Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'taxes'.
Found 4 results
Intrepido posted a topic in SuggestionsIt is well known that we have 2 kind of taxes: 100k for owning a port and 500k for setting a timer. A total of 600k. The result is a costly fee that very few clans can afford or are willing to make the requested daily grind. As a consequence, more and more ports turn into neutral (and some keep this status for weeks now (despite its strategical location)), people care less about ports, more empty PBs and RVR dies miserably. My proposal is something in between devs´s idea of taxes and the situation we had before (no taxes): Make taxes related to the BR of ports. Deep Water ports: _Low BR ports (2500-3000). Ports thought for small clans. A tax of 200k (instead of 600k). _Medium BR ports (5000). Ports thought for medium size clans. A tax of 400k (instead of 600k). _High BR ports (8000-12000). Ports thought for big clans. The current tax of 600k. Shallow water ports: _1100 BR ports. A tax of 300k (instead of 600k). _2500 BR ports. the curent tax of 600k. This way we can standardize almost everything aroud the BR of the ports: required hostility, taxes and logical owners. Discuss. Important note: RvR still need tweaks in other important areas to be fully appealing. IMO, this is a step forward to revive conquest.
Suggestion: Introduce taxes for stockpiling in the warehouses. Details: all player warehouses and clan warehouses will have to pay taxes on each used slot every maintenance cycle. If player cant effort to pay the taxes local goverment will size the goods till missed fee + additional charge is payed sized good penatly payment increases each day up to a maximum of xx. A clanwarehouse at a port that the clan owned has no tax cost. Pros: Money drains reduces stockpiling by players "meaningful eco?" + pressure rvr Cons: Can be bypassed by using ship cargo slots to reduce taxes players have to pay taxes (oh no)
Hey, I thought I put some work into that and collect/suggest different changes to RvR to make it interesting and not a pain again. Hostilitymissions and how they should change The portbattle itself and the reward and why it should feature a instant reward Ports and their Management The port costs and timers The use of ports and connection to crafting Hostilitymissions and how they should change Hostilitymissions are good right now when it comes to distance to port, defenderadvantage etc. What is bad about them is that they take a shit ton of time. In short there is a table I made: 1st rate BR 560 Time for 1 mission 25 1st rate sank = 3% Right now Suggestion Port BR Hostility 1 mission Normal Groupsize in PB Needed Hostility Missions needed for PB group Time needed in minutes Needed Hostility Missions needed for PB group Missions at same time Time needed in minutes 2640 4480 8 18667 4,17 125 8000 1,79 0,8 55,80 5380 5600 14 ? ? ? 18000 2,30 1,4 57,40 10560 5600 21 ? ? ? 28000 2,38 2,1 59,52 So in my oppinion it should take 1 hour for a portbattlegroup to flip a port. Within 1 hour it is possible for a defender to defend the port. A big group can probably instaflip ports again but only the lower BR ports. 2. The portbattle itself and the reward and why it should feature a instant reward Doing a portbattle should give a instant reward to reward players instantly for being active in the game (and winning). However this should not be Victorymarks but it should be chests. Different chests should get into the game, not weighting much where you can loot stuff. These chests should be dependend on how much BR you sank in the PB. BR levels: 2000 BR sank Chest with Gold 4000 BR sank Chest with Gold and frigatenote maybe 8000 BR sank Chest with Gold and 4th/3rd rate note 12000 BR sank Chest with Gold and 2nd rate note 16000 BR sank Chest with Gold and Victorymark, 1st rate note and Paint This means 5 different chests with different levels of loot from. (Devs probably know better what should be inside the chests) Why BR sank? To fight a bit against damagefarming or organized prtbattles etc. For good rewards you need to sink a lot of ships. The best chests will only be available if a lot of ships sank. Rewards should go to both sides of the battle. The winner already gets the port itself. 3. Ports and their management Ports lack some management options right now. You should be able to not only give up a port but to transfer ownership to another clan You should be able to get a few of the ressouces that this port drops only for your clan Or you should be able to lock it for your clan and friendly clans for a payment of 500.000 gold a day Also a specialization of the port would be nice. Trading (more tradinggoods) Crafting (bonus to RNG look below) Labor (Reduced labor hour costs) 4. Port costs and timers Are fine right now in my oppinion. Timer cost a lot and that goes both ways. It’s fine. 5. The use of ports and connection to crafting Right now a lot of ports don’t give you anything so in my oppinion new modifiers to craftingRNG should be added. Right now there are a lot of refits that only drop from capping AI ships. They should be tied to ports that have no meaning right now. (And they should be nerfed, Pirate rig and carta) Also the port should be able to specialize in something. The owning clan should be able to set a specialization of shipbuilding (Fast, sturdy, Crew) Both only give a bigger chance than crafting in the safezone. There should not be a chance higher than 30% for both specializations so safezone crafting is still efficient aswell. Why? To not make it necessary to own them for portbattles or something else. I think these changes would benefit the current RvR a lot while not making it necessary to play RvR. edit 12.04.2018 6. Let changing a timer take 2 maintenances Right now you can change a timer if you know your enemy is preparing for a attack the next day. This shouldn't be possible that fast. Better: Timerchange happens on monday with VM mark giveaway. If you cap a port you can set a timer next maintenance 7. Different paints for different nations Only a bit connected to RvR but it allways bothers me that every ship looks the same and only the flag is different. In my oppinion every nation should have a different default paintjob making battles far more immersive in my oppinion. Bernadottes post of a statisfaction system of ports connected to hostility needed etc. for a port: 8. more taxes Repairing in port should go to the clan owning the port Crafting (the gold you pay) should go to the clan owning the port 9. Hostilitypoll
