Zerg tax

[Bach]

I was thinking of this the other day. NA is as Zerg centric as any sandbox game. That's just natural. In EVE all ships are built and have one dura. This is a big deterant to huge all top end ship zergs. Doesn't stop them but it makes the Zerg make up more mixed than all top end ships. In NA all ships are capturable and building them under the current Econ is fairly easy. So NA zergs are essentially high tech zergs that are largely free to minimal costs. Leaving very little deterant to Zerging. In real life the Spanish armadas weakness was the huge cost and build times to put a Zerg together. As such it suffered from being poor in quality and high cost. Once it was broken there was no replacing it by the Spanish.

I wouldn't mess with the ship capture mechanic. It's one of the best parts of the game. So what I suggest is to put in a reason for a nation not to over Zerg their neighbors without it costing them.

What if there governments had to pay for maintaining a Zerg? It would be a realistic deterant. This could be seen in game simply as a tax levied on everything a player in that nation. The rate of such tax would fluctuate with the number ports and rate ships docked by the whole of the nation. Government has to pay colonial forts upkeep, soldiers and hundreds of man crews. So say the dominant map team zergs ports greater than a number X. They get a progressive tax hike for every port they own > X. Players that own rate ships get a personal tax increase for each rate ship they have docked in game. The end result is owning ports you don't need gets expensive. Capturing third rates and staging them all over the map gets expensive.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Bach

[Hethwill]

1. Who is the government ?

 

2. We pay increasingly double tax per outpost license.

 

3. Only tiny bit I see defective is the Free Ports. They should really have less docking places.

 

4. Admiralty mechanics for fleet maintenance are not in place nor any mechanic for individual captain to pay for supplies and crew shares.

 

This Zerg wave is not a concern at the moment IMO. We are testing and showing that some essential mechanics must be prioritized. Come Spring with land and renewed ports and we might see a change. Step by step,

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

There is some potential to this idea.

 

I'd like to see ships of 4th rate and below exempted from such a tax.  Make it expensive to own 3rd and higher.  I've also suggested maintenance costs for sailing (not for parking/keeping, but for sailing) where there is a cost to operate the ship for each day you're out at sea.  Make this cost exorbitant for 3rds and above.

[Bach]

There is some potential to this idea.

I'd like to see ships of 4th rate and below exempted from such a tax. Make it expensive to own 3rd and higher. I've also suggested maintenance costs for sailing (not for parking/keeping, but for sailing) where there is a cost to operate the ship for each day you're out at sea. Make this cost exorbitant for 3rds and above.

There is some potential to this idea.

I'd like to see ships of 4th rate and below exempted from such a tax. Make it expensive to own 3rd and higher. I've also suggested maintenance costs for sailing (not for parking/keeping, but for sailing) where there is a cost to operate the ship for each day you're out at sea. Make this cost exorbitant for 3rds and above.

I don't think you can exempt that docked 3rd and higher rates. Currently outpost tax tops out at 50k. Which isn't all that much. So we all buy an outpost on every front, capture a free 3rd rate and let it sit there till we want to use it. This allows a Zerg nation to flex its muscle on all front at all times. It also allows each player a half dozen free rate ships or more. As such I think we should tax those ships stationed in ports. They still have 700 crew on them to be fed. Edited February 22, 2016 by Bach

[Gregos]

if you tax people for having ships in a port that is of any significance to stop this "zerg" it stops becoming a game for a lot of people and becomes a chore to maintain them, you would out right deny any casual or part time players from ever being able to sail the 3rd rates and above. a tax on income maybe but not on the ships in port just sitting there. if/when rations come into play there is already a large negative to bigger ships, more mouths to feed.

 

why create a new system tax when simply having to feed your crew while at sea would keep mass thirds and above in realtive check.

 

in terms of a whole nation moving its muscle around to all fronts at all times, the ships still need to be sailed there, you can only teleport between outposts and only do that every 4 hours. what you may perceive to be a mass movement of the same captains to all fronts is simply different captains as in any one period. Unless sailed between they can only ever be on two fronts max and that is never at the same time.

