[Notice] MTS Fee Change

[Eos]

Increasing the cost won't stop people from interserver trading. It'll just make it slightly more expensive. Paying 5xx NX to interserver trade is still a small price to pay.

Small for us, but 5 time as valuable to Nexon.
They want us to keep doing it, they just want to make as much as possible from it.

The contrast, the way I see it, is between already existing items in For Sale and Wantedt the time of the patch versus already existing items in Auction at the time of the patch.

While I see your point, I can't see a reason why they'd separate these into two separate buckets for clariifcation purposes if they weren't going to retain separate rules going forward.

Historical sales keeping their old values, but new sales getting the new values, while both historical and new auctions go to the new value is overly complex even for Nexon one would think.

Also note their complaint is about "traffic", not "space", and the auction abuse requires four times the login/logout and throughput of just using it as a storage space.

[Heidi]

But how was THAT lagging their server?

Not saying you're wrong, every interpretation of it has holes in it. Just wondering what you think of that though.

[Eos]

But how was THAT lagging their server?

Not saying you're wrong, every interpretation of it has holes in it. Just wondering what you think of that though.

See last paragraph to Cyanne just above you.

[Chameleonic]

Yay for me, I cant see this affecting me as I only play in the one server...still its a fail by Nexon though.

[Heidi]

See last paragraph to Cyanne just above you.

Yep, just read that.

I just read the whole thing again keeping in mind what you said. It does all go together very well. They call the NPC we use to transfer stuff "Storage Keeper". It's strange usage of the word, but it seems to be what Nexon thinks it is. Probably a poor translation I guess. So that means storing to transfer, not just storing. "and has become a burden on the game's performanc" - refers to the whole game and not just mts. People keeping items in mts would probably be a problem just with mts. I didn't think there would be that many people abusing auctions, but maybe I've just been unaware of it.

However
"Items that were listed under "For Sale" and "Wanted" will be sold with old transaction fee even after 7/28."
are would make more sense. But I guess that they have bad english.

"Items under "Auction" and those you "Buy Now" will be sold with new transaction fee even if the items were on MTS before 7/28."
I think that's bad english too, but not 100% sure.

You could be a detective, Eos. Your theory seems very likely, and I hope that it is right

[Chameleonic]

Items that were listed under "For Sale" and "Wanted" will be sold with old transaction fee even after 7/28.

This could also mean that when you put up NEW listings for "For Sale" and "Wanted" after 7/28 you are slugged with the new fee and when the old listings "expire" and become unlisted a week later, when you put them up for sale the "new fees" are payable...I guess we will find out in a few days.

[Eos]

"Items that were listed under "For Sale" and "Wanted" will be sold with old transaction fee even after 7/28."
are would make more sense. But I guess that they have bad english.

"Items under "Auction" and those you "Buy Now" will be sold with new transaction fee even if the items were on MTS before 7/28."
I think that's bad english too, but not 100% sure.

The way they split the two out implies that this is also how they'll behave going forward. Logically it would've had to have been phrased more like:

"Items that were listed under "For Sale" and "Wanted" will be sold with the old transaction fee even after 7/28 but anything new placed under "For Sale" and "Wnated" will be sold with the new transaction fee."

It's quite a cumbersome statement, but it's really the only way you can arrive at that particular conclusion from what they've provided.

Of course we already know logic isn't their strong point, so I could be just as wrong as anyone else, but I feel there is more supporting evidence for my interpretation than against it, since it only uses what is explicitly stated, not any inferences. I think everything hangs on that "were" instead of "are" because the author was looking backwards from the future.

[Cyanne]

Small for us, but 5 time as valuable to Nexon.
They want us to keep doing it, they just want to make as much as possible from it.



While I see your point, I can't see a reason why they'd separate these into two separate buckets for clariifcation purposes if they weren't going to retain separate rules going forward.

Historical sales keeping their old values, but new sales getting the new values, while both historical and new auctions go to the new value is overly complex even for Nexon one would think.

Also note their complaint is about "traffic", not "space", and the auction abuse requires four times the login/logout and throughput of just using it as a storage space.

When taxes were actually implemented, like a week or so after MTS came out, there were mixed taxed and untaxed listings, so it could happen again. They needed to clarify the sections separately because... they'd be separate in terms of what happens to listings in them as midnight rolls by between the 28th and 29th. I don't see a reason for them to put "were listed" instead of a different verb or form of wording unless they were referring to items in still listed in those sections before the patch. Sounds to me like they just didn't include "were listed before or on 7/28." If they didn't want the new tax to apply to those sections, it would have been "will be listed."

