Iodine Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Recently, an issue has been brought to my attention. From my current understanding, inactive nations can still be taxed by their alliance. While I know that nations are automatically deleted when they reach a certain level of inactivity, I believe that stopping automatic alliance taxation after a certain point would be beneficial to the game. I'll iterate through the reasons why. This one is rather obvious, but it makes multi-farming a little bit less beneficial due to the increase in effort required by the ring leader. Anything to further discourage the creation of multiple accounts by a single individual should be considered. It encourages players to sign in more due to pressure from their alliance, thus increasing in-game activity as a whole. Most alliances have a few members who sign in at a less-than-optimal rate. It makes the game more fair. Some alliances have 20+ inactive members who continue to add money to their alliance bank even though they aren't contributing members. Smaller alliances usually don't have the benefit of free money coming in every turn from a vast number of inactive players. It's easy to implement. Really. if ($days_inactive <= 5) { $revenue = $revenue * $alliance_tax_multiplier; } else { //do nothing } So what do you guys think? Should we continue to allow the taxation of inactive countries? I propose that we stop auto-taxation at five days of inactivity. Edited January 5, 2015 by Iodine Quote <Sheepy> Ah, it is Christmas this turn <Sheepy> Sheepy-Claus is gonna be comin' down your chim-chim-chiminey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 5, 2015 Administrators Share Posted January 5, 2015 I must say it's not nearly as simple as your example code there, and in my opinion it would be easier and make more sense to simply not tax gray nations than to do a calculation to find out how active each player is every 2 hours. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iodine Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) I must say it's not nearly as simple as your example code there, and in my opinion it would be easier and make more sense to simply not tax gray nations than to do a calculation to find out how active each player is every 2 hours. I understand that you must also do the same for resources, but the logic is the same for each variable. Unless the structure of the game isn't efficient, I couldn't imagine this taking more than 30 minutes to implement. Edit: I've realized that nations go on grey after 7 days of inactivity. You could do this if 7 days is deemed a long enough timespan by the playerbase. Edited January 5, 2015 by Iodine Quote <Sheepy> Ah, it is Christmas this turn <Sheepy> Sheepy-Claus is gonna be comin' down your chim-chim-chiminey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greene Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I'm completely against this. I have a few members that informed me that they're taking some time to visit family and such over the holiday season. They are keeping in contact with me outside of the game, but by your arguments here they should be penalized for spending time with their families when they are still full members of my alliance. Quote 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 More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 My understanding is that nations are set to grey after 7 days of inactivity, if so, this would be fine to not tax gray nations. However, it would encourage nations In an alliance to leave and then beige their alliance member, which is why I think not taxing members (or counting them In alliance stats) is better. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iodine Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) I'm completely against this. I have a few members that informed me that they're taking some time to visit family and such over the holiday season. They are keeping in contact with me outside of the game, but by your arguments here they should be penalized for spending time with their families when they are still full members of my alliance. They only thing being 'penalized' is the alliance bank. The country isn't losing money for being inactive, thus making the point of being punished invalid. The limit could also be extended to two weeks rather than say, five days. Also, if they have the ability to contact you, and continue to do so, then what is preventing them from spending the the ~10 seconds required to sign in? Edited January 5, 2015 by Iodine Quote <Sheepy> Ah, it is Christmas this turn <Sheepy> Sheepy-Claus is gonna be comin' down your chim-chim-chiminey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I'm completely against this. I have a few members that informed me that they're taking some time to visit family and such over the holiday season. They are keeping in contact with me outside of the game, but by your arguments here they should be penalized for spending time with their families when they are still full members of my alliance. sheepy has already said he is working on vacation mode, but in what world is not being taxed akin to being penalised? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Recently, an issue has been brought to my attention. From my current understanding, inactive nations can still be taxed by their alliance. While I know that nations are automatically deleted when they reach a certain level of inactivity, I believe that stopping automatic alliance taxation after a certain point would be beneficial to the game. I'll iterate through the reasons why. This one is rather obvious, but it makes multi-farming a little bit less beneficial due to the increase in effort required by the ring leader. Anything to further discourage the creation of multiple accounts by a single individual should be considered. It encourages players to sign in more due to pressure from their alliance, thus increasing in-game activity as a whole. Most alliances have a few members who sign in at a less-than-optimal rate. It makes the game more fair. Some alliances have 20+ inactive members who continue to add money to their alliance bank even though they aren't contributing members. Smaller alliances usually don't have the benefit of free money coming in every turn from a vast number of inactive players. It's easy to implement. Really. if ($days_inactive <= 5) { $revenue = $revenue * $alliance_tax_multiplier; } else { //do nothing } So what do you guys think? Should we continue to allow the taxation of inactive countries? I propose that we stop auto-taxation at five days of inactivity. One question. Why is the world would you want to stop taxing inactives? 