Forums » Suggestions
Add a tax system
As the title suggests: Add a weekly wealth tax that is applied at the same time as station fees. The amount will depend on few things. I'm spitballing figures here, and just working on the concept.
All players are allowed to have upwards of 250 millions credits tax free. Above which, they must pay taxes on. Example: a player with 250,000,000 credits pays zero taxes. But a player with 250,000,010 credits pays 25% of 10 credits.
Different nations will have different tax rates. Itani and Serco, because they are in a middle of a war will pay higher taxes. UIT will pay lower. Additionally, maintaining pillar of society will also reduce the tax rate for a player. A player home nation hate/kos will pay Corvus a different rate.
There will also be some fees (5-10%) for transferring credits between players. And maybe some tax for the guild bank as well.
This system would go in effect after a theoretical credit buy back.
Positives: Players would be more apt to spend their credits on items. Yes this means that there would be a wealth transfer to in game widgets, but those items need to be stored some place, and there is already a storage fee system in place. With having both a system of storage fees and taxes in this game, there will be more incentive to do something with credits instead of letting the amount just become indefinitely larger once received.
Negatives: Players that have worked years (even decades) will see their work potentially nullified. There may be misgivings about what their previous work/achievements were all for.
Other thoughts: There is potential for interesting emergent gameplay if this is implemented. Enterprising players may attempt to get around fees by filling every ship in their inventory with items to make use of all paid for storage. All stations suddenly become important. Players might start renting their capital ships as additional off the grid storage for less cost than a station.
Related threads
Tax system... (2003)
Balancing the economy (2010)
Grey Space -> UIT goods taxed. (2009)
Free players but with property cap (2009)
Fees(2004)
Taxes, smugglers, etc. (2003)
All players are allowed to have upwards of 250 millions credits tax free. Above which, they must pay taxes on. Example: a player with 250,000,000 credits pays zero taxes. But a player with 250,000,010 credits pays 25% of 10 credits.
Different nations will have different tax rates. Itani and Serco, because they are in a middle of a war will pay higher taxes. UIT will pay lower. Additionally, maintaining pillar of society will also reduce the tax rate for a player. A player home nation hate/kos will pay Corvus a different rate.
There will also be some fees (5-10%) for transferring credits between players. And maybe some tax for the guild bank as well.
This system would go in effect after a theoretical credit buy back.
Positives: Players would be more apt to spend their credits on items. Yes this means that there would be a wealth transfer to in game widgets, but those items need to be stored some place, and there is already a storage fee system in place. With having both a system of storage fees and taxes in this game, there will be more incentive to do something with credits instead of letting the amount just become indefinitely larger once received.
Negatives: Players that have worked years (even decades) will see their work potentially nullified. There may be misgivings about what their previous work/achievements were all for.
Other thoughts: There is potential for interesting emergent gameplay if this is implemented. Enterprising players may attempt to get around fees by filling every ship in their inventory with items to make use of all paid for storage. All stations suddenly become important. Players might start renting their capital ships as additional off the grid storage for less cost than a station.
Related threads
Tax system... (2003)
Balancing the economy (2010)
Grey Space -> UIT goods taxed. (2009)
Free players but with property cap (2009)
Fees(2004)
Taxes, smugglers, etc. (2003)
Fine, so long as a new forum section is added showing how much weekly tax is being payed by each player.
That way you can sit in Discord and gloat about how you spoiled the game for traders and the rest of the playerbase can watch vets cancelling their subs and leaving the game.
Having a lot of cash and high lvls gives a payer absolutely no advantage in vo. PVP is just that, no amount of cash makes you twitch faster. All these attacks on vets who have played for years is just spite, and tbh for the last 20 years it has been the same individuals who have suggested methods for stamping on the efforts of players who wish to play that way.
Of course its INCs game. If he wants to go that route so be it.
That way you can sit in Discord and gloat about how you spoiled the game for traders and the rest of the playerbase can watch vets cancelling their subs and leaving the game.
Having a lot of cash and high lvls gives a payer absolutely no advantage in vo. PVP is just that, no amount of cash makes you twitch faster. All these attacks on vets who have played for years is just spite, and tbh for the last 20 years it has been the same individuals who have suggested methods for stamping on the efforts of players who wish to play that way.
Of course its INCs game. If he wants to go that route so be it.
Having a lot of cash and high lvls gives a payer absolutely no advantage in vo.
I mean, you can buy a Trident, from the player-base, via kits and such. Weren't those like 500M to 1B apiece?
I think if you polled newbies about whether they would like to own a capship, like 100% would say "yes".