[Capt. Rice]

Why tax those who have numbers and more organization.  also outposts dont cap out at 50k  my fifth out post cost me 250k  five time that. ship maintenance should be across the board. and those captured 3rd rates are just ships with one dura atm.  its not like all those ships are maned at the same time. so having a maintenance on crew should just be for the ship you are using. but there can still be a docking maintenance for ships just sitting there.

[Bach]

if you tax people for having ships in a port that is of any significance to stop this "zerg" it stops becoming a game for a lot of people and becomes a chore to maintain them, you would out right deny any casual or part time players from ever being able to sail the 3rd rates and above. a tax on income maybe but not on the ships in port just sitting there. if/when rations come into play there is already a large negative to bigger ships, more mouths to feed.

why create a new system tax when simply having to feed your crew while at sea would keep mass thirds and above in realtive check.

in terms of a whole nation moving its muscle around to all fronts at all times, the ships still need to be sailed there, you can only teleport between outposts and only do that every 4 hours. what you may perceive to be a mass movement of the same captains to all fronts is simply different captains as in any one period. Unless sailed between they can only ever be on two fronts max and that is never at the same time.

I think you under estimate us power players. To have a squadron of third rates on a front all need be done is to sail the squadron over in brigs one time. Set up an outpost, captured x6 third rates from NPCs and teleport home. It's literally one day playing effort and about 60k. Most of the 60k is made back while capturing the free 3rd rates and now you have both shallow and deep water power projection there whenever you want it. Since there is no upkeep cost on the outpost or ships the entire operation is pretty much free other than time input.

If a ration system comes out that applies cost to all ships owned then that is essentially the same thing as a tax and I don't really care which way you do it. However there is still the matter for taxing due to over capturing if ports. Taxing for owning more ports than X may even add a new dimension where Nuetral ports stay around longer or maybe a Lord Protector decides to let a captured Nuetral port return to neutrality to stop having to garrison it.

if you tax people for having ships in a port that is of any significance to stop this "zerg" it stops becoming a game for a lot of people and becomes a chore to maintain them, you would out right deny any casual or part time players from ever being able to sail the 3rd rates and above. a tax on income maybe but not on the ships in port just sitting there. if/when rations come into play there is already a large negative to bigger ships, more mouths to feed.

why create a new system tax when simply having to feed your crew while at sea would keep mass thirds and above in realtive check.

in terms of a whole nation moving its muscle around to all fronts at all times, the ships still need to be sailed there, you can only teleport between outposts and only do that every 4 hours. what you may perceive to be a mass movement of the same captains to all fronts is simply different captains as in any one period. Unless sailed between they can only ever be on two fronts max and that is never at the same time.

If the feed the crew system comes in then it is still essentially a tax. No one is stopped from sailing rate ships in moderation. All it deters is players from stock piling rate ships ala POTBS style. Edited February 22, 2016 by Bach

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Why tax those who have numbers and more organization.  also outposts dont cap out at 50k  my fifth out post cost me 250k  five time that. ship maintenance should be across the board. and those captured 3rd rates are just ships with one dura atm.  its not like all those ships are maned at the same time. so having a maintenance on crew should just be for the ship you are using. but there can still be a docking maintenance for ships just sitting there.

 

The developers are not at all keen on having to pay for a ship you're not using.  The problem is that it prevents you from, say, going out of town for a few weeks, or having a real life issue crop up that stops you from playing for a while, and you come back to no ships and a massive debt load.  Offline maintenance costs makes the game a true 9-5 job, paying your mortgage virtually.  I don't know about you, but I'm already working hard enough to pay my bills every month - I don't need a second job.  Offline maintenance costs are a non-starter.

 

Operational Costs, on the other hand, could be a possibility.  Having to pay to sail the ship actively allows you to measure and weigh the ROI (return on investment) of taking that 2nd or 1st rate out for a random spin, versus, say, sailing it as directly as possible to a particularly important port battle.  Those costs can allow any player, through hard work and saving, the opportunity to own and occasionally sail the biggest ships in the game, while ensuring that they don't do so often or frivolously.  It will push people into different ships based on their ability to negate the costs of operation.  Is it ideal or the most fun?  Maybe, maybe not.  But personally I'd like to see a system that encourages the use of more than just third rates and higher.  

