Petition for More Wards - ITS ABOUT TIME

[Jojoya]

Though isn't the base function of a currency sink to remove money from the game world?

The point is to get currency out of active circulation so inflation doesn't get out of hand and new players end up priced out of the game.

In a way, many of the wealthiest players are a mini-currency sink. They're using currency as a scoring system to see if they're "winning". They're not about to give up part of their score so it's not contributing to inflation. It's fine to have items that target that wealthy but it's not going to impact inflation.

That said my issue with a tax system largely boils down unless the tax is rather large given how easy it is to make vast amounts of gil after one is already established in a market any tax would just negatively impact players with smaller coffers. I get the idea behind it, thought I highly doubt SE will tax players at rate those who have gil to burn and a reliable means of earning gil would bat an eye lash even when it came to owning multiple plots since plots do prove a source of revenue.

Which is part of why I listed a staggered tax rate based on property size. Players with less wealth are more likely just to have the small houses and the tax could easily be paid with what's earned through normal game play. Players with greater wealth are the one who have the medium and large houses, or multiple houses. They're already going to greater effort to earn the gil and most of it is usually coming through sales to other players, not game play.

The one interesting thing to point out here is that the revenue that comes from housing isn't newly generated gil (with the exception of that which comes from selling salvaged accessories to a vendor). It's all gil already in circulation coming from other players through marketboard sales or direct trade transactions. When that's the revenue being used to pay the tax, the tax ends up an even more effective gil sink since it's using gil already in circulation.

This is all theoretical, of course, based on the idea of using housing as a gil sink and how it would be effective. SE is unlikely to do it.

[Awha]

The point is to get currency out of active circulation so inflation doesn't get out of hand and new players end up priced out of the game.

In a way, many of the wealthiest players are a mini-currency sink. They're using currency as a scoring system to see if they're "winning". They're not about to give up part of their score so it's not contributing to inflation. It's fine to have items that target that wealthy but it's not going to impact inflation.



Which is part of why I listed a staggered tax rate based on property size. Players with less wealth are more likely just to have the small houses and the tax could easily be paid with what's earned through normal game play. Players with greater wealth are the one who have the medium and large houses, or multiple houses. They're already going to greater effort to earn the gil and most of it is usually coming through sales to other players, not game play.

The one interesting thing to point out here is that the revenue that comes from housing isn't newly generated gil (with the exception of that which comes from selling salvaged accessories to a vendor). It's all gil already in circulation coming from other players through marketboard sales or direct trade transactions. When that's the revenue being used to pay the tax, the tax ends up an even more effective gil sink since it's using gil already in circulation.

This is all theoretical, of course, based on the idea of using housing as a gil sink and how it would be effective. SE is unlikely to do it.

That makes sense perosnally my goal was not to impact inflation, just to stagger the access to plots and treat it like the finite resource it is. Learned something new I always thought the core function of a gold sink was to remove the money from the game, and depending on what the sink was added to would have different impacts on the economy. Like in WoW I and many others do consider mounts a gold sink, and many do not even like that mounts are a good sink. Though I do not mind them personally. Though I will admit i never gave the ingame economy much thought.

Granted I was just going based off a wiki page, it seems based off thst page having an impact on the economy does not always have to be the primary goal of a gold sink, but it does make sense since removing gold from the game itself probably does not do much of anything.

Granted your idea makes sense, and I could see it working though I also doubt SE will do anything drastic to changd up housing since they seem to be fans of the status quo. Though I think that is part of the problem. since ad it stands housing has a limited supply but the prices are so readlity accessible it sort of gives people mixed signals.

[Jojoya]

That makes sense perosnally my goal was not to impact inflation, just to stagger the access to plots and treat it like the finite resource it is.

A tax does both, though. It helps to curb inflation and reduces demand for a finite resource.

It's easy to make the choice to buy something when you pay once and it's yours forever. If you don't end up using it not a big deal, it's not costing you any extra to keep it.

It's harder to make that choice if you have to keep paying for it each month. Will you use it enough to make it worth paying the recurring fee? If not, you're better off not buying it and saving the gil to buy other things you will be using.

When the idea of a tax has come up in past discussion, some players objected because they said they wouldn't have bought their house in the first place if there had been a tax they would need to keep paying. That shows a tax would have a positive effect on reducing demand for a limited resource.

[Awha]

A tax does both, though. It helps to curb inflation and reduces demand for a finite resource.

It's easy to make the choice to buy something when you pay once and it's yours forever. If you don't end up using it not a big deal, it's not costing you any extra to keep it.

It's harder to make that choice if you have to keep paying for it each month. Will you use it enough to make it worth paying the recurring fee? If not, you're better off not buying it and saving the gil to buy other things you will be using.

When the idea of a tax has come up in past discussion, some players objected because they said they wouldn't have bought their house in the first place if there had been a tax they would need to keep paying. That shows a tax would have a positive effect on reducing demand for a limited resource.

I cannot speak for others just myself if they kept housing prices at their current range a tax would not be enough to deter me. Spending small if not constant amounts of gil phases me all that much, but say if the buy in price was higher I would sort of think twice, and if the buy in price was higher and came with a tax that probably would be enough to sway my thoughts of buying plots on my second account I have been getting ready for Ishgard housing.

Though will admit for most maybe a tax in itself would be enough to sway them especially the casual owners that really do not do much and just treat it like a window dressing.

Over would be interesting to see what kind of impact diffedent methods would have on the market and demand. Be it a lottery, higher prices, taxes, an ingame method to buy and sell homes to other players.

Though sadly SE clearly seems stuck in their ways.