Reduce Gifting Fee for Cards from 100% to 20%

[Galiantus III]

Why the HELL don't you explain how the current auction is remotely fair for these smaller/medium casual players when it's loomed over by the big bank players in the top ten of DV?

I'm not saying it is.

They and their Hive lickspittles have used it for more than 2 years as a TCALS ripoff duplicating card device. As well as a systematic market value inflator to gain DV and add more bank.

Indeed. But those have nothing to do with the gifting fee.

Neither of those outcomes occur by gifting of cards.

My point exactly.

Make gifting cards more price friendly, as in .20 per. This provide a reasonable alternative from the highwaymen who control the card auction block.

No it won't. Reducing the gifting fee will fix none of the problems you say you care about.

Meanwhile reform this market. Kill the TCALS mechanism, and tax the auction in an appropriate manner to deter the inflation of low denomination cards.

Again, none of those have to do with the gifting fee. It's really strange you are off in left field, promoting something so far removed, instead of making suggestions relevant to the problems you are listing.

[Benevolent 1]

<snip><snip><snip>

No it won't. Reducing the gifting fee will fix none of the problems you say you care about.

But it will. Do i have to spell it out for you, m8y? Any card redistributed by gifting is deferred from the hazards at auction. Lowering the fee increases gifting and decrease the number of cards at auction. This is because... there is no other way to redistribute cards. Currently, card redistribution is like a seesaw and the high gifting fee is the fulcrum which has been placed off center. Reduce the fee to .20 and it changes this crucial pivot point for the betterment of all players, not just the few.

Meanwhile reform this market. Kill the TCALS mechanism, and tax the auction in an appropriate manner to deter the inflation of low denomination cards.

Again, none of those have to do with the gifting fee. It's really strange you are off in left field, promoting something so far removed, instead of making suggestions relevant to the problems you are listing.

What, strange? ...left field?

Listen, I'm the OP of this thread and right now you're the one off base.

*throws to What, picks off*

YOU'RE OUT!!

Now, get this straight... (it's a gift.)

Who's on first, What's on second and I Don't Know is on third. Why is our left fielder. Because? Well, he's our center fielder.
All of which makes as much sense as whatever game you're playing.

[One Small Island]

Lowing the fee increases gifting and decrease the number of cards at auction.

Why is that a good thing? Why is less playing a good thing for the card game?

[Benevolent 1]

Lowing the fee increases gifting and decrease the number of cards at auction.

Why is that a good thing? Why is less playing a good thing for the card game?

It's already been explained WhyAny card redistributed by gifting is deferred from the hazards at auction. left field.

You'll never get it.

[Haganham]

This would be a good idea if the gifting fee were set at market value. But it's not. It's set at junk value, the highest of which is 1. A pittence.

[Benevolent 1]

This would be a good idea if the gifting fee were set at market value. But it's not. It's set at junk value, the highest of which is 1. A pittence.

Junk value was the original market value. ALL inflation occurs at auction, never in gifting. Gifting should be encouraged by lowering the price. Keeping it at 100% of original value or MV is off base.

[Coffin-Breathe]

It's already been explained WhyAny card redistributed by gifting is deferred from the hazards at auction.

Well, your arguements are pretty flawed,and I´ll tell you, why :
The "casual" or "small player", as you like to call him/her, doesn´t have much need to "redistribute" cards", because said "small player" (I´ll name myself as an example) doesn´t own big bunches of "card farms", therefore the main reason for such players for "gifting" cards is either to "avoid transactions" on the market (exclusive trading with trusted partners) or to "support otherones collections" (which some people do) out of altruism or whatever, usually without personal gain. Those types of players usually don´t care about the occasional "gifting fee".
While "farming/farming big" definitely creates a need for "redistributing cards", ie "low-owner transfer cards" and such. Players doing so can easily afford the small "gifting fee" to avoid the risk of "loosing cards on the market".
The conclusion is, that "lowering the gifting fee" only helps "big farmers/players" to gain even more unfair advantage over "small players"
Personally I would even propose kind of a "flat tax" (the more transactions on a single card by the same nation, the higher the gifting fee), thus highering the "gifting fee" for "transfer cards", but that´s surely complicated to much to implement in the "system"/needs to much effort/impossible to code, so I don´t dare to ask for.
But "lowering the gifting fee" is definitely wrong, as it leads to even more inequality in the game and should be avoided in any case.

