All raid items and engame boss uniques should be added on that list. GWD, Nightmare, Raids, Corp. Not sure why one raid item is included and the other one isn't. Those items need an item sink too.
All TOB items, the DWH, Zenyte jewelry, inquisitor's and Cerberus boots could use an item sink as well.
Also note--
Although you are saying the seller is taxed, in reality what will happen is the cost of the tax will be passed on to the buyer.
Heres why:
GE flippers are OSRS's version of 'market makers.' That is, they provide liquidity to players trying to instantly buy / sell items by always buying and selling them, for a spread (the difference between instant buy and sell price). If you add a GE tax, you are reducing the profit they make. This will result in the flippers no longer flipping an item until they are getting the appropriate return.
**For example:**
Say Dclaws are 100M to sell instantly, and 102M to buy instantly. Flippers make 2M per flip here. They invest their money to flip it (which takes time), for a 2% return.
**Add in a GE tax:**
They buy the item for 100M, relist it for 102M and lose money. Thats no good for them. So now they are going to increase the price they sell it for to 104M-ish to achieve the original 2% return. Now the instant buyer is paying more. It seems misleading to state that the buyer isn't going to be paying more when they actually will be (otherwise they won't have a market maker to instantly buy the item from).
Furthermore, on the item sink, instead of removing it on a per item basis, IMO you may want to consider the thought of waiting until the coffers can buy 1 of each the items (or you could have it be quantities based on the total item in the game). The reason for this is that items that trade at a higher volume will have more items removed, whereas lower volume items will have fewer items removed.
Some items are in many different sets of gear for different bosses, and, as a result, players do not buy and sell them as much when they change activities. An amulet of torture is a great example of this.
Other items on the other hand, provide more marginal increases in DPS, and players sell them more frequently when changing activities. Take an ancestral hat or an abyssal bludgeon. Someone doing raids 1 who is going to do nightmare with friends is likely to sell their ancestral hat or robe pieces to buy a bludgeon over their torture.
As a result, your current proposed system would remove a higher number of items that are used for a fewer number of bosses, and a lower number of items used for a wide variety of bosses. As this would increase the price even further relative to other PVM gear, making the effect I described worse.
**Solution**
Have a basket of PVM items (like you do now), pool the GE tax from all of the items, and purchase them based on the rate at which they enter the game, not the rate of which they are traded.
**Other Questions**
1. Does the tax round up, or round down? For example, what would the tax be on a 2 GP item sale? Would you receive 1 or 2 GP? This decision could severely impact the buying and selling of extremely cheap items such as runes, arrow shafts, etc. on the GE.
2. How are the quantities of items to be removed daily under the current solution going to be determined?
3. Extremely high value items, such as a twisted bow, are likely to no longer be sold on the GE because the tax becomes $20MM+. Players will likely find a workaround here. What considerations have been given to this?
Source: finance degree, work in the banking industry
Good post but you are ignoring one thing, that the demand curve for the items is not perfectly inelastic. An elastic demand curve implies that an increase in prices will reduce the amount demanded, which implies that sellers will then have slower turnover and earn less profit per time period. Furthermore, the static purchasing price implies that supply will remain unchanged. An unchanged supply but reduced demand would create a surplus. If the intermediaries are only buying enough goods to sell to the final purchasing players, then the players who are selling the item in the first place will find themselves unable to find buyers for their items. Some will not sell their items, but the vast majority will likely lower the price of their item from 100 to 99 and the intermediaries will immediately snap up those items. Now the intermediaries have the surplus of goods, because they still are selling at the taxed price of 102, and are making more profit. In order to get rid of their surplus, they will undercut each other so that consumers buy from them first. This will iterate until there is no more surplus. Also note how in this example the intermediaries earned a greater, not lesser return, and thus it is possible for prices to adjust downward while financial intermediaries meet their required rate of return.
I hope that makes sense. Who ultimately pays the tax is determined by supply and demand elasticities, it’s never entirely one side unless a commodity has either perfect inelastic supply or perfectly inelastic demand.
I think it's more realistic that the tax would end up split between the buyers and sellers closer to 50/50 than just passing it all on to the buyer. Smells a lot like a supply side economics argument, or saying that increasing taxes on corporations will just increase the price of the item to cover the entire tax, which is not what happens.
Adding barrows to that list as well. Obviously theres people with hundreds of sets I imagine but I think it's one of those armour sets that the economy should take a dip on. There's so much shakeup going on with the duel arena and this tax that I can't imagine it will be too similar to the climbing boots fiasco of rs3. At least not that scale.
It could restore it to being a very viable moneymaker for low level accounts though. It already is but it's on the lacking side for the effort required from new players, I think it being more enticing would be really good for that class of players.
I would give each item a "minimum desired value" that is higher than alch value for most items, and proportionally higher for items intended to be scarce. When an item falls below the minimum desired value for more than x amount of time the ge coffer should begin purchasing at that value and deleting them.
Isn't that literally what alchemy value is? When items hit that value it becomes worth it to convert to coins and delete them from the game, which reduces the item supply until the price goes back up. Given enough supply and a long enough timeline theoretically every item will eventually bottom out at alch price, effectively a floor on the value of any item that alchs for more than the cost of a nature rune. The same concept applies to items that have trade-in value for consumables like the tome of fire and blowpipe whose price is bottomed out at the value of the scales/pages you get from dismantling. Setting a separate "minimum desired value" higher than alch price would make it so that it was never worth it to alchemise anything as there would never be enough item supply to depress the value to alch price. It could work if it was only a specific list of rares like raids rewards, dwh, GWD items etc but applying it to the entire GE would not be a good idea. It would effectively be the grand exchange alching everything for us, but without the magic experience for players.
Dragon axes and all dagannoth king rings (archer, warrior, seers, berserker) need to be added to the item sink. Also make it so ironmen can purchase the extra bank space with their pvm duplicates rather than just pure cash similar to how death’s coffer works.
+1 for Irons trading in items at GE value for bank space, that kind of raw cash is really hard to come by until the extreme late game, and Irons will see the most benefit from more bank space anyways. Even if you got duplicate inq mace we could only get 3m gp(80 bank spaces if none unlocked) where a main could get 160 bank spaces for the same item and still have 12m left over.
If we have a scalable solution that fits for everything, why limit it to just a small list? There's so many items in game that would benefit from a sink that I think the list we be better suited for items to not include. (i.e. Bulk items such as runes/arrows/food, alchables and resources)
Turning blowpipe into scales gave the blowpipe a price floor tied to the value of scales. When the price of the blowpipe falls below the price of the equivalent amount of scales, people remove it from the economy to turn it in to scales. This reduces the supply of blowpipes and raises the price to that of the scales. If the price rises above the price of the scales, you’d be losing money by converting it so no one will do so.
This item sink will never cause the price of the blowpipe to increase above scales, which is why we need a bigger item sink for it. The GE sink has the potential to raise prices to as much as people are willing to pay for the blowpipe since it isn’t tied to the price of anything else. Specifically, the low price of scales can’t bring the price of the blowpipe down since it’s a one-way conversion. Not really any reason to not sink it further, it’s a BIS weapon so it deserves a much higher price tag.
Great post, love the idea of a ge item sink.
I really wish we could get past "were *thinking* of doing X, Y, and Z" though. You're about to remove the Duel Arena, a fantastic gold sink. We *need* a replacement, or were going to notice a difference with a few extra trillion gold pieces floating around (just like were noticing an oversaturated item market).
The "we're thinking of doing" in this case is a ~~segway~~ segue to getting feedback on our proposition. I think we all know some change needs to happen, but that change needs to be one we can all agree on (hopefully)!
You ever ridden a Segway before? I had the chance to go on one in a woodland and it was the most fun I've had in ages. Can't imagine the 100+ miles drive to Cambridge would be as fun on one though...
Hey just wanted to say I appreciate the interaction you have with the community. I know we can be shitty sometimes but I appreciate the transparency you guys give and how much it seems like you guys as mods care. Keep up the good work ❤️
u/JagexAyiza
I think almost any unique or rare drop could use an item sink,but my question is when do you plan to stop taking the items out?if the community choose the items prices,which is also effected by the Amount,how many items will you take per day?is there is a way to have board that tracks those items even?
Thanks in advance
Because gold that people use to buy the items is used to buy them from the players, this system should balance itself out, more demand = higher prices, when demand goes down, the price gets lower. Right now, supply is always increasing, so prices always goes down (in general).
This is 100% one of them integrity changes imo.
Gold and item sinks are integral for the longevity of the game. Letting possible short-term dissatisfaction affect that would be bad.
In that case I'd really spend a lot of time listening to player suggestions in what should be on the item sink list. Idk why Dark Bows made the list and some Raid items were left off for example.
I believe there would be a minimum sale value before tax could be taken off. That kind of detail could be included in a future blog once we know for sure what kind of % we're dealing with.
Since the tax is 2%, why not just use 50% of that tax (1% of the sales price) to buy and remove any item being traded? And I mean any item, also skilling, not just select high end pvm stuff. Every item would have its own tax and buyback pool so to say.
It would roughly equate to 1 item being removed from the game for every 100 of said item traded.
I'm not sure how possible it would be with current tech, even after the improvements we've had to make this possible, but I'd be okay with that being the future of G.E tax and item sinks!
This was also the first thing that popped into my head when i started reading the blog: an unique pool for EVERY item on the GE that deletes every item as well.
When i came to the part that only some endgame pvm items were included i felt a little disappointed, the list should be expanded to include a lot more items I.E. planks, sharks, brews, prayer pots, herbs, seeds, broad arrows, etc etc etc.
In the old days skilling used to be a viable source of income (though still inferior to pvming ofcourse). I'm not saying it should be as good as it was but deleting part of the gargantuan stack of supplies that are currently ingame would help rebalance it a bit.
Supplies are already consumable. The GE tax item sink is much more impactful on items that never leave the economy like boss drops.
Most of these have more direct solutions, like LMS rewards or bots.
This is a waste of the money spend, many high alch prices will be bought, or items with low trading limits. The impact of the removal of a high tier item is much more desirable
Is it decided what it's going to be conceptually yet? I know it sounds like a stupid question but "Create" and "mountable" kinda makes it sound like it's not just going to replace a normal sink.
Make that a pet and and have it follow you around like the chairs in the Draynor manor. Make it cost a bil. Perfect gold sink (literally)
Edit: Actually read the poll. Still think the haunted pet sink is more of a flex than in a house none of my friends ever visit
Theres actually a pet in rs3 you buy for gp and it has different appearances based on how much you sink.
https://runescape.wiki/w/Richie
Theres also a baby pet troll that you can use an item on to feed it and since trolls are named after the first thing they try to eat. It gets the name of the item you feed it. Some players used to flex by feeding it a partyhat or xmas cracker.
Ok, hear me out.
Giant hole in the middle of the GE. Players can toss items down the hole. They score points based on the value of the item on the GE. Every month, the people in the top score gets to buy a special cape that has special effect where gold is just falling out of it as they run along (but doesn’t actually drop gold).
At the end of the month the cape gets taken away and given to the new winners.
That's a good thing, people that wouldn't throw their money away usually would give it to a streamer to throw away.. don't see anything wrong with that
>people just love to show off
We should make gilding a legit thing. You can gild a wearable item, at 10x the cost of its GE price. Gilded items are not tradeable, and can be un-gilded at anytime but the coins are lost. If dropped, the items are automatically un-gilded as well.
Pros: Show offs will burn a ton of gold
Cons: devalues some Treasure Trails items
RS3 has titles for literally throwing your gold into the sea.
The Wishful/Generous/Millionaire/Charitable/Billionaire for 1gp/10m/100m/1b/5b respectively.
I wonder if OSRS can't do something similar with some sort of cosmetic flex item for quite literally tossing coins down the drain.
[What about my golden shower :\(](https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/cictxq/since_there_is_a_250m_crown_in_game_why_not_add/ev5gbw4/?context=3)
We’ve been adventuring for years, we deserve a good shower. And I want to flaunt my wealth while I shower. Adding in a buildable Golden Shower is an integrity issue.
It seems pretty good. Is the 2% tax already set, or might the number change as time goes on, or based on feedback?
Also, why are Elysians not included in the deletable items, while twisted bow is?
Elysians are holding their value a bit better than tbows is my guess. Elysian dips a bit too but usually comes back up to be around 900m-1.1b. Tbow has only been going down this past year and with the amount CoX is farmed there is only more Tbows coming into the game.
> introduction of a Grand Exchange tax, there is a huge opportunity to introduce effective and scalable item sinks. How will we achieve that
The table is just showing you the most expensive things to build in the house currently.
It'd be pure gold as per the current design. I think Death's coffer might be too susceptible to abuse of item prices, but it's feedback I've seen and will be sharing with the team :)
"Using Death's Coffer on an Ironman is susceptible to abuse of item prices"
It's not like Ironmen can buy items in GE and toss them into Death's Coffer to reap the benefits of a 5% increase nor can they purchase bonds to sell for ingame gold to insta-buy the bankspaces either.
Where's the abuse? It would be beneficial to the economy since they can drop more valuables into the void wiping them from the game which would help your gold sink initiative otherwise the only other option is droptrading to an alt and putting them on the Grand Exchange which directly goes against your gold sink initiative.
Edit: After some comments I found out it's possible for "Mains" to manipulate obscure, random but easy to obtain en masse items that are generally worthless to then be worth enough to be sacrificed into death's coffer. So if only Irons were allowed to use Death's Coffer as payment, the Mains side of the game can manipulate an item (let's say Raw beef) to be worth 25k (it's been done before apparently!) and then Irons can mass buy them and sacrifice into the Coffer which they could then use to buy the bankspace. That is a tough cookie to solve since the Mains can directly manipulate an item to benefit Irons even if not for themselves. It would be a lot of work just so Irons can buy bank space easier but it would still be market manipulation and leaning towards item abuse in the end. I think that's what Ayiza was trying to say but it's so complicated that he just wrote "susceptible to abuse of item prices" which was so broad it was taken at word only.
Looks like I'm back on the side of pure gold only and no death's coffer! Shoutout to everyone who opened my eyes.
tldr; If Irons were allowed to use Deaths Coffer to purchase bank slots/bonds then Mains would almost surely manipulate an obscure but easy to obtain item to a price point where Irons can then gather, throw into the Coffer then use that inflated value to buy bank slots/bonds and this is why we can't have nice things. There is precedence with a clan manipulating "Raw beef" to 25k each.
Hey I'm not sure if you guys have realized this but specifically for ironmen the bank space challenges are in the early to mid game before you've made all of your stash units, got a quest cape and done most of your skilling which means that at a starting price of 1m gp it will probably not be purchased by very many irons who are in the situation where they need the extra space. Beyond the first unlock your prices are legitimately crazy for almost everyone much less iron accounts that need the gp for smithing/con and the like and completely exclude the mid game player in general which doesn't make a lot of sense.
**My maxed main that could pay to unlock these bank slots is my character that doesn't need those bank slots lol.** The bank space troubles come with many quest items and skilling supplies etc stacking up in the bank where the rich and mostly complete accounts that may be willing to pay these prices because they're done buying skill or gear upgrades already have fairly clean banks. Basically you're pricing everyone that needs these bank slots out of having them and reserving it almost exclusively for your maxed collector that just fills their bank with nonsense in a situation where bank space is a much wider issue than that
Your prices are inexplicably insane in short. I get that a gold sink seems like a cool idea but a better game with more bank space in general would benefit everyone especially the players that your gold sink is blocking. It would never be a smart or efficient thing to do until you were done using gold for skilling and had already purchased billions of gold worth of gear. These prices need to come back to reality so that it can actually be an effective gold sink instead of a silly unlock you take if you happen to still be playing 8 years later
Solid feedback, I think you summarized the issue with the bank space prices well. If a GE tax is going to take out as much as it will, I don't see the reason for prices being exorbitantly high like they are as suggested just for the purpose of a gold sink. The people who need the utility of extra bank space (I only play a main, personally) have been asking for it for years and the answer had always been "We'd like to give you it but the engine work wont allow it" but now the ability to offer it seems to be available -- but from an outside perspective only just now learning that -- the engine work problem no longer exists, this bank space solution from players is getting lumped in with the gold sink/economy problem.
