Taxes for stockpiling

[vazco]

44 minutes ago, Fenris said:

Exactly.."Money needs to go somewhere".

And that is the major problem with NA "economy".

It doesn`t flow between players as it should.

Yes, in large part it doesn't between players. It's generated by the game and it goes mostly to rare woods and upgrades being sold by AI. 

Introducing storage taxes creates only a very easy to avoid money sink which can annoy only new players, it doesn't make economy more player based

[Teutonic]

I'm with @Christendom on this.

Clan leaders should be able to set a clan tax from all bounties that members of the clan get when doing missions or open world fleets, or even pvp rewards.

Then the clan has a stream of income. This would allow you to then think of money sinks like what you propose in the original thread. 

I think the proposal though does not give anything to the players though and instead only takes away things. The game needs to create a carrot on this stick so a player is willinging to have a money sink for something.

 

[z4ys]

2 hours ago, Teutonic said:

I'm with @Christendom on this.

Clan leaders should be able to set a clan tax from all bounties that members of the clan get when doing missions or open world fleets, or even pvp rewards.

Then the clan has a stream of income. This would allow you to then think of money sinks like what you propose in the original thread. 

I think the proposal though does not give anything to the players though and instead only takes away things. The game needs to create a carrot on this stick so a player is willinging to have a money sink for something.

 

giving players to much leads to what we have now. we should start to take away stuff. Free everything doesnt help. we just quit faster.

Edited July 8, 2018 by z4ys

[z4ys]

2 hours ago, vazco said:

Yes, in large part it doesn't between players. It's generated by the game and it goes mostly to rare woods and upgrades being sold by AI. 

Introducing storage taxes creates only a very easy to avoid money sink which can annoy only new players, it doesn't make economy more player based

The first intention is not eco fix. its more of to generate pressure for rvr that is meh at the moment. Players should feel the pressure to conquer and hold. Otherwise yeah nothing to do.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Hell lets go hard core, if your port gets captured and it has clan warehouses in it the new Clan that owns the port gets every thing that was keep in the port after reset.

[vazco]

2 hours ago, z4ys said:

The first intention is not eco fix. its more of to generate pressure for rvr that is meh at the moment. Players should feel the pressure to conquer and hold. Otherwise yeah nothing to do.

Taxing stockpile is a very inefficient "pressure to RvR", and has multiple other issues.

If a goal is to pressure RvR, then a partial monopoly for goods for a clan owning a given port is an extremely good incentive:

As an additional bonus, it removes the issue which was the reason for alts to appear - removes for all nations lack of access to goods required to participate in RvR. It also removes usefulness of alts.

Edited July 9, 2018 by vazco

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:

Apply this rule only if you can create a warehouse outside safezone, otherwise it's useless  All clans keep warehouses in capitals.

You know there would be so much QQ going on if this happend....lol  Though really I was just joking when I made it even though 2 out of 3 of our clan warehouses are in captured ports.  Only our main crafting one is in safe waters now.

[Macjimm]

What if we could make ports stronger against defeat in Port Battles, and logistics, (resources, supply, gold etc. ) were required to maintain them.  Design the maintenance requirements proportional to the port strength.  That way there is a cost for the port protection.  Storage fees, or protection rates, would be the price paid for security. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Macjimm

[victor]

What amazes me about this community is that there are some guys that - after the poor results we had, in terms of game population, for making this game more and more difficult and boring (while it keeps being an empty box with so little content in it) - still think that it would be a good thing adding features that make this game even more boring, difficult, not rewarding and - at the end - not funny.

The tax on the warehouse would be just the next step in making this game even more unappealing for some players: it will make just quit the last (few) dedicated traders/crafters that are in the game.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by victor

[z4ys]

7 hours ago, vazco said:

...

If a goal is to pressure RvR, then a partial monopoly for goods for a clan owning a given port is an extremely good incentive:

...

the monopol is just a one time thing. After the clan owned that port they can start stockpiling and will never have again to capture and hold the port.

[vazco]

37 minutes ago, z4ys said:

the monopol is just a one time thing. After the clan owned that port they can start stockpiling and will never have again to capture and hold the port

From my experience it's not how it works. Prussia holds Little Harbour not because it's out of Copper Inglots, but to profit out of it. Prussia will defend strategical ports owning those goods regardless if it's stockpiled or not.

If you allow for clans to get more profit from strategical ports, it's a very good incentive. You don't need to starve them. 

[SirAlatriste]

I can see this thing just due to a improvements in the port defence capability.