Jump to content


Evolution of the trade program...trade with players?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

BULLPUPBAKERST1 #1 Posted 11 February 2019 - 03:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 49797 battles
  • 13,930
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    12-27-2014

I won the minuteman in a war chest around Xmas time. I didn’t play it until last week. I can’t sell it to another player, but I don’t like it at all. It is too slow and it’s turret traverse is too slow as well. 

 

You should consider allowing us to trade premiums with each other. I’m willing to pay a transaction fee, say 500-1000 gold to complete the trade (initiator pays the fee).  There’s a few premiums I would like to try, but you aren’t going to get me to buy them for full gold. 

 

Just a thought. 


 

100% Credit/Thanks to Violet Viper X for the fantastic Sig. 

 

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.-Nietzsche-

 


FRlGHTKNIGHT #2 Posted 11 February 2019 - 03:36 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9469 battles
  • 816
  • [ASYLM]
  • Member since:
    10-19-2018
That's a great idea. A player to player market place would be awesome. We should be able to test drive tanks too for a small fee. Not sure they'd allow it tho. We can always hope.

BULLPUPBAKERST1 #3 Posted 11 February 2019 - 03:45 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 49797 battles
  • 13,930
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    12-27-2014

View PostFRlGHTKNIGHT, on 11 February 2019 - 10:36 AM, said:

That's a great idea. A player to player market place would be awesome. We should be able to test drive tanks too for a small fee. Not sure they'd allow it tho. We can always hope.

 

WG has to make money off of it though or it makes no sense for them at all. Example: I would trade my minuteman for a clown shoe just to try it out, but there is no way I’m buying a clown shoe or bog horror, ever. If you had one of those and felt the same way about it as I do the minuteman, we could trade for 1k gold. WG gets 1k gold where they would have gotten none prior

 

100% Credit/Thanks to Violet Viper X for the fantastic Sig. 

 

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.-Nietzsche-

 


Sparrowhawk1970 #4 Posted 11 February 2019 - 04:17 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 19885 battles
  • 542
  • [CAT-1]
  • Member since:
    12-22-2015
Brilliant idea. I would + this post 100 times if I could. WG wins, players win!

Wakkomaster #5 Posted 11 February 2019 - 04:21 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13669 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    07-12-2015

Odd that you mention this Bullpup, my brother and I were talking about it the other day too. It's definetely a good idea, and I'm glad that you already checked for potential loopholes and looked for ways to avoid them. I wish everyone on this forum would do the same when posting their suggestions :great:

 

We came to pretty much the same conclusions, you should add some sort of fee to WG otherwise they'd only lose potential income from it. It should be an amount based on the transaction value, instead of a fixed fee, but if it's high enough there should be a piece of cake for everyone. It's a bit like trading used videogames, it can slow sales down a bit so if you can compensate the manufacturer/publisher somehow nobody should get hurt.

However I'm not sure it can be done from a technical point of view, as the WoTC stores are managed to some extent by Sony and Microsoft. My brother thinks that WG can legitimately keep such transactions internally, keeping Sony and Microsoft outside of it, but I'm not sure of it.


Currently playing World of Tanks on:

Xbox - Wakkomaster

You can also find me on:

Playstation - Wakkopresi

PC - Wakkomaster


MyFatHands #6 Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:01 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13555 battles
  • 62
  • [TRZ]
  • Member since:
    08-19-2018
10% of the higher value tank would be acceptable. I'd imagine they'd need to limit it to tier for tier too, to stop people swapping 8's for 2's with their alts. 

DwarfOnDrugs #7 Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:06 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 30854 battles
  • 2,369
  • [-UNL-]
  • Member since:
    03-12-2014
No point WG  would make more money with current system

 


Blossomy_Hippo #8 Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:18 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7503 battles
  • 501
  • [ALPI]
  • Member since:
    12-10-2015

View PostBULLPUPBAKERST1, on 11 February 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

I won the minuteman in a war chest around Xmas time. I didn’t play it until last week. I can’t sell it to another player, but I don’t like it at all. It is too slow and it’s turret traverse is too slow as well. 

 

You should consider allowing us to trade premiums with each other. I’m willing to pay a transaction fee, say 500-1000 gold to complete the trade (initiator pays the fee).  There’s a few premiums I would like to try, but you aren’t going to get me to buy them for full gold. 