1 Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iodine Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 One question. Why is the world would you want to stop taxing inactives? This one is rather obvious, but it makes multi-farming a little bit less beneficial due to the increase in effort required by the ring leader. Anything to further discourage the creation of multiple accounts by a single individual should be considered. It encourages players to sign in more due to pressure from their alliance, thus increasing in-game activity as a whole. Most alliances have a few members who sign in at a less-than-optimal rate. It makes the game more fair. Some alliances have 20+ inactive members who continue to add money to their alliance bank even though they aren't contributing members. Smaller alliances usually don't have the benefit of free money coming in every turn from a vast number of inactive players. I hope I've helped. 1 Quote <Sheepy> Ah, it is Christmas this turn <Sheepy> Sheepy-Claus is gonna be comin' down your chim-chim-chiminey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greene Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 sheepy has already said he is working on vacation mode, but in what world is not being taxed akin to being penalised? They are a member, they are active, but because they haven't logged in the past couple of weeks (Christmas time and all), your suggestion would penalize the alliance we would not be earning their taxes, but we'd still be obligated to protect them as they're legitimate members. Quote 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 More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 They are a member, they are active, but because they haven't logged in the past couple of weeks (Christmas time and all), your suggestion would penalize the alliance we would not be earning their taxes, but we'd still be obligated to protect them as they're legitimate members. Hense vacation mode where you wouldn't be earning taxes, or have to defend them. If they are truley in active and havent activated vacation mode you should either kick them or bare the consequences. Not hang on to them just to get their taxes. Stop them being taxed, stop them counting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iodine Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) They are a member, they are active, but because they haven't logged in the past couple of weeks (Christmas time and all), your suggestion would penalize the alliance we would not be earning their taxes, but we'd still be obligated to protect them as they're legitimate members. Let's be honest here. How often can a player continue to contact you and be considered 'active' but can't sign in for a couple of weeks. This probably doesn't happen as much as you claim. I don't think that alliances should be rewarded for having inactive members. If you're that concerned about the missing tax revenue, I'm sure that any honest and valuable member would gladly deposit their owed funds once they return. Edited January 5, 2015 by Iodine 1 Quote <Sheepy> Ah, it is Christmas this turn <Sheepy> Sheepy-Claus is gonna be comin' down your chim-chim-chiminey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greene Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Once we get vacation mode, I'm all for this suggestion, but until then, I'm averse to this. And to be clear, there are only two people in my alliance that this applies to currently, and both have alerted me to their extended inactivity. Heck, even I go off the grid for a two or three weeks a year to spend some time with family and just relax and recharge. Let me give a real world example here. Every August I go down to my family's farm for two solid weeks. There is no internet, and no data coverage. Therefore, I would be unable to check my nation, even though I can make phone calls. In another game that I play, my fellow alliance mates on the government level are aware of this and know how to contact me through my phone number if they absolutely had to. I am one of the higher earners for my alliance. What if we didn't have a stockpile (we do, but thats besides the point)? Quote 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 More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Let's be honest here. How often can a player continue to contact you and be considered 'active' but can't sign in for a couple of weeks. This probably doesn't happen as much as you claim. I don't think that alliances should be rewarded for having inactive members. If you're that concerned about the missing tax revenue, I'm sure that any honest and valuable member would gladly deposit their owed funds once they return. I Agree. Yet,I also think that a nation should not be taxed if it is not on the color of the Alliance. This makes sense and would be easy to code as sheepy claimed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Vacation mode is stupid if you'll only be gone a few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Let's be honest here. How often can a player continue to contact you and be considered 'active' but can't sign in for a couple of weeks. This probably doesn't happen as much as you claim. I don't think that alliances should be rewarded for having inactive members. If you're that concerned about the missing tax revenue, I'm sure that any honest and valuable member would gladly deposit their owed funds once they return. because we have a !