If we continue to have player-manufactured items that are tradeable between players, using Credits as a currency medium of exchange, the value of Credits in large quantities will probably continue to be relevant.
So, honestly Ecka, I think your entire "rebuttal" here is pretty disingenuous.
Of course its INCs game. If he wants to go that route so be it.
I'm not advocating for the OP thread here. I find "tax" concepts to be a bit weird. But, I'm not against discussing it, because something useful could come from the discussion. It is thought-provoking, at the very least.
But, it we just aim to shut down all discussions and claim that anyone making a proposal is spiteful and evil, then we have a lot bigger problems than currency inflation.
Like it says in Rule #3..
Rule #3 - Be respectful of other players and play-styles with your Suggestions and feedback.
Be respectful of other individuals. Critique the Suggestion and not the Person. Don't be rude.
This is a "sandbox" MMO, people can play as traders, or pirates, or miners, or any number of other other potential options, and all be just as "legitimate" in their place in the VO Universe.
It doesn't matter if you frame it as "the same individuals", as opposed to calling out specific names, they're both bad. There's nothing inherently wrong with writing a thread about having a progressive-tax system on credits, so don't attack "the same individuals" for doing so.
Respond to the Idea, not the Posting Individual. Critique the concept on its own merits, as it stands in the game, not "this would make me and others angry and quit!". That isn't valid counter-argument.
I mean, you can buy a Trident, from the player-base, via kits and such. Weren't those like 500M to 1B apiece?
I think if you polled newbies about whether they would like to own a capship, like 100% would say "yes".
If we continue to have player-manufactured items that are tradeable between players, using Credits as a currency medium of exchange, the value of Credits in large quantities will probably continue to be relevant.
So, honestly Ecka, I think your entire "rebuttal" here is pretty disingenuous.
Of course its INCs game. If he wants to go that route so be it.
I'm not advocating for the OP thread here. I find "tax" concepts to be a bit weird. But, I'm not against discussing it, because something useful could come from the discussion. It is thought-provoking, at the very least.
But, it we just aim to shut down all discussions and claim that anyone making a proposal is spiteful and evil, then we have a lot bigger problems than currency inflation.
Like it says in Rule #3..
Rule #3 - Be respectful of other players and play-styles with your Suggestions and feedback.
Be respectful of other individuals. Critique the Suggestion and not the Person. Don't be rude.
This is a "sandbox" MMO, people can play as traders, or pirates, or miners, or any number of other other potential options, and all be just as "legitimate" in their place in the VO Universe.
It doesn't matter if you frame it as "the same individuals", as opposed to calling out specific names, they're both bad. There's nothing inherently wrong with writing a thread about having a progressive-tax system on credits, so don't attack "the same individuals" for doing so.
Respond to the Idea, not the Posting Individual. Critique the concept on its own merits, as it stands in the game, not "this would make me and others angry and quit!". That isn't valid counter-argument.
I am entirely for a tax system as part of the game's overall economy. However, the OP targets reducing the wealth of players who have accumulated over the course of playing the game. I haven't seen anything, either in my own gameplay or in the discussions, where 'leveling the field' makes sense to me.
I understand that the OP was throwing out ideas. So here is my take on it.
25% tax on credits over 250 million. My reading of this is that the tax would be ongoing. As such, it would reduce a player's ability to sustain wealth at a certain point beyond the 250 million cr mark, which, to me, is a disincentive to play in any trade role that values wealth accumulation. I don't like how players own x number of universal credits regardless of their location or standing in the game. Players should be able to carry X credits on their person (which drop if they die), while the remainder should remain locked in the economy they were earned in. After all, I can't travel to Europe and spend my US dollars without going through a currency exchange. Why should I be able to go from UIT to Serco to Itani with my entire wealth available? As the OP said, different factions should have different tax rates or collection methods, but I also think there should be a similarity in the overall cost to the players. For instance, while taxes are low in UIT space, players are also taxed by the sub-faction. It would also force the player to continually struggle to maintain a preferred balance of over 250 million credits or forfeit them as they get continually reduced. I see this as a disincintive.
From my perspective, I see a number of challenges to adding a tax system. How does this apply to earnings from military vs. nonmilitary missions? Presumably, the tax has always been built in such that it is already reflected in your rewards or profits from selling an asset to a station. If a tax system is desired, then it should be an aspect of the game for all players with 100,000 - 250,000 cr and up and even make it progressive is so desired so that players that have greater wealth have their growth slowed. I don't support a game feature that applies to a select few.
