Administrators Alex Posted January 8, 2015 Administrators Share Posted January 8, 2015 Based on the discussion in: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4331-removing-inactives-from-alliances/I think most players agree that inactive nations (gray) shouldn't be taxed. So, my suggestion is that if you're in an alliance and not on the alliance's color, you can't pay taxes. This would effectively prevent gray nations from paying taxes to the alliance. Another thought is that with this system we could allow color bonuses for nations that aren't on the same color as their alliance. Again, this is just for discussion, so don't get too hot and bothered about the whole idea. 2 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...
Grillick Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I think your premise is false. I don't think most players agree that inactive nations shouldn't be taxed. It's possible that most players who voiced an opinion in that thread agree that inactive nations shouldn't be taxed, but even then, I don't think it's the case. A significant minority of players think that inactive nations shouldn't be taxed. A significant minority of players think that inactive nations should be left alone to be dealt with as each particular alliance sees fit. The vast majority of players don't care enough to speak up on the matter. As for me, I fully agree with Tenages: If alliances want to use inactives as a tax farm, as I see it, it's a completely legitimate tactic. It's got it's own set of disadvantages it causes, and the response to it shouldn't be to legislate it out of the game because some players don't like it. As long as players haven't been inactive long enough to be deleted, they should be treated like the other nations in the game. 5 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Lots of people said they disagree, why? Edited January 8, 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...
stetonic Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 You should make it if you go grey then you pay 100 percent tax because if your really not coming back to play why would you care whats happening to your nation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Working too hard to solve something that's not a problem. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicboyd25 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I honestly see this as a way people can try to go around the alliance taxes. Unless you have some way to make it so its only inactives (if i misread something please say), then i see it affecting alliance taxes in a way that they will be reduced to something where alliance taxes unless very high will not be much for the alliance itself. If this happens and alliance tax rates have to rise, then i see members not liking the rates and all that jazz. Please provide an argument against mine if you have one, as i would love to hear the other end of my argument as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Sheepy plz no. 2 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chey Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I don't really feel strongly about this idea, but I probably wouldn't implement it just because I don't see the purpose it serves. What I don't understand is why we would give colour bonuses to nations not on their alliance's colour, especially at the same time as exempting them from taxes. Doesn't this all just incentivize poor alliance membership? Quote Commissioner of WWF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jong-Il Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Based on the discussion in: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4331-removing-inactives-from-alliances/I think most players agree that inactive nations (gray) shouldn't be taxed. So, my suggestion is that if you're in an alliance and not on the alliance's color, you can't pay taxes. This would effectively prevent gray nations from paying taxes to the alliance. Another thought is that with this system we could allow color bonuses for nations that aren't on the same color as their alliance. Again, this is just for discussion, so don't get too hot and bothered about the whole idea. I don't like the idea of being able to get bonuses for nations that aren't on the same as their alliance. It would royally screw it up, and sounds like it could be easily abused for color-bombing if, per say, the upn all went over to brown. They'll still get the bonus, even though their alliance color was purple. Not being on the same color as your alliance wouldn't be ethical. That means all beige nations wouldn't be contributing to the alliance either. If it were all colors dont pay taxes except your alliance color or beige, that would be acceptable Quote The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality: - Kastor: I already came out the closet. - MaIone: I'm gay * MaIone is now known as Kastor - Henri: i'm a !@#$it Skable: the !@#$ is a codo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) This should go at a vote, who here says we should have a poll? Edited January 8, 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...
Kim Jong-Il Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 This should go at a vote, who here says we should have a poll? Aye. 1 Quote The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality: - Kastor: I already came out the closet. - MaIone: I'm gay * MaIone is now known as Kastor - Henri: i'm a !@#$it Skable: the !@#$ is a codo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chey Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Nobody says that. Quote Commissioner of WWF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 8, 2015 Author Administrators Share Posted January 8, 2015 This should go at a vote, who here says we should have a poll? No, this does not merit a poll. This is the suggestion forum to discuss ideas, not vote on them. I don't like the idea of being able to get bonuses for nations that aren't on the same as their alliance. It would royally screw it up, and sounds like it could be easily abused for color-bombing if, per say, the upn all went over to brown. They'll still get the bonus, even though their alliance color was purple. Not being on the same color as your alliance wouldn't be ethical. That means all beige nations wouldn't be contributing to the alliance either. If it were all colors dont pay taxes except your alliance color or beige, that would be acceptable Something like this is what I was worried about, but if all of those nations went to brown in your example none of them would be paying taxes which would hurt their alliance. You should make it if you go grey then you pay 100 percent tax because if your really not coming back to play why would you care whats happening to your nation. Thats just outrageous. Why would you reward alliances for having inactive nations? 1 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...
