Skip to Content
9-19-2011 @ 9:24PM
Hmm. How about taxation based on ability to pay? I know people would QQ about socialism, but it seems to me best solution to the problem as described is to make "heavy-use" gold sinks like repairs and the AH cut have more effect on players with greater amounts of gold. Describe it as the NPCs "taking advantage of the rich" or something.Oh, and give me the repair money from Jeeves. Engineering would instantly become the most profitable profession. (Yeah, I know it's never gonna happen. I can dream right?)
9-19-2011 @ 10:07PM
Then people would just put all of their gold onto their bank alts, and carry around 2 copper (or the bare minimum) on their mains to avoid ever having to repair or pay to list auctions.
9-19-2011 @ 10:41PM
Well what if you also made gold Bind on Battle.net account?
9-20-2011 @ 1:01AM
this actually isnt a bad idea if you modify it. consider a higher sales tax on the ah for that accounta net worth. i dont mean something ridiculous (ala human government). the high end gold cappers are using the ah to amass their wealth. it would make it harder for me to corner markets or run the little guy off if my ah sales had a lower profit margin. i realize initially it would put me in that boat but it would also cause me to "invest" in inventory more, and with lower inflation i wouldnt be opposed to that.
9-20-2011 @ 5:33AM
WoW has nothing to do with socalism, it's a dictatorship where the dictators dictate the rules of physics, in addition to your actions in them.Your tax idea would work if properly implemented, but you could get the same effect by making some super-duper-new-shade-of-purple-mount and make it 100k gold at a vendor.
9-20-2011 @ 7:07PM
Barrack?!? Is that you?
9-20-2011 @ 10:13AM
Basil, with all due respect, I think you underestimate the player will for shinies. Any mount or companion, even costing 100k, will be bought by the "middle class", and affect them more significantly than it did the high rollers. In fact, that's the problem with gold sinks in general- they cost a greater percentage of money for those with less money. But any gold sink where people are willing to pay will have the same or even a greater effect as a gold sink where people have to pay, because they will pay once they can and it's a fixed(high) amount. True, it has no effect on the poorer population, but then they feel left out, which runs counter to Blizzard's current design philosophy of "anyone can do anything".The only solutions which will proportionately affect the richer more than the poorer are those which are in some way designed to do so and get around the inevitable attempts to circumvent it. Several great ideas for that have been suggested in these very comments. I guess in the end I don't have any problems with mount and pet gold sinks, and probably they serve the purpose of lowering AH prices by lowering the middle class money pool. But it troubles me that Blizzard would ever design a mount or pet for that purpose- because us poor people would want it too, and if we ever got it, it would set our money pool back to zero.
9-20-2011 @ 1:58PM
The tax idea is an interesting one on paper, despite whatever your political leanings may be. The problem is that taxes are paid to a governing body under the assumption that some publicly controlled good/service is being exchanged. In real life, our taxes go to things like fixing roads, the military, public schools, etc. These are ubiquitous, quality-of-life endeavors without which our society would likely cease to function. I'm having a hard time imagining what quality-of-life services Blizzard could give us for in-game gold. If in game gold was to be arbitrarily taxed without any return on our "investment" whatsoever, it would only be a matter of time before a new Magna Carta is delivered to Blizzard in the face of cancelled subscriptions.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.