How to Stop Artificial-Inflation of Common Cards

[Alistia]

Idea to effectively destroy (limit) artificial inflation of card values for ones personal International Artwork Stat gain:

Essentially, to set a hypothetical price ceiling for each value level of card, this ceiling would be at 1000x the junk value of the card.

Commons: 0.01 x 1000 = 10
Uncommons 0.05 x 1000 = 50
Rares: .10 x 1000 = 100
Ultra Rares: .25 x 10000 = 250
Epics: .50 x 1000 = 500
Legendaries: 1.00 x 1000 = 1000

If a card passes this threshold, the chance for it to spawn is significantly increased.
This should be progressive, so a rare at say 120 MV should get an above normal, but not absolutely insane, spawn rate, while a rare at 500 MV should get an insane spawn rate.

I see the commons and uncommons worth 1k - 3k+ as harming the cards game. Such cards exist solely to increase ones personal deck value, and this inflated MV is only maintained because the chosen cards are usually from nations that have ceased to exist (which have a decreased spawn rate), and therefore new copies aren't being created. If new copies were created, people would sell these cards below the inflated market value, and the inflator would either have to dedicate real cash/bank to maintain the cards value (in which case it becomes more 'real), or the inflated value would correct itself and decrease to an amount that people would actually be willing to pay for the card.

The said value limits in my mind both leave room for cards in high demand and/or low supply to still be bought and traded much above Junk Value, and also allows people to still self-inflate their card value by maintaining purchases at their said desired value (Farrakhan is first case that comes to mind. His season 1 card is worth about 500, and his season 2 card 38, due to him maintaining static bids on the card at these value. The value is therefore real because trades for those prices actively happen. (Ofc S1 cards themselves have a sort of scarcity value anyway).

He actively buys AND backs his card at the market value, unlike inflators who rely on the 'ceased to exist nation cards rarely spawn' mechanic in order to raise a cards market value through 1 big trade just to never touch it again.

Essentially, these limits will put an end to people self inflating random commons and uncommon cards to insane levels just to increase their deck value and place on the leaderboard, while still allowing MV for cards to be decided by demand of the players. This change will also return the 'top cards by value' list to a natural state of listed the most wanted and highly valued cards in the game, rather then 'cte nations who's card has been traded for 1000 between two nations of the same owner once or a couple of times'. (currently the top 177 cards are all commons and uncommons that have been artificially inflated. Testlandia Season 1 is #178)

[Fauzjhia]

I support this idea

I always find that those inflated does not reflect their real values.

I don't think this will stop inflation, but it will force people to put even more work for it. and lose even more bank.

[Coffin-Breathe]

I am strongly against, because first this would tip the scales even more in favour of the big farmers (it is relatively easy for them to amass, let´s say, a hundred copies of some random epic or even rare and ultra-rare cards and inflate them), and second, because this does not adress the problem of inflating;
besides, season 1 low or single owner cards are very much harder to get, and therefore imo sometimes more worthy than all those over-hyped legendaries. So, if you want to install a MV-cap, it should be low enough to really make a difference and equal for every card, regardless of rarity.

[Alistia]

I am strongly against, because first this would tip the scales even more in favour of the big farmers (it is relatively easy for them to amass, let´s say, a hundred copies of some random epic or even rare and ultra-rare cards and inflate them), and second, because this does not adress the problem of inflating;
besides, season 1 low or single owner cards are very much harder to get, and therefore imo sometimes more worthy than all those over-hyped legendaries. So, if you want to install a MV-cap, it should be low enough to really make a difference and equal for every card, regardless of rarity.

For one it is the big farmers in the first place who inflate random commons/uncommons to a market value of 3000 to boost their worth in the first place.

Second, I don't understand what you are trying to say about hoarding cards of other rarities.

[Flanderlion]

Personally I think a 1% fee on sales over 10* junk value would be good, and if still an issue 10% on sales over 100* junk value.

[New Jacobland]

Personally I think a 1% fee on sales over 10* junk value would be good, and if still an issue 10% on sales over 100* junk value.

Legendary cards would have to be exempt though.

[Flanderlion]

Personally I think a 1% fee on sales over 10* junk value would be good, and if still an issue 10% on sales over 100* junk value.

Legendary cards would have to be exempt though.

Would they? Like, having a small amount of deflation wouldn't be the end of the world.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Personally I think a 1% fee on sales over 10* junk value would be good, and if still an issue 10% on sales over 100* junk value.