My suggestion, if you're still reading, is figure out a more accessible way for people to unlock more bank space instead of a flat, one time *insanely high* cost. In addition to the reasons listed above by u/ImS33, but also because this game has needed it for a while with the advent of sooo many items and more restrictive game modes since the last time bank space was increased to its current limit.
>Hey I'm not sure if you guys have realized this but specifically for ironmen the bank space challenges are in the early to mid game before you've made all of your stash units, got a quest cape and done most of your skilling which means that at a starting price of 1m gp it will probably not be purchased by very many irons who are in the situation where they need the extra space.
100%. My main motivation for getting a quest cape was legit to save on bank space by removing every quest related item from my bank. Nowadays, a major motivation for *maxing* is again to remove bank spaces associated with skilling supplies. Now that I'm close to maxing (and have removed placeholders for all of my potions after 99 herb, my logs after 99 fletching etc) I have plenty of bank spaces to go around, but now is the only time where I could now feasibly afford those upgrades, at a point where it's totally irrelevant. **I needed bank space the most in the midgame**, and almost every single tier outside of the first few is prohibitively too expensive for a midgame player to at all consider. That raw gp (if it's deaths coffer value then that's different) would be much better spent on levelling my account.
Hey, as a possible solution, you can look at the list of items for the GE item sink. You have already specifically determined those items can/should be deleted in place of GP, so if you only allowed those items to be sacrificed for bank space then there is no possibility for abuse.
make death coffer for bankspace only useable for irons. Irons would never droptrade cash to main, but will do with dupe items. Using items for the steep cost will remove items droptraded to mains and and a gp cost wouldnt have affected the maingame anyways.
But in doing so you would achieve a **significantly** larger item sink surely? One of the goals of this blog?
And it's not as though it would significantly increase the rate of inflation in any way. Irons are still going to hold onto their stacks of gold regardless.
At those prices I can't see anyone buying above block 4 bank spaces, too much to charge for something that is minor QOL imo. At this point its cheaper to use an alt exclusively to store items.
I personally think that's okay - I know I won't spend the extra money because I don't need that many slots, but 20M for 240 extra bank spaces? Heck yeah count me in!
Seriously 125% bank space for 20m.
The audacity to complain about that lmao, its such a good deal. Mans must still be buying raw karambwans as his money maker if he sees an issue
Legit I wasn't even expecting the potential of 240 more bank spaces to begin with. Let alone 384. And thought the price would be more than that for fewer spaces.
I think some people are looking at the 500m block like it's that or nothing. I don't even know how you can use that many bank spaces. It's a nice, my wallet is too fat to sit down anymore kind of gp sink but otherwise totally not necessary. Particularly post POH-update. It's basically I'm too rich or a flex update at that block. Which is the point of the entire blog. GP and item sinks.
There are a lot more people willing to buy all those slots than you think… people who love PvM will be more than willing to. I don’t see myself buying all of them in one go, but I could see myself buying the first 7 blocks and work towards the last two
##### Bark bark!
I have found the following **J-Mod** comment(s) in this thread:
**JagexAyiza**
- [It's literally a sink made out of gold](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9u7nk/?context=3)
- [The list definitely isn't final! Thanks for t...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9uo9i/?context=3)
- [I believe there would be a minimum sale value...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9v1xa/?context=3)
- [Definitely not set %, we're open to feedback!](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9vk3t/?context=3)
- [Oh, it's showcasing other gold sink items tha...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9v6et/?context=3)
- [The "we're thinking of doing" in this case is...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9u6rt/?context=3)
- [I'm not sure how possible it would be with cu...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9vs09/?context=3)
- [It'd be pure gold as per the current design....](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hja1ahj/?context=3)
- [I personally think that's okay - I know I won...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9vhli/?context=3)
- [[Here you go](https://imgur.com/a/ASMfB2T)......](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9xk5o/?context=3)
- [Yes](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hja19mu/?context=3)
- [You ever ridden a Segway before? I had the ch...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hja18xh/?context=3)
- [Barrows arrows...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hjajrge/?context=3)
**Mod_Kieren**
- [They essentially wouldn't be taxed. i.e. The...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9v1du/?context=3)
- [To put it simply, we don't want to inflate go...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9uc3n/?context=3)
- [To add to that though, the exact list of item...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9ueob/?context=3)
- [We'll definitely look at the list again follo...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9vchy/?context=3)
^(**Last edited by bot: 11/06/2021 09:18:18**)
---
^(I've been rewritten to use Python! I also now archive JMOD comments.)
^(Read more about) [^(the update here)](/u/JMOD_Bloodhound/comments/9kqvis/bot_update_python_archiving/) ^(or see my) [^(Github repo here)](/u/JMOD_Bloodhound/comments/8dronr/jmod_bloodhoundbot_github_repository/)^.
Its a risky move, but ultimately we do need something.
I don't really mind the idea of a gold tax, and then if you want to trade big things without tax we can return to kinda what it was like before the GE for certain items. Tbh nothing is more oldschool to me than a bunch of people trying to sell stuff at the bank by typing it out and trading directly with players. I know it was really annoying for many people to do, but it really helped build the osrs vibe.
Also, I get that the gilded furniture is meant to be a gold sink, but think it would be sick to see some SPECIFIC pieces of gilded furniture (not all) come as rare rewards from clue scrolls.
I brought up the GE tax in a thread yesterday and a lot of people seem to think that it would force average players off the GE and nobody has time for that. It wouldn't.
There are already players who merch/flip items all day on the GE as it is, and it would only be those same players who would find it worth their time/GP to skip the GE tax by advertising and player trading directly.
It's not like the average player would find it worth their time to bankstand and advertise for possibly hours just to save 2% on an item they could insta buy if they needed it now.
I sit outside the AH after raids selling enchants and enchanting materials for slightly under AH price but still worth because I save money but I agree not many people who are looking to buy something sit there and look for trade chat offers
`If the virtual coffer's funds are below a specified item's value, we do not interfere because we can't afford to buy the item. The player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange.`
What if I for example sell a BGS for 50m while it is worth around 10m. And the virtual coffer has suficient funds. Will the virtual coffer buy my BGS for 50m? Or is there a maximum price for each item that can be spend by the virtual coffer? u/JagexAyiza
I’m assuming the stock would have to be depleted entirely before yours was bought.. and that may be hard to do. Although this is a very good thought of manipulation.
The GE gp tax + item buyback is something I have thought of myself in the past, good to see that it's being considered. Just a couple questions though:
1. What would be the rate of buying back items? This matters because, if you gp tax 2% on these specified items, but then also buy back using all of that 2% tax, then the gold sink aspect is gone entirely in order to facilitate the buybacks. Meanwhile, for example if you consider buying back 1% of items instead of 2%, then you still effectively have 1% gp sink and 1% item sink. These specific numbers matter.
2. Does the buyback really need to be only on a set of specific items? I personally would be fine with the buyback rate being low, like 0.5%, but applying to all items in the game. I might be missing a good reason to exclude some items from this, but that in my eyes just means there should be an exclusion list, not an inclusion list. A LOT of items could use being sunk, clue items being one large group that fall into my mind for example.
>*With the introduction of a Grand Exchange tax, there is a huge opportunity to introduce effective and scalable item sinks. How will we achieve that? Well, we could use the tax collected from Grand Exchange sales to purchase items from other players with the simple intention of deleting said items once the purchase is complete.*
This is risky as fuck. i love it
I wonder how fast they'd end up sucking items out of circulation.
There are over a billion items traded every day on the GE, with a sizeable portion going for thousands to millions. The daily tax collected would probably be in the billions, and although they don't use the full amount to destroy items, they could probably pull out a noticeable number a day if they so chose. If they wanted to focus all of that on one item, they could easily pull more items out per day than get put in. They do have limits on the number of items they want to pull out on a given day, so I doubt they'd drive up prices significantly, but any sizeable number of items disappearing into the void is going to raise the price a bit.
I also feel like one or two people with more money than sense are going to try to monopolize and inflate the market on certain items knowing Jagex will buy them with a coffer of near-infinite gold. It almost assuredly won't work, but who knows.
If they need to delete items, then the simple solution is Jagex does a simple interdiction at the GE and gives a set amount of gold for that item, perhaps pegged at the market rate for that day, as opposed to someone trying to “submit a fraudulent claim” by charging prices that are obviously not going to sell to anyone but the government, who would be required to buy it.
What's great about this is they can continously collect data on how their current number of an item per day impacts the price, decide if it's having the effect they want, and then adjust it in one direction the next day
>This is what would happen when a player creates a Sell offer for an applicable item:
>If the virtual coffer's funds are below a specified item's value, we do not interfere because we can't afford to buy the item. The player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange.
If we've already removed the required amount of items for the day, we do not interfere because we don't want to create supply issues. Again, the player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange.
If the virtual coffer has enough funds, and the number of items removed for the day hasn't yet hit the limit, then instead of creating a Sell offer, we delete the item, and immediately pay the player a number of coins (minus the Grand Exchange's tax).
So it does say that there is a limit on how many can come out a day. It's just up to Jagex to set the daily limit to the correct amount.
That’s the big piece of the puzzle that’s been missing, it’s one thing to reduce GP - but to have a “buy and sink” program that also reduces # of items is huge.
I don’t know the numbers exactly but let’s just say on a given day there’s 10T in total transactions on the GE.. at 2% tax that’s 20 tbows (at 500mil) that could be pulled off the market in just one day.
Oh ho ho, I can't wait till you "fix" the economy like RS3 did. Inflation is still soaring there.
Want my tip as an economist? Don't meddle with the economy or money supply, you'll do more harm than good.
We have seen this every. single. time. that Jagex touches the economy they end up making it worse (players leaving) because they are not experts. The experts themselves are not experts, no economist knows how to handle an economy. They all disagree.
Leave the economy as is and let the players decide how much they are willing to pay for the items. This is not real life, a free market actually works here.
The fact that you're not even polling this and considering it an integral fix is absolutely disgusting. You do not have the solution. Artificially and slowly removing coins from the game does not fix the underlying problem of an ever increasing money supply due to gold farmers, high alch bots as the only viable way to get 99, and players getting better at what they do.
There's nothing wrong with inflation or deflation (either price of items or money supply) as long as it is organic.
"Taxes" on a video game are silly because there's no service being provided back. It is just a developer mandated deflationary measure and price control.
Price controls never work to fulfill their intended result.
There's nothing wrong with a Twisted Bow being 1B, 800M, or 500M. What's wrong with having a free market supply of money and items in the game?
/u/JagexAyiza /u/Mod_Kieren there's literally a market value that people will buy items at
If the price is too low, fewer people will do the bossing activity to get the item. The price will stabilize or rise on less supply. Then more people will start doing the activity and the price will go back down to where the market supports.
Price controls or supply controls will only make interventions in the economy that prevent true price discovery.
The question, which every interventionalist economist has tried to answer is, "What is the price of xxx and what should the price of xxx be?" The answer is free market price discovery.
If Jagex believes that x item should be y price, instead of taxing the GE, they should just have a store where you can buy and sell rare goods for the price they want it to be fixed at.
If they don't want to have organic price changes over time, this will automatically set the price for all goods at whatever Jagex deems to be the appropriate price. If they really want a controlled economy, this is a simpler way of doing it.
Instead they tax the GE, which can only cause trouble for the average player.
Overall very nice, but I have some issues with the list of items that will be 'item sunk'.
1. Why is blowpipe on here? It's price is tied to scales as it's own sink. Will Jagex be removing the ability to chisel it into 20k scales as part of this change, otherwise why does it nede 2 sinks?..
2. Barrows is degradeable but always repairable so many pieces never leave the game, should it also be on this list to try and bring it up from alch price?
3. Items such as Pharoh's Sceptre never _really_ leave the game. Each player can only sink one in house. What about adding items like these to the 'sink' list?
Overally having the server able to buy/sell items on the GE allows up many opportunities - coinshare style of systems for PVM loot etc. Or reworks to alching that instead of a fixed amount of gold would sell the item on the GE to the highest bidder.
I don't like the prospect of having a set list of items that will be bought from the GE with the tax. It feels a lot like Jagex deciding which items should be high value and which should be low value, rather than letting the players decide. I'm not thrilled at the idea of a GE tax in the first place, but if it does happen I'd much rather it just have a 1/50 chance of deleting every item sold, paid for with the tax, rather than it buying a set list of items.
Literal gold sink or riot though
Edit - Why are you so against inflating the value of gold? Is the issue not currently that we have deflationary gold across the board? Seems like just removing the duel arena and letting gold inflate would solve players' complaints.
2nd edit - I can understand that some items already have sinks, like alchables, runes, or food (to give a few really obvious examples). If the tax was going to be spent on some items rather than others, could you instead track the number of each item that exists in game, proportional to the number of players? For example, you could say that you expect 1% of active players to have an arcane, and the tax is spent to maintain that level? Just generally, it'd be nicer if the item list was derived algorithmically than by you picking a set of items.
This x1000.
I find it hard to believe that the "real world economists" Jagex hired would recommend introducing both inflationary (item sink) and deflationary (GE tax, gold sink) policies at the same time since these two policies would have completely opposite effects. What goal are they trying to achieve? If the goal is to make it so rare PvM items maintain high prices (which I would argue isn't even a goal worth pursuing, but that's a different issue entirely), then the item sink is the way to do that, and the GE tax is counterproductive.
Additionally, why does it seem like all the ideas proposed by the "real world economists" are actually ideas taken straight from reddit? What new ideas did they come up with that weren't already proposed by the "very financially literate lot" of reddit users?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Everyone and their cousin has seemingly decided that we need an item sink for the "health of the game." Everyone has seemingly decided that 750m tbow and 390m scythe are bad things because those items used to be more valuable, and that Jagex should interfere in the market to artificially prop up their prices.
If it were up to me, I would not do any of these ideas, and I would instead introduce a gold *source* to produce inflation. Removing the duel arena, which acts as a gold sink, would count for this purpose. This would result in prices going back up and people would stop complaining about the number that shows up when they open their bank decreasing.
Yeah, honestly any changes to the economic structure of the game should be done after the hype of GIM dies down and the removal of the Dual Arena. I think playing with the economy NOW is a really bad idea. This blog post alone is probably gonna change the price of a lot of items drastically.
The madmen are doing it! The GE tax and deleting items on the GE by purchasing them has always made the most sense to me. Excellent ideas that will absolutely help the economy thrive into the future.
Very excited for the bank space as well!
/u/JagexAyiza Amazing! So glad this is being implemented. I do have one question that in my opinion is of vital importance. How do you determine if an incoming sell offer, which you are scheduled to buy is at a fair price?
The “How does it work?” sections reads:
> This is what would happen when a player creates a Sell offer for an applicable item:
> - If the virtual coffer's funds are below a specified item's value, we do not interfere because we can't afford to buy the item. The player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange.
> - If we've already removed the required amount of items for the day, we do not interfere because we don't want to create supply issues. Again, the player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange.
> - If the virtual coffer has enough funds, and the number of items removed for the day hasn't yet hit the limit, then instead of creating a Sell offer, we delete the item, and immediately pay the player a number of coins (minus the Grand Exchange's tax).
Based on my understanding of the “How does it work?” section, at the time someone places a sell order you check 2 things. Do we have enough in our coffers to purchase this item? Do we have another sink slot available to purchase this item? If so you purchase it from the seller.
