Sheepy, please give us more control over taxes

[Brooklyn666]

Sheepy, a bunch of people have been asking about this, but you haven't addressed it yet, so I'm going to start a new thread with the hopes of getting your attention.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but I know a lot of us would really appreciate having more control over taxes. At the very least, we should have the ability to tax cash and resources separately. Our needs simply can't be met by a simple "set it and forget it" flat tax across the board.

I don't think it's too much to ask for to be able to tax resources and cash separately.

 

Some other options that would be nice but we could without are progressive/regressive taxes, and the ability to tax each individual resource at a separate rate.

 

I think this should take priority over any sort of color senates or rainbow councils.

[Alex]

I apologize, I've been really busy lately. Fortunately in a couple of weeks my work schedule will go from 5 nights a week to 3, and I'll have a little more free time on my hands. 

 

In the meantime, yes, I will give you the option to tax resources at a rate independent of money, but I will not create a separate rate for each resource. I'll try and have this done soon (tomorrow? fingers crossed.)

[Valdoroth]

/o to separation of tax and resources

[Ren]

I'd really love to see a feature that allows us to set tax classes and then separate members into different classes, giving each class a name that fits the theme of that alliance. Alliance leadership would determine a different set of tax rates for each material in each class. They could then designate one class as food producers and tax food at a higher rate than everything else, and the same for the other resources. The cash tax rate would be included in each class so that a specific class could allow players to pay income tax and no resource tax. Large nations could pay at higher rates and small nations could be exempt to encourage growth.  I think the flexibility would allow alliance leaders to to better organize alliance members and it would allow less active players to still contribute to their alliance in a huge way.

[Reagan]

I'd really love to see a feature that allows us to set tax classes and then separate members into different classes, giving each class a name that fits the theme of that alliance. Alliance leadership would determine a different set of tax rates for each material in each class. They could then designate one class as food producers and tax food at a higher rate than everything else, and the same for the other resources. The cash tax rate would be included in each class so that a specific class could allow players to pay income tax and no resource tax. Large nations could pay at higher rates and small nations could be exempt to encourage growth.  I think the flexibility would allow alliance leaders to to better organize alliance members and it would allow less active players to still contribute to their alliance in a huge way.

 

I really think you're getting into overkill. I think separation of resources and cash is as far as the game needs to go. The rest should be sorted by alliances.

[Ren]

I disagree completely. Taxes are crucial to an alliance, but are also a massive source of discontent. A flexible tax system is absolutely necessary. Sure, alliances can organize on their own forums and collect taxes manually, but adding some malleability to the in-game system would be fabulous. Every alliance has different goals and structures, so a flat, across-the-board tax system likely won't work for some (or most) alliances. There is already a class system built in to set permissions within the alliance, so allowing officers to create tax based classes wouldn't need to be a very involved process. And it's not like the classes would have to be used; there could be a default class with a flat rate and alliances could ignore the customization options altogether.

[Adama]

Building on Ren's idea, a basic system where you have four brackets with the top 25 percent, top middle 25 percent, lower middle 25 percent and lower 25 percent of players (nation score) being able to be taxed differently would be great.

 

You can set independent tax rates for each bracket, I mean, it isn't perfect but it its something.

[Reagan]

I disagree completely. Taxes are crucial to an alliance, but are also a massive source of discontent. A flexible tax system is absolutely necessary. Sure, alliances can organize on their own forums and collect taxes manually, but adding some malleability to the in-game system would be fabulous. Every alliance has different goals and structures, so a flat, across-the-board tax system likely won't work for some (or most) alliances. There is already a class system built in to set permissions within the alliance, so allowing officers to create tax based classes wouldn't need to be a very involved process. And it's not like the classes would have to be used; there could be a default class with a flat rate and alliances could ignore the customization options altogether.