Legendary cards would have to be exempt though.

...care to explain why ?

[Coffin-Breathe]

For one it is the big farmers in the first place who inflate random commons/uncommons to a market value of 3000 to boost their worth in the first place.

...which you are not, you´d say - because you´re only farming "small" with, how many ? Only a few hundred farms ?

[Coffin-Breathe]

Second, I don't understand what you are trying to say about hoarding cards of other rarities.

I suppose, you do very well.
Imo, the best (and maybe only reasonable) solution to stop or at least reduce artificial inflating would be the removal of the "artwork"-badge and the cancelling of all the card game related rankings.

[Giovanniland]

Idea to effectively destroy (limit) artificial inflation of card values for ones personal International Artwork Stat gain:

This is the wrong approach to the problem. If you think inflation is overpowered, a proposal to nerf it (like 9003's idea to change the market value formula) is better than making it nearly impossible, since inflation is a valid way of playing the game. It would be like effectively banning raiding, something I believe admins have said will not happen despite several complaints.

Personally I think a 1% fee on sales over 10* junk value would be good, and if still an issue 10% on sales over 100* junk value.

I don't think anyone who regularly makes bank transfers (with the intent of actually moving bank, and not inflating) would like this idea. There's already the risk of someone finding it via TCALS and heisting, so this would end up not only discouraging inflation but also normal bank transfers.

[Ioavollr]

I don't think anyone who regularly makes bank transfers (with the intent of actually moving bank, and not inflating) would like this idea. There's already the risk of someone finding it via TCALS and heisting, so this would end up not only discouraging inflation but also normal bank transfers.

ehhh, there's already a gift tax on transfers. Seanat pays a ~2% tax by using an uncommon on 2.45 bank transfers, I pay %0.5 for using commons on 2.00 bank transfers. I'm not sure another percentage or two would affect do much other than be a minor annoyance.

[Flanderlion]

Personally I think a 1% fee on sales over 10* junk value would be good, and if still an issue 10% on sales over 100* junk value.

I don't think anyone who regularly makes bank transfers (with the intent of actually moving bank, and not inflating) would like this idea. There's already the risk of someone finding it via TCALS and heisting, so this would end up not only discouraging inflation but also normal bank transfers.

I mean this isn't a feature that is a must have for me.

Just thought that if they change the way how packs are generated that bank transfers wouldn't be needed as much, so wouldn't matter about a fee hitting them.

[Benevolent 1]

I propose a possible fee on the selling price of the various cards at auction. The chart below sets up a progressive system with regressive factors and shows examples of how this would work. The fee is always paid by the buyer.

Auction fee schedule:
Progressive Fees

Cards auctioned between 0.01 to 1.00 Bank are free from fee. (most transactions)
Cards auctioned above 1.01 but < 10.00 Bank pay a flat 0.01 Bank fee.
Cards auctioned above 10.01 but < 100.00 Bank pay a 1% fee of selling price..
Cards auctioned above 100.01 but < 250.00 Bank pay a 2% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 250.01 but < 500.00 Bank pay a 4% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 500.01 but < 1000.00 Bank pay a 8% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 1000.01 but < 2500.00 Bank pay a 16% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 2500.01 but < 5000.00 Bank pay a 32% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 5000.01 but < 10000.00 Bank pay a 64% fee of selling price.

Regressive Factors for Card Denominations:

Legendary Card = 1.
Cost of card = 1 X progressive fee + cost of card

Epic Card = 2.
Cost of card = 2 x progressive fee + cost of card

Ultra Rare Cards = 4.
Cost of card = 4 x progressive fee + cost of card

Rare Card = 8.
Cost of card = 8 x progressive fee + cost of card

Uncommon Card = 16.
Cost of card = 16 x progressive fee + cost of card

Common Card = 32.
Cost of card = 32 x progressive fee + cost of card

Examples of application:

A Legendary Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 1 (regressive factor) = 101.00
A Legendary selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 1 (regressive factor) =1080.00 in fees. This places some fee pressure costs on players inflating the prices of Legendaries.

A Rare Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 8 (regressive factor) = 108.00
A Rare Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 8 (regressive factor) = 1640.00. This places an escalating fee pressure costs on players inflating the price of Common Cards.

