The burden of port ownership

[Gregory Rainsborough]

Due to the ease, large rewards and time it takes, trading has now become obsolete in favour of delivery missions. There is no risk in delivery missions, put your stuff in a capped tbrig and off you go.

Trading is now for those privileged few with alt accounts as it's not worth trading any more. The knock on effect has been a reduction in trade which has seen most ports, that used to at least break even, not break even. A

Delivery missions need reducing OR trading needs to see an increase in profitability for the time and money spent.

A possible alternative would be to siphon profits made from ports of other clans within the same capital so that those who benefit from the county capital timer pay for it in some way. This does seem unnecessarily complicated though.

A demonstration. Below is the SNOW port spreadsheet for port profits.

 

Compare this with some of the previous data.

 

For the first time the other day people were trying to NOT own Bluefields, a port that in the past has been highly desirable. That should demonstrate how much of a pain it is to pay for ports. Sure it's a couple of runs in tbrigs but that's time better spent doing something else, like killing each other. I like trading, but others it seems do not, so incentives should be created as to generate profit in ports so clans benefit in reals from ownership.

 

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by Gregory Rainsborough

[Teutonic]

I've said it before and I'll say it again

2 Things should happen.

1. Trade Goods should sell for a higher price by 30-50% (used to say 20-40%, but that wouldn't be enough at the moment) in consumption ports. I'd say 40% would probably would help match cargo missions AND make trading goods actually better.

2. Cargo delivery Missions need their Real reward reduced and Doubloon rewards increased. Reduce the Reals reward on cargo delivery missions by roughly 20-25%. Supplement this reduction in the form of Doubloons, so that instead of Cargo missions being the main form of Real income, make it the main form of Doubloon income. I never understood why it changed from only doubloon reward...

Short -- 1,200 - 1,500 Doubloons
Medium -- 1,750 - 2,000 Doubloons
Long -- 2,500 - 3,000 Doubloons

seems better?

The problem is Cargo missions have no risk when you lose them. That's absolutely not saying they should have all the risk - but an argument that trade goods should be vastly more profitable for the risk associated with them.

Edited May 20, 2019 by Teutonic

[Despe]

One solution is that deliveries only give doubloons, and make trading more profitable. In FLEKI we are in the same situation, like most clans with ports owners

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Wraith said:

Tax should simply be paid on all port production and on delivery missions taken and delivered in a port. The tax rates should be set by the owning clan.

Also, we should have the ability to levvy a tax against clan members and all money they earn automatically.  That might encourage more clans to recruit beyond their stable numbers and bring more players along into the group-oriented activities in the long run by providing economic incentives to clan leadership.

I think all tax's should go to port owners.  Telport tax send to the owner of the port.  Doubloons spent on things in that port, 10% sent to owner.  Another thing since we really don't need timers on Sub ports why don't they pay a tax to who owns the capital port.  Which would means all regional ports pay 5% tax to the Owner of the Capital Port to help pay for it's timer.  This would be how it would been back than.  They would pay a tax to the crown and governor of that region and than he will send the crowns portion off to the crown or next leader above him.   

[John Page]

13 hours ago, Wraith said:

Tax should simply be paid on all port production and on delivery missions taken and delivered in a port. The tax rates should be set by the owning clan.

Also, we should have the ability to levvy a tax against clan members and all money they earn automatically.  That might encourage more clans to recruit beyond their stable numbers and bring more players along into the group-oriented activities in the long run by providing economic incentives to clan leadership.

9 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I think all tax's should go to port owners.  Telport tax send to the owner of the port.  Doubloons spent on things in that port, 10% sent to owner.  Another thing since we really don't need timers on Sub ports why don't they pay a tax to who owns the capital port.  Which would means all regional ports pay 5% tax to the Owner of the Capital Port to help pay for it's timer.  This would be how it would been back than.  They would pay a tax to the crown and governor of that region and than he will send the crowns portion off to the crown or next leader above him.   

 

Yes! I've advocated for this already:

 

[Tiedemann]

I support Teutonic and Wraith, but I do not see the need tu increase the profit from trading, I would rather nerf the profitt from cargo/passenger missions. 

Either make cargo/passenger delivery rewards in doubloons only OR nerf the reals reward.

[Teutonic]

3 hours ago, Routan said:

It raises a question tho. How much effort should be done to pay for the upkeep of a port. Should port easily make so much income, that it basicly only pays for it self?

I know what a pain it can be to pay for ports. But what do ppl think is a fair effort you have to do to pay for ports?

If a whole clan has to spend time PvEing in order to maintain ports - they will not want to maintain it because it would take away from PvP activities.

Personally I think the port maintenance fee cost of 250k we have now ONLY works in putting a timer on the county capital. You're essentially paying maintenance fees for the entire county. Previously we would put timers on ports that were important for 50k a day - in some cases county wide, we ended up paying less or more depending on the county's importance - but because of the lower cost, a clan could split the costs up to what they could afford. My clan could pay for 1 or 2 50k Maintenance fees, but we cannot pay for a 250k timer unless we spent all day Econ grinding...

The current timer cost also only works if you have the Tax income to withhold losses - Because cargo delivery missions essentially make more money than trade goods, and you can do them in a shorter time-frame than other trade routes - most ports are losing out on tax income.

That's why I suggest that Trade goods become more profitable and Cargo missions have their Real reward lowered and Doublon reward increase. 

People can still use those missions for quick Real making to replenish big losses - but if you want to make the "big bucks" you do trading with trade goods.

After all, you have a higher risk as trade goods because you MUST buy them first before selling them. With cargo missions - you lose them? oh well, just delete the mission and get a new one.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Teutonic

[Angus MacDuff]

Just curious...when I pay to harvest iron from my building, where does that money go? 