 

Just a thought. 

 

An in-game player driven economy? Are you mad :trollface:, how are WG gonna earn their keep?

 

 

 

It's never gonna happen but i support the idea


*PS4 Stats*

 

 

 


BULLPUPBAKERST1 #9 Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:24 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 49797 battles
  • 13,930
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    12-27-2014

View PostDwarfOnDrugs, on 11 February 2019 - 12:06 PM, said:

No point WG  would make more money with current system

You are probably correct...unlike me, most players will break down and buy the premium for full gold. The only premiums I will buy full at this point are new nation (Italians) trainers. I did trade my fatherland for a banshee but that only cost me 186 gold. I wouldn’t buy the full price banshee. I was trying to come up with a way for them to get my gold under conditions acceptable to both of us. 


 

100% Credit/Thanks to Violet Viper X for the fantastic Sig. 

 

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.-Nietzsche-

 


RAGNAR0K N ROLL #10 Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:25 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 19040 battles
  • 10,781
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

Premium rentals (for a gold fee) and tank exchanges are two of my more requested features in this game and the former would probably quiet a lot of the griping people do about premiums they bought that they didn't like.

The latter I'd like to use to give my son a few of the tanks I don't like but he might and I'd be willing to pay gold for both services.


The Warrior of The Wasteland...The Ayatollah of Rock N' Rolla....

 


BULLPUPBAKERST1 #11 Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 49797 battles
  • 13,930
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    12-27-2014

View PostRAGNAR0K N ROLL, on 11 February 2019 - 12:25 PM, said:

Premium rentals (for a gold fee) and tank exchanges are two of my more requested features in this game and the former would probably quiet a lot of the griping people do about premiums they bought that they didn't like.

The latter I'd like to use to give my son a few of the tanks I don't like but he might and I'd be willing to pay gold for both services.

 

I like the rental idea, but that would be difficult to price...all of the crew trainers I bought for Sweden, Czechoslovakia, and Poland would have been cheaper as 3 week rentals ...I guess best done with a 25 battle rental and then purchase or lose

 

100% Credit/Thanks to Violet Viper X for the fantastic Sig. 

 

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.-Nietzsche-

 


RAGNAR0K N ROLL #12 Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:59 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 19040 battles
  • 10,781
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

View PostBULLPUPBAKERST1, on 11 February 2019 - 11:31 AM, said:

 

I like the rental idea, but that would be difficult to price...all of the crew trainers I bought for Sweden, Czechoslovakia, and Poland would have been cheaper as 3 week rentals ...I guess best done with a 25 battle rental and then purchase or lose

 

Yeah that's kind of my idea;

Price it via tier/tank not sure if 10% of price isn't a bit too steep honestly at least with some things like the high end Tier VIII's and obviously strict battle limit would be necessary 20-25 seems about right to get a good scald on what a tank will play like and whether its a good "fit" for you or not. I do think that limiting or outright preventing credit/XP earning while renting is good and prevents people from abusing the system. Though I do think at the end of the rental option to purchase said tank while applying the gold spent on rental toward that price would be an obvious thing.


The Warrior of The Wasteland...The Ayatollah of Rock N' Rolla....

 


Gallant Prime #13 Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:23 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Ambassador
  • 44338 battles
  • 3,879
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

I would pay half the gold to give some of my tanks away to other players. 

 

Of course as soon as I typed that I realized the side business that would go on.  Yeah WG would get the transaction fee but I can see people saying on the side give me half the gold.  As a buyer you still win, as a seller you win, and WG loses.  


 


Wakkomaster #14 Posted 12 February 2019 - 09:48 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13669 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    07-12-2015

View PostGallant Prime, on 11 February 2019 - 07:23 PM, said:

I would pay half the gold to give some of my tanks away to other players. 

 

Of course as soon as I typed that I realized the side business that would go on.  Yeah WG would get the transaction fee but I can see people saying on the side give me half the gold.  As a buyer you still win, as a seller you win, and WG loses.  

 

Yes, it's easy to lose perspective when talking about the game economy - it's natural to see things from your point of view as consumer, and lose track of the seller side. Forumers like to talk about "pro consumer" decisions, sometime forgetting that if the consumer wins the seller most likely loses, which might lead to closing the business.