A Common Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 32 (regressive factor) = 132.00
A Common Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 32 (regressive factor) = 2560.00. This places prohibitive fee costs on any player who inflates the price of Common Cards.

It's an idea and it's a fun exercise with math. I admit needed some extra time with this.

BTW, let's remember irl auction houses charge a fee but gifting to a relative is usually tax free, within limitations. Why is it the opposite in this card game?
The gift tax is very hard on small players. Why not get rid of it on commons, uncommons and rares?

[Giovanniland]

I don't think anyone who regularly makes bank transfers (with the intent of actually moving bank, and not inflating) would like this idea. There's already the risk of someone finding it via TCALS and heisting, so this would end up not only discouraging inflation but also normal bank transfers.

ehhh, there's already a gift tax on transfers. Seanat pays a ~2% tax by using an uncommon on 2.45 bank transfers, I pay %0.5 for using commons on 2.00 bank transfers. I'm not sure another percentage or two would affect do much other than be a minor annoyance.

It's not a minor annoyance if there's a "10% tax on sales over 100 junk value" like Flanderlion said, though. If that were applied to commons, any transfer above 1.00 bank would be have to pay this tax, which is the vast majority of transfers. Some players regularly use mass transfers (with dozens of copies of a card) to move sums of bank well over the hundreds, would they like to pay 10 or 20 bank each time they did that? I don't think so.

I propose a possible fee on the selling price of the various cards at auction. The chart below sets up a progressive system with regressive factors and shows examples of how this would work. The fee is always paid by the buyer.

I don't think this is a suggestion that helps the game either, since the prohibitive taxes would drive everyone away from inflating. It's not good because it kills a valid way of playing the game, instead of just nerfing it if you think it's overpowered, much like the original proposal in this topic. Quoting my initial post opposing the OP's proposal, which pretty much applies to this alternative one:

This is the wrong approach to the problem. If you think inflation is overpowered, a proposal to nerf it (like 9003's idea to change the market value formula) is better than making it nearly impossible, since inflation is a valid way of playing the game. It would be like effectively banning raiding, something I believe admins have said will not happen despite several complaints.

EDIT: not a moderator, but note that with suggestions to change the game like this, I believe it's better if each proposal has its own thread, instead of using an existing thread.

[Benevolent 1]

I propose a possible fee on the selling price of the various cards at auction. The chart below sets up a progressive system with regressive factors and shows examples of how this would work. The fee is always paid by the buyer.

I don't think this is a suggestion that helps the game either, since the prohibitive taxes would drive everyone away from inflating. It's not good because it kills a valid way of playing the game, instead of just nerfing it if you think it's overpowered, much like the original proposal in this topic. Quoting my initial post opposing the OP's proposal, which pretty much applies to this alternative one:

The vast majority of trades are below 10.00 bank (probably >99%) where this proposal has virtually zero impact. The plan is good if you want this to be a fair game. Of course, the factoring in the example can be adjusted. What i have outlined is merely one potential system of fees.

As the OP stated, inflating mostly common and some uncommon cards to the point where they comprise the top 177 cards and S1 card Testlandia is 178th is ludicrous. The fee puts the breaks on excessive runaway inflation. This tactic has become a new vice. It is used by players with the largest banks in an attempt to dominate the game further, and some of these players haven't had the fair-mindedness to actually purchase the necessary deck capacity. smh.

In my view, none of this is good for the game. Why continue having the differing classifications of cards (Legendary, Epic... etc) which denote various levels of accomplishment in wider NS gameplay if we are letting the card game spiral downward into this shambles? Abusive inflation alongside the hijacked card duplication system (TCALS) is bad for the game.

[Ioavollr]

ehhh, there's already a gift tax on transfers. Seanat pays a ~2% tax by using an uncommon on 2.45 bank transfers, I pay %0.5 for using commons on 2.00 bank transfers. I'm not sure another percentage or two would affect do much other than be a minor annoyance.

It's not a minor annoyance if there's a "10% tax on sales over 100 junk value" like Flanderlion said, though. If that were applied to commons, any transfer above 1.00 bank would be have to pay this tax, which is the vast majority of transfers. Some players regularly use mass transfers (with dozens of copies of a card) to move sums of bank well over the hundreds, would they like to pay 10 or 20 bank each time they did that? I don't think so.

