Heavy Traffic Public Vendors should require more taxes

yes, it's a partial receipt count; a subset of the number of transactions in a town.

It is a bunch of work for no benefit, indeed all it does is create an additional penalty for those who aren't using tax-free vendors. I'm already seeing the importance of OH falling, and half the reasons for it to fall haven't even gotten in game yet. Implementing a policy that looks like nothing more then a way to make life harder on people that didn't drop half a grand on this game isn't a way to build a healthy player base. If I have to choose between having most of the trade happening in OH and not weakening the ability of SotA to attract new players, well, that boat Hidden Vale is going to be making a lot of trips.

 

Interesting.

So the idea that a single public vendor in one location is somehow good for the game. But having multiple places that a person using public vendors could go and have actual foot traffic would be bad? I don't see the logic there. This really has little to do with tax-free vendors and everything to do with the global economy.

 

Now that's exactly how it should work. On the supply/demand curve, where the two lines cross is the price that will prevail. If in the northwest quadrant eggs are rare, then the supply curve will be steep, crossing the demand curve at a higher price. Eggs can be sold at a higher price in that quadrant. However this has nothing to do with proposed requirements to penalize people in the southeast quadrant who are selling eggs cheaper because eggs are not rare there. The penalty to force people to go to another place to purchase inflated price eggs is price control. It has never worked and I doubt that a game can create an economy where it will work. People may choose to live where eggs are cheaper, and economic activity will flourish. It is their choice. If they like the area where eggs are more expensive, they will bite the bullet and move there in spite of that fact.

 

There already are multiple places that a person can go and sell, I've used multiple of the public vendors, and got far better results then just putting items on the OH one, so this is a non-point.

What's bad for the game, overall, is the perception that it's a completely P2W game, which is what a policy like this would reinforce.

Every time you mess with taxes it's going to have to be viewed in the light of who does and does not have to pay them. To say it has nothing to do with us who don't have to pay them is just silly, as it gives us who don't a further advantage.

 

No, I completely disagree. See my previous post. The conclusions you're reaching are due to facts that don't exist.

 

So, I've not used multiple public vendors? So I didn't see better sales rates then just using one of them? So I haven't been told by people SotA is just too P2W? So messing with taxes doesn't alter the advantage of not paying them?

Which of these is wrong? Don't worry, take your time. I'll wait.

 

Uhm, your sarcasm kinds falls flat on me, besides I was talking about the amount of sales, period. Lets say we put the cieling at 1 million gold, then the vendor would ask for a comission for making so much money.

That includes tax free vendors. You really didn't even stop to think and read there, you're coming in a little bit strong and that in my book is obnoxious.

 

I would say the same about your assumptions of Owl's Head, but I know you won't reply

 

I disagree with the OP. A few reasons:

1. It too soon to evaluate public vendors at a time before the game's economy is established. They can be evaluated better once more people are in game better driving a final economy.

2. Public vendors are there for those who wish to game without relying on player vendors. Players should not be forced to pay more to use them simply because they are well located.

3. No one is required to use public vendors. POTs who insist on having a vendor advantage can still require their members to not use public vendors. Just don't impose that on non-members.

4. Nowhere has it been stated that player vendors deserve an advantage. Players wishing to earn business should do that by ensuring their vendor has superior stock, is priced competitively, etc. Not taxing someone else.

5. If the issue is that a public vendor has a better location than a player vendor has in a remote POT, well, that's a tough one. But that was a consideration when selecting a POT.

 

Thank you. This helps me see the disconnect.

Part of the problem is the term "tax" as opposed to commision. If a more popular vendor charged a higher commision then the argument becomes what is good for the game rather than a taxation argument. Nobody likes taxes. Most of us would not like paying vendor commissions either, but it makes sense in this setting.

 

Unfortunately this is not a "problem" and it doesn't need "fixing" from a cost or gold sink point of view.
that is the wrong way of looking at this.

You don't create a popular region and then start to try to get it unpopular.

Also the popularity of a region already dictates higher pricing in the region.

So instead IF, and I'm really against the idea, that is IF one wanted to add some tax it would rather be a progressive VAT if one want the gold sink approach. That at least would have made some sort of twisted sense. But would still have been a bad idea.

This since the popularity of the Public Vendor isn't the root cause but the popularity of the region and the town.

And since this is a game and not reality people will not stay if the the most popular places suddenly try to be less popular just to spread people out.

So if one want to drive traffic elsewhere one shouldn't make our best regions less popular since that will rather make players quit the game, but rather we need to look at WHY specific places are more popular and then add such popular features to other regions as well.

So why is places like Owls Head so popular? Can we add something to other places to make them at least or when needed more popular than Owls?
Now that is a line of thinking where we can be creative and create a better game.

One easy thing that directly comes to mind is that all recipes are in Owls so that crafters are almost forced to congregate there. If such a POI was duplicated or moved then that would naturally create traffic elsewhere.
Etc
With that line of thinking I can brainstorm easily draft 20 POSITIVES ideas.
With the punish popular places I can only think of problems and how many players will simply move on.

 

I wouldn't say all the recipes elsewhere, but not having any place where all the recipies are. And yes, this is one of the reasons I do go to owls-head... when I can't find a recipe online (really, there's something I have mixed feelings about).

 

No....just no. Using brute force game mechanics to force unnatural behaviors is horrible.

 

I have to disagree with you. I think you are meant to travel. I think it would be an onerous task to have the revs manage taxes based on foot traffic. That is development money better spent on quests and functionality. These taxes are just money sinks at this point. Why make money sinks bigger? Some will have property taxes, vendor fees, item repair, arrows, potions, food stuffs and reagents. I think that is enough burden.

 

Hehe, with all due respect... I think you are quite new to this ?

 

No I have played MMOs forever. No ones likes money sinks. I can see a public vendor helping support a player owned town with taxes, but an NPC town.. I know all this stuff is in there and the reasoning behind it, but we all still hate it. Trying something different in a game would be a refreshing change. Let's face it, the economy will be inflated with or without money sinks. All they do is hurt the starting player and the casual player more to the point of frustration with a game.

The only reason I go to Owl's Head now is because it is the only town with all the recipes for crafting. The devs need to make a few more towns in boxed off areas the same as to what they offer and then Owl's Head won't be so popular any longer.