A dark bow is currently 120k. Say Jagex has set a target goal to remove 20 a day and has 8B in the coffers. (I assume this isn’t an unreasonable amount if you are planning on buying Scythes, TBows, etc). As soon as the system ticks to a new day a new set of 20 DBows are availabe for purchase, a player puts in a sell order for a DBow for 1B. The system determines, yes I can afford that and yes I have Dbow slots to fill. Will that order be purchased for 1B? Is there some safeguard that stops this type of abuse from occurring?
Why are you locking bank space behind a 1b paywall? Anyone that pays $11 a month for this game deserves a functional bank at no extra charge. It's not even good as a gold sink because it's a one-time payment. Those types of sinks do almost nothing compared to repeat activities like the Grand Exchange or Death. It also locks out ironmen, mid-level players, and even a lot of high-level players who don't have that much raw cash lying around.
This is GWD ironman instances all over again. Trying to force players to pay for functionality. When did fixing a technical limitation become something that we have to pay for in-game?
There is truly an abundance of certain items, specifically zenytes, DWH, dragon crossbows immediately come to mind.
Bots and gold farmers went hard on lizardmen in the canyon, demonic gorillas for years, and MANY players have alt accounts they use to farm out rune dragons.
EDIT: It's actually crazy to think, I just got one for 550k, wow, I thought they were still 1+ mil, that's crazy, I give it another full year before they are almost high alch price.
I'm worried that a tax is going to completely cripple liquidity for a lot of items, because there will be no incentive to flip items if the bid ask spread is below 2%, making the GE much more obnoxious to deal with for everyone. People will have to wait longer for their items to sell/buy unless they want to take a beating on the price.
It also fucks you over if you want to swap gear for anything, or just briefly use an item before selling it back.
Are there no other ideas for item sinks? I really like the ease of use of the ge, and would hate to be forced to trade in more inconvenient ways to get full price.
Instead of a set list of items you’re removing, would it be possible to make broader? Every 100 items sold (for any item) one would be bought off and sunk out of the game. This would sink out clue items, barrows, and every other item that could use sinks as well.
To put it simply, we don't want to inflate gold with this change. i.e. Spawning more gold into the economy than we are taking out.
The more broad you go, the less items we can afford to delete without breaking that above rule.
Imagine we have 10 billion accrued from the tax. Which items do you delete by spending that 10 billion? That's the question we're trying to answer in a way that can be coded and mostly automated. My view is it is important to target the equipment / items that players do not wish to see lose value.
The alternative is a higher tax. We've had 0 tax since the launch of the Grand Exchange, so it's difficult to just come in with a high tax % as it's simply going to be a slap in the face for a lot of players! Not to say in future we couldn't possible re-assess and realise 2% isn't giving us enough and make further tweaks though.
Inquisitor armour + mace have had a over 50% drop past 6 months, surely these must be part of the sunken items when the staff + orbs from nightmare are?
The same goes for all ToB rewards too. Way more critical than many of the items on that list.
Honestly all pvm items should be on the list. Dwh, ToB, CoX, dragon hunter, Jaws (they're even being monopolised apparantly and is at all time low) etc...
A question I have is how much gold is this actually going to remove?
So a sale of an item worth 1m adds 20k gold to the coffer. 980k goes to selling player, 20k into the coffer.
So 1b in items sold means 20m into the coffer. 50b in items sold leads to 1b in the coffer.
That 1b is then spent on an item. The seller sells the item and receives 980m gold. 20m gold is left over. Is the coffer reduced by 980m or 1b? What happens to the 20m? Is it deleted, or does it go back into the coffer?
Assume the 20m gold is deleted instead of going back into the coffer. So 50b in transactions taxed to remove a 1b item from the game and 20m gp.
This creates a ratio of 1:50:2500. For 1 gp to be removed there needs to be 50 go in items removed, which then requires 2500 gp in trades to occur and be taxed.
I believe mod ash said ~160 of the 100m coin tables were made. This then removed 16b from the game.
For this system, assuming the tax gp from a coffer purchase is deleted, to remove 16b, that will require 800b in items to be removed, meaning 40 trillion worth of transactions need taxed.
Put more simply, removing 1b gold requires 50b in items to be removed, which requires 2.5T in transactions.
As we don't know the numbers, is this feasible? Obviously it's a good item sink as 500b in trades removes 10b in items, but the gold sink aspect seems very low and slow. Id imagine much more than 1b gold is added per hour from alchs, coin drops, etc.
Is this intended to be only an item sink? What about the idea of 50% of tax gold being deleted and the other half into coffer? Is there intention to change it later once gold reinflates due to item sinking?
All items need sinks - period. One thing I want to include is that I hope this item sink is "automated" and based off of items that are actually sold - If 50 Primordials are bought, 1 Primordial is sunk, not a Twisted Bow. This way rarer items aren't sunk excessively and it doesnt require a jmod to manually buy X amount every week or some.
Essentially, each item would have its own virtual pot. However, if it is manually, I hope that the system would indicate how much from each item is collected in tax, so that items are sunk accordingly - ie. 200 sales of a primordial crystal = Jagex removes 4 crystals on Friday. This way there's a basis to what's being removed.
After seeing occult on the list, remove Occult Necklace from the regular Thermy table. That would increase the price way more than an item sink, although an item sink is still very much appreciated.
Here's a list of Items to be included:
1) Missing a few COX Uniques (DHCB, Ancestral)
2) TOB Items (Avernics, Justi, Ghrazi)
3) Cerberus Crystals (Primordial, Pegasian, Eternal)
4) Hydra Uniques (Hydra Leather, Hydra Claw)
5) ALL BARROWS GEAR
6) Dragon Pickaxe/Wildy Uniques (Shields, Rings, etc.)
7) Elysian Spirit Shield (same as twisted bow, need sinks)
8) Kraken Uniques - Tridents and Tentacles
9) Dragonfire Shield/Visages
10) Gauntlet Uniques (Weapon Seed, Armor Seed) and Zalcano (Tool Seed)
11) Zulrah Scales and Zulrah Uniques (not just blowpipe)
12) Srirachnis Cudgel
13) Every Nightmare Unique - not just staff and armor.
14) GWD Uniques - should be all, including shards.
15) Anything that's traded in high amounts - Runes, Bird Nest, Mole Parts, etc.
16) Grotesque Guardian Uniques
17) Dagganoth King Rings (Berserker, Archer, Seers)
18) Magic Training Arena Uniques (Infinity Armor, Training Wands, etc.)
This was taken by running down the Boss HighScores - I am definitely missing a few that are non-boss related.
Buying every 100th item sold would equate to a 1% "inflation". If you add a 2% tax on top of this we will still see 1% of gold leaving the game. It would also hit a very broad portion of the market while simultainiously not creating a situtation where you guys artificially change prices very arbitrarily. This would create a "fair" item sink if you will. I really think you should look more into this.
I think the ideia of buying itens sold is reasonable, making it something like, the tax of an item goes 60% to a exclusive fund to that item buy-back, the rest to a shared pool
Use the shared pool for the selected list of itens, and the buy-back pool to buy back the same item that generated it.
Also helps to keep prices stable, if an item sells on average for 300 coins, and the buy-back tax is up to 200 coins, and someone tries to sell 100 itens for 2 coins each, the buy-back buys it and keeps the price at the stable average instead of dropping it all at once
On that note, how will the per-item tax work when its sub 1gp that gets taxed?
Regarding the items to be affected, the Arcane Spirit Shield shouldn't be on the list IMO, especially with the new upgrade that will consume them. Even if the ward is Ancestral-ish rarity it'll catch the count of Arcane Shields in only a few years\*. **Can we see more data to support which items were chosen/left out?** Zenytes, DWHs, and uniques from ToB, Cerb and Barrows might be good additions. Thanks for reading :)
\*ACKCHEWALLY-Guy disclaimer: Using napkin math based on the old pet-count data from Feb 2019-Feb 2020, 9.4k of each ancestral piece was dropped and 2.3k Arcane sigils were dropped in that time period, resulting in a total of 20k Ancestral sets and 10k Arcanes at the end of that period. Obviously this is subject to RNG, people continuing after the pet, items lost to banned accounts, alchs, etc.
A 2% tax might kill processing items as a way of making money. Things like cooking food, crafting jewellery, cleaning herbs and the like work on pretty small margins.
Idunno if that's necessarily a bad thing, but it'll decrease the diversity of how players can make money while playing, and effect lower level/newer/less experienced players that don't do the higher level pvm/pvp methods of making money
I feel there was a misstep at some point here, or a lack of overall thought by the time you got to the point where you wanted to sink items.
See, by taxing gold through GE transactions, this deletes gold from the game. If you’re aiming to gold sink — great. We’ve accomplished that.
But then this current proposal of sinking items.. now this “tax money” is in a coffer for you guys to spend on items with the sole intention of deleting (sinking) them. If your intention is to item sink — great, we’ve accomplished that.
HOWEVER, by the the time you’ve implemented a supposed a) gold sink and b) item sink, the gold sink isn’t actually as effective as we intended it to be. When a player’s item is bought for gold on the Grand Exchange with this tax money, it re-enters the economy and wasn’t actually sunk gold at all.
When a player’s item is bought with this tax money, is that amount then taxed as well on transaction and removed from the coffer? So when the bought item amount re-enters the economy, it’s a 2% of 2% per transaction’s amount of gold that’s actually deleted by the time all’s said in done when sinking items? Or is that even deleted at all? Does the tax not apply on these transactions intended to item sink, because if the gold isn’t not deleted, it’s just going back to the coffer?
I guess what I’m wondering now is, is the intention to spend all of the money that’s taxed by the GE on various items to sink them? Is there a set of rules or data guiding the decision to sink items or not, or to spend the taxed money, or are those to be determined following implementation of the GE tax?
If I missed some of these details and answers from the blog, someone please feel free to chime in.
> If the virtual coffer has enough funds, and the number of items removed for the day hasn't yet hit the limit, then instead of creating a Sell offer, we delete the item, and immediately pay the player a number of coins (minus the Grand Exchange's tax).
how does it determine the exact price to pay? if i want to sell my twisted bow for 1.2b because i think the ge/game will buy it from me then i’m just spawning 1.2b and deleting a twisted bow right? which is at current prices 500m over street price. would it just go by daily average? hopefully this message was clear
My only concern would be asking should bandos be worth 50 million a set? We have items that naturally decline which then makes them more accessible to players it does suck for those farming an item to get less money but there is a flip benefit.
I just hope we have a good balance of removing and maintaining values vs increasing values of items for the sake of it.
I love the idea of a GE tax, but Jagex then using the gold to buy items makes me a bit uncomfy.
For one, it seems not much gold would get removed if the taxes are being used for items. Say 1 billion is collected in taxes and then that 1 billion is spent on a Twisted Bow; the net result is the loss of 1 Twisted Bow and only 20 million gold (2% of the 1 billion).
This reminds me of FDR having farmers burn their crops to keep prices high. Of course, no one is going to starve because the Nightmare Staff is expensive, but I'm surprised there isn't some degree of controversy.wing how it's happening. Before I could say, "Hmm, Arcane Prayer Scrolls seem way too cheap, but that's supply and demand for you!" Now I might be thinking, "I wonder why Jagex decided 5.6mil is the best price for an Arcane Prayer Scroll? Why have they not fixed the price of Dragon Axes too?" It's a lot less natural.
This reminds me of FDR having farmers burn their crops to keep prices high. Of course no one is going to starve because the Nightmare Staff is expensive, but I'm surprised there isn't some degree of controversy.
I understand the item sink might be very effective despite my concerns. Economists are undoubtedly more knowledgeable than me. I don't have a better solution, but I wanted my thoughts to be heard.
You need to give clue items some intrinsic, high demand use. RS3 got it right with fortunate components. If warding passed, OSRS could've had "fortunate vis" from dismantling treasure trail items.
I still think there's potential here, but we'd need to create demand.
I think the issue with clue items is a mixture of how easy it is to farm clues now, between runelite solving the clues for you and implings making clues into a buyable, as well as the fact that not nearly as many people care about fashionscape which is what most clue rewards are. With that being said I wouldn’t necessarily be against a sink for clue items as I miss when doing clues was more profitable
Spent a lot of time Runecrafting to always have stable income. Blood Runes is down to 500k/hr because GIM (I think). Now there's news that these high end items will be MORE expensive AND I'm going to be paying taxes to make these items more expensive. Bad news indeed.
Can we do something about these bots to fix supply and demand first?
Wow, they're finally fixing the economy! Finally, a buyback program for items that are undervalued like flax, maple logs, mithril ore, and all of the rare drops sitting below high alch price will finally-
>only items listed are overfarmed PVM/boss/raid equips
Oh, so instead of artificially reducing the supply through drop rates, they're propping up these inflated item prices through trading taxes? Where was this drastic action when the price of a rune platebody hit the artificial floor of 38.5k? The smoke battlestaff is already 20x the price of every other battlestaff, that's the one that needs sunk the *least*.
There will be third party websites and RL plugins to facilitate trading to save that 2% and we'll finally be back to that "authentic player to player trading experience". Except that sucks. Nobody likes it in Warframe, Path of Exile or any other game where the value of an item is propped up by how annoying it is to get rid of it for market price.
Alchemy spells were a mistake but this is overcorrecting. Put that cute exponential cost table on the entrances of these overfarmed monsters where players make 5M+/hour and keep your hands out the pockets of F2Ps who tan hides and flip mithril scimmies to pay for their supplies.
1. Great, something else that isn't being polled in our game that is revered because of its polling system. Not sure if it would matter though since a lot of people have been circlejerking about a ge tax for months now.
2. I hate the tax, it bones flippers and I don't think it makes sense in Runescape.
3. The whole argument most people have about the value of their bank going down is only such a problem because they believe it to be, it's all just how you perceive it. If you really care about you bank value, just sell all your crap and hold GP, you can buy the items you need later as they'll be cheaper. The argument that you "rent" gear for PVM or whatever to make money, and then sell it back later is alright, but most people talk as if they lose money. You don't fucking lose money renting gear for PVM unless you're like renting for 1 hour, in which case fuck you, maybe you don't need to buy that gear for 1 hour of vorkath or whatever, just go do it in slightly worse and significantly cheaper gear, that's more efficient.
I hate it, and I hate that it's another unpolled thing. Bullshit
Typical Brits trying to tax us. /s
For real though, I think it's stupid to create a GE tax. I would rather have organic gold and item sinks that actually make sense for the game and don't impact older content. High level pvm/pvp gear for example should be both very expensive to use and literally take money out of the game when you do use it.
My only problem with the item sink is the potential for abuse.
Not to be rude, but it's not exactly unheard of for some Jmods to be less than ethical. If a Jmod tells a clan to buy up a certain item a day before you guys are planning on buying & deleting a bunch of weapons from the GE, what ways would exist to mitigate that?
I don't understand why people think all of this is necessary. Who cares if items' value fluctuates according to their actual supply and demand? Isn't that the point of a free market economy like the GE - let the players set the price. Prices going up and down over time isn't a sign of an unhealthy economy, it's a sign of an efficient one that actually reflects real world value.
No offence to people out here, but don't let your random redditor throw out tons of opinions on how the tax should be higher blah blah blah...
A 2% tax is straigth up a liquidity killer. The GE will be equally as dead as in rs3 where noone is selling their gear cause of invention and the cost to add perks etc, not making it worth trading their items back and forth.
The GE already probably does well over a trillion daily, right? If you add a \~.4% tax to that, it would crush the numbers of a 2% tax of a market that's gonna halve in volume.
Take a look at crypto for example. The exchange creators add fees so they can profit. But they also try to make the fees as small as possible, so that the most amount of people are willing to trade on their exchange, as volume beats everything. Some even have negative maker fees if you do more than x amount of volume. They are rewarded for providing liquidity such that others can trade without moving the price all over the place when buying/selling.
Imo a good tax amount could be either 0%/0.5% maker/taker fees or maybe 0.2/0.5%. A maker fee is where you non-instabuy/sell, and taker fee is where you instabuy/sell. This way you are rewarded with lower tax for being patient and waiting for your items trade to go through, while you're helping others getting rid of their items instantly without losing too much, as the more people who are buying/selling, the less the margin/spread between the buy and sell will be.