The 16th, 17th and 18th were the centuries of new economic doctrines, central banks development, trade monopolies and joint stock companies. Although I think it wouldn't be interesting to go too far into economics, basing some game features on those historical facts and their consequences could help creating deepness and diversity. In the Age of Sail, the major European states were trying to develop their economic power in the homeland and in their colonies. In order to protect their territories and discourage the potential aggressors, they built and armed fleets for war. War fleets weren't cheap, and finding the money and supplies to afford them required to protect the trade routes and levy taxes. In a game based on naval combat and conquest, a complex economy wouldn't only fit well the period, but would also reinforce the main features, providing a strategical environment - and the needed preys on the oceans. A quick look at economics during the Age of Sail Three economic doctrines shared the favours of the state governments during those centuries. Mercantilism (wealth in trade) called for the working up of goods within the country, an abundance of money, and a favourable trade balance. Physiocracy (wealth in land), promoted a circular flow of income, taxes on landowners instead of farmers, and free trade. Classical economy (wealth in labour) advocated the production of goods, maximum flow of wealth, and no trade regulation. To combat the multiplicity of currencies and their approximate value (especially due to the wear of the metal), the Bank of Amsterdam was created in 1609. It was a deposit bank which allowed to withdraw safe money in exchange of a charge. Amsterdam would become the centre of the European exchange market, before a market krach and a financial scandal prepared its closure in 1820. Helped by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (overthrow of the catholic king James II of England by the Dutch army of William of Orange), the British financial revolution started by the creation of the Bank of England in 1694. It issued bank notes, facilitating the development of multiple country banks. The public credit was supported by the parliamentary monarchy which defended the property rights of the creditors. The history of trade and Navies is related to the development of banks. In 1602, the general assembly of the United Provinces decided to unite the multiple Dutch companies under one single flag : the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie was born. After the discovery of the East Indies by the Dutch sailors, it was necessary to break the competition between small companies in order to support the war effort against Spain and Portugal. The VOC, first multinational company, « state in the state », had the trade monopoly in the East Indies (4700 ships armed in two centuries), disposed of the regal powers (police, defence, justice) in its territories, nominated governors, did its own diplomacy, and possessed a war fleet supported by a land army of 12000 men. After a decline due to too much dividends, trade evolution and corruption, it was dissolved in 1798 when the United Provinces were invaded by the Napoleonic armies. The Bank of Amsterdam provided credit to Holland and to trade, effectively financing the VOC. A lot of the VOC shareholders also possessed shares in the Bank of Amsterdam. The Bank of England was a creditor of the state. The public borrowings (« Navy bills »), voted by the parliament, mostly financed the development of the Royal Navy. Some high trade taxes and the Land Tax also helped developing the arsenals of Portsmouth and Plymouth. The number of ships in the Navy would increase accordingly to the British debt. The British financial revolution also promoted joint stock companies instead of monopoly companies. In 1697 has been founded the Jonathan's Coffee House where stock prices were displayed. It has been renamed as London Stock Exchange in 1777. In 1688 has been founded the Lloyd's Coffee House in London, where sailors, traders, ship owners and shippers agreed upon assurance contracts. Many joint stock companies would further develop maritime assurance. That's it for history. I think some systems such as different currencies, cash/non-cash money or public borrowings might be uninteresting to implement, because not adding to the gameplay, too complex or difficult to balance. But I may be wrong. Also I won't speak too much about game features related to the state treasury here. Types of goods Some goods could be perishable. It would fit realism, and bring some requirements to supply the ships. A ship couldn't be sailing forever, it would have to find a friendly port before running out of, for example, food (6 months before the crew would be devastated by scurvy - funny story BTW: as the British gave lemon to their crew to counter scurvy, the French tried to copy the principle and gave them vinegar ). Some cargo would have to be delivered or used before disappearing. The ships themselves could have a lifetime, which would be made longer by refits. Some goods would be intended to build and arm ships. Wood, metals, hemp, food... Some goods would be intended to make profits only. Cloves, diamonds, tapestry, silk... Some goods could fit both intends. Thus the player-player circuit and the player-AI circuit could be linked. Regions and markets The world could be divided into regions. Each region would include one or multiple ports, and a hinterland. Each hinterland would be both a production market and a consumption market. Some crafting ports could be partly supplied by their hinterland with easy access through rivers. Some others could require fully sea supply (wood from the Baltic or from