5-10% credit transfer fee. I'd love to see a reworking of the whole credit/credit transfer system by adding a banking system that manages such transfers. However, in the current context of playing VO, such transactions appear to me to be a private matter between players and adding such a fee violates that privacy. Why would I think this should be applicable in Grey space?
As to the positive from the OP, what widgets beyond a players favorite ships, weapons and common manufacturing items are worth investing in in the current state of the game? The very thought of having to put my credits into widgets is depressing given the rapid devalutation that comes from owning them as well as the prospect of recovering the value over a long period of time. I don't see it. For this to work, there needs to be MORE INCENTIVE to do something with ones credits, like investing them in RISK to earn even more credits.
As to the negative from the OP, I have several times given away all or most of my credits and started from scratch and still have earned almost 700 million cr on my main and the minimum any of my characters have is 2 million. I don't get all of these discussions about leveling the playing field for the new players. Let Them Do The Work. It's not hard. It's time consuming and tedious, but not hard.
I'm not opposed to balancing things out if it is necessary for the game. I just don't see the need at this time. A tax system, heck yeah! Is a tax system something that should be prioritized? Not, in my opinion, unless it is included as part of the overall economic development of the game.
I understand that the OP was throwing out ideas. So here is my take on it.
25% tax on credits over 250 million. My reading of this is that the tax would be ongoing. As such, it would reduce a player's ability to sustain wealth at a certain point beyond the 250 million cr mark, which, to me, is a disincentive to play in any trade role that values wealth accumulation. I don't like how players own x number of universal credits regardless of their location or standing in the game. Players should be able to carry X credits on their person (which drop if they die), while the remainder should remain locked in the economy they were earned in. After all, I can't travel to Europe and spend my US dollars without going through a currency exchange. Why should I be able to go from UIT to Serco to Itani with my entire wealth available? As the OP said, different factions should have different tax rates or collection methods, but I also think there should be a similarity in the overall cost to the players. For instance, while taxes are low in UIT space, players are also taxed by the sub-faction. It would also force the player to continually struggle to maintain a preferred balance of over 250 million credits or forfeit them as they get continually reduced. I see this as a disincintive.
From my perspective, I see a number of challenges to adding a tax system. How does this apply to earnings from military vs. nonmilitary missions? Presumably, the tax has always been built in such that it is already reflected in your rewards or profits from selling an asset to a station. If a tax system is desired, then it should be an aspect of the game for all players with 100,000 - 250,000 cr and up and even make it progressive is so desired so that players that have greater wealth have their growth slowed. I don't support a game feature that applies to a select few.
5-10% credit transfer fee. I'd love to see a reworking of the whole credit/credit transfer system by adding a banking system that manages such transfers. However, in the current context of playing VO, such transactions appear to me to be a private matter between players and adding such a fee violates that privacy. Why would I think this should be applicable in Grey space?
As to the positive from the OP, what widgets beyond a players favorite ships, weapons and common manufacturing items are worth investing in in the current state of the game? The very thought of having to put my credits into widgets is depressing given the rapid devalutation that comes from owning them as well as the prospect of recovering the value over a long period of time. I don't see it. For this to work, there needs to be MORE INCENTIVE to do something with ones credits, like investing them in RISK to earn even more credits.
As to the negative from the OP, I have several times given away all or most of my credits and started from scratch and still have earned almost 700 million cr on my main and the minimum any of my characters have is 2 million. I don't get all of these discussions about leveling the playing field for the new players. Let Them Do The Work. It's not hard. It's time consuming and tedious, but not hard.
I'm not opposed to balancing things out if it is necessary for the game. I just don't see the need at this time. A tax system, heck yeah! Is a tax system something that should be prioritized? Not, in my opinion, unless it is included as part of the overall economic development of the game.
I'm just trying to re-distill this discussion into something simpler..
- It seems like the overall goal here is "forced deflation of perceived credit value".
- Basically, this (OP) idea being to "force people who have lots of credits spend it on items".
- Then "force item storage to be an on-going credit sink" (which it already is, to some extent).
- Eventually resulting in a game where few people have really large quantities of credits.
Is that roughly accurate? So, my next question is..
- What exactly is the point?
* There's a discussion about capship repairs being free, and perhaps wealthy traders can buy more replacement ships in combat scenarios.
* There's also the point I raised that player-manufactured items are purchasable in a player-market, and large amounts of credits do have value to "advancement" in that way.
But.. is that really the issue here?
What specific problem are we trying to solve here, exactly? I think that clarifying that would be more useful than getting bogged down into a lot of complex game mechanics to "solve" it.
(Understand, I'm not coming out "for" or "against" anything here)
- It seems like the overall goal here is "forced deflation of perceived credit value".