Fair enough, I suppose people would have to use legendary cards to transfer 100 bank at a time, or would have to transfer using smaller amounts. Also, as I understand it the gift tax and TCALS both exist as attempts to make transfers more difficult. If a new suggestion makes transfers more difficult that seems consistent with previous changes.

I propose a possible fee on the selling price of the various cards at auction. The chart below sets up a progressive system with regressive factors and shows examples of how this would work. The fee is always paid by the buyer.

I don't think this is a suggestion that helps the game either, since the prohibitive taxes would drive everyone away from inflating. It's not good because it kills a valid way of playing the game, instead of just nerfing it if you think it's overpowered, much like the original proposal in this topic. Quoting my initial post opposing the OP's proposal, which pretty much applies to this alternative one:

This is the wrong approach to the problem. If you think inflation is overpowered, a proposal to nerf it (like 9003's idea to change the market value formula) is better than making it nearly impossible, since inflation is a valid way of playing the game. It would be like effectively banning raiding, something I believe admins have said will not happen despite several complaints.

I find this line of argument weak. Though inflation is a technically legal way of playing the game, it isn't necessarily the type of gameplay envisioned by the mods and is certainly a circumvention of the valuation model given by the current Market Value calculation. Various ideas have been put forth to better calculate the MV of cards, and I think the backlash against inflated cards shows that the technique -though technically not disallowed by current rules- may undermine some of the core mechanics of the game as envisioned by several players. Additionally, and I have written about this extensively elsewhere, the price of inflation is disproportionately borne by newer and more naive players who trust the valuation given by the MV calculation. These players are frequently derisively referred to as card sharks, but largely (with some exceptions) appear to be reasonably using the MV to determine the valuation of a card. If these two are out of sync -as is explicitly exploited by unbacked inflation- unknowing players will continue to funnel bank to players who inflate in exchange for cards which lack fundamental value.

[The Seeker of Power]

As a farmer, and among the top 50... I happen to support this idea of having a ceiling for the MV of cards. Inflation is ridiculous in some cases.

[Frisbeeteria]

not a moderator, but note that with suggestions to change the game like this, I believe it's better if each proposal has its own thread, instead of using an existing thread.

I AM a moderator and the Dev Manager for this topic. Separate threads should be made for each idea, and linked in the Trading Card development ideas thread.

I'm all for doing something about removing the insane inflation (a situation where I personally contributed to the problem for quite some time). It doesn't have to be just one method - I like some of the ideas I've seen, like a progressive Gift fee, a progressive transfer tax, etc - but it needs to be balanced. New players can't be heavily penalized, which makes it that much harder to force an impact on card collecting puppets. I have no problem with the rich (either in Bank or Deck Value) paying more than the poor. We add to the money supply (Bank) every time a pack is drawn, but there's nothing that actually removes Bank from the game.

It also needs to be specific. While I think the fees in Benevolent 1's "Auction fee schedule" might be excessive, the clear definition makes it something I can easily take to the developers.

[Benevolent 1]

not a moderator, but note that with suggestions to change the game like this, I believe it's better if each proposal has its own thread, instead of using an existing thread.

I AM a moderator and the Dev Manager for this topic. Separate threads should be made for each idea, and linked in the Trading Card development ideas thread.

I'm all for doing something about removing the insane inflation (a situation where I personally contributed to the problem for quite some time). It doesn't have to be just one method - I like some of the ideas I've seen, like a progressive Gift fee, a progressive transfer tax, etc - but it needs to be balanced. New players can't be heavily penalized, which makes it that much harder to force an impact on card collecting puppets. I have no problem with the rich (either in Bank or Deck Value) paying more than the poor. We add to the money supply (Bank) every time a pack is drawn, but there's nothing that actually removes Bank from the game.

It also needs to be specific. While I think the fees in Benevolent 1's "Auction fee schedule" might be excessive, the clear definition makes it something I can easily take to the developers.

I've scaled the regressive factor downward while keeping the original progressive fees. This is to address the excessive issue you've mentioned. The new regressive ratios correspond inversely to the current junk value ratios of the card rarity denominations. Thus, the Common Card through Legendary Card junk values with the new lower regressive factor in parenthesis ---> .01 (10) - .05 (2) - .10 (1) - .20 (.5) - .50 (0.2) - 1.00 (0.1)

Math changes from initial post are highlighted in red. Please continue feedback.