 

Of course a flat tax will work for most alliances, unless the leaders are attempting to overtax, in which case the alliance members need to take action for change.  It adds to dynamics within the alliance itself.  I could argue over goals and options for taxing, but as you said, every alliance is different and there is no "right" answer as to how members should be taxed, but it's easier for an alliance to manage when there is a set rate, and it's easier for members to comprehend and understand what they're being taxed, versus an ongoing evolution of change that, without constantly staying abreast of it, you may not know what you're beiing taxed from one week to the next.  Alliances who attempt to maintain books on it will find it more difficult as well if they choose to divy up the taxes.

 

Most games like these that have been successful haven't had an in-game tax option at all, so I'll have to disagree with your statement that a flexible tax system is "absolutely necessary".  Am I saying it would hurt?  Maybe not, but it could also open the door for confusion, malcontent, and abuse.  I maintain that separating taxes for money and resources is as far as the game mechanics should get involved.

[Grillick]

Alliances can easily implement a variable tax rate by providing affirmative distributions after the taxes are collected. There's no reason to shift your work onto the game developer's shoulders.

[SoS]

There's no reason to spend hours doing what takes a computer seconds. Unless this is the Amish version of the game.

[Ren]

I don't think it would be terribly difficult to implement, and, like I said earlier, it could have a default class with a flat tax rate so that alliances could ignore it if they prefer. If confusion is an issue, then it could require that an alliance's score qualifies it for inclusion in the color bonus calculation (300) before the additional options are available. This would allow alliance leaders to become adept with the current tools first, and could avoid some of the current abuse that occurs with throw-away alliances and banks. The features could be "beta tested" by the top 5 alliances until any bugs are worked out, as it is less likely to be exploited by a large alliance with its reputation on the line.

 

I would think it would be in Sheepy's best interest to move whatever alliance affairs he can to the game itself, as it would result in more clicks and ad views. A lot of dynamic options for alliance management is an attractive feature and could draw more traffic from those other games we don't talk about. 

[Shellhound]

I like the idea of having tax brackets, but I think that can wait tbh.

[Lord Frostsword]

If we are talking about bank stuff, i would like to bring this topic of mine back to the light:

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2698-alliance-bank-upgrades/#entry31851

 

I would really like to see alliance banks to sell/buy in alliance trade markets.

[Seryozha Nikanor]

This is great, especially with my nation right now. Right now I am awaiting my aid from my alliance and my nation is still in full militarization mode.

[Alex]

I'd really love to see a feature that allows us to set tax classes and then separate members into different classes, giving each class a name that fits the theme of that alliance. Alliance leadership would determine a different set of tax rates for each material in each class. They could then designate one class as food producers and tax food at a higher rate than everything else, and the same for the other resources. The cash tax rate would be included in each class so that a specific class could allow players to pay income tax and no resource tax. Large nations could pay at higher rates and small nations could be exempt to encourage growth.  I think the flexibility would allow alliance leaders to to better organize alliance members and it would allow less active players to still contribute to their alliance in a huge way.

 

All I can see this being used for is creating a 100% tax bracket that inactive nations get thrown into so they can be farmed by the alliance until they're deleted for inactivity. Having this sort of system does not encourage activity, whereas having the players actually do some work distributing resources does. I am pretty firmly against this idea.

[SoS]

It's more along the lines that nations are built differently. One tax rate affects different nation builds differently. One tax rate doesn't fit all. It encourages cookie cutter nations.

[Alex]

It's more along the lines that nations are built differently. One tax rate affects different nation builds differently. One tax rate doesn't fit all. It encourages cookie cutter nations.

 

As Grillick stated, that's easily solved through a little resource/money distribution. Send your smaller nations more money from the bank if you want them taxed less, or having your food producing nations manually send in extra food once in a while. It doesn't all need to be done automatically so that nobody has to login or actually do anything.