- Basically, this (OP) idea being to "force people who have lots of credits spend it on items".
- Then "force item storage to be an on-going credit sink" (which it already is, to some extent).
- Eventually resulting in a game where few people have really large quantities of credits.
Is that roughly accurate? So, my next question is..
- What exactly is the point?
* There's a discussion about capship repairs being free, and perhaps wealthy traders can buy more replacement ships in combat scenarios.
* There's also the point I raised that player-manufactured items are purchasable in a player-market, and large amounts of credits do have value to "advancement" in that way.
But.. is that really the issue here?
What specific problem are we trying to solve here, exactly? I think that clarifying that would be more useful than getting bogged down into a lot of complex game mechanics to "solve" it.
(Understand, I'm not coming out "for" or "against" anything here)
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what this suggestion is meant to fix. The only advantages wealthy players have, that I can think of, is being able to purchase capship parts or mass quantities of the ingredients to build those parts from other players.
Making credits is easy, so the only other gate is time. Time to level you character to be able to equip the best ships and add-ons.
If the assumption is wealthy players are hoarding all the resources to keep the price of parts high, then what would a tax solve?
If anything I think it would have the opposite effect. People would find gathering and building not worth the time so they would hoard those resources and parts , making it harder for newer players to progress to capships.
Now, I do think there's an issue where replacements for capships and ships are too cheap, as in there's really no risk to bring out the top tier ships or capships if you're subbed. I think maybe lengthening the insurance missions and adding one to the top tier ships may make people more strategic in their use, but it also might cause people not to use them. But, I guess that's a different topic.
Edit: by lengthening the insurance mission, I mean putting a time limit on it before you can use it, instead of just being able to repurchase it right away.
Making credits is easy, so the only other gate is time. Time to level you character to be able to equip the best ships and add-ons.
If the assumption is wealthy players are hoarding all the resources to keep the price of parts high, then what would a tax solve?
If anything I think it would have the opposite effect. People would find gathering and building not worth the time so they would hoard those resources and parts , making it harder for newer players to progress to capships.
Now, I do think there's an issue where replacements for capships and ships are too cheap, as in there's really no risk to bring out the top tier ships or capships if you're subbed. I think maybe lengthening the insurance missions and adding one to the top tier ships may make people more strategic in their use, but it also might cause people not to use them. But, I guess that's a different topic.
Edit: by lengthening the insurance mission, I mean putting a time limit on it before you can use it, instead of just being able to repurchase it right away.
A few simple points.
Serious traders with a lot of cash are the least likely to buy capship parts. Why ? Well, we made a lot of cash reverse trading and overmining whilst building the capships we have. If we want more capships we would use the capships we have and make even more cash while doing so.
Secondly the type of player who enjoys trading and mining to make money tends not to be the kind of player that does a lot of pvp for fun. Perhaps older players with personal long term objectives of having made, mined, owned or built rather than than being shot at. They are still paying a sub to fulfil those objectives, randomly removing their cash or inventory is not going to change them as people, merely annoy them.
A slight aside. anyone but me remember a player called Woodstock ? His game objective was to create a VO museum. One of every ship , wep and commodity in vo stored at a single station, . That was years back, but it serves as a good example of understanding that a sandbox with no set objectives is just that. Why spoil it ?
Thirdly, I do not oppose sensible costs. Reloading in ones own dent should cost something. Perhaps less that a station reload. Again the traders wouldn't do that a lot so in real terms it would have little effect.
Fourthly, it has been suggested that having players in the game with loads of everything puts off new players. I have had chats with new guild players who seem a bit overawed by that. I point out that if they play regularly for the next 20 years their stats wil be better than mine. Their reply tends to be that by that time my stats will be even higher. I point out that I started VO in late middle age and at some point my cash and levels will cease to go up. I doubt my ownership of the Hand Stitched Leather Wallet and the Coconut Bra will impress the grim reaper .......
Lastly, people. You just can't reset people. Even if you reset the map, create a whole new set of stations, a complete new set of trade goods, missions, ores and roid distributions the same players would end up rich with high lvs and the same players would be wanting to sit in whatever becomes the pvp sector and fight folk. It's that simple.
You just can't reset people.
Serious traders with a lot of cash are the least likely to buy capship parts. Why ? Well, we made a lot of cash reverse trading and overmining whilst building the capships we have. If we want more capships we would use the capships we have and make even more cash while doing so.
Secondly the type of player who enjoys trading and mining to make money tends not to be the kind of player that does a lot of pvp for fun. Perhaps older players with personal long term objectives of having made, mined, owned or built rather than than being shot at. They are still paying a sub to fulfil those objectives, randomly removing their cash or inventory is not going to change them as people, merely annoy them.