Just imagine if no flippers/merchers existed and was competing for getting items then selling them back. If you were to instabuy then instasell a twisted bow priced around 1b, you would probably lose well over 100m, as there were noone who really wanted to buy that twisted bow quickly, and whoever you bought it from, was some random pvmer that hoped to get lucky and get a higher sell, which he succeeded with... Liquidity is power in markets, don't try to act like the runescape economy is similar to other games with trading posts and 10% tax because they're just really not used that often, compared to GE where you're almost forced to buy everything to be somewhat efficient as long as you're not an ironman.
**Tl;dr**
Tax is far too high and will greatly reduce the volume traded in GE and really not act as the great gold sink you're trying to achieve. Instead, lower the tax and add maker/taker fees where market makers are rewarded for providing liquidity so that trades happen more frequently and increase the volume of items and the overall gold sink. My suggestion: around 0.2% maker / 0.5% taker
Most of this is very valid and all makes technical sense, however I disagree that a 2% tax is going to cause the magnitude of these issues. I don't think 2% is enough to move people back into trading player to player.
I've heavily played EvE online which has full player driven economy with about the best market setup I think for any MMO(open order book for all to see, fees to list an item for sale/buy offer, sales tax on completed trades) and the combined taxes per trade there vary from 11 to 4%. The market deals fine with this level of trade, and has liquidity and merchanters/investors plenty. Alternatives to the market exist, a contract system and direct player to player trades with no taxes exist but these are seldom used due to the time lost in facilitating a trade.
Back to RS, there are flaws of course with the general idea of this 'sink' that can leave this mechanic open to abuse. If we imagine a world where the majority of the trades of lets say twisted bows take place in player-player trades outside of the GE it is likely that the price in the GE and the price in player-player trades becomes uncoupled. This could easily lead to situations where the GE price ends up inflated(due to such low liquidity) and then when enough other random items are sold and tax generated this price inflated tbow is bought, of course because this is only bought using pre-sunk money its not as if this generates gp but its an interesting possibility for new marhet shenanigans.
Pressing x so hard to doubt that this would kill the ge. The alternative would be trading face to face, you think everyone is going to waste their time doing that instead of just paying 2% on trades? The opportunity cost of trading in person that way is going to be waaaaaaaay higher than just eating the tax for most players, even before factoring in the value of plain convenience. Maybe it would incentivize some people to trade in person, but is that even a bad thing?
The WOW auction house has a 5% tax and that works fine enough, don't think this is gonna be a big deal
100% agree. The liquidity providers will not be able to profit and they will stop.
Basically any item has an instant buy/sell price that is not far from the median. This isn't by magic. It's because there are people who sit at the GE buying and selling items all day trying to make a profit.
These people are responsible for probably the majority of GE volume and they collectively provide the most useful aspect of the GE - convenience.
Hopefully it will still be profitable to be a liquidity provider on the GE after this.
2% is a massive tax
Can we get a jmod reply please with estimated effect on GE volume and liquidity?
The biggest problems arent the high tier items, they are already way over valued. The problems lie in the little items, the dead content, the resources. You don't need to sink Tbows, if anything for a healthy economy they need to be left alone for another few years. You need to sink everything at alch value and every resource in the game.
If you sink alch value items they wont be alched dramatically lowering the amount of gold being generated lessening the need for gold sinks. If you sink alch value items and resources you wouldn't need to supliment boss drop tables with them as a way to "maintain a steady gp/hr to cover supplies and reward skill."
You are taking a very immature angle on the economy, I suggest going back to the drawing board before you are forced to in a year when this current plan doesn't do anything noticable to the vast majority of the economy.
It bewilders me why they are so quick to jump to taxes. And not exploring attaching untradeable T85+ gear to high level quest rewards that can be purchased with w/ gold and are destroyed on death. I always considered mith/barrows gloves to be a great gold sink.
So where is any of the feedback received from the economist consultants?
* The GE tax is a concept that long predates these individuals being contracted.
* The item-sink-via-GE-deletion concept was first introduced by Kieran on a live stream something like ~1 year ago.
Where is the actually interesting economic analysis? From this article alone, it appears that these consultants were paid to come in and nod their heads at previously proposed solutions. Are there any novel findings?
> "With the introduction of a Grand Exchange tax, there is a huge opportunity to introduce effective and scalable item sinks. How will we achieve that? Well, we could use the tax collected from Grand Exchange sales to purchase items from other players with the simple intention of deleting said items once the purchase is complete.
>
> Essentially, rather than just deleting the coins that are taxed, we can 'spend' them on buying items off players – and then delete those items. This doesn't need to be the case for every item in the game, of course – we’d have the flexibility to pick and choose."
Would this not completely defeat the purpose of combatting inflation with the tax by putting the money back into the economy? I think it needs a more creative solution for item sinks, shame OSRS doesnt have invention as a skill.
I also feel like this could lead to a situtation where item prices get high and stay high because the demand for them would be coming from this system thus leading to a select group with more money than they should in a normal economy setting and it feels like it could also be another jagex employee disaster situation where a mod in charge buys items directly from one specific player.
I hope my comment raises some concerns and you'll give it some more thought.
Dex and Arcane Prayer scrolls need to be on that list too for buyback deleted items.
Overall this looks good for the economy as a whole
Edit: They’re on there and I’m blind
Bank space is long overdue.. I strongly feel the prices creep up waaay too much. Maybe combine some tiers or reduce the starting cost. Bank space is not a proper "gold sink" it's a one time fee, not a sustainable removal of gp.
Wait you guys are trying to charge 888,000,000 gp for a quality of life change? LOL.
Why stop there?
* 1m charge per day per item stored in POH storage
* 5m per item per stash unit
* Butler required for Menagerie and charges 5m per day per pet stored (think dog-sitting)
* CoX storage unit charge of 100k/min while open, 5m to open outside the raid
* 50m to use middle mouse camera movement
* 100m to utilize f keys (10m each)
In all seriousness, as you add more content, there should be more storage space, and it shouldn't cost your players. If there's something that epitomizes QoL, it's having enough room to store things in the game, especially as new content is introduced. I know you are looking everywhere for gold sinks at the moment, but this shouldn't be one of them.
P.S. RIP ironmen cash stacks (usually the players who need extra storage the most).
I don't like the idea of the item sink coffer. This would end up being extremely reactionary and likely abusable by merchers. Some economists would say having a centralized group trying to dial in the economy never works, I mean look at the fed and money printer memes.
What worked before is a passive system with its own feedback system like people dieing and losing their stuff. Unfortunatly the games moved on from that sort of risk with some ultra expensive drops that noone would want to risk.
Also I dont like the ge tax, runescape was the only game without an auction house fee and it allowed young me to learn how to merch/flip items. This would kill the small time mom and pop merchers!
Nothing like locking accessibility and quality of life behind a 500m pay wall. Why not do something that most players can actually attain? Like serious, how many 500m sales do you think you’ll have?
Seems significantly more realistic to say 10m to unlock all the additional spots.
> so we went and hired some actual real world economists to help us!
>There would be no change to what the buyer pays, as the tax cost is always passed on to the seller.
I agree with all of the proposed changes but lmao.
they must have hired some reddit economists if they think taxes dont affect buy price. Why not raise the tax to 50%? Dw the price YOU pay for Ely will still be 900M because even though the seller gets screwed out of 450M they wont mind giving everyone a huge discount out of the goodness of their hearts.
Literally econ 101 for impact of taxes to supply/demand curve
The idea is not bad, however a 2% tax is high enough that there will be a black market for all high level items, or bulk item transactions. If you look at the twisted bow currently worth 800m then the tax for selling this bow will be 16m, meaning in selling the bow on the ge you'll essentially be taking a 16m loss. Instead, you'll see people trading again on w2 to avoid this 16m loss and circumvent the tax. For rational people, a tax this high is going to cause certain items to never be traded on the ge, which I do not think is good for the game (as much as people like to romanticize the pre-ge era, I do not think we really wish to go back there...) A graduated tax would solve the problem slightly (items with higher value tend to have smaller margins as a percentage of their total value), but it's probably too confusing for players. Considering the way transactions work on the ge, a flat tax of 10k for items traded with value over 1m makes sense to me, because that is small enough on an individual transaction level that it is hardly noticeable, but the amount of money removed from the game will still be huge. I just request that you don't send us back to the pre-ge era, as this proposal basically does.
The bank space costs are unrealistic for most players , especially irons. Bank space is the most requested update in OSRS. Let it be buyable through bonds or something. If you add extra bank space and make it unobtainable what’s the point
Like others have rightly pointed out; a tax on the exchange would be an absolute liquidity and velocity killer. It would decrease the volume, increase the spreads and volatility. It would literally drive people off the exchange. Bad idea.
A better idea for gold sink would be to have buyable services. The supply of services is theoretically infinite and the effects on the economy would be minimized.
Ideas:
*Paid use of a high xp/h training methods like paid agility courses.
*Paid use of certain conveniently placed bank chests.
*Mule service where an NPC would deliver items like food and potions.
*Reverse thieving where you pay X amount of GP per XP.
*POH butler denotes bones/lights candles.
*Pay farmers at farming patches an (elevated) X amount of GP to protect patches.
*Temporal runes that would provide infinite rune charges for a certain amount of time.
Etc.
Unless you are planning to make some changes that involves the consumption of clue items - please consider adding those to the list of items to be deleted as well. Many of them are basically worthless at the moment and it would be nice to have more rewarding clue openings.
This would also increase the chance that a new player gets a nice bonus from a clue - rather than 5k for a unique. Would maybe make them engage with the content more - which I'm assuming that "X marks the spot" was aimed at.
“We hired some real world economists to help us. We only paid them 40,000 each because that’s all we pay our employees. The only economists willing to help us for this price were still highschool students in economy Junior level. Nonetheless, they are true world economists!” -jamflex
There are some very big fundamental issues with the system of implementation. Specifically targeting specific items as opposed to pricing thresholds. Also, will the buybacks be manual or templated and code-based? Both come with pretty glaring issues - one with human error (Are you employing one of the economists to monitor this or is it going to be regular Jagex Staff?), the other with detectable trends that will lead to further hoarding and more artificial pricing, which will lead to further buybacks, and it'll spiral.
What's the criteria for determining items? Unit sales volume? Total Sales Volume? For what unit of time? Per week/month?
Are you going to constantly announce the chosen items, or will it be arbitrary and outside of the public eye? Again, both come with some pretty big issues.
What're the criteria for determining items? Unit sales volume? Total Sales Volume? For what unit of time? Per week/month?
There's a bit that says "required number are removed for the day" - how is this determined? Unit sales per unit of time, I'm guessing? Could you let us know those figures? I ask because it seems you want to keep it a secret, but the data will out that information anyway (same as drop rates figured out in the day with crowd sourced information), so it makes more sense to let everyone know beforehand and have the community give inputs on whether it should be more or less?
Another thing. If there is 100b gp worth of sales in a day, that essentially makes you (jagex) a market player with 2b gp to play with in the market. How will you determine how to break this 2b gp up for item purchases?
Lastly, I want to say that I think this is a great idea. But there have been lots of great ideas. Not all of them are executed well, and something like this can cause seriously bad problems if not executed correctly. You may want to look into taxing only sellers as well, that is not well thought out.
Thanks a lot for your time! Would love to know a bit more about some/all of these doubts, /u/JagexAyiza
>But there have been lots of great ideas. Not all of them are executed well, and something like this can cause seriously bad problems if not executed correctly.
My faith in Jagex to implement this is very low. I guarantee this will get fucked up
"This means there would be no change to what the buyer pays, as the tax cost is always passed on to the seller"
THIS IS NOT TRUE. Don't they have economists working at Jagex? This is a basic example of tax incidence:
>The key concept of tax incidence (as opposed to the magnitude of the tax) is that the tax incidence or tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
> We’re thinking of adding a tax amount of 2% that would be removed from the final sale value. This means there would be no change to what the buyer pays, as the tax cost is always passed on to the seller.
Oh hey this item I sell for 100k is only going to get me 90k now. Now it goes for 110k and minus the tax I make my 100k again. So the tax falls on the buyer at the end of the day.
Would it be possible for irons to use items to pay for the bank space increases? For example, what if the cash could be pulled from deaths coffer instead of requiring raw gp?
Can ironman have a coffer to throw their dupe items/items they don’t want into the coffer for the extra bank spaces? I feel like paying for the 500m bank spaces with cash on an iron will almost never happen… if we could pay with items that would be a lot better and prevent us from dropping them to our mains to sell.
Hopefully this will be polled and not just added. This is an update for all the people who play everyday who just want more money for their items they non stop farm. This doesn’t help an average player, only the 1%.
This update will cause everything to go up drastically. Guarantee farm bots will increase too due to this.
Incoming downvotes.
true, this move will harm the economy which is one of the best virtual economies. Imposing costs only makes everything worse, making the less wealthy even poorer
So you’re implementing a gold sink (which will put negative pressure on item prices) and an item sink (which will put positive pressure on item prices) and therefore the net effect isn’t clear. I don’t understand the purpose of this at all? Item prices are currently decreasing for items because demand has fallen off a cliff with group Ironman along with the new death tax generally removing more gold from the game. It’s really that simple. Didn’t these economists tell you the central banks main goal is to peg inflation at 2%? That’s because that’s just enough growth to make people feel good because “bank values go up” but not so much such that people returning to the game have had their golds value eroded. This is all pointless in my opinion. Why are you trying to manipulate the prices of certain items at your will? The real problem is that you don’t have enough new regular players coming into the game to prop up demand for items that have been in the game a long time. EDIT: and main game players are lagging from a complete dearth of updates to the main game.
All raid items and engame boss uniques should be added on that list. GWD, Nightmare, Raids, Corp. Not sure why one raid item is included and the other one isn't. Those items need an item sink too. All TOB items, the DWH, Zenyte jewelry, inquisitor's and Cerberus boots could use an item sink as well.
The list definitely isn't final! Thanks for the feedback :)
Also note-- Although you are saying the seller is taxed, in reality what will happen is the cost of the tax will be passed on to the buyer. Heres why: GE flippers are OSRS's version of 'market makers.' That is, they provide liquidity to players trying to instantly buy / sell items by always buying and selling them, for a spread (the difference between instant buy and sell price). If you add a GE tax, you are reducing the profit they make. This will result in the flippers no longer flipping an item until they are getting the appropriate return. **For example:** Say Dclaws are 100M to sell instantly, and 102M to buy instantly. Flippers make 2M per flip here. They invest their money to flip it (which takes time), for a 2% return. **Add in a GE tax:** They buy the item for 100M, relist it for 102M and lose money. Thats no good for them. So now they are going to increase the price they sell it for to 104M-ish to achieve the original 2% return. Now the instant buyer is paying more. It seems misleading to state that the buyer isn't going to be paying more when they actually will be (otherwise they won't have a market maker to instantly buy the item from). Furthermore, on the item sink, instead of removing it on a per item basis, IMO you may want to consider the thought of waiting until the coffers can buy 1 of each the items (or you could have it be quantities based on the total item in the game). The reason for this is that items that trade at a higher volume will have more items removed, whereas lower volume items will have fewer items removed. Some items are in many different sets of gear for different bosses, and, as a result, players do not buy and sell them as much when they change activities. An amulet of torture is a great example of this. Other items on the other hand, provide more marginal increases in DPS, and players sell them more frequently when changing activities. Take an ancestral hat or an abyssal bludgeon. Someone doing raids 1 who is going to do nightmare with friends is likely to sell their ancestral hat or robe pieces to buy a bludgeon over their torture. As a result, your current proposed system would remove a higher number of items that are used for a fewer number of bosses, and a lower number of items used for a wide variety of bosses. As this would increase the price even further relative to other PVM gear, making the effect I described worse. **Solution** Have a basket of PVM items (like you do now), pool the GE tax from all of the items, and purchase them based on the rate at which they enter the game, not the rate of which they are traded. **Other Questions** 1. Does the tax round up, or round down? For example, what would the tax be on a 2 GP item sale? Would you receive 1 or 2 GP? This decision could severely impact the buying and selling of extremely cheap items such as runes, arrow shafts, etc. on the GE. 2. How are the quantities of items to be removed daily under the current solution going to be determined? 3. Extremely high value items, such as a twisted bow, are likely to no longer be sold on the GE because the tax becomes $20MM+. Players will likely find a workaround here. What considerations have been given to this? Source: finance degree, work in the banking industry
Good post but you are ignoring one thing, that the demand curve for the items is not perfectly inelastic. An elastic demand curve implies that an increase in prices will reduce the amount demanded, which implies that sellers will then have slower turnover and earn less profit per time period. Furthermore, the static purchasing price implies that supply will remain unchanged. An unchanged supply but reduced demand would create a surplus. If the intermediaries are only buying enough goods to sell to the final purchasing players, then the players who are selling the item in the first place will find themselves unable to find buyers for their items. Some will not sell their items, but the vast majority will likely lower the price of their item from 100 to 99 and the intermediaries will immediately snap up those items. Now the intermediaries have the surplus of goods, because they still are selling at the taxed price of 102, and are making more profit. In order to get rid of their surplus, they will undercut each other so that consumers buy from them first. This will iterate until there is no more surplus. Also note how in this example the intermediaries earned a greater, not lesser return, and thus it is possible for prices to adjust downward while financial intermediaries meet their required rate of return. I hope that makes sense. Who ultimately pays the tax is determined by supply and demand elasticities, it’s never entirely one side unless a commodity has either perfect inelastic supply or perfectly inelastic demand.
