Jump to content

How to Add Tax Brackets: A Picture Tutorial for Sheepy.


Sketchy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I mean, this is how to implement the frontend. The backend is probably a tad more complicated :P

 

Also, for all those BK members reading out there: YOSONET TAX SYSTEM

Edited by Yosodog
  • Upvote 4

[22:37:51] <&Yosodog> Problem is, everyone is too busy deciding which top gun character they are that no decision has been made

 

BK in a nutshell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, this is how to implement the frontend. The backend is probably a tad more complicated :P

 

Also, for all those BK members reading out there: YOSONET TAX SYSTEM

 

Well we all know its the frontend he has trouble with. I have graciously solved this issue by doing 10% of the work for him.

 

Now he has no excuses.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

If I add alliance tax brackets, they'll likely be in pre-defined tiers, such as: top third, middle third, bottom third. That'll prevent (hopefully, the majority of) 100% tax rate farm abuse.

  • Upvote 3

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I add alliance tax brackets, they'll likely be in pre-defined tiers, such as: top third, middle third, bottom third. That'll prevent (hopefully, the majority of) 100% tax rate farm abuse.

The question I pose to you is simple. 

 

Why is tax farming a negative in your mind? Shouldn't alliances be given more control over their own taxes, regardless of how they are used?

 

If tax farming is deemed a negative, then players will treat it so and will punish it via the politics in the game.

 

Set predetermined tiers doesn't allow for the control we might want. What if we don't want a progressive tax rate? What if we want our groups and tiers determined by some other standard?

 

I think you should allow the leaders of the alliances to decide how they want to handle taxes themselves, independent of any arbitrary system you create. If the members have issue, they can protest or leave, if the other alliances think "tax farming" is a negative, they can use it as a basis for war. Just like you said in the radiation update let the politics decide how this system pans out.

Edited by Sketchy
  • Upvote 4

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The question I pose to you is simple. 

 

Why is tax farming a negative in your mind? Shouldn't alliances be given more control over their own taxes, regardless of how they are used?

 

If tax farming is deemed a negative, then players will treat it so and will punish it via the politics in the game.

 

Set predetermined tiers doesn't allow for the control we might want. What if we don't want a progressive tax rate? What if we want our groups and tiers determined by some other standard?

 

I think you should allow the leaders of the alliances to decide how they want to handle taxes themselves, independent of any arbitrary system you create. If the members have issue, they can protest or leave, if the other alliances think "tax farming" is a negative, they can use it as a basis for war. Just like you said in the radiation update let the politics decide how this system pans out.

 

Just like how most everyone agrees that what TI is doing is negative, and no one is willing to do anything in-game about it.

 

Tax-farming is bad because it encourages users to create multiple nations, and allows players and alliances to get "free money" for doing nothing, and at no consequence to themselves. While I'm sure you're like most players who would love to get free cash for doing nothing, that's not fair, and it doesn't make the game fun or satisfying for you or anyone else.

  • Upvote 3

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like how most everyone agrees that what TI is doing is negative, and no one is willing to do anything in-game about it.

 

Tax-farming is bad because it encourages users to create multiple nations, and allows players and alliances to get "free money" for doing nothing, and at no consequence to themselves. While I'm sure you're like most players who would love to get free cash for doing nothing, that's not fair, and it doesn't make the game fun or satisfying for you or anyone else.

 

Well for starters I think basing your game mechanics around what "multis might do" is pointless. Multis are exploitative regardless, so the way to solve that should be improving ways to catch them, and completely independent of the game mechanics.

 

As for the argument about alliances getting free money, I think that is a very limited view of what tax brackets are capable of, or how alliances generally use taxes in the first place.

 

You bring up TI, but you used the line of logic I just pointed out when you brought out the food update. The two situations aren't comparable either. The reason TI grew and wasn't stopped was literally part of the flaw, it had a HUGE amount of members BECAUSE of the poor design of the treasure system.

