Question: Smilgs Q2: possible to even out LA and out of LA hunting

[girtsn]

There still has not been a 100% clear message if the return of someone hunting/mining on LA with tax X% would be normal return minus X%.

If it is indeed so, would it not make more sense that LAs would have the same returns as outside LA hunting, or a small difference? The current 4% set on most LAs is just not justifiable with the "normal" 95% tt return.

E.g. if the LA owner chooses a low tax rate like 3%, the 3% would come out of MA's / planet partners share not out of the players returns. If they chose to do more than 3%, then the added surplus is deducted from loot.

This would make LAs more attractive to users vs. nonLA which the owners currently have to offset by manually paying taxes back to users.

 

[Dennis|MindArk]

Please see Charlie|MindArk’s explanation in this thread:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?299762-How-do-LA-taxes-work/page5

It works as mentioned a couple of times in this thread. Land areas simply take a cut based on the set tax amount from each loot from creatures spawned in the area or mining claims found in the area.

 

[Captain Jack]

Please see Charlie|MindArk’s explanation in this thread:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?299762-How-do-LA-taxes-work/page5

Despite the apparent clarity of that statement, there continues to be confusion to this day (see the Entropia discord channel discussions occurring over the last 12 hours).

If, for example, the baseline hunting return is 97% TT (arbitrary number picked from one of the 2.0 test announcements), and a hunter hunts on an LA with 4% tax, does this mean that the max TT return in a long term average will result in approximately 93%?

There are rumors that the "baseline TT return" is somehow adjusted (ie the "MA cut" is reduced) on LAs which would result in a more favorable outcome than described above. Can you confirm or deny the premise of those rumors?

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Very respectfully,

- Captain Jack

 

[Divinity]

Dennis, thanks but can u confirm a doubt I have in this regards

It works as mentioned a couple of times in this thread. Land areas simply take a cut based on the set tax amount from each loot from creatures spawned in the area or mining claims found in the area.

Can you confirm that untaxed areas do not have this cut going to either CLD owners or MA/PP income. Would appreciate a clarification in this regards. Basically that this cut is on top of whatever MA/CLD/PP owners get or not.

Cheers,

Divinity

 

[Psynergy]

The economic equilibrium with tax in the state leaves little for the hunters. That literally doubles our loss...

This means we need over twice the effective markup( 90% * 111% = 100%) with less overall loot to do it with.

When people are cycling huge amounts of peds, and the loot is usually just crap shrapnel on certain wide selections of mobs on certain locations, it can screw people really fast to have that tax.

Perhaps land areas should open up certain types of loot that are not available on any planet outside of land areas? Provide a bit of economic stimulus to hunt on them?

I think on the other hand as well that the requirement of land area owners to maintain their land a bit better than they do now is required, too. There are so many barren land areas, the land areas should be part mob, part mining if you ask me. Nearby danger and upkeep of the land should help increase rarity, if people mine while hunting it should provide better results, encouraging people to cross-train imo.

 

[Captain Jack]

The economic equilibrium with tax in the state leaves little for the hunters. That literally doubles our loss...

This means we need over twice the effective markup( 90% * 111% = 100%) with less overall loot to do it with.

When people are cycling huge amounts of peds, and the loot is usually just crap shrapnel on certain wide selections of mobs on certain locations, it can screw people really fast to have that tax.

That is precisely the question on the table.

Perhaps land areas should open up certain types of loot that are not available on any planet outside of land areas? Provide a bit of economic stimulus to hunt on them?

I did make only 1 AMA question and my topic of discussion was precisely that.

I think on the other hand as well that the requirement of land area owners to maintain their land a bit better than they do now is required, too. There are so many barren land areas, the land areas should be part mob, part mining if you ask me. Nearby danger and upkeep of the land should help increase rarity, if people mine while hunting it should provide better results, encouraging people to cross-train imo.

Given your first statement, and understanding that maintaining a land area costs money (fertilizer is a daily expenditure, event creation costs 25 PED per event that is never returned to the LA owner), can you really blame the LA owners who neglect their lands, when the community is so adverse to hunting on them?

 

[Psynergy]

Can you really blame the LA owners who neglect their lands, when the community is so adverse to hunting on them?

Nope. I was spelling it out for anyone from Mindark that was reading it.

We want a reason to be encouraged to use land areas, instead of being forced to use them, economic item incentive(higher chance of item drops) would be a nice one, when the land area is maintained.

As people hunt on them the land area leveling up and costing less would be a nice feature as well.

In addition, I think that land area owners should receive alternative amplification streams to their revenue, instead of everything coming out of hunting/mining tax, unless there is a specific economy reason to go to land areas instead of regular locations. I do not mean because a mob is ONLY available on a land area(forcing us), I mean a reason to CHOOSE the land area even with its tax.

 

[girtsn]

If, for example, the baseline hunting return is 97% TT (arbitrary number picked from one of the 2.0 test announcements), and a hunter hunts on an LA with 4% tax, does this mean that the max TT return in a long term average will result in approximately 93%?

Indeed this is the real question, impact on player returns.

The economic equilibrium with tax in the state leaves little for the hunters. That literally doubles our loss...
This means we need over twice the effective markup( 90% * 111% = 100%) with less overall loot to do it with.

Given your first statement, and understanding that maintaining a land area costs money (fertilizer is a daily expenditure, event creation costs 25 PED per event that is never returned to the LA owner), can you really blame the LA owners who neglect their lands, when the community is so adverse to hunting on them?

thus clarifying / changing it to impact player returns (less) would facilitate LA owners and hunters alike