Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Mining in taxed ares

L

LaraD

Provider
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Posts
177
I used the forum serach but didn't find any test about mining in taxed area. So here's my answer:
Does mining in a taxed LA affect your TT return?
Is the TT return exeactly reduced by the amount of taxes?
How is TT return reduced? Less finds, or do finds have lesser value?
 
LaraD said:
I used the forum serach but didn't find any test about mining in taxed area. So here's my answer:
Does mining in a taxed LA affect your TT return?
Is the TT return exeactly reduced by the amount of taxes?
How is TT return reduced? Less finds, or do finds have lesser value?
Click to expand...

same amount of finds and the % is deducted from claims ... So unless a mining LA offers %-wise higher markup then you can get elsewhere I wouldn't bother and mine in non-taxed areas.

Angel
 
LaraD said:
I used the forum serach but didn't find any test about mining in taxed area. So here's my answer:
Does mining in a taxed LA affect your TT return?
Is the TT return exeactly reduced by the amount of taxes?
How is TT return reduced? Less finds, or do finds have lesser value?
Click to expand...

I believe it works like this :

If you go mining and drop x number of probes and come back with 100ped TT value on an untaxed land then you have 100ped TT value of ores/enmatters.

If you do this on an LA with say 5% tax then you will come back with 95ped TT value ores and enmatters. The 5% in this case 5 ped goes to the land owner.

Returns that you get, are calculated down after the % tax has been given to LA owner.

So instead of getting 100% of your TT value when out mining you get (in the case of 5% tax) 95% TT value.
 
what about MA want to make LA owners happy and that make better tt return in tax areas ? and because people are afraid of tax areas sound very good sometimes for ur tt return:D
 
I personaly have the filling that my retirns are better in taxed areas. May be not in all, but in some I get close to 100% (lately) if someone didn't mined there before me. When I get in some not taxed land far away from people I usualy get lower returns.
 
AxeMurderer said:
I personaly have the filling that my retirns are better in taxed areas. May be not in all, but in some I get close to 100% (lately) if someone didn't mined there before me. When I get in some not taxed land far away from people I usualy get lower returns.
Click to expand...

getting same feelings too...I love mining in tax areas
 
In Love With said:
same amount of finds and the % is deducted from claims ... So unless a mining LA offers %-wise higher markup then you can get elsewhere I wouldn't bother and mine in non-taxed areas.

Angel
Click to expand...

If you mine high TT Ores the tax can't be deducted from a single find. A small Azzurite is always 3 stones.

SoReal said:
I believe it works like this :
If you go mining and drop x number of probes and come back with 100ped TT value on an untaxed land then you have 100ped TT value of ores/enmatters.

If you do this on an LA with say 5% tax then you will come back with 95ped TT value ores and enmatters. The 5% in this case 5 ped goes to the land owner.

Returns that you get, are calculated down after the % tax has been given to LA owner.

So instead of getting 100% of your TT value when out mining you get (in the case of 5% tax) 95% TT value.
Click to expand...

That is the common interpretation, but I think it is wrong. The only two possibilites to tax you are either reducing claim size or amount of claims. I can't find any proof for this in my logs. Has it been tested?

Besides that, evening out the tax a player pays through claim sizes makes personal lootpools necessary. MA denies the existence of them.

The only conlcusion I have form my data so far is that the tax works not on an individual basis. You don't pay the tax, but MA pays the tax. I guess LAs work like CLDs with a regional limit. A landowner gets 4% of the TT spend on his LA, whereas a CLD owner gets his share of the 25% of the TT spend on Calypso. Both times the money comes not form individual player but from all of them.
 
I thought I read a discussion a long time ago about this which came to no real conclusion. As far back as I can remember, most people have assumed that the LA tax is in addition to any MA "tax". I personally believe MA initially began with a system that taxed all areas, then as cash flow needs arose, they gave up future taxing ability on LAs in exchange for upfront cash. This interpretation is consistent with the planet-partner concept and with CLDs (which followed the LA concept).

Also, when people assume that hitting particular resources means there can't have been a tax collected, I doubt that is true. While we don't know exactly how the system works, you could, for example, find a claim of x size and then receive the next lowest amount possible in the given resource, or you could get a different resource in order to accommodate the tax - really, there are numerous potential ways this could be executed that allow there to be no conflict or personal lootpool.
 
Norm said:
I thought I read a discussion a long time ago about this which came to no real conclusion. As far back as I can remember, most people have assumed that the LA tax is in addition to any MA "tax". I personally believe MA initially began with a system that taxed all areas, then as cash flow needs arose, they gave up future taxing ability on LAs in exchange for upfront cash. This interpretation is consistent with the planet-partner concept and with CLDs (which followed the LA concept).
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that and i guess that's how the system works.

Norm said:
Also, when people assume that hitting particular resources means there can't have been a tax collected, I doubt that is true. While we don't know exactly how the system works, you could, for example, find a claim of x size and then receive the next lowest amount possible in the given resource, or you could get a different resource in order to accommodate the tax - really, there are numerous potential ways this could be executed that allow there to be no conflict or personal lootpool.
Click to expand...

To achieve this you have to keep track of the indivdual loots and adjust futher loots according to this history. This is exactly what I would call a personal lootpool. Which doesn't exist according to MA. Therefore taxes have to be collected with each deposit, or the amount of deposits finds has to be smaller.

The later one is not the case. Hitrate is the same in LAs. First option doesn't work with high TT ore.

So basically collecting tax form individuals is not possible.
 