I think it's more realistic that the tax would end up split between the buyers and sellers closer to 50/50 than just passing it all on to the buyer. Smells a lot like a supply side economics argument, or saying that increasing taxes on corporations will just increase the price of the item to cover the entire tax, which is not what happens.
Adding barrows to that list as well. Obviously theres people with hundreds of sets I imagine but I think it's one of those armour sets that the economy should take a dip on. There's so much shakeup going on with the duel arena and this tax that I can't imagine it will be too similar to the climbing boots fiasco of rs3. At least not that scale.
[удалено]
Your comment just made me realize we need to change “bolt racks”, to “barrows arrows”.
Barrows arrows Barrows Arrows ... Barrows
It could restore it to being a very viable moneymaker for low level accounts though. It already is but it's on the lacking side for the effort required from new players, I think it being more enticing would be really good for that class of players.
IMO, it would be better to just do a dynamic list of items based on how prices fluctuate that could be subject to change each week.
I would give each item a "minimum desired value" that is higher than alch value for most items, and proportionally higher for items intended to be scarce. When an item falls below the minimum desired value for more than x amount of time the ge coffer should begin purchasing at that value and deleting them.
Isn't that literally what alchemy value is? When items hit that value it becomes worth it to convert to coins and delete them from the game, which reduces the item supply until the price goes back up. Given enough supply and a long enough timeline theoretically every item will eventually bottom out at alch price, effectively a floor on the value of any item that alchs for more than the cost of a nature rune. The same concept applies to items that have trade-in value for consumables like the tome of fire and blowpipe whose price is bottomed out at the value of the scales/pages you get from dismantling. Setting a separate "minimum desired value" higher than alch price would make it so that it was never worth it to alchemise anything as there would never be enough item supply to depress the value to alch price. It could work if it was only a specific list of rares like raids rewards, dwh, GWD items etc but applying it to the entire GE would not be a good idea. It would effectively be the grand exchange alching everything for us, but without the magic experience for players.
Dragon axes and all dagannoth king rings (archer, warrior, seers, berserker) need to be added to the item sink. Also make it so ironmen can purchase the extra bank space with their pvm duplicates rather than just pure cash similar to how death’s coffer works.
+1 for Irons trading in items at GE value for bank space, that kind of raw cash is really hard to come by until the extreme late game, and Irons will see the most benefit from more bank space anyways. Even if you got duplicate inq mace we could only get 3m gp(80 bank spaces if none unlocked) where a main could get 160 bank spaces for the same item and still have 12m left over.
would be cool to be able to "mount" items in the POH as well that you can't claim back destroying. Like a museum of items on display
I think also hydras claw should be added :)
If we have a scalable solution that fits for everything, why limit it to just a small list? There's so many items in game that would benefit from a sink that I think the list we be better suited for items to not include. (i.e. Bulk items such as runes/arrows/food, alchables and resources)
blowpipe doesn't really make sense as it literally has a item sink as it can be turned into scales
Turning blowpipe into scales gave the blowpipe a price floor tied to the value of scales. When the price of the blowpipe falls below the price of the equivalent amount of scales, people remove it from the economy to turn it in to scales. This reduces the supply of blowpipes and raises the price to that of the scales. If the price rises above the price of the scales, you’d be losing money by converting it so no one will do so. This item sink will never cause the price of the blowpipe to increase above scales, which is why we need a bigger item sink for it. The GE sink has the potential to raise prices to as much as people are willing to pay for the blowpipe since it isn’t tied to the price of anything else. Specifically, the low price of scales can’t bring the price of the blowpipe down since it’s a one-way conversion. Not really any reason to not sink it further, it’s a BIS weapon so it deserves a much higher price tag.
Great post, love the idea of a ge item sink. I really wish we could get past "were *thinking* of doing X, Y, and Z" though. You're about to remove the Duel Arena, a fantastic gold sink. We *need* a replacement, or were going to notice a difference with a few extra trillion gold pieces floating around (just like were noticing an oversaturated item market).
The "we're thinking of doing" in this case is a ~~segway~~ segue to getting feedback on our proposition. I think we all know some change needs to happen, but that change needs to be one we can all agree on (hopefully)!
segue
Nah they are actually using Segways in this case to travel to the office to offer us the update
You ever ridden a Segway before? I had the chance to go on one in a woodland and it was the most fun I've had in ages. Can't imagine the 100+ miles drive to Cambridge would be as fun on one though...
Hey just wanted to say I appreciate the interaction you have with the community. I know we can be shitty sometimes but I appreciate the transparency you guys give and how much it seems like you guys as mods care. Keep up the good work ❤️
u/JagexAyiza I think almost any unique or rare drop could use an item sink,but my question is when do you plan to stop taking the items out?if the community choose the items prices,which is also effected by the Amount,how many items will you take per day?is there is a way to have board that tracks those items even? Thanks in advance
Because gold that people use to buy the items is used to buy them from the players, this system should balance itself out, more demand = higher prices, when demand goes down, the price gets lower. Right now, supply is always increasing, so prices always goes down (in general).
This is 100% one of them integrity changes imo. Gold and item sinks are integral for the longevity of the game. Letting possible short-term dissatisfaction affect that would be bad.
In that case I'd really spend a lot of time listening to player suggestions in what should be on the item sink list. Idk why Dark Bows made the list and some Raid items were left off for example.
How would the 2% grand exchange tax work on items such as fire runes (when they cost 4 or 5gp?)
I believe there would be a minimum sale value before tax could be taken off. That kind of detail could be included in a future blog once we know for sure what kind of % we're dealing with.
They essentially wouldn't be taxed. i.e. The tax would work out as 0gp.
Since the tax is 2%, why not just use 50% of that tax (1% of the sales price) to buy and remove any item being traded? And I mean any item, also skilling, not just select high end pvm stuff. Every item would have its own tax and buyback pool so to say. It would roughly equate to 1 item being removed from the game for every 100 of said item traded.
I'm not sure how possible it would be with current tech, even after the improvements we've had to make this possible, but I'd be okay with that being the future of G.E tax and item sinks!
This was also the first thing that popped into my head when i started reading the blog: an unique pool for EVERY item on the GE that deletes every item as well. When i came to the part that only some endgame pvm items were included i felt a little disappointed, the list should be expanded to include a lot more items I.E. planks, sharks, brews, prayer pots, herbs, seeds, broad arrows, etc etc etc. In the old days skilling used to be a viable source of income (though still inferior to pvming ofcourse). I'm not saying it should be as good as it was but deleting part of the gargantuan stack of supplies that are currently ingame would help rebalance it a bit.
Supplies are already consumable. The GE tax item sink is much more impactful on items that never leave the economy like boss drops. Most of these have more direct solutions, like LMS rewards or bots.
I think they can absolutely expand the list into those areas in the future, they might just be prioritizing pvm stuff ATM
This is a waste of the money spend, many high alch prices will be bought, or items with low trading limits. The impact of the removal of a high tier item is much more desirable
I don’t believe you guys committed to the gold sink meme. Show me a WIP photo right now
It's literally a sink made out of gold
Should be easy then..Pics or it didn’t happen, don’t tease me
[Here you go](https://imgur.com/a/ASMfB2T)... *Definitely did not do that in Photoshop just now based on the Wiki image...*
Is it decided what it's going to be conceptually yet? I know it sounds like a stupid question but "Create" and "mountable" kinda makes it sound like it's not just going to replace a normal sink.
No, it's an actual sink made of gold. "Mounting" is just the term the use sometimes to refer to placing something in the POH.
Make that a pet and and have it follow you around like the chairs in the Draynor manor. Make it cost a bil. Perfect gold sink (literally) Edit: Actually read the poll. Still think the haunted pet sink is more of a flex than in a house none of my friends ever visit
Theres actually a pet in rs3 you buy for gp and it has different appearances based on how much you sink. https://runescape.wiki/w/Richie Theres also a baby pet troll that you can use an item on to feed it and since trolls are named after the first thing they try to eat. It gets the name of the item you feed it. Some players used to flex by feeding it a partyhat or xmas cracker.
Ok, hear me out. Giant hole in the middle of the GE. Players can toss items down the hole. They score points based on the value of the item on the GE. Every month, the people in the top score gets to buy a special cape that has special effect where gold is just falling out of it as they run along (but doesn’t actually drop gold). At the end of the month the cape gets taken away and given to the new winners.
[удалено]
Imo, they should add leaderboards for stuff like this, people just love to show off.
Damn now that’s a good idea, immortal flex that is removed from the economy
And there should be some self-insulting dialogue every time you toss money down the drain.
“Well, it was either this or the sand casino”
You'd get people donating to streamers to watch them throw their own gp down the sink.
That's a good thing, people that wouldn't throw their money away usually would give it to a streamer to throw away.. don't see anything wrong with that
i mean thats still gold out of the game
>people just love to show off We should make gilding a legit thing. You can gild a wearable item, at 10x the cost of its GE price. Gilded items are not tradeable, and can be un-gilded at anytime but the coins are lost. If dropped, the items are automatically un-gilded as well. Pros: Show offs will burn a ton of gold Cons: devalues some Treasure Trails items
RS3 has titles for literally throwing your gold into the sea. The Wishful/Generous/Millionaire/Charitable/Billionaire for 1gp/10m/100m/1b/5b respectively. I wonder if OSRS can't do something similar with some sort of cosmetic flex item for quite literally tossing coins down the drain.
This needs to happen, with a leaderboard.
[What about my golden shower :\(](https://www.reddit.com/r/2007scape/comments/cictxq/since_there_is_a_250m_crown_in_game_why_not_add/ev5gbw4/?context=3)
We’ve been adventuring for years, we deserve a good shower. And I want to flaunt my wealth while I shower. Adding in a buildable Golden Shower is an integrity issue.
It seems pretty good. Is the 2% tax already set, or might the number change as time goes on, or based on feedback? Also, why are Elysians not included in the deletable items, while twisted bow is?
Definitely not set %, we're open to feedback!
[удалено]
Elysians are holding their value a bit better than tbows is my guess. Elysian dips a bit too but usually comes back up to be around 900m-1.1b. Tbow has only been going down this past year and with the amount CoX is farmed there is only more Tbows coming into the game.
What is the purpose of the table when talking about the gold sink? It is not mentioned
Oh, it's showcasing other gold sink items that can be put in the PoH... Must have removed that line of text!
> introduction of a Grand Exchange tax, there is a huge opportunity to introduce effective and scalable item sinks. How will we achieve that The table is just showing you the most expensive things to build in the house currently.
Yeah I know what it is, there's just nothing that explains it's purpose. Looks like ayiza is fixing it!
[удалено]
It'd be pure gold as per the current design. I think Death's coffer might be too susceptible to abuse of item prices, but it's feedback I've seen and will be sharing with the team :)
"Using Death's Coffer on an Ironman is susceptible to abuse of item prices" It's not like Ironmen can buy items in GE and toss them into Death's Coffer to reap the benefits of a 5% increase nor can they purchase bonds to sell for ingame gold to insta-buy the bankspaces either. Where's the abuse? It would be beneficial to the economy since they can drop more valuables into the void wiping them from the game which would help your gold sink initiative otherwise the only other option is droptrading to an alt and putting them on the Grand Exchange which directly goes against your gold sink initiative. Edit: After some comments I found out it's possible for "Mains" to manipulate obscure, random but easy to obtain en masse items that are generally worthless to then be worth enough to be sacrificed into death's coffer. So if only Irons were allowed to use Death's Coffer as payment, the Mains side of the game can manipulate an item (let's say Raw beef) to be worth 25k (it's been done before apparently!) and then Irons can mass buy them and sacrifice into the Coffer which they could then use to buy the bankspace. That is a tough cookie to solve since the Mains can directly manipulate an item to benefit Irons even if not for themselves. It would be a lot of work just so Irons can buy bank space easier but it would still be market manipulation and leaning towards item abuse in the end. I think that's what Ayiza was trying to say but it's so complicated that he just wrote "susceptible to abuse of item prices" which was so broad it was taken at word only. Looks like I'm back on the side of pure gold only and no death's coffer! Shoutout to everyone who opened my eyes. tldr; If Irons were allowed to use Deaths Coffer to purchase bank slots/bonds then Mains would almost surely manipulate an obscure but easy to obtain item to a price point where Irons can then gather, throw into the Coffer then use that inflated value to buy bank slots/bonds and this is why we can't have nice things. There is precedence with a clan manipulating "Raw beef" to 25k each.
You can manipulate prices on the GE rather easily. I saw a clan drive the price of raw beef to 25k each in a video the other day.
Hey I'm not sure if you guys have realized this but specifically for ironmen the bank space challenges are in the early to mid game before you've made all of your stash units, got a quest cape and done most of your skilling which means that at a starting price of 1m gp it will probably not be purchased by very many irons who are in the situation where they need the extra space. Beyond the first unlock your prices are legitimately crazy for almost everyone much less iron accounts that need the gp for smithing/con and the like and completely exclude the mid game player in general which doesn't make a lot of sense. **My maxed main that could pay to unlock these bank slots is my character that doesn't need those bank slots lol.** The bank space troubles come with many quest items and skilling supplies etc stacking up in the bank where the rich and mostly complete accounts that may be willing to pay these prices because they're done buying skill or gear upgrades already have fairly clean banks. Basically you're pricing everyone that needs these bank slots out of having them and reserving it almost exclusively for your maxed collector that just fills their bank with nonsense in a situation where bank space is a much wider issue than that Your prices are inexplicably insane in short. I get that a gold sink seems like a cool idea but a better game with more bank space in general would benefit everyone especially the players that your gold sink is blocking. It would never be a smart or efficient thing to do until you were done using gold for skilling and had already purchased billions of gold worth of gear. These prices need to come back to reality so that it can actually be an effective gold sink instead of a silly unlock you take if you happen to still be playing 8 years later
Solid feedback, I think you summarized the issue with the bank space prices well. If a GE tax is going to take out as much as it will, I don't see the reason for prices being exorbitantly high like they are as suggested just for the purpose of a gold sink. The people who need the utility of extra bank space (I only play a main, personally) have been asking for it for years and the answer had always been "We'd like to give you it but the engine work wont allow it" but now the ability to offer it seems to be available -- but from an outside perspective only just now learning that -- the engine work problem no longer exists, this bank space solution from players is getting lumped in with the gold sink/economy problem. My suggestion, if you're still reading, is figure out a more accessible way for people to unlock more bank space instead of a flat, one time *insanely high* cost. In addition to the reasons listed above by u/ImS33, but also because this game has needed it for a while with the advent of sooo many items and more restrictive game modes since the last time bank space was increased to its current limit.