A slight aside. anyone but me remember a player called Woodstock ? His game objective was to create a VO museum. One of every ship , wep and commodity in vo stored at a single station, . That was years back, but it serves as a good example of understanding that a sandbox with no set objectives is just that. Why spoil it ?
Thirdly, I do not oppose sensible costs. Reloading in ones own dent should cost something. Perhaps less that a station reload. Again the traders wouldn't do that a lot so in real terms it would have little effect.
Fourthly, it has been suggested that having players in the game with loads of everything puts off new players. I have had chats with new guild players who seem a bit overawed by that. I point out that if they play regularly for the next 20 years their stats wil be better than mine. Their reply tends to be that by that time my stats will be even higher. I point out that I started VO in late middle age and at some point my cash and levels will cease to go up. I doubt my ownership of the Hand Stitched Leather Wallet and the Coconut Bra will impress the grim reaper .......
Lastly, people. You just can't reset people. Even if you reset the map, create a whole new set of stations, a complete new set of trade goods, missions, ores and roid distributions the same players would end up rich with high lvs and the same players would be wanting to sit in whatever becomes the pvp sector and fight folk. It's that simple.
You just can't reset people.
"- What exactly is the point?"
-incarnate
^this
Put another way we can look at rule number 4 for suggestions, which includes:
Any Suggestion that drastically upends existing gameplay balance should include significant justification.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/37508
The OP states an idea andwhat effects it might have, but nowhere justifies the suggestion.
What's so bad [for the playerbase as a whole] about some people having lots of credits? I'd be willing to bet that for every con anyone might throw out, there is a pro easily counter balancing it.
-incarnate
^this
Put another way we can look at rule number 4 for suggestions, which includes:
Any Suggestion that drastically upends existing gameplay balance should include significant justification.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/37508
The OP states an idea andwhat effects it might have, but nowhere justifies the suggestion.
What's so bad [for the playerbase as a whole] about some people having lots of credits? I'd be willing to bet that for every con anyone might throw out, there is a pro easily counter balancing it.
TL;DR: Nobody likes taxes but if the taxes are a result of explosions/conflict generation I'm all for it.
Maintaining PoS already reduces the price of commodities and addons afaik and the current station storage rental system is quite adequate in it's current state.
If anything storage rental oughta be more expensive/fleshed out at the extreme end of the spectrum particularly in smaller stations. (storing 100,000cu of stuff in a station the size of a couple dozen behemoths rubs me the wrong way type of deal - It's not super important but despite the fact vo's more arcade than simulator it still irks me a little).
Honestly the best "tax" that could be implemented is probably the conq station pillaging mechanic where taking the station gives you a little bit of stuff from the previous holder's inventory, doesn't have to be the real valuable stuff either since the biggest pain of conq station manufacturing is mostly hauling shit there in the first place so if the station shits out a few tier1 components and readily available addons (stuff that's available in stations) after a take it would motivate people to go after them that much more.
Would also create a "risk" to constantly holding the stations which right now there isn't one it's all benefit and no downside not to mention they're easy as shit to defend.
"Players might start renting their capital ships as additional off the grid storage for less cost than a station.
"... yeah that's not happening no one's gimping their capships to store a thousand units of shit anywhere.
Maintaining PoS already reduces the price of commodities and addons afaik and the current station storage rental system is quite adequate in it's current state.
If anything storage rental oughta be more expensive/fleshed out at the extreme end of the spectrum particularly in smaller stations. (storing 100,000cu of stuff in a station the size of a couple dozen behemoths rubs me the wrong way type of deal - It's not super important but despite the fact vo's more arcade than simulator it still irks me a little).
Honestly the best "tax" that could be implemented is probably the conq station pillaging mechanic where taking the station gives you a little bit of stuff from the previous holder's inventory, doesn't have to be the real valuable stuff either since the biggest pain of conq station manufacturing is mostly hauling shit there in the first place so if the station shits out a few tier1 components and readily available addons (stuff that's available in stations) after a take it would motivate people to go after them that much more.
Would also create a "risk" to constantly holding the stations which right now there isn't one it's all benefit and no downside not to mention they're easy as shit to defend.
"Players might start renting their capital ships as additional off the grid storage for less cost than a station.
"... yeah that's not happening no one's gimping their capships to store a thousand units of shit anywhere.
-1 to taxes
what is mine, is mine! Stay out of my pockets and get your own.
what is mine, is mine! Stay out of my pockets and get your own.