[mandrake]

a cost on sailing 3rd rates and higher should be fine as put forward by Henry.

 

but the idea of having to pay a tax for the amount of ports you hold is just plane supide and illogical.

 

just by owning more ports your national income would increase so the idea that this increase of income could not fund the new solders and forts is pretty lame.

 

sorry i am not trying to be rude here but its quite simple when a new port enters your faction you gain a increase of wealth due to its trade. this trade would then be taxed and used to pay for garrsons. sure if we look at real world some of said ports "might" be working at a loss but currently in this game with standard resource production each port is making income. so it would stand to reason the background trade would pay any fees requried to protect it.

 

otherall i am down with taxs on 3rd rates and above why out at sea but i agree it should not be placed on ships that are in port.  i work so i cant afford to have to spend nearly all my time trying to pay for dockage fees and i will say any game that i feel is become like work i wont play.

 

when i no longer get into game just to have fun and because i want to do somthing and suddenly it becomes "I have to come on and earn gold" is when i tend to lose intrest. 

 

i want to get on when i want to get on not feel forced to get on because i have too...

[Destraex]

Any tax that is based on time I would hate and not be in favour of. Because I would be taxed while I sleep.

If I don't play for a week would I get taxed for having a 3rd rate? 

[Capt. Rice]

The developers are not at all keen on having to pay for a ship you're not using.  The problem is that it prevents you from, say, going out of town for a few weeks, or having a real life issue crop up that stops you from playing for a while, and you come back to no ships and a massive debt load.  Offline maintenance costs makes the game a true 9-5 job, paying your mortgage virtually.  I don't know about you, but I'm already working hard enough to pay my bills every month - I don't need a second job.  Offline maintenance costs are a non-starter.

 

Operational Costs, on the other hand, could be a possibility.  Having to pay to sail the ship actively allows you to measure and weigh the ROI (return on investment) of taking that 2nd or 1st rate out for a random spin, versus, say, sailing it as directly as possible to a particularly important port battle.  Those costs can allow any player, through hard work and saving, the opportunity to own and occasionally sail the biggest ships in the game, while ensuring that they don't do so often or frivolously.  It will push people into different ships based on their ability to negate the costs of operation.  Is it ideal or the most fun?  Maybe, maybe not.  But personally I'd like to see a system that encourages the use of more than just third rates and higher.  

Yea i was just stating that if there was going to be a tax i would prefer it to only the ship you are taking out in the OW  no tax on resting ships that are not used no matter the size

[Bach]

a cost on sailing 3rd rates and higher should be fine as put forward by Henry.

 

but the idea of having to pay a tax for the amount of ports you hold is just plane supide and illogical.

 

just by owning more ports your national income would increase so the idea that this increase of income could not fund the new solders and forts is pretty lame.

 

 

Not necessarily true. Not ever settlement produced wealth and not all settlement were actually guarded for that reason.  If the British had built a defensive port and stationed a garrison at every single settlement in the Caribbean it would have cost far more than some fishing villages may have ever brought in.  If there is no strategic value you don't just go around spending the money to build forts station a thousand men and feed them all.

[Bach]

Any tax that is based on time I would hate and not be in favour of. Because I would be taxed while I sleep.

If I don't play for a week would I get taxed for having a 3rd rate?

That's why I prefer a flat usage tax based on the level of usage. So you have a tax rate attached to your captain that only comes into play when you buy something. So if you go on vacation or stop playing for awhile nothing on your account changes at all and you come back right were you left it. The tax only comes into play when you play.

Say you have x6 4th rates = no tax add one 3rd rate and maybe 3% tax. Add x10 3rd rates 30% So it gets expensive to stock pile rate ships all over the place but just having a few is no big deal.

Similar with ports. A nation is allows "X" number of ports. When it gets to X+1 = 1% tax nation wide on things bought. When they own X+100 ports = 100% tax so they pay double.