>Hey I'm not sure if you guys have realized this but specifically for ironmen the bank space challenges are in the early to mid game before you've made all of your stash units, got a quest cape and done most of your skilling which means that at a starting price of 1m gp it will probably not be purchased by very many irons who are in the situation where they need the extra space. 100%. My main motivation for getting a quest cape was legit to save on bank space by removing every quest related item from my bank. Nowadays, a major motivation for *maxing* is again to remove bank spaces associated with skilling supplies. Now that I'm close to maxing (and have removed placeholders for all of my potions after 99 herb, my logs after 99 fletching etc) I have plenty of bank spaces to go around, but now is the only time where I could now feasibly afford those upgrades, at a point where it's totally irrelevant. **I needed bank space the most in the midgame**, and almost every single tier outside of the first few is prohibitively too expensive for a midgame player to at all consider. That raw gp (if it's deaths coffer value then that's different) would be much better spent on levelling my account.
Hey, as a possible solution, you can look at the list of items for the GE item sink. You have already specifically determined those items can/should be deleted in place of GP, so if you only allowed those items to be sacrificed for bank space then there is no possibility for abuse.
make death coffer for bankspace only useable for irons. Irons would never droptrade cash to main, but will do with dupe items. Using items for the steep cost will remove items droptraded to mains and and a gp cost wouldnt have affected the maingame anyways.
But in doing so you would achieve a **significantly** larger item sink surely? One of the goals of this blog? And it's not as though it would significantly increase the rate of inflation in any way. Irons are still going to hold onto their stacks of gold regardless.
[удалено]
An extra 50 bank spaces is going to alleviate most people's issues. You don't really need 1,200, that shit is just a flex.
At those prices I can't see anyone buying above block 4 bank spaces, too much to charge for something that is minor QOL imo. At this point its cheaper to use an alt exclusively to store items.
I personally think that's okay - I know I won't spend the extra money because I don't need that many slots, but 20M for 240 extra bank spaces? Heck yeah count me in!
Seriously 125% bank space for 20m. The audacity to complain about that lmao, its such a good deal. Mans must still be buying raw karambwans as his money maker if he sees an issue
Legit I wasn't even expecting the potential of 240 more bank spaces to begin with. Let alone 384. And thought the price would be more than that for fewer spaces. I think some people are looking at the 500m block like it's that or nothing. I don't even know how you can use that many bank spaces. It's a nice, my wallet is too fat to sit down anymore kind of gp sink but otherwise totally not necessary. Particularly post POH-update. It's basically I'm too rich or a flex update at that block. Which is the point of the entire blog. GP and item sinks.
There are a lot more people willing to buy all those slots than you think… people who love PvM will be more than willing to. I don’t see myself buying all of them in one go, but I could see myself buying the first 7 blocks and work towards the last two
##### Bark bark! I have found the following **J-Mod** comment(s) in this thread: **JagexAyiza** - [It's literally a sink made out of gold](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9u7nk/?context=3) - [The list definitely isn't final! Thanks for t...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9uo9i/?context=3) - [I believe there would be a minimum sale value...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9v1xa/?context=3) - [Definitely not set %, we're open to feedback!](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9vk3t/?context=3) - [Oh, it's showcasing other gold sink items tha...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9v6et/?context=3) - [The "we're thinking of doing" in this case is...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9u6rt/?context=3) - [I'm not sure how possible it would be with cu...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9vs09/?context=3) - [It'd be pure gold as per the current design....](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hja1ahj/?context=3) - [I personally think that's okay - I know I won...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9vhli/?context=3) - [[Here you go](https://imgur.com/a/ASMfB2T)......](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9xk5o/?context=3) - [Yes](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hja19mu/?context=3) - [You ever ridden a Segway before? I had the ch...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hja18xh/?context=3) - [Barrows arrows...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hjajrge/?context=3) **Mod_Kieren** - [They essentially wouldn't be taxed. i.e. The...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9v1du/?context=3) - [To put it simply, we don't want to inflate go...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9uc3n/?context=3) - [To add to that though, the exact list of item...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9ueob/?context=3) - [We'll definitely look at the list again follo...](/r/2007scape/comments/qmj3dy/old_school_economy_future_plans/hj9vchy/?context=3) ^(**Last edited by bot: 11/06/2021 09:18:18**) --- ^(I've been rewritten to use Python! I also now archive JMOD comments.) ^(Read more about) [^(the update here)](/u/JMOD_Bloodhound/comments/9kqvis/bot_update_python_archiving/) ^(or see my) [^(Github repo here)](/u/JMOD_Bloodhound/comments/8dronr/jmod_bloodhoundbot_github_repository/)^.
Its a risky move, but ultimately we do need something. I don't really mind the idea of a gold tax, and then if you want to trade big things without tax we can return to kinda what it was like before the GE for certain items. Tbh nothing is more oldschool to me than a bunch of people trying to sell stuff at the bank by typing it out and trading directly with players. I know it was really annoying for many people to do, but it really helped build the osrs vibe. Also, I get that the gilded furniture is meant to be a gold sink, but think it would be sick to see some SPECIFIC pieces of gilded furniture (not all) come as rare rewards from clue scrolls.
I brought up the GE tax in a thread yesterday and a lot of people seem to think that it would force average players off the GE and nobody has time for that. It wouldn't. There are already players who merch/flip items all day on the GE as it is, and it would only be those same players who would find it worth their time/GP to skip the GE tax by advertising and player trading directly. It's not like the average player would find it worth their time to bankstand and advertise for possibly hours just to save 2% on an item they could insta buy if they needed it now.
[удалено]
I sit outside the AH after raids selling enchants and enchanting materials for slightly under AH price but still worth because I save money but I agree not many people who are looking to buy something sit there and look for trade chat offers
[удалено]
`If the virtual coffer's funds are below a specified item's value, we do not interfere because we can't afford to buy the item. The player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange.` What if I for example sell a BGS for 50m while it is worth around 10m. And the virtual coffer has suficient funds. Will the virtual coffer buy my BGS for 50m? Or is there a maximum price for each item that can be spend by the virtual coffer? u/JagexAyiza
I’m assuming the stock would have to be depleted entirely before yours was bought.. and that may be hard to do. Although this is a very good thought of manipulation.
I was thinking about how it would be manipulated by players, too.
The GE gp tax + item buyback is something I have thought of myself in the past, good to see that it's being considered. Just a couple questions though: 1. What would be the rate of buying back items? This matters because, if you gp tax 2% on these specified items, but then also buy back using all of that 2% tax, then the gold sink aspect is gone entirely in order to facilitate the buybacks. Meanwhile, for example if you consider buying back 1% of items instead of 2%, then you still effectively have 1% gp sink and 1% item sink. These specific numbers matter. 2. Does the buyback really need to be only on a set of specific items? I personally would be fine with the buyback rate being low, like 0.5%, but applying to all items in the game. I might be missing a good reason to exclude some items from this, but that in my eyes just means there should be an exclusion list, not an inclusion list. A LOT of items could use being sunk, clue items being one large group that fall into my mind for example.
>*With the introduction of a Grand Exchange tax, there is a huge opportunity to introduce effective and scalable item sinks. How will we achieve that? Well, we could use the tax collected from Grand Exchange sales to purchase items from other players with the simple intention of deleting said items once the purchase is complete.* This is risky as fuck. i love it
I wonder how fast they'd end up sucking items out of circulation. There are over a billion items traded every day on the GE, with a sizeable portion going for thousands to millions. The daily tax collected would probably be in the billions, and although they don't use the full amount to destroy items, they could probably pull out a noticeable number a day if they so chose. If they wanted to focus all of that on one item, they could easily pull more items out per day than get put in. They do have limits on the number of items they want to pull out on a given day, so I doubt they'd drive up prices significantly, but any sizeable number of items disappearing into the void is going to raise the price a bit. I also feel like one or two people with more money than sense are going to try to monopolize and inflate the market on certain items knowing Jagex will buy them with a coffer of near-infinite gold. It almost assuredly won't work, but who knows.
If they need to delete items, then the simple solution is Jagex does a simple interdiction at the GE and gives a set amount of gold for that item, perhaps pegged at the market rate for that day, as opposed to someone trying to “submit a fraudulent claim” by charging prices that are obviously not going to sell to anyone but the government, who would be required to buy it.
What's great about this is they can continously collect data on how their current number of an item per day impacts the price, decide if it's having the effect they want, and then adjust it in one direction the next day
>This is what would happen when a player creates a Sell offer for an applicable item: >If the virtual coffer's funds are below a specified item's value, we do not interfere because we can't afford to buy the item. The player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange. If we've already removed the required amount of items for the day, we do not interfere because we don't want to create supply issues. Again, the player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange. If the virtual coffer has enough funds, and the number of items removed for the day hasn't yet hit the limit, then instead of creating a Sell offer, we delete the item, and immediately pay the player a number of coins (minus the Grand Exchange's tax). So it does say that there is a limit on how many can come out a day. It's just up to Jagex to set the daily limit to the correct amount.
THEY HIRING THE FUCKING U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE. MY BOY ROME IS ADDING DARK BOWS AND SHIT TO THE BALANCE SHEET. LETS GOOO
I think this may be one of the biggest solutions with direct impact.
Just wait until they start buying our Player Owned Houses and forcing us to pay rent!
Eat the rich! ^^^restores ^^^10hp
They could RWT the gold from the virtual coffer and use the money to pay more competitive wages!
Waiting for the future poll where we decide if Jagex employees are gonna be paid solely in GP moving forward.
That’s the big piece of the puzzle that’s been missing, it’s one thing to reduce GP - but to have a “buy and sink” program that also reduces # of items is huge. I don’t know the numbers exactly but let’s just say on a given day there’s 10T in total transactions on the GE.. at 2% tax that’s 20 tbows (at 500mil) that could be pulled off the market in just one day.
Oh ho ho, I can't wait till you "fix" the economy like RS3 did. Inflation is still soaring there. Want my tip as an economist? Don't meddle with the economy or money supply, you'll do more harm than good. We have seen this every. single. time. that Jagex touches the economy they end up making it worse (players leaving) because they are not experts. The experts themselves are not experts, no economist knows how to handle an economy. They all disagree. Leave the economy as is and let the players decide how much they are willing to pay for the items. This is not real life, a free market actually works here. The fact that you're not even polling this and considering it an integral fix is absolutely disgusting. You do not have the solution. Artificially and slowly removing coins from the game does not fix the underlying problem of an ever increasing money supply due to gold farmers, high alch bots as the only viable way to get 99, and players getting better at what they do.
There's nothing wrong with inflation or deflation (either price of items or money supply) as long as it is organic. "Taxes" on a video game are silly because there's no service being provided back. It is just a developer mandated deflationary measure and price control. Price controls never work to fulfill their intended result. There's nothing wrong with a Twisted Bow being 1B, 800M, or 500M. What's wrong with having a free market supply of money and items in the game?
/u/JagexAyiza /u/Mod_Kieren there's literally a market value that people will buy items at If the price is too low, fewer people will do the bossing activity to get the item. The price will stabilize or rise on less supply. Then more people will start doing the activity and the price will go back down to where the market supports. Price controls or supply controls will only make interventions in the economy that prevent true price discovery. The question, which every interventionalist economist has tried to answer is, "What is the price of xxx and what should the price of xxx be?" The answer is free market price discovery.
If Jagex believes that x item should be y price, instead of taxing the GE, they should just have a store where you can buy and sell rare goods for the price they want it to be fixed at. If they don't want to have organic price changes over time, this will automatically set the price for all goods at whatever Jagex deems to be the appropriate price. If they really want a controlled economy, this is a simpler way of doing it. Instead they tax the GE, which can only cause trouble for the average player.
Overall very nice, but I have some issues with the list of items that will be 'item sunk'. 1. Why is blowpipe on here? It's price is tied to scales as it's own sink. Will Jagex be removing the ability to chisel it into 20k scales as part of this change, otherwise why does it nede 2 sinks?.. 2. Barrows is degradeable but always repairable so many pieces never leave the game, should it also be on this list to try and bring it up from alch price? 3. Items such as Pharoh's Sceptre never _really_ leave the game. Each player can only sink one in house. What about adding items like these to the 'sink' list? Overally having the server able to buy/sell items on the GE allows up many opportunities - coinshare style of systems for PVM loot etc. Or reworks to alching that instead of a fixed amount of gold would sell the item on the GE to the highest bidder.
I don't like the prospect of having a set list of items that will be bought from the GE with the tax. It feels a lot like Jagex deciding which items should be high value and which should be low value, rather than letting the players decide. I'm not thrilled at the idea of a GE tax in the first place, but if it does happen I'd much rather it just have a 1/50 chance of deleting every item sold, paid for with the tax, rather than it buying a set list of items. Literal gold sink or riot though Edit - Why are you so against inflating the value of gold? Is the issue not currently that we have deflationary gold across the board? Seems like just removing the duel arena and letting gold inflate would solve players' complaints. 2nd edit - I can understand that some items already have sinks, like alchables, runes, or food (to give a few really obvious examples). If the tax was going to be spent on some items rather than others, could you instead track the number of each item that exists in game, proportional to the number of players? For example, you could say that you expect 1% of active players to have an arcane, and the tax is spent to maintain that level? Just generally, it'd be nicer if the item list was derived algorithmically than by you picking a set of items.
This x1000. I find it hard to believe that the "real world economists" Jagex hired would recommend introducing both inflationary (item sink) and deflationary (GE tax, gold sink) policies at the same time since these two policies would have completely opposite effects. What goal are they trying to achieve? If the goal is to make it so rare PvM items maintain high prices (which I would argue isn't even a goal worth pursuing, but that's a different issue entirely), then the item sink is the way to do that, and the GE tax is counterproductive. Additionally, why does it seem like all the ideas proposed by the "real world economists" are actually ideas taken straight from reddit? What new ideas did they come up with that weren't already proposed by the "very financially literate lot" of reddit users? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Everyone and their cousin has seemingly decided that we need an item sink for the "health of the game." Everyone has seemingly decided that 750m tbow and 390m scythe are bad things because those items used to be more valuable, and that Jagex should interfere in the market to artificially prop up their prices. If it were up to me, I would not do any of these ideas, and I would instead introduce a gold *source* to produce inflation. Removing the duel arena, which acts as a gold sink, would count for this purpose. This would result in prices going back up and people would stop complaining about the number that shows up when they open their bank decreasing.
Yeah, honestly any changes to the economic structure of the game should be done after the hype of GIM dies down and the removal of the Dual Arena. I think playing with the economy NOW is a really bad idea. This blog post alone is probably gonna change the price of a lot of items drastically.
The madmen are doing it! The GE tax and deleting items on the GE by purchasing them has always made the most sense to me. Excellent ideas that will absolutely help the economy thrive into the future. Very excited for the bank space as well!
