[Suggestion] Remove listing fee in TP when fulfilling buy orders

[Kurrilino.2706]

On 11/5/2021 at 7:50 AM, Forgive Me.7803 said:

There are 2 taxes on the TP, one is a sales fee that is always taken from the cost of the item after sale. Second one is a listing fee, that is payed before the listing of the item. While that fee makes sense to be there when you are not selling items at the price of the buy orders aka listing the item at your desiered price , it does not make sence when selling the item to a buy order. In that case the price will not be listed on the TP but instantly fulfill the buy order so the fee should not apply.

 

The fee is applied because you use the TP.

 

Fell free and sell to the ingame traders, there are hundreds in every town.

Those guys don't ask for a listing fee.

 

 

[Obtena.7952]

43 minutes ago, Game of Bones.8975 said:

tl;dr all posts

 

The Seller or Buyer should have the option to pay for the "taxes" as an incentive to move their product. 

It would be like in real estate, either party has the option to "own" the closing costs.

On higher end objects, that could be substantial.

Or they just get the ability to set their prices to do so ... which is what already happens. 

[Astralporing.1957]

4 hours ago, Forgive Me.7803 said:

lol ok, i realy dont have time to explain it when you simply refuse to even do the math and contradict yourself in 2 diferent posts. 
Its ether the buy orders will raise making it possible for the "effectively higher buy order than lowest sell orders" and in turn decrease the gab between the buy and sell orders or " Basically, it would increase the gap between buy and sell orders." , again whatever way you take it it is till contradicting yourself. 

The sugestion was made in order to affect the 85.9% of the items curently trading at positive ROI aka the buy price is way lower then the sale price , and with the aim to get the buyers to raise there prices by having a incentive on the seller side to fulfill orders. Making a better distribution of the losses ocuring from a sale, aka more gold for the seller with minimal risk to the buyer. Where now there is no incentive of the buyer to raise the price any more then 1 coper over the buy price curently listed because there is little incentive on the seller(except time) to sell at the buy price

As suggestion is not agreed upon by the comunity i do not see the point in duscussion it further.
 

I suggest you polish up your own math first, because it would not work the way you think it would, and it would not have the results you think it would.

Since you want math, let's talk math. As an example let's use a sale at 10g price.

Currently, regardless whether the sale is being done through buy or sell order at that value, the end effect is the same: buyer spends 10g, seller gets 10g, but has to pay 1g in sell tax, and 50s in listing tax (so, ends up obtaining 8g50s).

Now, consider the proposed situation: buyer still spends 10g, regardless of which (buy or sell offer) option is used. Seller however does not pay the list tax when selling to buy offers. So, seller obtains 8g50s if doing the transaction through sell order, but 9g if doing it through buy order. What does that mean? That 10g buy orders are effectively the same as 10g58s82c sell orders. Any buy offer is worth ~5% more than listed value to the seller. So, for example, a sell offer of 10g10s is effectively below buy offer of 10g.

What is the consequence? For one, sellers are disincentived to put any sell orders within 5% distance of highest buy orders. At the same time, buyers can get away with putting lower buy orders.

As you can see, this change will not be an incentive for buyers to raise their prices, but to lower them instead. And will result in increased gaps between buy and sell orders.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Astralporing.1957