[Hereno]

As Grillick stated, that's easily solved through a little resource/money distribution. Send your smaller nations more money from the bank if you want them taxed less, or having your food producing nations manually send in extra food once in a while. It doesn't all need to be done automatically so that nobody has to login or actually do anything.

If you don't automate things for us, it will mean only the alliances with IRL programmers who will do the automating for them will be able to do things at the greatest level of efficiency. It would be better for the game to have it automated... doing math and number crunching is not fun for most people.

[Ren]

Okay, let's not add more dynamic tools and options that might set this game apart from other cookie cutter nation sims. We can all live in little nations made of ticky-tacky that all look just the same   It's refreshing to see that even Sheepy doesn't trust players to not cheat and exploit every chance they can. This is why we can't have nice things!

 

The obvious fix would be to remove inactives from alliances after 14-20 days and make them gray, Delete the nation at 30-45 days, and remove the account altogether after like 60 days.  They're incredibly detrimental to the game anyway. 

[Alex]

If you don't automate things for us, it will mean only the alliances with IRL programmers who will do the automating for them will be able to do things at the greatest level of efficiency. It would be better for the game to have it automated... doing math and number crunching is not fun for most people.

 

I'm not talking more math and number crunching, I'm saying I don't want a new way for players to abuse the game to get an unfair advantage. I already stated I would add a separate tax rate for resources, but we don't need a million bells and whistles to satisfy every desire, especially when there's serious potential for it to be abused.

 

Okay, let's not add more dynamic tools and options that might set this game apart from other cookie cutter nation sims. We can all live in little nations made of ticky-tacky that all look just the same   It's refreshing to see that even Sheepy doesn't trust players to not cheat and exploit every chance they can. This is why we can't have nice things!

 

The obvious fix would be to remove inactives from alliances after 14-20 days and make them gray, Delete the nation at 30-45 days, and remove the account altogether after like 60 days.  They're incredibly detrimental to the game anyway. 

 

1) Look at the tools we already have. There are constantly nations cheating through trades and bank activity. Sure, it's against the rules, and if I catch you you'll get banned, but people will still try it anyway. During the speed round, alliances practically did this already - they set their tax rates to 100% and brought in a lot of coin from inactive nations. 

 

2) I agree with you that nations should be removed from alliances for inactivity, more-so for the small inactive alliances that affect color stock to be removed. I'd say 14 days is a good time. Nations are deleted at 45 days, and accounts after one week with no nation.

[Phiney]

Actually after our discussion on inactive alliances I remembered alliances under 300 score don't affect colour bonus so they actually help it as they count as users on a colour but not an alliance.

[Ayayay]

2) I agree with you that nations should be removed from alliances for inactivity, more-so for the small inactive alliances that affect color stock to be removed. I'd say 14 days is a good time. Nations are deleted at 45 days, and accounts after one week with no nation.

Please don't, there are some people who have very strong opinions on the "no using internet while on vacation" ideas and those people happen to go on month-long vacations every couple years. We had this conversation 6 months ago. Let the alliances handle inactives themselves, we do not need a game which does everything for us.

 

If you are hellbent on it then let alliances put "protected" status on players so that they won't be removed from the alliance  after only 2 weeks.

Edited September 12, 2014 by underlordgc

[Phiney]

Or just build a vacation mode already

[Ayayay]

Or just build a vacation mode already

That will be implemented the day Half-Life 3 is released

[Taureg]

Please don't, there are some people who have very strong opinions on the "no using internet while on vacation" ideas and those people happen to go on month-long vacations every couple years. We had this conversation 6 months ago. Let the alliances handle inactives themselves, we do not need a game which does everything for us.

 

If you are hellbent on it then let alliances put "protected" status on players so that they won't be removed from the alliance  after only 2 weeks.

 

Unfortunately the alliances don't do anything about their inactives do they. 

 

Push to gray after two weeks, push out of the alliance after 30, and out of the game after 45.

 

It can only be done in conjunction with the long, long, long, awaited vacation mode.