[Benevolent 1]

It's already been explained WhyAny card redistributed by gifting is deferred from the hazards at auction.

Well, your arguements are pretty flawed,and I´ll tell you, why :
The "casual" or "small player", as you like to call him/her, doesn´t have much need to "redistribute" cards", because said "small player" (I´ll name myself as an example) doesn´t own big bunches of "card farms", therefore the main reason for such players for "gifting" cards is either to "avoid transactions" on the market (exclusive trading with trusted partners) or to "support otherones collections" (which some people do) out of altruism or whatever, usually without personal gain. Those types of players usually don´t care about the occasional "gifting fee".
While "farming/farming big" definitely creates a need for "redistributing cards", ie "low-owner transfer cards" and such. Players doing so can easily afford the small "gifting fee" to avoid the risk of "loosing cards on the market".
The conclusion is, that "lowering the gifting fee" only helps "big farmers/players" to gain even more unfair advantage over "small players"
Personally I would even propose kind of a "flat tax" (the more transactions on a single card by the same nation, the higher the gifting fee), thus highering the "gifting fee" for "transfer cards", but that´s surely complicated to much to implement in the "system"/needs to much effort/impossible to code, so I don´t dare to ask for.
But "lowering the gifting fee" is definitely wrong, as it leads to even more inequality in the game and should be avoided in any case.

You think i'm a longtime card farmer but that's wrong. One can't farm cards by answering an issue a month. I have many nations for regional reasons.

Now, as to the gift fee reduction... It doesn't work if that change occurs by itself and it won't. I strongly suspect the mini game is a lead pipe cinch for S3 as it disconnects cards from issues. That should significantly reduce farming as it takes much more time and probably can't be scripted. The latter TBD. Therefore the number of card drawn versus S1 or S2 will shrink. This will make all S3 cards rarer. S3s will rapidly rise in price without a fee or tax on auctions, which i believe is likely. I recommend my progressive tax for auctioned cards with the regressive factor for lesser denominations, but that's a big wish. So without a regressive factor, rather a flat tax, inflation still wins out as those nations which pioneered inflation and flush with bank will continue to inflate commons and uncommon cards. As i said, all inflation occurs at auction, not by gifting. You may not have a single alternative nation (really?) but i feel most small players have a few. Let them rearrange their cards into their various nations and collections without incurring the risks of auction or a 100% fee for the privilege. For mathematical reasons, the best alternative is 20% because it does not devolve into fractions. IMO, overall an encouragement of gifting by reducing the gifting fee further deters inflation provided that card farms are diminished by the new mini game.

[Haganham]

you seriously need to work on your persuasion.

[Benevolent 1]

And you need to stop with this sorry niggling.

[Coffin-Breathe]

I´m sorry, but I have to declare, that your "claims" neither do sound very credible, nor plausible (or logical)...
Your "proposal" is based on a very doubtable assumption, partially about "a suspected future of the card game", and on top of this, it surely doesn´t help to make it more credible when regarding you inflating/transferring (large sums) and owning hundreds of puppets, while claiming to be "an advocate for the poor"...

[Benevolent 1]

I´m sorry, but I have to declare, that your "claims" neither do sound very credible, nor plausible (or logical)...
Your "proposal" is based on a very doubtable assumption, partially about "a suspected future of the card game", and on top of this, it surely doesn´t help to make it more credible when regarding you inflating/transferring (large sums) and owning hundreds of puppets, while claiming to be "an advocate for the poor"...

I need to compete in the game as it presently stands. I didn't pioneer any of these tactics, nor have i joined cartels of players conspiring off site. Nor have i enriched myself or puppets with TACLS abuses.

The present card game kinetics and the potential future card game are two different matters. Though i am not surprised you and certain others can't comprehend that. Sorry.

