Taxation in Safe Ports

[Guest]

This is a bit of a question and suggestion. 

What if safe ports (that have a reinforcement zone) charged a higher tax rate than capturable ports. My thought is if a safe port had a tax of 15, 20, or even 25%,  would it be enough to discourage high level players from operating there?

Right now most all ports have the full 10% tax, because its already hard enough to pay their maintenance costs. It seems to me that players would be more likely to setup shop away from their capital (and safe zones) if it was less profitable to use these safe ports. 

When I was part of GB, there was a lot of discussion in my clan about where to base ourselves. In the end, we all realized KPR really had no downside, so why risk establishing a base elsewhere. If the KPR tax rate had been 25%, I think we would have settled elsewhere. 

Ideas? Suggestions? Opinions? 

[King of Crowns]

anything to get high end players out of safe zone is a good thing. 

[King of Crowns]

I would like also like to see ports more customizable. give us more options with the ports. perhaps allow us to pick one trade good (economy good only) that the port produces. and maybe allow us to choose one good the port consumes. ports need to be more important on an economic scale or just in general. please allow ship contracts buy and sale to be placed. allow us to make our own ports more valuable and more useful. 

[Percival Merewether]

I solely operate out of freeports for PvP and rely on the capital (PVE'ers) to provide me with the crafting materials I need. I'd be sad to see the main trade hubs disappear - it's good to have an active market in at least one port per nation when there are so few players around.

I'm in favour of implementing trade missions that goes outside the safe-zones to transport materials needed for 4-5 and 5-5 ships - that would increase the amount of people in OW.

Back in the old AHOY days I felt relatively safe doing missions out of Misteriosa, I see no reason why we cannot remove the safezone from KPR (And other capitals) to make people choose more remote outposts for PVE but maintain KPR as the main trading hub for the british nation.

Edited February 6, 2018 by NicklasK

[Tomasso il Fortunato]

Good idea , but I will add something , when you are on smuggler flag and you enter in a enemy port you should pay a tax for docking. 

[Hawkwood]

Hmm..

Green zone becomes an issue, and it was invented to protect lower ranks, and generally to prevent seal clubbing. I don`t know if higher taxes would solve the "problem", although i appreciate the try to balance the things, between PvE and PvP, made in this suggestion by initial threadmaker.

I think that most players would rather keep their valuable cargo in trader ships, than warships.

Imho, best way to get rid of "safe zone" is to :

1. Make trader ships "safe". Nations at war can attack traders from their enemies, pirates can attack them, otherwise trader ships can not be attacked. For this solution, there is a need for alliances, and to prevent blockbuilding, 1 nation can have only 1 ally.

2. PvE missions taken in ports close instantly, to prevent "jumps in".

3. Attacking an AI fleet remains 2 minutes open.

4. Safe zone is reduced 50%, reinforcements are not available, when a domestic player gets attacked in this safe zone, battle stays open for 4 minutes.

Worth it?

[Thonys]

example: tobacco and rum taxed 100 % in some country s

so tax should be free to /for the port owner  to adjust actually 

BUT,.....

its free on the water  thow.....free tax zone international waters :))

 

for your remembrance (for most ) TAX free on airports....

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by Thonys

[Farrago]

1 hour ago, EliteDelta said:

This is a bit of a question and suggestion. 

What if safe ports (that have a reinforcement zone) charged a higher tax rate than capturable ports. My thought is if a safe port had a tax of 15, 20, or even 25%,  would it be enough to discourage high level players from operating there?

Right now most all ports have the full 10% tax, because its already hard enough to pay their maintenance costs. It seems to me that players would be more likely to setup shop away from their capital (and safe zones) if it was less profitable to use these safe ports. 

When I was part of GB, there was a lot of discussion in my clan about where to base ourselves. In the end, we all realized KPR really had no downside, so why risk establishing a base elsewhere. If the KPR tax rate had been 25%, I think we would have settled elsewhere. 

Ideas? Suggestions? Opinions? 

I understand what you are trying to do but won't this hurt even more the players the safe zone is designed to protect. New players can't afford high taxes while experienced players can.

The solution can be found in a combination of players have a reason to leave the safe zone and the call for reinforcements is not available at higher ranks. 

[Thonys]

5 minutes ago, Farrago said:

the call for reinforcements is not available at higher ranks. 

explane pls (young captains!?)

Edited February 6, 2018 by Thonys

[Batman]

Another incentive to leave the safezone could be lower gold and xp from pve by 25% or 33% when reaching a certain rank maybe? @admin @Ink

Edited February 6, 2018 by Batman

[Thonys]

5 minutes ago, Batman said:

Another incentive to leave the safezone could be lower gold and xp from pve by 25% or 33% when reaching a certain rank maybe? @admin @Ink

like a negotiator on price ?

(more the role of administrative officer (the merchant officer by the company)[perk section - 20% of tax ]

Edited February 6, 2018 by Thonys

[Navalus Magnus]

I think that safe zones need a rework!

Although there is quite some off-topic-talk, I think here are a few good ideas for that:

 

[Guest]

This is a pretty simple way to handle vets being in the safe zone. However this may just move markets out of safe zones which is good. It won't reduce people who grind in a safe zone unless rewards are nerfed in safe zones. 

[victor]

It's weird how some people here believe that safe zones were created just for protecting new players, when Devs stated that they were created also to allow a basic self sustainable economic growth and to avoid blockade of capitals in the  "easy" factions (USA, GB and Spain).

 

[Hethwill]

Actually they were created exactly as a protective measure for new and prospective future admirals  to have a safe area where they could "learn" the game without being under siege.

Obviously this implies both navy and maritime trade occupations.