 

Tax brackets don't inherently encourage all alliances to combine into one alliance for profit so you are comparing apples to oranges here.

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Well for starters I think basing your game mechanics around what "multis might do" is pointless. Multis are exploitative regardless, so the way to solve that should be improving ways to catch them, and completely independent of the game mechanics.

 

As for the argument about alliances getting free money, I think that is a very limited view of what tax brackets are capable of, or how alliances generally use taxes in the first place.

 

You bring up TI, but you used the line of logic I just pointed out when you brought out the food update. The two situations aren't comparable either. The reason TI grew and wasn't stopped was literally part of the flaw, it had a HUGE amount of members BECAUSE of the poor design of the treasure system.

 

Tax brackets don't inherently encourage all alliances to combine into one alliance for profit so you are comparing apples to oranges here.

 

Regardless of multi promotion, it also promotes message spam to new players, and treating new players less like potential quality members and more like new corpse nations we can "put in Bracket 3 and take all their stuff as soon as they go inactive."

  • Upvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of multi promotion, it also promotes message spam to new players, and treating new players less like potential quality members and more like new corpse nations we can "put in Bracket 3 and take all their stuff as soon as they go inactive."

New nations provide shit all in terms of tax. Like pennies. Far more likely people will just drop them for the pure cosmetic bump in average score than waste their time shuffling them into a tax group to tax all 100% of their 2 dollars.

 

You assume way too much. How alliances use this system will vary wildly dependent on whose running their respective econ departments and their agenda.

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of multi promotion, it also promotes message spam to new players, and treating new players less like potential quality members and more like new corpse nations we can "put in Bracket 3 and take all their stuff as soon as they go inactive."

Message spam already exists :v

 

If you have a problem with multi's, then ban them? I mean under the same line of thinking there is an incentive for me to make a ton of multis and run an alliance tax rate of 100%. However I wouldn't bother because at most I will make a small amount of cash compared to my already existing nation makes and therefore really the reward of cheating over the chances of possibly being banned really don't make it 'worth' in any way.

 

No small nations are going to willingly join an alliance with 70-100% taxes in their tiers. Heck right now most alliances generously offer to buy cities for new nations some to even 10 cities so chances are, most will value new nations and more than likely will get more recruits.

  • Upvote 5

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I started my alliance I was inviting every noob that joined, and a fair few of them did. As soon as they were inactive, I actually comtemplated raising taxes to 100% to steal all their incomes as well. I had 4 cities at the time but could have had 13 cities worth of income. Good times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok how about this. If you are worried about "inactive farms". 

 

Simply make it so that gray nations aren't taxed. Problem solved.

 

Even better, you've just made them even juicier raid targets, AND incentivised alliances to drop inactives instead of keeping them for the tax they provide. Everyone is happy. 

 

Your move sheepy.

Edited by Sketchy
  • Upvote 4

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok how about this. If you are worried about "inactive farms". 

 

Simply make it so that gray nations aren't taxed. Problem solved.

 

Even better, you've just made them even juicier raid targets, AND incentivised alliances to drop inactives instead of keeping them for the tax they provide. Everyone is happy. 

 

Your move sheepy.

 

Then I would just stay gray in order to not be taxed :P

[22:37:51] <&Yosodog> Problem is, everyone is too busy deciding which top gun character they are that no decision has been made

 

BK in a nutshell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I would just stay gray in order to not be taxed :P

Yes you could. And it would be up the alliance to remove you for it if they wanted to.

 

It's a perfectly fine trade off for more control over a taxes.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you could. And it would be up the alliance to remove you for it if they wanted to.

 

It's a perfectly fine trade off for more control over a taxes.

So what stops everyone from going gray. Thus meaning there is no tax what so ever.

LTcxGHN.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok how about this. If you are worried about "inactive farms". 

 

Simply make it so that gray nations aren't taxed. Problem solved.