[Giraffeton]

After reading this topic I have to share my opinion:
All your proposal does is make it easier for card farms big and small
What would actually maybe benefit casual players is a direct trading system (cause idk if casual players are serious enough to use such a system)
The trading system is much like the current system where you ask a nation to gift you a card in exchange for another card except you formalise the system where no gifting is required and is like an auction but with cards instead of bank and no timer.
To avoid exploitation from card farmers you could either have bank tax or force the traded card/s have the same total junk price

Alternatively the casual player can sell the legendary at a high price and then use that bank to buy another legendary. Does really matter if top players get the legendaries as long as they pay a good price for them?

[Fauzjhia]

After reading this topic I have to share my opinion:
All your proposal does is make it easier for card farms big and small
What would actually maybe benefit casual players is a direct trading system (cause idk if casual players are serious enough to use such a system)
The trading system is much like the current system where you ask a nation to gift you a card in exchange for another card except you formalise the system where no gifting is required and is like an auction but with cards instead of bank and no timer.
To avoid exploitation from card farmers you could either have bank tax or force the traded card/s have the same total junk price

Alternatively the casual player can sell the legendary at a high price and then use that bank to buy another legendary. Does really matter if top players get the legendaries as long as they pay a good price for them?

Every cards farmers are in favor of this idea.
that way, I could easily trade cards without being scammed.
In general players are honest, when you given the cards you promesse, they give you the cards you ask for.
but once, I think only once, I was scammed, I gave a 1600 MV card, and did not get back the card I asked in return.
I tried to message the player twice, but they do not answer.

[Giraffeton]

Every cards farmers are in favor of this idea.
that way, I could easily trade cards without being scammed.
In general players are honest, when you given the cards you promesse, they give you the cards you ask for.
but once, I think only once, I was scammed, I gave a 1600 MV card, and did not get back the card I asked in return.
I tried to message the player twice, but they do not answer.

I kinda assumed as much, plus if stuff does happen you can always discredit them.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Do I err, or wasn´t there a specific thread/theme (called "warnings" or similar) for behaviour like that, long, long time ago ? Or was this in another forum (not NS) ?

[Coffin-Breathe]

Basically, this idea sounds interesting, but is prone to abusement on a second thought : when "exchange" is based on JV, it supports the exchange of "inflated" cards for other, practically worthless cards, thus avoiding a suspected possibel (in the future implemented) tax and/or the risks of "deflating" said cards through "lower price" transactions. And as we all know, if something can be exploited, it will be done.
As much as I would somehow like the idea of an "card exchange feature", which in fact could be helpful for some "casual/small collectors" to get one or another "heavily searched for" missing card for their collections through an "exchange", when lacking sufficient bank, it mainly would support "(big) farmers" though, as I guess, at the current moment "gift exchanges" between different players don´t occure much often (most "gifts", I suppose, are "one-way-actions)".
Alternatively I would appreciate a way to move complete "themed" collections without market risks or "tax" (even if I have no need for such) to puppets to reduce "overstockings"; it seems, many players have started various (and numerous) collections on their "main" (when they started/over times), which meanwhile have grown much too big/expensive/risky to being removed by the current options, which also may contribute to the "overstocking problems".
Plus, it would make it possible to buy/sell/gift whole, not further real wanted collections to other collectors. Problem is, this would afford a lot of "overseeing" by the mods, even if it could be coded, and therefore, as I guess, wouldn´t (and/or is impossible to) be implemented.

[Giraffeton]

Basically, this idea sounds interesting, but is prone to abusement on a second thought : when "exchange" is based on JV, it supports the exchange of "inflated" cards for other, practically worthless cards, thus avoiding a suspected possibel (in the future implemented) tax and/or the risks of "deflating" said cards through "lower price" transactions. And as we all know, if something can be exploited, it will be done.
As much as I would somehow like the idea of an "card exchange feature", which in fact could be helpful for some "casual/small collectors" to get one or another "heavily searched for" missing card for their collections through an "exchange", when lacking sufficient bank, it mainly would support "(big) farmers" though, as I guess, at the current moment "gift exchanges" between different players don´t occure much often (most "gifts", I suppose, are "one-way-actions)".
Alternatively I would appreciate a way to move complete "themed" collections without market risks or "tax" (even if I have no need for such) to puppets to reduce "overstockings"; it seems, many players have started various (and numerous) collections on their "main" (when they started/over times), which meanwhile have grown much too big/expensive/risky to being removed by the current options, which also may contribute to the "overstocking problems".
Plus, it would make it possible to buy/sell/gift whole, not further real wanted collections to other collectors. Problem is, this would afford a lot of "overseeing" by the mods, even if it could be coded, and therefore, as I guess, wouldn´t (and/or is impossible to) be implemented.