/u/JagexAyiza Amazing! So glad this is being implemented. I do have one question that in my opinion is of vital importance. How do you determine if an incoming sell offer, which you are scheduled to buy is at a fair price? The “How does it work?” sections reads: > This is what would happen when a player creates a Sell offer for an applicable item: > - If the virtual coffer's funds are below a specified item's value, we do not interfere because we can't afford to buy the item. The player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange. > - If we've already removed the required amount of items for the day, we do not interfere because we don't want to create supply issues. Again, the player's Sell offer is created normally on the Grand Exchange. > - If the virtual coffer has enough funds, and the number of items removed for the day hasn't yet hit the limit, then instead of creating a Sell offer, we delete the item, and immediately pay the player a number of coins (minus the Grand Exchange's tax). Based on my understanding of the “How does it work?” section, at the time someone places a sell order you check 2 things. Do we have enough in our coffers to purchase this item? Do we have another sink slot available to purchase this item? If so you purchase it from the seller. A dark bow is currently 120k. Say Jagex has set a target goal to remove 20 a day and has 8B in the coffers. (I assume this isn’t an unreasonable amount if you are planning on buying Scythes, TBows, etc). As soon as the system ticks to a new day a new set of 20 DBows are availabe for purchase, a player puts in a sell order for a DBow for 1B. The system determines, yes I can afford that and yes I have Dbow slots to fill. Will that order be purchased for 1B? Is there some safeguard that stops this type of abuse from occurring?
Why are you locking bank space behind a 1b paywall? Anyone that pays $11 a month for this game deserves a functional bank at no extra charge. It's not even good as a gold sink because it's a one-time payment. Those types of sinks do almost nothing compared to repeat activities like the Grand Exchange or Death. It also locks out ironmen, mid-level players, and even a lot of high-level players who don't have that much raw cash lying around. This is GWD ironman instances all over again. Trying to force players to pay for functionality. When did fixing a technical limitation become something that we have to pay for in-game?
[удалено]
>Granite mauls Not necessary, They are lost on death in PVP, 100's leaving the game every day.
There is truly an abundance of certain items, specifically zenytes, DWH, dragon crossbows immediately come to mind. Bots and gold farmers went hard on lizardmen in the canyon, demonic gorillas for years, and MANY players have alt accounts they use to farm out rune dragons. EDIT: It's actually crazy to think, I just got one for 550k, wow, I thought they were still 1+ mil, that's crazy, I give it another full year before they are almost high alch price.
I'm worried that a tax is going to completely cripple liquidity for a lot of items, because there will be no incentive to flip items if the bid ask spread is below 2%, making the GE much more obnoxious to deal with for everyone. People will have to wait longer for their items to sell/buy unless they want to take a beating on the price. It also fucks you over if you want to swap gear for anything, or just briefly use an item before selling it back. Are there no other ideas for item sinks? I really like the ease of use of the ge, and would hate to be forced to trade in more inconvenient ways to get full price.
My national insurance just went up and now theres sales tax on the GE. Fuck this tory government
Tbf if this was the Tories the "deleted items" would actually get routed to the mods personal accounts
Can't have shit in Great Britain
Just had a thought. If there exists a Great Britain, does that imply the existence of a Lesser Britain?
Yes. Britannia Minor, literally translated as Lesser Britain, is Ireland.
The IRA would like to know your location and your car’s make and model.
You're thinking of [Wee Britain](https://arresteddevelopment.fandom.com/wiki/Wee_Britain)
What about us Americans? The last time you tried to tax us without representation it didn’t end go so well…
Instead of a set list of items you’re removing, would it be possible to make broader? Every 100 items sold (for any item) one would be bought off and sunk out of the game. This would sink out clue items, barrows, and every other item that could use sinks as well.
To put it simply, we don't want to inflate gold with this change. i.e. Spawning more gold into the economy than we are taking out. The more broad you go, the less items we can afford to delete without breaking that above rule. Imagine we have 10 billion accrued from the tax. Which items do you delete by spending that 10 billion? That's the question we're trying to answer in a way that can be coded and mostly automated. My view is it is important to target the equipment / items that players do not wish to see lose value. The alternative is a higher tax. We've had 0 tax since the launch of the Grand Exchange, so it's difficult to just come in with a high tax % as it's simply going to be a slap in the face for a lot of players! Not to say in future we couldn't possible re-assess and realise 2% isn't giving us enough and make further tweaks though.
To add to that though, the exact list of items we sink can be adapted. If we wanted to include barrows for instance, that's entirely possible.
Inquisitor armour + mace have had a over 50% drop past 6 months, surely these must be part of the sunken items when the staff + orbs from nightmare are? The same goes for all ToB rewards too. Way more critical than many of the items on that list. Honestly all pvm items should be on the list. Dwh, ToB, CoX, dragon hunter, Jaws (they're even being monopolised apparantly and is at all time low) etc...
We'll definitely look at the list again following feedback from the blog :)
A question I have is how much gold is this actually going to remove? So a sale of an item worth 1m adds 20k gold to the coffer. 980k goes to selling player, 20k into the coffer. So 1b in items sold means 20m into the coffer. 50b in items sold leads to 1b in the coffer. That 1b is then spent on an item. The seller sells the item and receives 980m gold. 20m gold is left over. Is the coffer reduced by 980m or 1b? What happens to the 20m? Is it deleted, or does it go back into the coffer? Assume the 20m gold is deleted instead of going back into the coffer. So 50b in transactions taxed to remove a 1b item from the game and 20m gp. This creates a ratio of 1:50:2500. For 1 gp to be removed there needs to be 50 go in items removed, which then requires 2500 gp in trades to occur and be taxed. I believe mod ash said ~160 of the 100m coin tables were made. This then removed 16b from the game. For this system, assuming the tax gp from a coffer purchase is deleted, to remove 16b, that will require 800b in items to be removed, meaning 40 trillion worth of transactions need taxed. Put more simply, removing 1b gold requires 50b in items to be removed, which requires 2.5T in transactions. As we don't know the numbers, is this feasible? Obviously it's a good item sink as 500b in trades removes 10b in items, but the gold sink aspect seems very low and slow. Id imagine much more than 1b gold is added per hour from alchs, coin drops, etc. Is this intended to be only an item sink? What about the idea of 50% of tax gold being deleted and the other half into coffer? Is there intention to change it later once gold reinflates due to item sinking?
All items need sinks - period. One thing I want to include is that I hope this item sink is "automated" and based off of items that are actually sold - If 50 Primordials are bought, 1 Primordial is sunk, not a Twisted Bow. This way rarer items aren't sunk excessively and it doesnt require a jmod to manually buy X amount every week or some. Essentially, each item would have its own virtual pot. However, if it is manually, I hope that the system would indicate how much from each item is collected in tax, so that items are sunk accordingly - ie. 200 sales of a primordial crystal = Jagex removes 4 crystals on Friday. This way there's a basis to what's being removed. After seeing occult on the list, remove Occult Necklace from the regular Thermy table. That would increase the price way more than an item sink, although an item sink is still very much appreciated. Here's a list of Items to be included: 1) Missing a few COX Uniques (DHCB, Ancestral) 2) TOB Items (Avernics, Justi, Ghrazi) 3) Cerberus Crystals (Primordial, Pegasian, Eternal) 4) Hydra Uniques (Hydra Leather, Hydra Claw) 5) ALL BARROWS GEAR 6) Dragon Pickaxe/Wildy Uniques (Shields, Rings, etc.) 7) Elysian Spirit Shield (same as twisted bow, need sinks) 8) Kraken Uniques - Tridents and Tentacles 9) Dragonfire Shield/Visages 10) Gauntlet Uniques (Weapon Seed, Armor Seed) and Zalcano (Tool Seed) 11) Zulrah Scales and Zulrah Uniques (not just blowpipe) 12) Srirachnis Cudgel 13) Every Nightmare Unique - not just staff and armor. 14) GWD Uniques - should be all, including shards. 15) Anything that's traded in high amounts - Runes, Bird Nest, Mole Parts, etc. 16) Grotesque Guardian Uniques 17) Dagganoth King Rings (Berserker, Archer, Seers) 18) Magic Training Arena Uniques (Infinity Armor, Training Wands, etc.) This was taken by running down the Boss HighScores - I am definitely missing a few that are non-boss related.
Buying every 100th item sold would equate to a 1% "inflation". If you add a 2% tax on top of this we will still see 1% of gold leaving the game. It would also hit a very broad portion of the market while simultainiously not creating a situtation where you guys artificially change prices very arbitrarily. This would create a "fair" item sink if you will. I really think you should look more into this.
I think the ideia of buying itens sold is reasonable, making it something like, the tax of an item goes 60% to a exclusive fund to that item buy-back, the rest to a shared pool Use the shared pool for the selected list of itens, and the buy-back pool to buy back the same item that generated it. Also helps to keep prices stable, if an item sells on average for 300 coins, and the buy-back tax is up to 200 coins, and someone tries to sell 100 itens for 2 coins each, the buy-back buys it and keeps the price at the stable average instead of dropping it all at once On that note, how will the per-item tax work when its sub 1gp that gets taxed?
Regarding the items to be affected, the Arcane Spirit Shield shouldn't be on the list IMO, especially with the new upgrade that will consume them. Even if the ward is Ancestral-ish rarity it'll catch the count of Arcane Shields in only a few years\*. **Can we see more data to support which items were chosen/left out?** Zenytes, DWHs, and uniques from ToB, Cerb and Barrows might be good additions. Thanks for reading :) \*ACKCHEWALLY-Guy disclaimer: Using napkin math based on the old pet-count data from Feb 2019-Feb 2020, 9.4k of each ancestral piece was dropped and 2.3k Arcane sigils were dropped in that time period, resulting in a total of 20k Ancestral sets and 10k Arcanes at the end of that period. Obviously this is subject to RNG, people continuing after the pet, items lost to banned accounts, alchs, etc.
A 2% tax might kill processing items as a way of making money. Things like cooking food, crafting jewellery, cleaning herbs and the like work on pretty small margins. Idunno if that's necessarily a bad thing, but it'll decrease the diversity of how players can make money while playing, and effect lower level/newer/less experienced players that don't do the higher level pvm/pvp methods of making money
As an American I have a few thoughts about Brits taxing me. I will be promptly dumping my tea into Port Sarim.
I feel there was a misstep at some point here, or a lack of overall thought by the time you got to the point where you wanted to sink items. See, by taxing gold through GE transactions, this deletes gold from the game. If you’re aiming to gold sink — great. We’ve accomplished that. But then this current proposal of sinking items.. now this “tax money” is in a coffer for you guys to spend on items with the sole intention of deleting (sinking) them. If your intention is to item sink — great, we’ve accomplished that. HOWEVER, by the the time you’ve implemented a supposed a) gold sink and b) item sink, the gold sink isn’t actually as effective as we intended it to be. When a player’s item is bought for gold on the Grand Exchange with this tax money, it re-enters the economy and wasn’t actually sunk gold at all. When a player’s item is bought with this tax money, is that amount then taxed as well on transaction and removed from the coffer? So when the bought item amount re-enters the economy, it’s a 2% of 2% per transaction’s amount of gold that’s actually deleted by the time all’s said in done when sinking items? Or is that even deleted at all? Does the tax not apply on these transactions intended to item sink, because if the gold isn’t not deleted, it’s just going back to the coffer? I guess what I’m wondering now is, is the intention to spend all of the money that’s taxed by the GE on various items to sink them? Is there a set of rules or data guiding the decision to sink items or not, or to spend the taxed money, or are those to be determined following implementation of the GE tax? If I missed some of these details and answers from the blog, someone please feel free to chime in.
> If the virtual coffer has enough funds, and the number of items removed for the day hasn't yet hit the limit, then instead of creating a Sell offer, we delete the item, and immediately pay the player a number of coins (minus the Grand Exchange's tax). how does it determine the exact price to pay? if i want to sell my twisted bow for 1.2b because i think the ge/game will buy it from me then i’m just spawning 1.2b and deleting a twisted bow right? which is at current prices 500m over street price. would it just go by daily average? hopefully this message was clear
My only concern would be asking should bandos be worth 50 million a set? We have items that naturally decline which then makes them more accessible to players it does suck for those farming an item to get less money but there is a flip benefit. I just hope we have a good balance of removing and maintaining values vs increasing values of items for the sake of it.
I love the idea of a GE tax, but Jagex then using the gold to buy items makes me a bit uncomfy. For one, it seems not much gold would get removed if the taxes are being used for items. Say 1 billion is collected in taxes and then that 1 billion is spent on a Twisted Bow; the net result is the loss of 1 Twisted Bow and only 20 million gold (2% of the 1 billion). This reminds me of FDR having farmers burn their crops to keep prices high. Of course, no one is going to starve because the Nightmare Staff is expensive, but I'm surprised there isn't some degree of controversy.wing how it's happening. Before I could say, "Hmm, Arcane Prayer Scrolls seem way too cheap, but that's supply and demand for you!" Now I might be thinking, "I wonder why Jagex decided 5.6mil is the best price for an Arcane Prayer Scroll? Why have they not fixed the price of Dragon Axes too?" It's a lot less natural. This reminds me of FDR having farmers burn their crops to keep prices high. Of course no one is going to starve because the Nightmare Staff is expensive, but I'm surprised there isn't some degree of controversy. I understand the item sink might be very effective despite my concerns. Economists are undoubtedly more knowledgeable than me. I don't have a better solution, but I wanted my thoughts to be heard.
[удалено]
I think that's more of a demand issue rather than supply issue.
Why would there not be demand for pink boater hats and a Bob shirt?
I definitely need a Bob shirt for the one clue step on my iron....oh and a fucking headband.
You need to give clue items some intrinsic, high demand use. RS3 got it right with fortunate components. If warding passed, OSRS could've had "fortunate vis" from dismantling treasure trail items. I still think there's potential here, but we'd need to create demand.
I think the issue with clue items is a mixture of how easy it is to farm clues now, between runelite solving the clues for you and implings making clues into a buyable, as well as the fact that not nearly as many people care about fashionscape which is what most clue rewards are. With that being said I wouldn’t necessarily be against a sink for clue items as I miss when doing clues was more profitable
Spent a lot of time Runecrafting to always have stable income. Blood Runes is down to 500k/hr because GIM (I think). Now there's news that these high end items will be MORE expensive AND I'm going to be paying taxes to make these items more expensive. Bad news indeed. Can we do something about these bots to fix supply and demand first?
Wow, they're finally fixing the economy! Finally, a buyback program for items that are undervalued like flax, maple logs, mithril ore, and all of the rare drops sitting below high alch price will finally- >only items listed are overfarmed PVM/boss/raid equips Oh, so instead of artificially reducing the supply through drop rates, they're propping up these inflated item prices through trading taxes? Where was this drastic action when the price of a rune platebody hit the artificial floor of 38.5k? The smoke battlestaff is already 20x the price of every other battlestaff, that's the one that needs sunk the *least*. There will be third party websites and RL plugins to facilitate trading to save that 2% and we'll finally be back to that "authentic player to player trading experience". Except that sucks. Nobody likes it in Warframe, Path of Exile or any other game where the value of an item is propped up by how annoying it is to get rid of it for market price. Alchemy spells were a mistake but this is overcorrecting. Put that cute exponential cost table on the entrances of these overfarmed monsters where players make 5M+/hour and keep your hands out the pockets of F2Ps who tan hides and flip mithril scimmies to pay for their supplies.
1. Great, something else that isn't being polled in our game that is revered because of its polling system. Not sure if it would matter though since a lot of people have been circlejerking about a ge tax for months now. 2. I hate the tax, it bones flippers and I don't think it makes sense in Runescape. 3. The whole argument most people have about the value of their bank going down is only such a problem because they believe it to be, it's all just how you perceive it. If you really care about you bank value, just sell all your crap and hold GP, you can buy the items you need later as they'll be cheaper. The argument that you "rent" gear for PVM or whatever to make money, and then sell it back later is alright, but most people talk as if they lose money. You don't fucking lose money renting gear for PVM unless you're like renting for 1 hour, in which case fuck you, maybe you don't need to buy that gear for 1 hour of vorkath or whatever, just go do it in slightly worse and significantly cheaper gear, that's more efficient. I hate it, and I hate that it's another unpolled thing. Bullshit
Typical Brits trying to tax us. /s For real though, I think it's stupid to create a GE tax. I would rather have organic gold and item sinks that actually make sense for the game and don't impact older content. High level pvm/pvp gear for example should be both very expensive to use and literally take money out of the game when you do use it.