 

Even better, you've just made them even juicier raid targets, AND incentivised alliances to drop inactives instead of keeping them for the tax they provide. Everyone is happy. 

 

Your move sheepy.

Alternate solution. Anyone who is over 3 days inactive gets a 50% penalty to revenue, over 1 week inactive they get 100% penalty to revenue. But they would still get billed for 100% of any nation expenses and if they don't have the money available the citizens riot, potentially destroying improvements. You can put the reductions in revenue down to the tax collectors being lazy bastards.

 

This way alliances cannot have "tax farms" of inactive nations.

 

Also, put an upper limit of 80% for taxes. That would be an instant 20% loss for any potential "tax farms".

sig_cybernations.PNG.8d49a01423f488a0f1b846927f5acc7e.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternate solution. Anyone who is over 3 days inactive gets a 50% penalty to revenue, over 1 week inactive they get 100% penalty to revenue. But they would still get billed for 100% of any nation expenses and if they don't have the money available the citizens riot, potentially destroying improvements. You can put the reductions in revenue down to the tax collectors being lazy bastards.

 

This is a fantastic idea, although I'd tone it down abit.

 

Why should active players running active alliances not be given more tax control just because some inactive people exist.

 

You should be building the game for the active people no? They are the ones who give it life.

Edited by Sketchy
  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, put an upper limit of 80% for taxes. That would be an instant 20% loss for any potential "tax farms".

I feel personally offended by this.

 

Rose currently is working on implementing a progressive taxation system. To do this, we need to log tax data on every nation, extrapolate over a week, work out a tax return and send that out to each nation at the start of each week. Its a lot of copy and paste.

  • Upvote 1

As you sow, so shall you reap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tax groups are super easy to implement.

 

1. Go in the table where the tax rate is set, and add two additional fields: tax2 and tax3.

2. Go into the table where the nation is saved, and add one additional field: taxgroup

3. Go into the revenue page code, and implement an IF statement. IF taxgroup = tax1, taxrate = tax1's rate. ELSEIF taxgroup = tax2, etc. etc.

4. Since we know Sheepy loves making people spend their donation credits, charge alliances to unlock the additional tax rates. If you do this, proceed to step 5. If not, allow every alliance to define 3 tax rates, and proceed to step 6.

5. Go into the table where the alliance is saved, and add a field called moretaxgroups. Alliances leader can buy up to two additional tax groups. For each additional tax group, increment that by +1.

6. Create the front end. For that, you'll need to have a way for leaders to define the tax1, tax2, and tax3. You're pretty good at making tables though, so you got this Sheepy!

greene.png

Formerly known as Grealind of Resvernas (28 October 2014-29 August 2017) and Greene of Japan (29 August 2017-28 Septmber 2017)

7th Caretaker of Duat, the Deity Thoth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel personally offended by this.

 

Rose currently is working on implementing a progressive taxation system. To do this, we need to log tax data on every nation, extrapolate over a week, work out a tax return and send that out to each nation at the start of each week. Its a lot of copy and paste.

You wouldn't be a tax farm, in that scenario. And you could just 0% your tax rate, work out how much tax each nation should be paying (under your system) and post a table to your forums for nations to reference. They can then send the money to the bank. If they fail to pay taxes for 3 weeks in a row, kick them out. It'd be alot less work for you.

sig_cybernations.PNG.8d49a01423f488a0f1b846927f5acc7e.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see much reason for this when alliances already have 100% control over how tax revenue is spent.

 

If having brackets of sorts is really that important to you, you can tax at the highest rate and rebate the people who you want paying at a lower rate.

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This tax bracket idea is super neat I believe. Kudos. Could even be used as a punishment/reward for players within an AA. I.e., was inactive during a war and didn't help? Get sent to tax group with 100% taxes. Took a lot of dmg? Dealt a lot. Get placed in a low tax bracket. Until rebuilding is complete that is.

Edited by EliteCanada
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.