Italy). The prices could evolve depending on the offer. For example, if all the merchants of the United Provinces would sell much cloves at the same time, the prices would drop until the consumption market would have used up its stocks. Maybe the production markets could be developed by factory infrastructures, but maybe the production markets could be controlled by the AI, and only the port infrastructures would be build-able by players. Contract system Sailing a ship wouldn't require to have built and armed it. Some contracts in small ships could be proposed by the AI : trade to Amsterdam, privateer in the Channel... The player would be given either a wage or a share of the profits. Players could propose contracts as well. Maybe a programmed system would help, maybe a simple display system could just let players decide how to organize contracts. After gaining some money with AI contracts, players could choose to become ship builder, shipper, ship renter or financier. Players could decide to sail their own ships or not. Companies Companies could be different than societies. Societies would be for players who like to play together or share the same game purpose. Companies would be for players who share the same economic interests. Players could decide to have one company linked to their society, or let their members join the company they like. So there could be multiple societies in one company, or multiple companies in one society. If it's too complicated, there could be only companies or whatever the name. I guess companies would be organized the same way as usually in games. A director would have some rights, that he could share with other players or not. As well as the contract system, companies could be shaped by programming, or a simple display system would let players do it by themselves. Companies could decide to specialize into specific activities or not, as described in the contract system paragraph. Maybe assurance could be interesting to be added. Depending on where the companies would settle, the ports could become ship building ports, trading ports or ports of transit. Taxes and governors Basically there could be taxes everywhere. There could be hinterland taxes and port taxes. Taxes on buildings, taxes on goods, taxes on people. Taxes on production, taxes on trade, taxes on owning. Taxes per weight, taxes per item, taxes per time, taxes per capacity... Just Death and Taxes Where taxes would be doesn't matter much yet. The purpose of taxes is to give to some companies the money supply to build things. Things that help the players who pay taxes. So basically, taxes are power. How to choose who will decide where the taxes would be and how to use the money coming from the taxes ? I think the political power should be related to the economic power. It wasn't exactly true historically, but the economic power often influenced the political power. In the game, the economic power would be the combat power. Basically, money would be gained through prices differences from a place to another. So if you can't haul goods in dangerous waters, or steal goods, you don't get economical power. So I think it would reinforce the core features, and would be fair, to let the amount of wealth be the factor deciding who would govern. Then there could be different ways to finally choose a governor : he could be either the director of the company providing the most wealth, a representative chosen by this company, or he could be elected by all the companies providing wealth (with the weight of a vote depending on the wealth). Smuggling Since there are taxes, there is a black market … and law enforcement authorities. I'm not sure how smuggling could be represented in game. Maybe some beaches along the coasts, that would provide smuggling places with the region they are included in ? Loading/unloading goods would take some time, to let patrolling players engage a battle against smugglers. The smugglers could be caught on the open sea as well. To avoid painful board-and-inspect battle creations, each ship would be inspected on the navigation map when another ship would come very close. Or some « let me inspect your ship » requests could be sent on the navigation view. A caught smuggler who would surrender would be charged a fine and/or a reputation drop. Historically, each cargo was registered and papers were delivered by authorities to prove its legality. However, some areas distant from the homeland actually became lawless areas, and some dishonest governors accepted unregistered goods. This might be tricky to implement, but would add to the immersion and to the richness of the gameplay. Maybe a governor reputation system would fit well. Maybe this vast subject would require a specific thread. Gameplay consequences All those possible features are aimed at proposing an interesting gameplay to economy players, creating an immersive atmosphere, and supporting a strategical conquest system. The most important consequence is IMO that there is no farming needed. No PvE has to be included (but it could). Hauling means combat. The core feature of the game is the centre of the economic system. Keeping a sandbox model in mind, those features let a lot of things in the hands of the players, further increasing the game interest in the long run. Money creation and money sink The money creation would come from prices differences and stolen AI contract goods. The money sink would come from perishable goods or destroyed goods, buildings costs and upkeeps, maybe crew wages. UI representations The key point would be to create a complete and ergonomic UI. There would be specific tabs related to markets, ports, companies, taxes and other governing features. Some of those tabs should be supported by world maps. This is partly what I was speaking about when mentioning a « news system » that would give information about what happens in the world. Conclusion I guess some of the propositions could be in conflict with botting or cross-teaming. Thus each proposition should be further looked at. This is a very rough description of features that could be implemented. Hardtack for thought