So why is there a 10% tax?

[daves]

I am sure it is somewhere, but why is the tax 10% for selling a player in the auction? Why not 2 to 5%? With a 10% tax selling a diamond for 4400 is actually less than 4000 at 3960 after tax.

10% can be a bit high.

[Black Death]

Always account for that when selling a player then. Nobody makes you sell at a loss.

Don't open this can of worms, because the answer is, "Why not 30%?"

[Westheim]

Because the house takes a cut of whatever size it deems reasonable. The house has deemed 10% reasonable.

[Dogberry99]

I have always found it curious that the game allows the ignorant to hurt themselves like this, in spite of the fact that it does still set a minimum sale price. Seems like a bit of a contradiction for both those things to be true...

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

I have always found it curious that the game allows the ignorant to hurt themselves like this, in spite of the fact that it does still set a minimum sale price. Seems like a bit of a contradiction for both those things to be true...

I don't know how much clearer they can state things. I find it hard to care too much if people don't want to read or do basic math.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

I don't know how much clearer they can state things. I find it hard to care too much if people don't want to read or do basic math.

I get that. But why have a minimum price at all? They're sending contradictory messages.

LATE EDIT: In other words, I'm making a case that the minimum starting auction price is every bit as arbitrary as the 10% tax

[Clavette]

Math. Illegal in 2025

[Dogberry99]

or more to my point, the auction house price point is tied to the quick sale. However, whereas the quicksale price point is the amount the owner sells the card for, the auction house price point is tied to what a player *pays* and not anything to do with points being earned from the sale. This shift in responsibility from seller to buyer is what I truly find curious and arbitrary.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

I get that. But why have a minimum price at all? They're sending contradictory messages.

LATE EDIT: In other words, I'm making a case that the minimum starting auction price is every bit as arbitrary as the 10% tax

I don't doubt they are arbitrary, or at least started that way and were adjusted during beta.

I think what you'd find is the market for many gold, silver, or diamonds would go down. It provides a little bit of protection. I'd hate to save up 5000 PP to buy a gold pack and get someone like Marcus Stroman who's average winning bid for the past 5 is 1,001. How low would he go with no minimum? At least now you can sell him back for 1000.

Maybe they'll find 1000 isn't the right number and adjust in OOTP 20. Maybe the tax will go up, or down. They've got the data, and they'll adjust accordingly if they feel it needs adjusting. For now those are the rules, and in my opinion they shouldn't change until 20.

[Markus Heinsohn]

10% is what all other games of this type take for transactions of cards, the reason is to control inflation to a certain degree. And since those games have been around a lot longer than PT, we just used the 10% which seems to have worked out well in the past.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

LATE EDIT: In other words, I'm making a case that the minimum starting auction price is every bit as arbitrary as the 10% tax

The minimum auction starting bid is the quick-sell price. Why would anyone want to sell a card for less, other than trying to cheat the system?

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

The minimum auction starting bid is the quick-sell price. Why would anyone want to sell a card for less, other than trying to cheat the system?

The real question is why would someone sell a card on the auction house at the starting price when it is 10% less than they could get by quick-selling it?

[freedavebrown]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The real question is why would someone sell a card on the auction house at the starting price when it is 10% less than they could get by quick-selling it?

Yes, this just seems like a trap for people that do not read the fine print. The starting auction price default should be high enough to pay for the 10% transaction fee in the AH. There is no rational reason to sell a silver card on the AH for 100PP. There is just as little reason to allow that as there is to allow a starting price of 50.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by freedavebrown

Yes, this just seems like a trap for people that do not read the fine print. The starting auction price default should be high enough to pay for the 10% transaction fee in the AH. There is no rational reason to sell a silver card on the AH for 100PP. There is just as little reason to allow that as there is to allow a starting price of 50.

If the starting price is 1,000 for a gold card, you can not cheat anybody but yourself if you move cards around. If the starting price / minimum quick-buy would be 100 for a gold card, you could move PP around between different accounts.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Westheim

If the starting price is 1,000 for a gold card, you can not cheat anybody but yourself if you move cards around. If the starting price / minimum quick-buy would be 100 for a gold card, you could move PP around between different accounts.

That isn't the point. He thinks (and I agree somewhat) that the minimum price for a silver card should be 110, a gold card 1100, a diamond 4400, etc. so that people aren't selling cards for less than they could be by quick selling.

[freedavebrown]

Originally Posted by Westheim

If the starting price is 1,000 for a gold card, you can not cheat anybody but yourself if you move cards around. If the starting price / minimum quick-buy would be 100 for a gold card, you could move PP around between different accounts.

Fine, but why does the game allow you to unintentionally screw yourself? Would be so easy to change the minimum so that the unwitting don´t lose points for no reason.

Sure, you could read the disclaimer and adjust the minimum bid. But what is the design reason for making the minimum 100 instead of 111?

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

That isn't the point. He thinks (and I agree somewhat) that the minimum price for a silver card should be 110, a gold card 1100, a diamond 4400, etc. so that people aren't selling cards for less than they could be by quick selling.

Why are we so concerned with protecting people from themselves? Those prices mean I get 99, 990, or 3960. So why would I auction anything for the new minimum.

It's written clearly, and it's pretty simple math. Is it really the end of the world if someone loses 100 PP because they list it for the minimum, and someone buys it for the minimum? If there is demand the price goes up, if there isn't then they take a loss.

[freedavebrown]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

Why are we so concerned with protecting people from themselves? Those prices mean I get 99, 990, or 3960. So why would I auction anything for the new minimum.

It's written clearly, and it's pretty simple math. Is it really the end of the world if someone loses 100 PP because they list it for the minimum, and someone buys it for the minimum? If there is demand the price goes up, if there isn't then they take a loss.

Because there is no reason NOT to protect people from themselves.

It is also written clearly that you are selling a card when you click on Sell Card Now for XXX, and yet the game still confirms that you really want to do it because people don´t always read everything carefully and there is just no reason to screw people out of PP for absolutely no design reason whatsoever.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by NYY #23

Why are we so concerned with protecting people from themselves? Those prices mean I get 99, 990, or 3960. So why would I auction anything for the new minimum.

It's written clearly, and it's pretty simple math. Is it really the end of the world if someone loses 100 PP because they list it for the minimum, and someone buys it for the minimum? If there is demand the price goes up, if there isn't then they take a loss.

I don't think it's a huge deal, I was just explaining the point being made. I also did the math wrong. lol

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by freedavebrown

Because there is no reason NOT to protect people from themselves.

I disagree wholeheartedly. There is EVERY reason to not protect people from themselves.

And there is a clearly legible notice that the house takes 10%. If someone still offers up a card for the minimum they are either willfully ignorant or willfully stupid. Neither one deserves a safety net.