Problem though is nations would need a away to shed colonies they wen't crazy and over zerged. I'm not sure how that might be done.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Bach

[[MCC] Die Antwoord]

You are looking at this problem wrong. Just make the flag cost scale up in relation to the amount of ports a nation has. This would benefit the smaller nations and hurt the zergs to a point of potentially stopping them. It doesn't have to be a linear increase either, it could get to a point where it is almost impossible for a nation to buy a flag.

A nation wide tax might work too. Lower quest/pvp rewards, increase repair costs, ai ship costs, shop costs, etc. With each extra port.... This would make everyone a little more picky.

[Bach]

You are looking at this problem wrong. Just make the flag cost scale up in relation to the amount of ports a nation has. This would benefit the smaller nations and hurt the zergs to a point of potentially stopping them. It doesn't have to be a linear increase either, it could get to a point where it is almost impossible for a nation to buy a flag.

A nation wide tax might work too. Lower quest/pvp rewards, increase repair costs, ai ship costs, shop costs, etc. With each extra port.... This would make everyone a little more picky.

Some of us had kicked around the flag cost idea as well. It also has potential. One if the things discussed was having a discount on flags for attacking a nations original port that had been captured. It would promote nationalism and at the same time making it easier for a nation losing its ports to fight back.

Coming from both POTBS and EVE, I still like some kind of Rate ship tax to deter stockpiling. The effects of stock piling in a game that lets you teleport around fronts just makes zergs that much more capable. Ideally you want the Zerg to over stretch itself. Ala Santa Anna in Texas or Napoleon in Russia. But if the Zerg can stockpile its best ships on each front and teleport around fronts instead of having to march then a Zerg never thins out. It's as powerful in the front as the back every three hours. the Zerg never has to leave a contingent to guard the flanks as they don't really have any flanks. Sure they can only teleport every three hours but even this is enough to erase all gains a smaller nation may make attacking a supposed flank in one day.

Now if a super power nation had a limited supply of stockpiling ships then things get more reasonable. The Zerg nation has to choose its fronts more wisely. They have to consider rear guards and which spots will be important enough to warrant a reserve docked rate ship near it and which to risk. Adds more dimensions to the strategy of the game when there is a reasonable limit to stockpiling and teleporting.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Bach

[Quineloe]

I'm really irritated the whole "balance through grind" argument is still not dead. It has never, ever worked. It just segregated the player base into players with infinite time  to pay for it anyways and those who drop out because they don't want to spend what little time they have paying a "fun tax"

[Aydz]

Ya, EVE... lets compare one game to another.

 

No thanks.

 

I had a gold Snow 1 week  into this game... because I figured out how to take trade boats and use them to buy materials at ports.  

 

If i wasnt providing mats to my team all the time, i'd have 30 exceptional boats already...

 

This is ridiculous.  No.  Sorry I dont agree with this.  Casuals vs hardcore isnt applicable.  PERIOD.  You dont want to lose your boat, then dont build one and participate in port battles.  Go roll around in a fleet of basic cutters.  Let the players who use the game mechanics to farm up materials and sail the boats they work for without paying the FAT tax to the Man because players are to freaking lazy to go out and make money.  This is a slow game!  I had a pvp battle that took AND HOUR and 30 minutes because they sailed around me at max range shooting chain shot for and hour and 30 minutes.  This game BY PROXY isnt casual friendly because it can take forever to do anything.

 

And from a pvp perspective... I have a feeling that people who mob pvp with cutters are the aforementioned lazies.  I have lost a lot of durability on my nice boats because im not afraid to go grind out another one.  And have donated them to lower level players in my clan for them to use.  

 

So again, you arent improving game mechanics, you are forcing players who focus on acquiring boats play the maintain game and not the game.  No, you're wrong.  Its selfish for one type of player to set standards on other types of players because they play the game differently.   Thats all this is, OP hasnt figured out how to go out and GRIND boat building for themselves.

[Bach]

deleted

Edited February 23, 2016 by Bach

[mandrake]

i would be down with port battle flags cost increasing the higher the amount of ports you have and also down with discount to National ports that have been taken. this indeed would prevent major zerging. will also impeed the larger factions from taking over the world.