@#$ing live Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chey Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Why do we need another "inactive" determiner? As you said, nations are already deleted at a certain point of inactivity. At that point, alliances cease to receive tax benefits from that nation. Not everyone will play this game with the same dedication, and that's fine. If someone wants to check on their nation periodically, grow it, and play a more laid back style of Politics and War -- within what's determined to be an acceptable level of activity (the existing deletion threshold) they're still contributing to the game and the world. Edited January 5, 2015 by Chey 2 Quote Commissioner of WWF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Recently, an issue has been brought to my attention. From my current understanding, inactive nations can still be taxed by their alliance. While I know that nations are automatically deleted when they reach a certain level of inactivity, I believe that stopping automatic alliance taxation after a certain point would be beneficial to the game. I'll iterate through the reasons why. This one is rather obvious, but it makes multi-farming a little bit less beneficial due to the increase in effort required by the ring leader. Anything to further discourage the creation of multiple accounts by a single individual should be considered. It encourages players to sign in more due to pressure from their alliance, thus increasing in-game activity as a whole. Most alliances have a few members who sign in at a less-than-optimal rate. It makes the game more fair. Some alliances have 20+ inactive members who continue to add money to their alliance bank even though they aren't contributing members. Smaller alliances usually don't have the benefit of free money coming in every turn from a vast number of inactive players. It's easy to implement. Really. if ($days_inactive <= 5) { $revenue = $revenue * $alliance_tax_multiplier; } else { //do nothing } So what do you guys think? Should we continue to allow the taxation of inactive countries? I propose that we stop auto-taxation at five days of inactivity. They get deleted anyway. Who cares? Let them be taxed. No sense in punishing alliances for the inevitable inactives. Let's be honest here. How often can a player continue to contact you and be considered 'active' but can't sign in for a couple of weeks. This probably doesn't happen as much as you claim. I don't think that alliances should be rewarded for having inactive members. If you're that concerned about the missing tax revenue, I'm sure that any honest and valuable member would gladly deposit their owed funds once they return. Why not? Those nations were fairly recruited. Now if this idea were added, I could easily avoid paying taxes to my alliance by not logging in. Which might be stupid, but I could. Also, this: Why do we need another "inactive" determiner? As you said, nations are already deleted at a certain point of inactivity. At that point, alliances cease to receive tax benefits from that nation. Not everyone will play this game with the same dedication, and that's fine. If someone wants to check on their nation periodically, grow it, and play a more laid back style of Politics and War -- within what's determined to be an acceptable level of activity (the existing deletion threshold) they're still contributing to the game and the world. Also, did I mention that nations already get deleted for inactivity? Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
last187 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I must say it's not nearly as simple as your example code there, and in my opinion it would be easier and make more sense to simply not tax gray nations than to do a calculation to find out how active each player is every 2 hours. not taxing grey nations if you implement that im switching to grey i will lose out on an odd 5% colour bonus max and avoid 10% tax so i have a 5% net increase in money Quote Going for top nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 5, 2015 Administrators Share Posted January 5, 2015 not taxing grey nations if you implement that im switching to grey i will lose out on an odd 5% colour bonus max and avoid 10% tax so i have a 5% net increase in money Gray nations don't get a color bonus, so I'm not sure what you're meaning by this. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 maybe he just mean inactive can be exempt from taxing if they were in gray stage, bcos active one would change the specific colour for bonus and try to avoid taxing. but i don't know whether the program would look for 2 conditions 1) gray 2) inactive (more than a week) and then stop the taxing instead of 1) gray 2) active to avoid taxing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Gray nations don't get a color bonus, so I'm not sure what you're meaning by this. He means that if Grey nations weren't taxed, he would make more money on Grey even without a color bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) I still don't in God's Creation know why you wouldn't want to tax inactives. Its free money for the bank to help out other active players. If you don't like taxing inactives, just boot them out. Problem Solved. Edited January 5, 2015 by Morgan Fraser Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iodine Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 not taxing grey nations if you implement that im switching to grey i will lose out on an odd 5% colour bonus max and avoid 10% tax so i have a 5% net increase in money I'm sure your alliance would appreciate losing out on your tax revenue and a slight decrease in the color stock bonus. If I was an alliance leader and I saw my members switch to grey to avoid paying taxes, they'd be kicked out. It's that simple. Quote <Sheepy> Ah, it is Christmas this turn <Sheepy> Sheepy-Claus is gonna be comin' down your chim-chim-chiminey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Gray nations don't get a color bonus, so I'm not sure what you're meaning by this. That's what he meant... Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.