Auction fee schedule:
Progressive Fees (unchanged)

Cards auctioned between 0.01 to 1.00 Bank are free from fee. (most transactions)
Cards auctioned above 1.01 but < 10.00 Bank pay a flat 0.01 Bank fee.
Cards auctioned above 10.01 but < 100.00 Bank pay a 1% fee of selling price..
Cards auctioned above 100.01 but < 250.00 Bank pay a 2% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 250.01 but < 500.00 Bank pay a 4% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 500.01 but < 1000.00 Bank pay a 8% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 1000.01 but < 2500.00 Bank pay a 16% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 2500.01 but < 5000.00 Bank pay a 32% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 5000.01 but < 10000.00 Bank pay a 64% fee of selling price.

Regressive Factors for Card Denominations:

Legendary Card = 0.1
Cost of card = (0.1 X progressive fee) + asking price of card

Epic Card = 0.2
Cost of card = (0.2 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Ultra Rare Cards = 0.5
Cost of card = (0.5 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Rare Card = 1
Cost of card = (1 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Uncommon Card = 2
Cost of card = (2 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Common Card = 10.
Cost of card = (10 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Examples of application:

A Legendary Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.1 (regressive factor) = 100.10
A Legendary Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.1 (regressive factor) =1008.00 This places a small fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Legendaries.

An Epic Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.2 (regressive factor) = 100.20
An Epic Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.2 (regressive factor) =1016.00 This places a small fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Epics.

An Ultra Rare Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.5 (regressive factor) = 100.50
An Ultra Rare Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.5 (regressive factor) =1040.00 This places a significant fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Ultra Rares.

A Rare Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 1 (regressive factor) = 101.00
A Rare Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 1 (regressive factor) = 1080.00 This places a stiff fee pressure on players greatly inflating the price of Rare Cards.

An Uncommon Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 2 (regressive factor) = 102.00
An Uncommon Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 2 (regressive factor) = 1160.00 This places a prohibitive fee on any player who greatly inflates the price of Uncommon Cards.

A Common Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 10 (regressive factor) = 110.00
A Common Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 10 (regressive factor) = 1800.00 This places a prohibitive fee on any player who greatly inflates the price of Common Cards.

[Vylixan]

I AM a moderator and the Dev Manager for this topic. Separate threads should be made for each idea, and linked in the Trading Card development ideas thread.

I'm all for doing something about removing the insane inflation (a situation where I personally contributed to the problem for quite some time). It doesn't have to be just one method - I like some of the ideas I've seen, like a progressive Gift fee, a progressive transfer tax, etc - but it needs to be balanced. New players can't be heavily penalized, which makes it that much harder to force an impact on card collecting puppets. I have no problem with the rich (either in Bank or Deck Value) paying more than the poor. We add to the money supply (Bank) every time a pack is drawn, but there's nothing that actually removes Bank from the game.

It also needs to be specific. While I think the fees in Benevolent 1's "Auction fee schedule" might be excessive, the clear definition makes it something I can easily take to the developers.

I've scaled the regressive factor downward while keeping the original progressive fees. This is to address the excessive issue you've mentioned. The new regressive ratios correspond inversely to the current junk value ratios of the card rarity denominations. Thus, the Common Card through Legendary Card junk values with the new lower regressive factor in parenthesis ---> .01 (10) - .05 (2) - .10 (1) - .20 (.5) - .50 (0.2) - 1.00 (0.1)

Math changes from initial post are highlighted in red. Please continue feedback.

Auction fee schedule:
Progressive Fees (unchanged)

Cards auctioned between 0.01 to 1.00 Bank are free from fee. (most transactions)
Cards auctioned above 1.01 but < 10.00 Bank pay a flat 0.01 Bank fee.
Cards auctioned above 10.01 but < 100.00 Bank pay a 1% fee of selling price..
Cards auctioned above 100.01 but < 250.00 Bank pay a 2% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 250.01 but < 500.00 Bank pay a 4% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 500.01 but < 1000.00 Bank pay a 8% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 1000.01 but < 2500.00 Bank pay a 16% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 2500.01 but < 5000.00 Bank pay a 32% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 5000.01 but < 10000.00 Bank pay a 64% fee of selling price.