[AKPyrate]

I don't think you can exempt that docked 3rd and higher rates. Currently outpost tax tops out at 50k. Which isn't all that much. So we all buy an outpost on every front, capture a free 3rd rate and let it sit there till we want to use it. This allows a Zerg nation to flex its muscle on all front at all times. It also allows each player a half dozen free rate ships or more. As such I think we should tax those ships stationed in ports. They still have 700 crew on them to be fed.

 

For a ship docked in ordinary, a minimal crew would be kept on board for very basic maintenance.  However, a daily cost at sea would be good.

[Bach]

For a ship docked in ordinary, a minimal crew would be kept on board for very basic maintenance. However, a daily cost at sea would be good.

Doesn't matter to me how you apply it. As long as the end result deters stock piling of rate ships.

If a player owns x20 3rd rates stock piles all across the carribean but only operational sails one at a time how would his daily cost at sea be different from a player that only owned x1 3rd rate and sailed it daily?

The issue I'm looking to curb isn't rate ships being sailed but rate ships being stockpiled.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Bach

[Quineloe]

Why is that an issue again?

 

You want to beat your enemy to the point where he can't fight back as you take port after port, and being able to have sufficient fallback ships prevents this? Is that the issue?

Is this even on topic? how can the docked ships of a player he cant use to fight be considered "zerg"?

Edited February 24, 2016 by Quineloe

[Bach]

Why is that an issue again?

You want to beat your enemy to the point where he can't fight back as you take port after port, and being able to have sufficient fallback ships prevents this? Is that the issue?

Is this even on topic? how can the docked ships of a player he cant use to fight be considered "zerg"?

It's about putting in some limitation for zergs so the rest of the game has a chance to combat them without having to just become a second Zerg. Teleportation and stock piles of free 3rd rates make so there is no soft flank to an over stretched Zerg nation to challenge. Every three hours the Zerg can focus its full weight in 3rds or higher to any flank. This will eventually force a "third rates Only" rule for deep water port battles. New players sole job will be to grind to 3rd rate captain and join one of the two zergs in the game.

This is driven by a few factors. The largest is in NA a stock pile of 20 third rates per player is free. Teleportation around battle front allows full power projection every 3 hours. There is no need to assign clans to guard flanks, you can reasonable have the same elite 25 captains attend most all contended PBs. Upkeep for having fortress defenses in every out of the way port you capture is also free. There is no negative side to play to crush and absorbing all the other players into one of two teams. Essentially if we don't add Zerg limitations the game will naturally gravitate to two competing zergs.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Bach

[Aetrion]

This seems like just another one of these ideas that tries to penalize the entire possible playerbase for problems that just the clanwar crowd creates. Penalties that need to exist because of a specific sub group of players should be designed in such a way that they only affect that specific sub group of players. Trying to build all the fundamentals of the game around the tiny number of people who have time for 4am harbor sieges is extremely short sighted. There is nothing wrong with building systems into the game that make sure those players have the appropriate penalties and controls to have an engaging experience, but stop trying to slap absolutely everyone with them like the game shouldn't even try to appeal to anyone else.

[Macjimm]

It's about putting in some limitation for zergs so the rest of the game has a chance to combat them without having to just become a second Zerg. Teleportation and stock piles of free 3rd rates make so there is no soft flank to an over stretched Zerg nation to challenge. Every three hours the Zerg can focus its full weight in 3rds or higher to any flank. This will eventually force a "third rates Only" rule for deep water port battles. New players sole job will be to grind to 3rd rate captain and join one of the two zergs in the game.

This is driven by a few factors. The largest is in NA a stock pile of 20 third rates per player is free. Teleportation around battle front allows full power projection every 3 hours. There is no need to assign clans to guard flanks, you can reasonable have the same elite 25 captains attend most all contended PBs. Upkeep for having fortress defenses in every out of the way port you capture is also free. There is no negative side to play to crush and absorbing all the other players into one of two teams. Essentially if we don't add Zerg limitations the game will naturally gravitate to two competing zergs.

What does this have to do with stockpiles ? Would you not have a bigger problem with 500 players with single third rates verses 25 players owning 20 third rates? I fail to see how the ships per player is at issue. Is not really just imbalance between nations?