Guest hawkeye Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 We do this on what is basically a ranking tax. the nation in 99th place in the rankings gets taxed 1% of his income, the nation ranked after him gets taxed at 2%, the nation after him at 3% and so forth. ending with the 1st nation in the game getting 99% of it's income taxed. this can help reduce and stop the gap between rich and poor nations, making the game more fun and fair for new players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 We do this on what is basically a ranking tax. the nation in 99th place in the rankings gets taxed 1% of his income, the nation ranked after him gets taxed at 2%, the nation after him at 3% and so forth. ending with the 1st nation in the game getting 99% of it's income taxed. this can help reduce and stop the gap between rich and poor nations, making the game more fun and fair for new players. no. 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...
Tiber Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Err...no. If you start any game, the people that have been playing longer are better, that's how it is. Lol. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawkeye Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) no. then you're letting the game stagenate and you're helping ruin it. Err...no. If you start any game, the people that have been playing longer are better, that's how it is. Lol. this is unfair and needs fixing Edited July 22, 2015 by hawkeye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) That idea might need to be tweaked a bit... #2948 (at the time I was on) is Saudi Afghanistan. By your idea, he would be taxed 1%. #1 is the Greater German Reich. So how much would he be taxed? Having him taxed 2947% seems a little unfair, doesn't it? Instead, perhaps some categories i.e. 2000-1500 score loses 10% revenue, 100-0 score gets 10% revenue, or a special "noobs" government mode only available before score 250 would be better. And also how would this be fair to the older players, who have spent time and money in some cases getting there? If you're a noob at a game, you will have to work at it and become better. Edited July 22, 2015 by firecomet234 1 Quote Proud Canadian, Proud Ontarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Peterson Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 This is not a good idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalmor Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 hawkeye is the best troll to ever grace this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawkeye Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 That idea might need to be tweaked a bit... #2948 (at the time I was on) is Saudi Afghanistan. By your idea, he would be taxed 1%. #1 is the Greater German Reich. So how much would he be taxed? Having him taxed 2947% seems a little unfair, doesn't it? Instead, perhaps some categories i.e. 2000-1500 score loses 10% revenue, 100-0 score gets 10% revenue, or a special "noobs" government mode only available before score 250 would be better. And also how would this be fair to the older players, who have spent time and money in some cases getting there? If you're a noob at a game, you will have to work at it and become better. which is why I said it starts at rank 99%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan77 Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 This is stupid on so many levels that I'm not even gonna waste my time explaining why. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawkeye Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 This is stupid on so many levels that I'm not even gonna waste my time explaining why. so do you support the game being ruined by having nation grow far ahead of everybody else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I was going to say this in the other thread, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were also Inst. Just now you want more attention and be even more annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 So I conclude that... 1. He is either a multi of Henry. 2. He is a noob who is jealous of the big relevant nations and wants to make his way up there easier. 1 Quote Proud Canadian, Proud Ontarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawkeye Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 So I conclude that... 1. He is either a multi of Henry. 2. He is a noob who is jealous of the big relevant nations and wants to make his way up there easier. by the time i would grow up there. they would even bigger it's a major problem and it stops all players having equal chance and harms the game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 by the time i would grow up there. they would even bigger it's a major problem and it stops all players having equal chance and harms the game I guess you shouldn't waste any more of your time then. Laters! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 heres an idea, join an alliance and request aid to help grow your nation faster. The older players being a head of newer players doesnt harm the game, we just have been here longer and were growing our nations longer which is why we are big. And believe it or not but smaller nations can in fact catch up to larger nations. 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...
Kenneth Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 I have to disagree with this idea. The mechanics of the game already compensate for this. An old and enormous nation cannot attack a brand new nation. This is fair. The older players have put time and effort into building their nation. Taking away their income through a tremendous tax would be unfair. There are lots of ways for newer players to influence the game on their own tier. Make friends, wage war, help each other grow. Eventually you will become big. If a nation could become big with little effort, then the game would not be fun. Furthermore, there will come a time when players in the top tier will have reached all of their goals. They will move on to bigger and better things. (Such as, perhaps, real problems in the real world). Then other younger players will come and take their place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 then you're letting the game stagenate and you're helping ruin it. At 100% tax the top player literally stagnates, so your idea is garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawkeye Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 At 100% tax the top player literally stagnates, so your idea is garbage. 99% isn't 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadin Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Honestly? I would say get rid of the 10-day cooldown period for cities. That will benefit small nations more than it would large ones, because small nation cities can be easily purchased by their alliance while large nation cities are more costly. Other than that another idea might be to get rid of the 10-day cooldown period, but only for nations below a certain size. Say the first 6 cities or something. The cooldown period was a good idea and made sense early on, but it might be worth considering taking a second look at it now. Edited July 22, 2015 by Kadin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawkeye Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Honestly? I would say get rid of the 10-day cooldown period for cities. That will benefit small nations more than it would large ones, because small nation cities can be easily purchased by their alliance while large nation cities are more costly. Other than that another idea might be to get rid of the 10-day cooldown period, but only for nations below a certain size. Say the first 6 cities or something. The cooldown period was a good idea and made sense early on, but it might be worth considering taking a second look at it now. this is a good idea. dislike this suggestion if you might, i do think the gap is unfair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 this is a good idea. dislike this suggestion if you might, i do think the gap is unfair Please explain why it is unfair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadin Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Please explain why it is unfair I'm not him, and I don't necessarily think the gap is "unfair," but I do think that it should be addressed. In my opinion the goal shouldn't be to eliminate the gap, but rather to reduce it. Older nations will always be larger than younger ones, at least if you assume they are both relatively active and both continue to try to grow. To that end the goal should not be to punish the older ones, but instead it should be to allow the younger ones to grow more quickly. That's why I think revisiting and modifying the 10-day period between cities for smaller nations is an idea that should be discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekejen Luish Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Hawkeye, this is how the game works: first come, first served. Anyway, just join an alliance like US or VE or UPN or another one of those big ones that'll give you a ton of money to grow your nation. And once you're the top player, you can decide whether or not you want to send 99% of your income to nowhere. Quote This is very small Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hawkeye Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Hawkeye, this is how the game works: first come, first served. Anyway, just join an alliance like US or VE or UPN or another one of those big ones that'll give you a ton of money to grow your nation. And once you're the top player, you can decide whether or not you want to send 99% of your income to nowhere. why should i be slave to large alliances just so game can be fair? where is freedom here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Since I'm beyond rank #100, I fully supports this suggestion. Let the rankers cry blood tears 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.