Can we remove "transfer" and "loaning" tax? (in General)


Arorrr September 27 2005 12:49 PM EDT

Since we now have a very large cash sink hole (item spawns into auction, instead of camping), can we reduce or even eliminate some of the "cash sink" holes that were implemented in CB1?

Examples: high auction tax, high transfer tax, high loan tax, high character transfer. Reducing or eliminate some of these tax would make the game more balance.

The tax I like to get eliminate the most is the "cash" transfer tax. 0.5% can add up over time. High NW items transfer tax is very high also. I like it get to reduce substantially.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] September 27 2005 12:52 PM EDT

Eco clans would have a purpose how after this?

Not that rares no longer spawning had anything to do with that already, but....now you want this added onto it? =X

Maelstrom September 27 2005 12:53 PM EDT

Eco clans have a purpose now?

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] September 27 2005 12:55 PM EDT

I always thought that more cash sinks in this game would be better since it does help the fight against the 1 billion NW such as has been reached in CB1.

Arorrr September 27 2005 3:05 PM EDT

Well, the total cash sink in CB1 is a pittance compared to cash sink from item in auction in CB2.

For examples, if you add all of the transfer, loaning and auction fee from ELB groups, it probably not add up to 1-2 ELB auction spawn (3-6M total).

Another examples: how many transfers does it take to have the transfer fee total up to the value of that item?

{CB3}-HR22 September 27 2005 3:33 PM EDT

I would like to see the re-naming of a character fee reduced a lot.

AdminShade September 27 2005 3:36 PM EDT

that fee is to prevent people from renaming daily

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] September 27 2005 3:48 PM EDT

couldnt you just make it like an account name? 30 days to rename.

maulaxe September 29 2005 11:14 AM EDT

also, the fee for rentals was helping to prevent floods of worthless items, but with the NW/PR link, people might use rentals for small items if the fees were lower...
and speaking of rentals, weren't tat rentals made viable once again with the 'max tattoo' feature?

Karmic Mishap [Soup Ream] September 29 2005 11:36 AM EDT

I, too, feel wholeheartedly that tat rentals are quite viable again.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001XOr">Can we remove "transfer" and "loaning" tax?</a>