 

It's a matter of balance. I'm going to bit a bit verbose here, please bear with me.

 

Let's see what we have right now: with the trade-in system one player basically sells a premium for half its value and uses the gold to pay for a new tank, right? This way WG still earns something from the sale of a new premium, not the full price mind you, but there's still an income.

For the player it's good because the value they assign to the old tank turned in is 0 - in fact, they sell it because it served its purpose and has no utility left. So nevermind the sold tank, the buyer gets a nice discount on the new premium.

WG loses a bit of value due to the discount, but gains a sale that otherwise wouldn't have happened, so they're good too.

Both sides have advantages then.

 

We can agree that in a player-to-player trade system you just have to let WG in if you want it to happen: they run the business, of course, and they act as some sort of "middleman" so let's say the two players are willing to pay WG a fee for "service offered". Otherwise they would just lose on potential sales not happening without gaining anything. How much they'd be losing? Check above: the full price of the new premiums bought by each players, minus half the price of the tanks traded in. That's a lot of money.

So what this fee should be like? If it was half the value of the tank obtained from the other player, WG'd be quite in the same situation as with the trade-in system, though they might be able to trade for tanks not available with the trade-in. WG wouldn't lose money compared to the other system, but maybe they'd gain on more potential sales so they could offer an extra discount? Maybe, but keep in mind that any trade happening replaces a purchase from the store, and in the case of full-price premiums it would be a considerable loss (much less in the case of discounted premiums, of course).

 

Let's see a few numerical examples.

Let's say I have tank A with a retail price of 5.000 and would like to trade it in to buy Tank B with a retail price of 10.000. Sounds good. I get a 2.500 discount by giving Tank A to WG so I'll buy Tank B for the new price of 7.500.

I'm happy because I had a 2.500 discount giving away a tank I didn't use and which had (for me) a value of 0. WG gains 7.500 from a sale that otherwise wouldn't have happened, so they'll take it even if it's not the full price of 10.000.

Sounds good right?

Now, what happens with the player-to-player trade?

We have Player 1 who would like to give away tank A (retail price 5.000) for tank B (10.000) and Player 2 who... would just like to do the opposite. They're in luck!

Now if Player 1 used the trade-in System he'd pay 7.500 for his new tank, we already know that. Player 2 is quite lucky, as he'd get tank A for free (5.000 - 10.000 x 50% = 0). WG would get 7.500 from Player 1 and nothing from Player 2 (beside a happy player?).

If they traded their tanks giving WG a fee equal to 50% of the acquired tank, Player 1 would have to pay 5.000 for tank B, Player 2 would pay 2.500 for tank A and WG would get 7.500 just like they would with the current trade-in. Player 1 would be ecstatic and Player 2... a little less (but hey, he still paid far less than the retail price and his old tank found a new home). The only way this could work is if

a) The players are friends, and do want to trade their tanks no matter what

b) Tank A wouldn't be available with the Trade-In, but only at full retail price or with the Player-to-Player trade

 

With a 50% fee both system would be equal for WG, while anything less would make the Player-to-Player less attractive (still, however, they could gain on potential sales), but still it would have a great appeal on players who could give their unused tanks to their friends, which sounds quite nice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey! You're still reading this? Huzzah! I have a medal for you :medal:


Currently playing World of Tanks on:

Xbox - Wakkomaster

You can also find me on:

Playstation - Wakkopresi

PC - Wakkomaster


DiabolicGambit #15 Posted 12 February 2019 - 11:45 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18799 battles
  • 715
  • [MAJOR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
Wg would make a fortune.. creat a bidding system similar to what EA has.. keep rare tanks rare but create a trade market where you make a % of the sale price over and over and over.. also start a rental program.. 50 gold for 5 games one time per tank...or just offer all tanks for use in team training..

Gallant Prime #16 Posted 12 February 2019 - 02:27 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Ambassador
  • 44338 battles
  • 3,879
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDiabolicGambit, on 12 February 2019 - 05:45 AM, said:

Wg would make a fortune.. creat a bidding system similar to what EA has.. keep rare tanks rare but create a trade market where you make a % of the sale price over and over and over.. also start a rental program.. 50 gold for 5 games one time per tank...or just offer all tanks for use in team training..

 

That sounds worse...


 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users