The premise of a “tax” or transaction fee on the trade does have some benefits, and it has been brought up before as a potential solution at least somewhat akin to your idea, I think.
This looks like it may be a similar idea:
There was also some interesting discussion in this thread:
There’s a lot of discussion on various approaches there, which are probably worth reading through. But I’ll try to pick out a few of the tax-related ones for direct relevance:
A couple follow-up posts on that brought up some points similar to what @Suicide_Bunny said:
My personal thought is that many things about this game’s premise of hero collection remind me of collectible card games I played when I was young. In the universe of physical card games, trading and buying/selling are natural inevitabilities, and in some ways part of the fun of buying card packs or visiting collectible shops.
That makes me wish there were some similar mechanism here.
But I suspect in the case of E&P, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. It’s hard for me to imagine introducing any form of trading or sales, even with anti-abuse mechanisms in place, when so many people have spent so much on RNG summons already. Presumably a lot of those people would feel slighted that they could have potentially acquired heroes they were after less expensively through a trade/auction system.
And SG has seemed to express a desire, in general, to somewhat insulate players from each other.
While alliances and global chat have social components, they’re really the exception. SG has indicated a disinterest in direct trading of mats, hero trading/selling, and even private chat. The fact that the Alchemy Lab is being implemented as a solution to mat trading “with the computer” instead of between players is a good indication of this.
They could certainly change their minds, but I think any variation of exchange between players is unlikely.
I personally think there’s more possibility SG would consider something like the Alchemy Lab, but for heroes, where you could “trade” a hero you had for another, with what would be presumably some cost and an RNG component involved.
That idea, too, has been proposed/discussed a fair amount on the forum, though I have no idea how likely it is to be seriously considered.