LaraD said:
To achieve this you have to keep track of the indivdual loots and adjust futher loots according to this history. This is exactly what I would call a personal lootpool. Which doesn't exist according to MA. Therefore taxes have to be collected with each deposit, or the amount of deposits finds has to be smaller.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, all there needs to be is a LA lootpool, the next person who gets a find which triggers the tax threshold gets their find size reduced. And there is a LA lootpool, because that is how the owner's tax is calculated.

When the entire community, except you, believes it is more expensive to hunt or mine on a taxed LA, there must be good reason.
 
Chevron is right.

The average claim size is reduced in LA's by 5% across the entire area, the owner gets that 5% at his payouts.

It can't be hindered by an avatar finding 3 stones of azzurdite or anything else that isn't easliy divisible. It is dealt with as a total.

For example, If 100 small claim on untaxed land = 300ped , then LA will have 90 smalls at 3 ped, and 10 very poors at 1.5ped each. (which equals 285)

Obviously the numbers are all different in practice, as tt differs in each claim, but the effect is the same.
 
Last edited:
There is no loot pool. You find a claim. Its calculated as hotmail minus a % based on location of the claim. Its all random. Just like normal
 
Well, when you assume...;)
 
LaraD said:
The only conlcusion I have form my data so far is that the tax works not on an individual basis. You don't pay the tax, but MA pays the tax. I guess LAs work like CLDs with a regional limit. A landowner gets 4% of the TT spend on his LA, whereas a CLD owner gets his share of the 25% of the TT spend on Calypso. Both times the money comes not form individual player but from all of them.
Click to expand...
This is exactly how I think it works also. The tax doesn't come from the players, it comes from MA's share of the 10% cut (in TT cycled) that they take & it's this that they redistribute as the tax to the owners.
 
M Rufen Power said:
This is exactly how I think it works also. The tax doesn't come from the players, it comes from MA's share of the 10% cut (in TT cycled) that they take & it's this that they redistribute as the tax to the owners.
Click to expand...

MA dosnt have a 10% cut ...I am avg out 94% return for years ....how should this work when LA owners set the tax to 10% ??
 
M Rufen Power said:
This is exactly how I think it works also. The tax doesn't come from the players, it comes from MA's share of the 10% cut (in TT cycled) that they take & it's this that they redistribute as the tax to the owners.
Click to expand...

OH so MA is voluntarily giving away their money? Quite a juxtaposition, don't ya think.

If it worked like this, EVERY LA OWNER would set the taxes at 10 and be bombing away 24/7 themselves and probably with several other hired/friend/multi avatars non-stop with all the UL amps in the game. Period.
 
Last edited:
I think it may be pertly ma a d partly players. Higher tax and more effect for the players. 3-4% Hovever dont effect much
 
Subscribing
 
Dollymaus said:
MA dosnt have a 10% cut ...I am avg out 94% return for years ....how should this work when LA owners set the tax to 10% ??
Click to expand...
If your avging 94% then 6% is MA's and if the tax is 3% then the LA owner gets that & MA gets the rest.

Sunsout Gunsout said:
Oh so MA is voluntarily giving away their money? Quite a juxtaposition, don't ya think.

If it worked like this, EVERY LA OWNER would set the taxes at 10 and be bombing away 24/7 themselves and probably with several other hired/friend/multi avatars non-stop with all the UL amps in the game. Period.
Click to expand...
Then why doesn't somebody try it & debunk it hmm?
 
With respect to LaraD

MA doesn't take 10% of the loot, they take a percentage of decay. You can see the tax effect when you mine on taxed land when you get smaller claims than you would normally ever get on untaxed land. In the case of high TT loots the total gets rounded and that generally doesn't seem to be in your favor. Easily tested example is mining enmatter with a level 2 amp. You normally won't get a claim below 1 ped, unless you get Azur pearls, then you can find a .96 ped claim even on untaxed land.
 
Dollymaus said:
And I will get still 94% when I mine/hunt at a LA with 10% tax?
Click to expand...
Has any1 gained 100%+ tt returns? Guess you ain't seen Smilgs post recently in his hunt log.
 
M Rufen Power said:
Has any1 gained 100%+ tt returns? Guess you ain't seen Smilgs post recently in his hunt log.
Click to expand...

I watch this log, and he usually avg at 90% with a lucky 94% for februar...point is? MA cant pay out 10% taxes for him with theese returns- thats shure
 
M Rufen Power said:
Has any1 gained 100%+ tt returns? Guess you ain't seen Smilgs post recently in his hunt log.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I gained over 100% TT returns over the foul iron challenge (16,600 mobs), my averages are closer to 95%. Recently Smilgs has shown that he removes large "anomalous" loots from his return % so that can't be believed either.
 
I mine in LA's almost exclusively and have better tt returns than most, according to the forums and all the complaining threads about insanely low tt returns.

I didn't believe LA tax was payed for with my inputs (TT spent). However, the whole concept of tax is completely screwed if it is not me who is paying the tax with my inputs. Otherwise LA owners would pump tax to max and reap the profits from MA while MA go broke.
So it must be this way.

Which raises the question; how do we test it?
Start two avatars, give them both 10,000PED probes, TT finder and drill (+repairs for 10k drops) and send one to LA the other to non-LA and track? Would this be sufficient?
Is there another way?

And if tax is deducted from my tt return, does that mean lootpools (individual) must exist? If not, how can the tax be calculated individually?
 
Last edited:
The real question to me, is why wont MA give this information?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top