Regressive Factors for Card Denominations:

Legendary Card = 0.1
Cost of card = (0.1 X progressive fee) + asking price of card

Epic Card = 0.2
Cost of card = (0.2 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Ultra Rare Cards = 0.5
Cost of card = (0.5 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Rare Card = 1
Cost of card = (1 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Uncommon Card = 2
Cost of card = (2 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Common Card = 10.
Cost of card = (10 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Examples of application:

A Legendary Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.1 (regressive factor) = 100.10
A Legendary Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.1 (regressive factor) =1008.00 This places a small fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Legendaries.

An Epic Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.2 (regressive factor) = 100.20
An Epic Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.2 (regressive factor) =1016.00 This places a small fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Epics.

An Ultra Rare Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.5 (regressive factor) = 100.50
An Ultra Rare Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.5 (regressive factor) =1040.00 This places a significant fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Ultra Rares.

A Rare Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 1 (regressive factor) = 101.00
A Rare Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 1 (regressive factor) = 1080.00 This places a stiff fee pressure on players greatly inflating the price of Rare Cards.

An Uncommon Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 2 (regressive factor) = 102.00
An Uncommon Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 2 (regressive factor) = 1160.00 This places a prohibitive fee on any player who greatly inflates the price of Uncommon Cards.

A Common Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 10 (regressive factor) = 110.00
A Common Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 10 (regressive factor) = 1800.00 This places a prohibitive fee on any player who greatly inflates the price of Common Cards.

So you want to tax people doing a simple bank transfer, or holding a community pull event?

[Vylixan]

not a moderator, but note that with suggestions to change the game like this, I believe it's better if each proposal has its own thread, instead of using an existing thread.

I AM a moderator and the Dev Manager for this topic. Separate threads should be made for each idea, and linked in the Trading Card development ideas thread.

I'm all for doing something about removing the insane inflation (a situation where I personally contributed to the problem for quite some time). It doesn't have to be just one method - I like some of the ideas I've seen, like a progressive Gift fee, a progressive transfer tax, etc - but it needs to be balanced. New players can't be heavily penalized, which makes it that much harder to force an impact on card collecting puppets. I have no problem with the rich (either in Bank or Deck Value) paying more than the poor. We add to the money supply (Bank) every time a pack is drawn, but there's nothing that actually removes Bank from the game.

It also needs to be specific. While I think the fees in Benevolent 1's "Auction fee schedule" might be excessive, the clear definition makes it something I can easily take to the developers.

Can we make sure to not focus too much on the people that play for legendaries and/or high DV, these people are the most visible players, and also the most vocal. But there are lot's of players who have very different play styles and I feel they are under-represented right now. Lot's of the discussion and proposals lately focus heavily on the Legendary and MV/DV heavy play style, and I fear that ideas, proposals and discussion about other play styles gets snowed under in all this.

I would love more focus on managing collections, organizing card and collections, searching, finding, filtering cards on all kinds of places, improving card UI, adding display options, etc etc.
I will try to post more proposals concerning these, but I wanted to address this topic somewhere. Since this is the umpteenth discussion about the high MV/DV play styles and it starts to feel a bit like a stuck record player.

[Benevolent 1]

I've scaled the regressive factor downward while keeping the original progressive fees. This is to address the excessive issue you've mentioned. The new regressive ratios correspond inversely to the current junk value ratios of the card rarity denominations. Thus, the Common Card through Legendary Card junk values with the new lower regressive factor in parenthesis ---> .01 (10) - .05 (2) - .10 (1) - .20 (.5) - .50 (0.2) - 1.00 (0.1)

Math changes from initial post are highlighted in red. Please continue feedback.

Auction fee schedule:
Progressive Fees (unchanged)

Cards auctioned between 0.01 to 1.00 Bank are free from fee. (most transactions)
Cards auctioned above 1.01 but < 10.00 Bank pay a flat 0.01 Bank fee.
Cards auctioned above 10.01 but < 100.00 Bank pay a 1% fee of selling price..
Cards auctioned above 100.01 but < 250.00 Bank pay a 2% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 250.01 but < 500.00 Bank pay a 4% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 500.01 but < 1000.00 Bank pay a 8% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 1000.01 but < 2500.00 Bank pay a 16% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 2500.01 but < 5000.00 Bank pay a 32% fee of selling price.
Cards auctioned above 5000.01 but < 10000.00 Bank pay a 64% fee of selling price.

