing to pay 1300 crystals for a card. So long story short, prices should increase and less cards traded on the marketplace.
First I want to thank you for your post, it's very insightful.
But I can't help but question your comparison with the tax for 'vice' products. Since the floor and roof prices of a card are determined by demand only (it's determined by the amount of cards sold at the current price), wouldn't the seller have close to no power on the price?
Then again I'm no economist, and since there's no system like this IRL we'll probably have to wait and see what happens.

Actually you are right. In online trading card games with virtual currency, where the tax currency is taken out of circulation a higher tax will have a deflationary effect, especially combined with the price limits.

While it is understandable why they had to do this - since the number of players has increased, each day much more crystals then new cards are generated - if they won't do something to keep the value of feez as high as it was before they will probably have a fall in sales. (which they might try and compensate with really expensive events)

Paladino.:RR:. · 19-10-2011 11:03:32

You guys are talking like online gamming is not also addictive in a certain way. Specially some casual facebook games like Eredan.

There are other ways to reduce inflation/monopoly without such a high tax on every player. A scalating tax instead of such a huge fixed one is a better way to do it.

Anihilate · 19-10-2011 13:00:03

If you're going to have a nervous breakdown over an online TCG, I'd like you to film it.

It's a game, Playstation network went down and no one commited suicide, it's a digital game,

LESS QQ MOAR PEWPEW. Do work bro

magius · 19-10-2011 13:30:11

Anihilate a écrit :

If you're going to have a nervous breakdown over an online TCG, I'd like you to film it.
It's a game, Playstation network went down and no one commited suicide, it's a digital game,
LESS QQ MOAR PEWPEW. Do work bro

LOL!

jackal19 · 19-10-2011 13:33:18

Anihilate a écrit :

If you're going to have a nervous breakdown over an online TCG, I'd like you to film it.
It's a game, Playstation network went down and no one commited suicide, it's a digital game,
LESS QQ MOAR PEWPEW. Do work bro

Nice one XD

Sapphon · 19-10-2011 14:05:10

Anihilate a écrit :

If you're going to have a nervous breakdown over an online TCG, I'd like you to film it.
It's a game, Playstation network went down and no one commited suicide, it's a digital game,
LESS QQ MOAR PEWPEW. Do work bro

Zurga · 20-10-2011 08:56:23

CAPTUSA a écrit :

Bro I did that also, and sponsorpay is the only one that got back to me, and peanutlabs don't even have a way to contact them and they owe me 800 feez, and btw thanks for your input!

Check your email, please.

TheUnsane · 20-10-2011 11:04:10

Sapphon a écrit :

Anihilate a écrit :
If you're going to have a nervous breakdown over an online TCG, I'd like you to film it.
It's a game, Playstation network went down and no one commited suicide, it's a digital game,
LESS QQ MOAR PEWPEW. Do work bro

is there any proof noone commited suicide about the outages? with all the QQing i'd bet someone did... the down time sucked but in the end i got 7 free games out of it (multiple american accounts and on japanese account if anyone is wonderin how i got so many games outta it...)

Eredan's World

Annonce

#101 18-10-2011 11:07:41

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#102 18-10-2011 11:14:47

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#103 18-10-2011 15:23:10

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#104 18-10-2011 16:10:21

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#105 18-10-2011 16:15:41

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#106 18-10-2011 16:22:47

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#107 18-10-2011 16:31:33

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#108 18-10-2011 16:44:00

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#109 18-10-2011 20:05:25

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#110 18-10-2011 20:27:51

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#111 18-10-2011 20:33:23

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#112 18-10-2011 20:36:14

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#113 18-10-2011 21:33:37

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#114 18-10-2011 23:37:46

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#115 19-10-2011 00:43:10

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#116 19-10-2011 01:03:31

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#117 19-10-2011 02:11:11

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#118 19-10-2011 07:20:37

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#119 19-10-2011 11:03:32

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#120 19-10-2011 13:00:03

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#121 19-10-2011 13:30:11

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#122 19-10-2011 13:33:18

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#123 19-10-2011 14:05:10

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#124 20-10-2011 08:56:23

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

#125 20-10-2011 11:04:10

Re : Changes to the MARKETPLACE!!

Pied de page des forums