[Severus Snape]

22 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Just curious...when I pay to harvest iron from my building, where does that money go? 

it SHOULD go to the clan that owns the port.  My understanding that it currently does not.  A simple change like this would help port ownership costs immensely.  

[Eyesore]

22 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Just curious...when I pay to harvest iron from my building, where does that money go? 

That's what they don't want you to do, it is a form of leeching ... you know, the clan did all the hard work ... and now people want to use that port? What are we thinking?  Clans seem to like to do everything on their own (like solo-players?) and then complain that everything is too expensive ... You are of no consequence, you stupid casual leecher :-p They don't want you to work together with them, imagine that they'd have to share resources and portbonusses? The outrage!    (I geuss i'll add 'sarcasm'?)

[Angus MacDuff]

2 minutes ago, Eyesore said:

That's what they don't want you to do, it is a form of leeching ... you know, the clan did all the hard work ... and now people want to use that port? What are we thinking?  Clans seem to like to do everything on their own (like solo-players?) and then complain that everything is too expensive ... You are of no consequence, you stupid casual leecher :-p They don't want you to work together with them, imagine that they'd have to share resources and portbonusses? The outrage!    (I geuss i'll add 'sarcasm'?)

It's ironic, because I want my money to go to the clan who does the work to take and keep the port...even if it's my own clan.

[Angus MacDuff]

5 minutes ago, Routan said:

But it should be effortless, was it not then easier to make timers and ports free and at the same time drop taxes.

An economy functions correctly when everybody is participating.  If all players are involved in making money, then that money must be spent on something of value.  making ports expensive to own is fine if they can earn an income.  port income is earned by taxing goods and services.  Everything that we do in a port should cost money and that money should go towards the upkeep/security of the port.  Trading must once again become the preferred method of earning reals so that the ports can benefit.  It also wouldn't hurt to tax the cargo missions upon completion at the target ports.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Angus MacDuff

[Teutonic]

21 minutes ago, Routan said:

So to get you right. A port should make so much money that the owning clan can keep a timer on there port, without doing any effort?

You mention a lot of things that could help paying for a port. But I have a hard time finding the answer to how big an effort a clan should do to pay for timers.

But it should be effortless, was it not then easier to make timers and ports free and at the same time drop taxes.

I'd love to go back to 2016 NA and have free timers and free ports with no taxes. We aren't though as per Developers direction.

So I'd rather find ways to solve the economic deficit - and the main contributor to the tax issue are cargo missions, They directly ignore the economic system put in place and you can make a crap ton of Reals without ever giving a cent to the owner of the port you got the mission from.

I'm 100% not advocating for tax on missions, I'm suggesting that the rewards should be adjusted.

A port with a timer should not be such a tremendous burden on the owner - unless they limit access to everyone in their nation.

[Farrago]

I think 250k sounds about right: that’s only 2-3 delivery missions HOWEVER all activities in ports buying, selling, delivery missions, resource harvesting, repairing should generate tax income. In fact, if all of that is taxed, 250k may not be high enough. We won’t know without it being tested. 

[Teutonic]

1 hour ago, Farrago said:

I think 250k sounds about right: that’s only 2-3 delivery missions HOWEVER all activities in ports buying, selling, delivery missions, resource harvesting, repairing should generate tax income. In fact, if all of that is taxed, 250k may not be high enough. We won’t know without it being tested. 

I agree.

but it shouldn't be taxed in addition to the cost to get resources out of my building - Rather, the Port Owner should get a portion of the cost that normally is consumed as a money sink.

To be more clear with an example.

I extract 1,000 oak logs from my building - it costs 10,000 Reals.

The Port Owner should get 10% of these reals. So 9,000 Reals would be the "money sink" (consumed) and 1,000 Reals would go to the Clan bank of the port owner.

---------------------------------------------------

What we don't want is to have players taxed on top of the cost to take resources out.

We don't want the player to have 1,000 oak logs cost 10,000 reals and then an additional 1,000 for tax cost (for 11,000 total)

 

[Angus MacDuff]

3 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

I extract 1,000 oak logs from my building - it costs 10,000 Reals.

The Port Owner should get 10% of these reals. So 9,000 Reals would be the "money sink" (consumed) and 1,000 Reals would go to the Clan bank of the port owner.

Why cant the port owner have it all?  Nobody else gets it.

[Farrago]

49 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

I agree.

but it shouldn't be taxed in addition to the cost to get resources out of my building - Rather, the Port Owner should get a portion of the cost that normally is consumed as a money sink.

To be more clear with an example.

I extract 1,000 oak logs from my building - it costs 10,000 Reals.

The Port Owner should get 10% of these reals. So 9,000 Reals would be the "money sink" (consumed) and 1,000 Reals would go to the Clan bank of the port owner.

---------------------------------------------------

What we don't want is to have players taxed on top of the cost to take resources out.

We don't want the player to have 1,000 oak logs cost 10,000 reals and then an additional 1,000 for tax cost (for 11,000 total)

 

Agree 100%

[AeRoTR]

2 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Why cant the port owner have it all?  Nobody else gets it.

Need money sinks to stop infilation of reals. 

[Teutonic]

3 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Why cant the port owner have it all?  Nobody else gets it.

The issue with that is there would literally be no Money sinks in the game and it would straight up lead to inflation. You need Money sinks in an MMO to level the economy (or at least try to).

[Barbancourt]

1 hour ago, Teutonic said:

The issue with that is there would literally be no Money sinks in the game and it would straight up lead to inflation.

My money sinks regularly.  glug glug