Kim Jong-Il Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Something like this is what I was worried about, but if all of those nations went to brown in your example none of them would be paying taxes which would hurt their alliance. Ah. I didnt know that was a factor. But I still think beige nations should be able to pay taxes along with the nations on the alliance's color Nobody says that. I says that. 1 Quote The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality: - Kastor: I already came out the closet. - MaIone: I'm gay * MaIone is now known as Kastor - Henri: i'm a !@#$it Skable: the !@#$ is a codo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I am happily taxed that among of money if the leader agreed to return that amount of money to me when I return... which means NO to your idea. Edited January 9, 2015 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I FULLY SUPPORT THIS IDEA. It adds something to being beiged in war. It also solves the inactive farming. It will also force AAs to interact with their members. please do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 i agree with with grey nations not being able to pay taxes. But i disagree with nations being in an alliance and on a different color getting a stock bonus. If a nation goes grey they no longer pay taxes. But in order for them to recieve the color stock bonus well they have to be on the same color as their alliance. 1 Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNG Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I FULLY SUPPORT THIS IDEA. It adds something to being beiged in war. It also solves the inactive farming. It will also force AAs to interact with their members. please do it. I wouldn't say it solves inactive farming. You can get a lot more money from attacking and beiging someone that from taxes in the 30 days before someone deletes, so this would do nothing to solve the temptation. Plus, if someone is inactive, the alliance can't interact with them anyway, they're inactive. I fail to see how exempting them from tax would solve it. Anyway, this idea seems a lot of work for little gain. Most alliances don't have lots of inactives to lose revenue from, and if this idea is just trying to get alliances to kick inactives out, this won't work and isn't the way to do it. Just let inactives pay taxes until they delete, it isn't that big a deal. Frankly this idea seems as ill-thought out as the other one. A pointless rule just to get more inactives for a certain few. 1 Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chey Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I agree with NG in that I don't think this will have any major effect on the game, but I also don't think it's bad. If people want it, go for it I suppose. I do think we should leave the colour stock bonuses as is, with nations only receiving the bonus if they share a colour with their alliance. Quote Commissioner of WWF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I wouldn't say it solves inactive farming. You can get a lot more money from attacking and beiging someone that from taxes in the 30 days before someone deletes, so this would do nothing to solve the temptation. Plus, if someone is inactive, the alliance can't interact with them anyway, they're inactive. I fail to see how exempting them from tax would solve it. Anyway, this idea seems a lot of work for little gain. Most alliances don't have lots of inactives to lose revenue from, and if this idea is just trying to get alliances to kick inactives out, this won't work and isn't the way to do it. Just let inactives pay taxes until they delete, it isn't that big a deal. Frankly this idea seems as ill-thought out as the other one. A pointless rule just to get more inactives for a certain few. Completely disagree that you get more money beiging someone. kicking them out of your alliance and then beiging them if you get three people on them, after a weeks inactivity would get you 7x their daily revenue in total at absolute max and cost them three nations a bit. if you instead went for 23 days of taxation, at 10% tax you would get 2.3...... huh. damn. Wonder why people don't do this more often. Anyway I still agree with the idea proposed mainly adding to the beiging mechanic and encourages more interaction with your alliance members and keeping them active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) No, this is a bad idea. Alliances often invest in new members as soon as they join with the knowledge that if they putz and go inactive, they'll still get that investment back. You're taking away that guarantee and thus removing an incentive for alliances to help newer players and thereby making the game harder to join by reconstructing what barriers to entry alliances attempt to demolish. Alliances rely on recruiting all ten players that they THINK will be active with the knowledge that only one, or two if you're lucky, will be. Which is why so much support is coming from TEst's corner. They don't recruit. This obviously benefits them inordinately. Terrible, terrible idea. Edited January 8, 2015 by Ashland 1 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) No, this is a bad idea. Alliances often invest in new members as soon as they join with the knowledge that if they putz and go inactive, they'll still get that investment back. You're taking away that guarantee and thus removing an incentive for alliances to help newer players and thereby making the game harder to join by reconstructing what barriers to entry alliances attempt to demolish. Alliances rely on recruiting all ten players that they THINK will be active with the knowledge that only one, or two if you're lucky, will be. Which is why so much support is coming from TEst's corner. They don't recruit. This obviously benefits them inordinately Terrible, terrible idea. So why should there be no risk in adding people to your AA?! There should be no guarantees. Just do a better job vetting your recruits and a better job at KEEPING them in the AA, therefore the game. All will benefit in the end. Edited January 8, 2015 by ELPINCHAZO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 So why should there be no risk in adding people to your AA?! There should be no guarantees. Just do a better job vetting your recruits and a better job at KEEPING them in the AA, therefore the game. All will benefit in the end. There is a risk! They could get raided which could take from the AA bank! And that's your typical response. That kind of response incentivizes us to give fewer people a chance at the game and just do what you do and only look for players who are already established. Sheepy, he wants fewer people to play your game. 1 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 It makes sense that nations not on the alliance color can't be taxed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 There is a risk! They could get raided which could take from the AA bank! And that's your typical response. That kind of response incentivizes us to give fewer people a chance at the game and just do what you do and only look for players who are already established. Sheepy, he wants fewer people to play your game. Just do a better job vetting your recruits and a better job at KEEPING them in the AA, therefore the game. Yeah,you totally got me. I'm trying to run the game into the ground I spend time reporting mutlis so legit players don't get so frustrated with it that they quit 1 Quote 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.