Never said the system couldn't be abused and it get that the current gift trading system works perfectly so there no real need for this new system.

Also the question has to be asked which is worse card farmers or overstocking? Cause I can't see a solution that discourages both card farming and overstocking

[Polomon Islands]

Well, if you reduce the gifting fee for legendary cards by 80%, that would be 0.20 as a fee.
I dont think thats good.
People would just be gifting common cards for 0.002 bank.

[Fauzjhia]

Well, if you reduce the gifting fee for legendary cards by 80%, that would be 0.20 as a fee.
I dont think thats good.
People would just be gifting common cards for 0.002 bank.

the cost of commons would not be reduced, its already small enough like that.
and to be honest. I approve because it would help my farming activities. every time I find a legendary on my dragonia puppets, its 1.00 I must pay, that's why I support this idea.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Given the fact, that you get a new pack every four or five answered issues at least, and the average JV of a pack is a 0.30 - 0.35 bank, as someone stated some time ago, while the "gifting fee" for any legendary card is not more than 1.00 bank, thus an average of three packs/10 to 15 cards at the most are needed to make up for the highest "gifting fee". But you (usually) don´t get a legendary card every three or four packs, so the "gifting fee" doesn´t really harm the yield of any puppet; while "single nations" don´t use "transfer gifting of cards", as they usually have no puppets, and even if, then as stated above. While "gifting cards to support other players/collections" is primarily done out of altruism, regardless of the costs, so again no need for a "reduction of costs".

[Vylixan]

Given the fact, that you get a new pack every four or five answered issues at least, and the average JV of a pack is a 0.30 - 0.35 bank, as someone stated some time ago, while the "gifting fee" for any legendary card is not more than 1.00 bank, thus an average of three packs/10 to 15 cards at the most are needed to make up for the highest "gifting fee". But you (usually) don´t get a legendary card every three or four packs, so the "gifting fee" doesn´t really harm the yield of any puppet; while "single nations" don´t use "transfer gifting of cards", as they usually have no puppets, and even if, then as stated above. While "gifting cards to support other players/collections" is primarily done out of altruism, regardless of the costs, so again no need for a "reduction of costs".

You assume people junk every card but legendaries. I find that a very limiting view.

[Giraffeton]

You assume people junk every card but legendaries. I find that a very limiting view.

Ya, I don't junk every card cause i'm always on the hunt for a little extra profit. But it does mean i have to spend more time evaluating every card that i get cause no tools exist that do what i wanna do

[Vylixan]

You assume people junk every card but legendaries. I find that a very limiting view.

Ya, I don't junk every card cause i'm always on the hunt for a little extra profit. But it does mean i have to spend more time evaluating every card that i get cause no tools exist that do what i wanna do

Not even just that, but if someone collects, say cards with crowns on them, or common cards, or CTE's, or animals, or Rejected Realms, etc, then you save a lot of the cards you pull.
Especially if that person maintain several large collections.

Not everybody in this game is solely going for legendaries and/or high DV and thus junks the majority of cards they pull to gain heaps of bank.
I'd say a large majority of the, often small scale, players just collect cards they like, and cards of their friends and region mates.
And there are a lot of people that don't junk every card they find for a host of reasons.
So assuming that people junk all the cards they pull is very wrong.

[Coffin-Breathe]

You assume people junk every card but legendaries. I find that a very limiting view.

No, of course I don´t do; but JV and gifting fee are fixed measurements, thus a good way to explain my point: while (sooner or later), at some point, everyone has to junk (as meant by "the rules").
Just to explain this further : "bank" is only created by "junking cards", so, even if someone claims to rely only on "selling on the market", the bank money used there is the result of someone else junked cards, as junking cards is the only way for bank money to come into existence.