Regressive Factors for Card Denominations:

Legendary Card = 0.1
Cost of card = (0.1 X progressive fee) + asking price of card

Epic Card = 0.2
Cost of card = (0.2 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Ultra Rare Cards = 0.5
Cost of card = (0.5 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Rare Card = 1
Cost of card = (1 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Uncommon Card = 2
Cost of card = (2 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Common Card = 10.
Cost of card = (10 x progressive fee) + asking price of card

Examples of application:

A Legendary Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.1 (regressive factor) = 100.10
A Legendary Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.1 (regressive factor) =1008.00 This places a small fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Legendaries.

An Epic Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.2 (regressive factor) = 100.20
An Epic Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.2 (regressive factor) =1016.00 This places a small fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Epics.

An Ultra Rare Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 in fees times x 0.5 (regressive factor) = 100.50
An Ultra Rare Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 x 0.5 (regressive factor) =1040.00 This places a significant fee on players greatly inflating the prices of Ultra Rares.

A Rare Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 1 (regressive factor) = 101.00
A Rare Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 1 (regressive factor) = 1080.00 This places a stiff fee pressure on players greatly inflating the price of Rare Cards.

An Uncommon Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 2 (regressive factor) = 102.00
An Uncommon Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 2 (regressive factor) = 1160.00 This places a prohibitive fee on any player who greatly inflates the price of Uncommon Cards.

A Common Card selling for 100.00 bank would cost an extra 1.00 fees x 10 (regressive factor) = 110.00
A Common Card selling at 1000.00 bank would cost an extra 80.00 in fees x 10 (regressive factor) = 1800.00 This places a prohibitive fee on any player who greatly inflates the price of Common Cards.

So you want to tax people doing a simple bank transfer, or holding a community pull event?

Why not? If i gift a card i have to pay 100% tax on that and it sucks. Nobody is talking about reducing or eliminating that tax for casual players. So, the gift tax forces casual players into the damn auction where bad things happen to casual players trades bc of the various despicable bidding practices. Isn't it enough of a break that cards bought at auction are not subject to cap limitations? A fee on these transactions is fair. Besides, these fees are reasonable. Not 100%!

Pull events only benefit a narrow group of players, repeatedly. They're like this.

[Benevolent 1]

I AM a moderator and the Dev Manager for this topic. Separate threads should be made for each idea, and linked in the Trading Card development ideas thread.

I'm all for doing something about removing the insane inflation (a situation where I personally contributed to the problem for quite some time). It doesn't have to be just one method - I like some of the ideas I've seen, like a progressive Gift fee, a progressive transfer tax, etc - but it needs to be balanced. New players can't be heavily penalized, which makes it that much harder to force an impact on card collecting puppets. I have no problem with the rich (either in Bank or Deck Value) paying more than the poor. We add to the money supply (Bank) every time a pack is drawn, but there's nothing that actually removes Bank from the game.

It also needs to be specific. While I think the fees in Benevolent 1's "Auction fee schedule" might be excessive, the clear definition makes it something I can easily take to the developers.

Can we make sure to not focus too much on the people that play for legendaries and/or high DV, these people are the most visible players, and also the most vocal. But there are lot's of players who have very different play styles and I feel they are under-represented right now. Lot's of the discussion and proposals lately focus heavily on the Legendary and MV/DV heavy play style, and I fear that ideas, proposals and discussion about other play styles gets snowed under in all this.

I would love more focus on managing collections, organizing card and collections, searching, finding, filtering cards on all kinds of places, improving card UI, adding display options, etc etc.
I will try to post more proposals concerning these, but I wanted to address this topic somewhere. Since this is the umpteenth discussion about the high MV/DV play styles and it starts to feel a bit like a stuck record player.

Removing the 100% gifting fee would help collectors. How about that idea?
You have some valid points here. Personally, i am a collector and a big fan of small and medium sized collections. You have some nice ones. I am much less interested in these massive collections that get into the thousands of cards. It's too much, some of these players get a bit too obsessive about it.

[Coffin-Breathe]

I have no problem with the rich (either in Bank or Deck Value) paying more than the poor. We add to the money supply (Bank) every time a pack is drawn, but there's nothing that actually removes Bank from the game.

I´d say, if everyone is forced to pay for storage capacity (as intended), this would "remove" more than enough "bank from the game"; this in addition to a limited number of "card receiving nations" would fix most of the problems, imo.
Furthermore, if you (the admins, programmers and overseers) don´t do such radical cuts (without hesitation and regardless of the whining of some) soon, the card game is ruined and a failure forever (in fact, more and more becoming a romping ground for a small inbred bunch), imo.