And don't people use wanted for server transferring? O_o

[Eos]

They needed to clarify the sections separately because... they'd be separate in terms of what happens to listings in them as midnight rolls by between the 28th and 29th.

Ugh. As I sit and think through the Nexonese-fail-coding I see one thing that supports the worst case scenario:

Auction price is computed at the time of purchase - So all auctions done after the 28th would incur the new fee automatically.

Sales price is computed at the time it's entered into the system, not at purchase - So items entered before the change would have been registered with a lower premium than those submitted after.

It could really go either way :/

Guess we'll have to wait for the 28th, or for them to learn how to effectively communicate. Speculating the subject to death is silly with it right on the doorstep, but really, if they did do it Worst Possible Way they're shooting themselves in the foot by cutting out a huge chunk of microtransactions.

[Rick]

This is Nexon, we'll have better luck with the Da Vinci code.

[Eos]

This is Nexon, we'll have better luck with the Da Vinci code.

T> Cold Fusion Generator for Nexon Secret Decoder Ring

[Heidi]

I guess we'll have to wait and see :(

If it's bad, then I'm sure a lot of people will quit. Sad for Nexon.

[loddlaen]

I guess we'll have to wait and see :(

If it's bad, then I'm sure a lot of people will quit. Sad for Nexon.

Doubtful Heidi. People will emo out and be over it in 2 days. Just like every other change pretty much since 2x cards were released. The people quitting probably don't even compare to the extra income this will generate for Nexon.

[bored4ever86]

T> Cold Fusion Generator for Nexon Secret Decoder Ring

Trade accepted meet me at the garbage can behind nexon headquarters at 3:32am on oct 24th 2908. Come Alone

[Outland]

Trade accepted meet me at the garbage can behind nexon headquarters at 3:32am on oct 24th 2908. Come Alone

It's a trap.
I have the real Decoder Ring. We'll rendezvous at 0300 by the fifty sixth tree in the park, going diagonally to the left, starting from the third water fountain from the entrance with the broken gate. The code will be, "A wet dog sighs by the dry fire."

If it does affect the For Sale items, I think many would be willing to buy 200 of an etc item for what ever the minimum price is.

[Rick]

It's a trap.
I have the real Decoder Ring. We'll rendezvous at 0300 by the fifty sixth tree in the park, going diagonally to the left, starting from the third water fountain from the entrance with the broken gate. The code will be, "A wet dog sighs by the dry fire."

I decoded your hidden message. I'll see you at sundown by the 2nd trash can to the left of the building diagonally opposite the Louvre. Look for the man in the mirror. If there is a dove in a pink hat, I'll know the kite has flown east, if you catch my drift. Maybe we'll find the answer as to what Nexon is planning.

[sinisterboy9]

Ugh. As I sit and think through the Nexonese-fail-coding I see one thing that supports the worst case scenario:

Auction price is computed at the time of purchase - So all auctions done after the 28th would incur the new fee automatically.

Sales price is computed at the time it's entered into the system, not at purchase - So items entered before the change would have been registered with a lower premium than those submitted after.

It could really go either way :/

Guess we'll have to wait for the 28th, or for them to learn how to effectively communicate. Speculating the subject to death is silly with it right on the doorstep, but really, if they did do it Worst Possible Way they're shooting themselves in the foot by cutting out a huge chunk of microtransactions.

Hi5! That's how I interpreted it too. 'Cept I don't have a rep for being smart so no one believed me, but...

[Stereo]

If it does affect the For Sale items, I think many would be willing to buy 200 of an etc item for what ever the minimum price is.

New minimum price (assuming they don't change the system) would be around 1075 NX, instead of 221

[BTMachinez]

While it's unfavorable to many people, this DOES however accomplish their goal of less MTS traffic because the hundreds upon hundreds of small transactions will instantly be cut off. No longer will you see the 30 some odd pages of 221 sells per item. They perhaps just used the improper use of storage as a dumb and uninformed excuse. Although I would have to say it's retarded of them to stop these because many sells eventually add up of course.

That is, if the changes are even going to affect normal transactions

[Stereo]

Unless they change the cost of listing an item, people will keep listing hundreds, they'll just put them in at a higher price, so less will get bought.