Let's grab the bull by the horns.

[Fargo]

6 hours ago, EliteDelta said:

What if safe ports (that have a reinforcement zone) charged a higher tax rate than capturable ports. My thought is if a safe port had a tax of 15, 20, or even 25%,  would it be enough to discourage high level players from operating there?

Thats promoting selfsupply. Even if you would restrict it for single players with professions for example, you cant stop clans from organising themselfes. What is totally fine and not necessary. But we must not promote this, to atleast give clans no reason to not use the open market. With a complex fair tax system it might work, but we dont have that.

 

3 hours ago, victor said:

It's weird how some people here believe that safe zones were created just for protecting new players, when Devs stated that they were created also to allow a basic self sustainable economic growth and to avoid blockade of capitals in the  "easy" factions (USA, GB and Spain).

In case thats true, define basic selfsustainable economic growth. You should agree that 100% efficient gold grind and 100% efficient resource production is more than that, and obviously not working for the game.

 

Efficiency seems a good way to promote gameplay in a plausible way, instead of forcing it with restrictions. Only requirement: a balanced economy to give efficiency a meaning.

To make people produce resources in multiple/far ports, make production less efficient the more people produce the same resource in the same port. Decrease the production rate to a minimum of lets say 40%. Going for 100% you need to spread out. The larger your population, the more ports are required -> conquest motivated. Plausible, and fair for different sized nations.

Thats also how trading based on economy related resources could work, without ever restricting the ship production. Different production efficiencies in different locations naturally would result in different prices. Just vary labour cost and production rate.

Then enable viable trade. Add politics including trade agreements -> less risky trade between nations. Make the use of trade ships a specialisation to make people sell in production ports -> short range trade/nation internal trade viable.

PvE needs to be balanced as the major money printing machine, or this concept of PvE funding all resource production needs to change. Besides that mission rewards could also decrease, e.g with the number of missions taken the previous day in that port. Plausible, more candidates usually results in less payment.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Fargo

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Fargo said:

Thats promoting selfsupply. Even if you would restrict it for single players with professions for example, you cant stop clans from organising themselfes. What is totally fine and not necessary. But we must not promote this, to atleast give clans no reason to not use the open market. With a complex fair tax system it might work, but we dont have that.

Interesting point. I actually thought this might create new trade/crafting hubs. For example right after the wipe, GB used Belize more than the KPR. It was before taxation was added, but everyone moved there because a few large clans decided to use it as their hub. 

[victor]

1 hour ago, Fargo said:

 

In case thats true, define basic selfsustainable economic growth. You should agree that 100% efficient gold grind and 100% efficient resource production is more than that, and obviously not working for the game.

 

Very simple (and, once more, poined out by devs): for easy factions ports in safe zones award all the mats (except exotic woods, gold and silver) needed to craft ships and cannons.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by victor

[Fargo]

1 minute ago, victor said:

Very simple (and, once more, poined out by devs): for easy factions ports in safe zones award all the mats (except exotic woods, gold and silver) needed to craft ships and cannons.

And you would call this a "basic" supply?! Furnishings can be bought via marks/PvE btw. 

Why is this safe zone active while your nation owns half of the map? Shouldnt it only activate e.g. when a nation gets reduced to a few ports? Newbies can be protected by their own zone or mechanic.

What about seperated, risk free and highly rewarded PvE. Intended? I dont think so.

5 hours ago, EliteDelta said:

Interesting point. I actually thought this might create new trade/crafting hubs. For example right after the wipe, GB used Belize more than the KPR. It was before taxation was added, but everyone moved there because a few large clans decided to use it as their hub. 

I guess some people moved production to where the ships were needed because towing was disabled back then.

[victor]

15 hours ago, Fargo said:

And you would call this a "basic" supply?! Furnishings can be bought via marks/PvE btw. 

 

I call it what the devs think being basic supply and that induced them to create the safe zones as they are now. I do not know where were you in the old days with no safe zones. I was exactly where I am now (ship crafter and trader in the Spanish faction), and I can tell you that economy was far worse than now (they called it "austerity" for a reason).Then Devs realized that austerity - on the long term - would have killed the game and then changed their view (by creating a system in which easy factions were be able to build ships and cannons in a PVP safe environment). So they shifted to a inflative approach in economy and reduced the hardcore level of the game. I personally would never get back to hardcore/austerity model: it was simply a pain in the ass wasting time and resources for low rewards.

For the rest, it's simple: looking at the market in trade hubs (and namely after the RNG thing with ship crafting) economy is now growing up, not starving.

But it seems that the hardcore/austerity crew - and I'm not referring here to you in particular - doesn't sleep at night if this game is not difficult as life. So when I get back from work (where, you can trust me, the situation is very hardcore/austerity lately, at least in my country) I should log into NA and face the same things I just left outside the door.

Masochism instead of fun. Competition instead of having a good time. Also in a COMPUTER GAME!

I barely understand some of you guys, really. But I start understanding while we all (and by "we" I mean western people) are becoming a bunch of half-depressed lunatics.

But, at the end of the story: tot capitae quot sentenitiae

Edited February 7, 2018 by victor

[SKurj]

To me it doesn't make sense to kick level 3 shipyards out of your capital or even safezone, in reality that's where the workforce is BUT..

Along with that the resources would not have been harvested in the same area...  but how do we move the resources out and still prevent the blockade tactic...

[SKurj]

23 minutes ago, Wraith said:

 

Blockade tactics should therefore be very viable, as they were in reality.

Unfortunately this is partially what has shaped current mechanics.  Nations could be crippled to the point of not being able to make ships, which is just an excuse for people to flip sides or leave the game.