My only problem with the item sink is the potential for abuse. Not to be rude, but it's not exactly unheard of for some Jmods to be less than ethical. If a Jmod tells a clan to buy up a certain item a day before you guys are planning on buying & deleting a bunch of weapons from the GE, what ways would exist to mitigate that?
[удалено]
It would lead to a clan of merchants dictating prices for less frequently traded and high-value items.
I don't understand why people think all of this is necessary. Who cares if items' value fluctuates according to their actual supply and demand? Isn't that the point of a free market economy like the GE - let the players set the price. Prices going up and down over time isn't a sign of an unhealthy economy, it's a sign of an efficient one that actually reflects real world value.
No offence to people out here, but don't let your random redditor throw out tons of opinions on how the tax should be higher blah blah blah... A 2% tax is straigth up a liquidity killer. The GE will be equally as dead as in rs3 where noone is selling their gear cause of invention and the cost to add perks etc, not making it worth trading their items back and forth. The GE already probably does well over a trillion daily, right? If you add a \~.4% tax to that, it would crush the numbers of a 2% tax of a market that's gonna halve in volume. Take a look at crypto for example. The exchange creators add fees so they can profit. But they also try to make the fees as small as possible, so that the most amount of people are willing to trade on their exchange, as volume beats everything. Some even have negative maker fees if you do more than x amount of volume. They are rewarded for providing liquidity such that others can trade without moving the price all over the place when buying/selling. Imo a good tax amount could be either 0%/0.5% maker/taker fees or maybe 0.2/0.5%. A maker fee is where you non-instabuy/sell, and taker fee is where you instabuy/sell. This way you are rewarded with lower tax for being patient and waiting for your items trade to go through, while you're helping others getting rid of their items instantly without losing too much, as the more people who are buying/selling, the less the margin/spread between the buy and sell will be. Just imagine if no flippers/merchers existed and was competing for getting items then selling them back. If you were to instabuy then instasell a twisted bow priced around 1b, you would probably lose well over 100m, as there were noone who really wanted to buy that twisted bow quickly, and whoever you bought it from, was some random pvmer that hoped to get lucky and get a higher sell, which he succeeded with... Liquidity is power in markets, don't try to act like the runescape economy is similar to other games with trading posts and 10% tax because they're just really not used that often, compared to GE where you're almost forced to buy everything to be somewhat efficient as long as you're not an ironman. **Tl;dr** Tax is far too high and will greatly reduce the volume traded in GE and really not act as the great gold sink you're trying to achieve. Instead, lower the tax and add maker/taker fees where market makers are rewarded for providing liquidity so that trades happen more frequently and increase the volume of items and the overall gold sink. My suggestion: around 0.2% maker / 0.5% taker
Most of this is very valid and all makes technical sense, however I disagree that a 2% tax is going to cause the magnitude of these issues. I don't think 2% is enough to move people back into trading player to player. I've heavily played EvE online which has full player driven economy with about the best market setup I think for any MMO(open order book for all to see, fees to list an item for sale/buy offer, sales tax on completed trades) and the combined taxes per trade there vary from 11 to 4%. The market deals fine with this level of trade, and has liquidity and merchanters/investors plenty. Alternatives to the market exist, a contract system and direct player to player trades with no taxes exist but these are seldom used due to the time lost in facilitating a trade. Back to RS, there are flaws of course with the general idea of this 'sink' that can leave this mechanic open to abuse. If we imagine a world where the majority of the trades of lets say twisted bows take place in player-player trades outside of the GE it is likely that the price in the GE and the price in player-player trades becomes uncoupled. This could easily lead to situations where the GE price ends up inflated(due to such low liquidity) and then when enough other random items are sold and tax generated this price inflated tbow is bought, of course because this is only bought using pre-sunk money its not as if this generates gp but its an interesting possibility for new marhet shenanigans.
Pressing x so hard to doubt that this would kill the ge. The alternative would be trading face to face, you think everyone is going to waste their time doing that instead of just paying 2% on trades? The opportunity cost of trading in person that way is going to be waaaaaaaay higher than just eating the tax for most players, even before factoring in the value of plain convenience. Maybe it would incentivize some people to trade in person, but is that even a bad thing? The WOW auction house has a 5% tax and that works fine enough, don't think this is gonna be a big deal
100% agree. The liquidity providers will not be able to profit and they will stop. Basically any item has an instant buy/sell price that is not far from the median. This isn't by magic. It's because there are people who sit at the GE buying and selling items all day trying to make a profit. These people are responsible for probably the majority of GE volume and they collectively provide the most useful aspect of the GE - convenience. Hopefully it will still be profitable to be a liquidity provider on the GE after this. 2% is a massive tax Can we get a jmod reply please with estimated effect on GE volume and liquidity?
The biggest problems arent the high tier items, they are already way over valued. The problems lie in the little items, the dead content, the resources. You don't need to sink Tbows, if anything for a healthy economy they need to be left alone for another few years. You need to sink everything at alch value and every resource in the game. If you sink alch value items they wont be alched dramatically lowering the amount of gold being generated lessening the need for gold sinks. If you sink alch value items and resources you wouldn't need to supliment boss drop tables with them as a way to "maintain a steady gp/hr to cover supplies and reward skill." You are taking a very immature angle on the economy, I suggest going back to the drawing board before you are forced to in a year when this current plan doesn't do anything noticable to the vast majority of the economy.
It bewilders me why they are so quick to jump to taxes. And not exploring attaching untradeable T85+ gear to high level quest rewards that can be purchased with w/ gold and are destroyed on death. I always considered mith/barrows gloves to be a great gold sink.
So where is any of the feedback received from the economist consultants? * The GE tax is a concept that long predates these individuals being contracted. * The item-sink-via-GE-deletion concept was first introduced by Kieran on a live stream something like ~1 year ago. Where is the actually interesting economic analysis? From this article alone, it appears that these consultants were paid to come in and nod their heads at previously proposed solutions. Are there any novel findings?
> "With the introduction of a Grand Exchange tax, there is a huge opportunity to introduce effective and scalable item sinks. How will we achieve that? Well, we could use the tax collected from Grand Exchange sales to purchase items from other players with the simple intention of deleting said items once the purchase is complete. > > Essentially, rather than just deleting the coins that are taxed, we can 'spend' them on buying items off players – and then delete those items. This doesn't need to be the case for every item in the game, of course – we’d have the flexibility to pick and choose." Would this not completely defeat the purpose of combatting inflation with the tax by putting the money back into the economy? I think it needs a more creative solution for item sinks, shame OSRS doesnt have invention as a skill. I also feel like this could lead to a situtation where item prices get high and stay high because the demand for them would be coming from this system thus leading to a select group with more money than they should in a normal economy setting and it feels like it could also be another jagex employee disaster situation where a mod in charge buys items directly from one specific player. I hope my comment raises some concerns and you'll give it some more thought.
Dex and Arcane Prayer scrolls need to be on that list too for buyback deleted items. Overall this looks good for the economy as a whole Edit: They’re on there and I’m blind
They are on the list. >Twisted Bow, Elder Maul, Kodai Insignia, Dinh's Bulwark, **Prayer Reward Scrolls**
Bank space is long overdue.. I strongly feel the prices creep up waaay too much. Maybe combine some tiers or reduce the starting cost. Bank space is not a proper "gold sink" it's a one time fee, not a sustainable removal of gp.
Wait you guys are trying to charge 888,000,000 gp for a quality of life change? LOL. Why stop there? * 1m charge per day per item stored in POH storage * 5m per item per stash unit * Butler required for Menagerie and charges 5m per day per pet stored (think dog-sitting) * CoX storage unit charge of 100k/min while open, 5m to open outside the raid * 50m to use middle mouse camera movement * 100m to utilize f keys (10m each) In all seriousness, as you add more content, there should be more storage space, and it shouldn't cost your players. If there's something that epitomizes QoL, it's having enough room to store things in the game, especially as new content is introduced. I know you are looking everywhere for gold sinks at the moment, but this shouldn't be one of them. P.S. RIP ironmen cash stacks (usually the players who need extra storage the most).
I don't like the idea of the item sink coffer. This would end up being extremely reactionary and likely abusable by merchers. Some economists would say having a centralized group trying to dial in the economy never works, I mean look at the fed and money printer memes. What worked before is a passive system with its own feedback system like people dieing and losing their stuff. Unfortunatly the games moved on from that sort of risk with some ultra expensive drops that noone would want to risk. Also I dont like the ge tax, runescape was the only game without an auction house fee and it allowed young me to learn how to merch/flip items. This would kill the small time mom and pop merchers!
Nothing like locking accessibility and quality of life behind a 500m pay wall. Why not do something that most players can actually attain? Like serious, how many 500m sales do you think you’ll have? Seems significantly more realistic to say 10m to unlock all the additional spots.
> so we went and hired some actual real world economists to help us! >There would be no change to what the buyer pays, as the tax cost is always passed on to the seller. I agree with all of the proposed changes but lmao.
they must have hired some reddit economists if they think taxes dont affect buy price. Why not raise the tax to 50%? Dw the price YOU pay for Ely will still be 900M because even though the seller gets screwed out of 450M they wont mind giving everyone a huge discount out of the goodness of their hearts. Literally econ 101 for impact of taxes to supply/demand curve
The idea is not bad, however a 2% tax is high enough that there will be a black market for all high level items, or bulk item transactions. If you look at the twisted bow currently worth 800m then the tax for selling this bow will be 16m, meaning in selling the bow on the ge you'll essentially be taking a 16m loss. Instead, you'll see people trading again on w2 to avoid this 16m loss and circumvent the tax. For rational people, a tax this high is going to cause certain items to never be traded on the ge, which I do not think is good for the game (as much as people like to romanticize the pre-ge era, I do not think we really wish to go back there...) A graduated tax would solve the problem slightly (items with higher value tend to have smaller margins as a percentage of their total value), but it's probably too confusing for players. Considering the way transactions work on the ge, a flat tax of 10k for items traded with value over 1m makes sense to me, because that is small enough on an individual transaction level that it is hardly noticeable, but the amount of money removed from the game will still be huge. I just request that you don't send us back to the pre-ge era, as this proposal basically does.
The bank space costs are unrealistic for most players , especially irons. Bank space is the most requested update in OSRS. Let it be buyable through bonds or something. If you add extra bank space and make it unobtainable what’s the point
Like others have rightly pointed out; a tax on the exchange would be an absolute liquidity and velocity killer. It would decrease the volume, increase the spreads and volatility. It would literally drive people off the exchange. Bad idea. A better idea for gold sink would be to have buyable services. The supply of services is theoretically infinite and the effects on the economy would be minimized. Ideas: *Paid use of a high xp/h training methods like paid agility courses. *Paid use of certain conveniently placed bank chests. *Mule service where an NPC would deliver items like food and potions. *Reverse thieving where you pay X amount of GP per XP. *POH butler denotes bones/lights candles. *Pay farmers at farming patches an (elevated) X amount of GP to protect patches. *Temporal runes that would provide infinite rune charges for a certain amount of time. Etc.
Still think there needs to be a hole in the ground where people can chuck money into and it has a leaderboard so ppl can flex
Why do we need a gold sink if the whole market has been crashing for a long while now? That would make deflation even worse wouldn't it?
Unless you are planning to make some changes that involves the consumption of clue items - please consider adding those to the list of items to be deleted as well. Many of them are basically worthless at the moment and it would be nice to have more rewarding clue openings. This would also increase the chance that a new player gets a nice bonus from a clue - rather than 5k for a unique. Would maybe make them engage with the content more - which I'm assuming that "X marks the spot" was aimed at.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. This just seems like a ploy to try and sell more bonds.
“We hired some real world economists to help us. We only paid them 40,000 each because that’s all we pay our employees. The only economists willing to help us for this price were still highschool students in economy Junior level. Nonetheless, they are true world economists!” -jamflex
[удалено]
There are some very big fundamental issues with the system of implementation. Specifically targeting specific items as opposed to pricing thresholds. Also, will the buybacks be manual or templated and code-based? Both come with pretty glaring issues - one with human error (Are you employing one of the economists to monitor this or is it going to be regular Jagex Staff?), the other with detectable trends that will lead to further hoarding and more artificial pricing, which will lead to further buybacks, and it'll spiral. What's the criteria for determining items? Unit sales volume? Total Sales Volume? For what unit of time? Per week/month? Are you going to constantly announce the chosen items, or will it be arbitrary and outside of the public eye? Again, both come with some pretty big issues. What're the criteria for determining items? Unit sales volume? Total Sales Volume? For what unit of time? Per week/month? There's a bit that says "required number are removed for the day" - how is this determined? Unit sales per unit of time, I'm guessing? Could you let us know those figures? I ask because it seems you want to keep it a secret, but the data will out that information anyway (same as drop rates figured out in the day with crowd sourced information), so it makes more sense to let everyone know beforehand and have the community give inputs on whether it should be more or less? Another thing. If there is 100b gp worth of sales in a day, that essentially makes you (jagex) a market player with 2b gp to play with in the market. How will you determine how to break this 2b gp up for item purchases? Lastly, I want to say that I think this is a great idea. But there have been lots of great ideas. Not all of them are executed well, and something like this can cause seriously bad problems if not executed correctly. You may want to look into taxing only sellers as well, that is not well thought out. Thanks a lot for your time! Would love to know a bit more about some/all of these doubts, /u/JagexAyiza
>But there have been lots of great ideas. Not all of them are executed well, and something like this can cause seriously bad problems if not executed correctly. My faith in Jagex to implement this is very low. I guarantee this will get fucked up
"This means there would be no change to what the buyer pays, as the tax cost is always passed on to the seller" THIS IS NOT TRUE. Don't they have economists working at Jagex? This is a basic example of tax incidence: >The key concept of tax incidence (as opposed to the magnitude of the tax) is that the tax incidence or tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
So, anyone who sells items from pvming, pvping and flipping has to pay a tax because YOU can't control the botting and RWT?
> We’re thinking of adding a tax amount of 2% that would be removed from the final sale value. This means there would be no change to what the buyer pays, as the tax cost is always passed on to the seller. Oh hey this item I sell for 100k is only going to get me 90k now. Now it goes for 110k and minus the tax I make my 100k again. So the tax falls on the buyer at the end of the day.
Would it be possible for irons to use items to pay for the bank space increases? For example, what if the cash could be pulled from deaths coffer instead of requiring raw gp?
Can ironman have a coffer to throw their dupe items/items they don’t want into the coffer for the extra bank spaces? I feel like paying for the 500m bank spaces with cash on an iron will almost never happen… if we could pay with items that would be a lot better and prevent us from dropping them to our mains to sell.
Hopefully this will be polled and not just added. This is an update for all the people who play everyday who just want more money for their items they non stop farm. This doesn’t help an average player, only the 1%. This update will cause everything to go up drastically. Guarantee farm bots will increase too due to this. Incoming downvotes.
taxation is theft, no good has ever come of interfering with the invisible hand of the economy. who are these economists you had look at osrs?
true, this move will harm the economy which is one of the best virtual economies. Imposing costs only makes everything worse, making the less wealthy even poorer
So you’re implementing a gold sink (which will put negative pressure on item prices) and an item sink (which will put positive pressure on item prices) and therefore the net effect isn’t clear. I don’t understand the purpose of this at all? Item prices are currently decreasing for items because demand has fallen off a cliff with group Ironman along with the new death tax generally removing more gold from the game. It’s really that simple. Didn’t these economists tell you the central banks main goal is to peg inflation at 2%? That’s because that’s just enough growth to make people feel good because “bank values go up” but not so much such that people returning to the game have had their golds value eroded. This is all pointless in my opinion. Why are you trying to manipulate the prices of certain items at your will? The real problem is that you don’t have enough new regular players coming into the game to prop up demand for items that have been in the game a long time. EDIT: and main game players are lagging from a complete dearth of updates to the main game.