Tax Free LA Myth

[MelMan2002]

Okay, this is just a theory but hear me out. There is no such thing as a "Tax Free" hunting ground.

First, lets get some things straight. The 90% figure has been thrown around a lot and you see it in more places than just hunting (coloring and texturing, for example, give you exactly 90% TT value back). I would submit to you that you will average out to 90% return regardless of whether you are hunting on a taxed LA or not.

Yes, MA has a 10% tax on their "untaxed" LAs. This is why LA owners have a 10% tax limit - so that LA owners can't take more than MA does. If an LA owner sets the tax at 4% then the LA owner gets 4%, MA gets 6%, and the player gets 90% (MA's cut will also get split with a PP). So in the end ALL LAs have an effective 10% tax.

No, I don't have proof - like I said, just my own personal theory.

 

[In Love With]

Okay, this is just a theory but hear me out. There is no such thing as a "Tax Free" hunting ground.

First, lets get some things straight. The 90% figure has been thrown around a lot and you see it in more places than just hunting (coloring and texturing, for example, give you exactly 90% TT value back). I would submit to you that you will average out to 90% return regardless of whether you are hunting on a taxed LA or not.

Yes, MA has a 10% tax on their "untaxed" LAs. This is why LA owners have a 10% tax limit - so that LA owners can't take more than MA does. If an LA owner sets the tax at 4% then the LA owner gets 4%, MA gets 6%, and the player gets 90% (MA's cut will also get split with a PP). So in the end ALL LAs have an effective 10% tax.

No, I don't have proof - like I said, just my own personal theory.

If that was true, I would up the taxes on my lands to 9.99%, lol

Angel

 

[toad]

it could be true but impossible to prove.

 

[jdegre]

this theory should be quite easy to test, specially for a land owner. set the tax at 0% first and then to 9.99%, and compare the average loot. there should be a significant, easy to measure, difference between both.

 

[toad]

I guess you would need to hunt/mine for a month atleast with alot of turnover to prove any diffrence considering the big loot variations we have now.

 

[ranpha]

you assume it is 90% return rate and on some mobs i got 100% and other 80 percent

second you also assume that 10 percent goes to ma but remember it goes to lootpool and dcay goes to ma ( proven by ma itself) so if you go with your theory then a 9 percent la tax wont give good loot because nothing fills the lootpool ofc. so then a 1 percent la should give right loot as more stuff goes to the loot pool then. Time for a test I would say


basically I dont believe your theory but it sound interesting

 

[Futurama]

lol, all taxes would be 9.99% than. It doesn`t make any sense since it would mean that on taxed LAs you could actually get more loot (if you are the LA owner or you know the owner and make an arrangement that you`ll get back your taxes) than in other areas. It doesn`t make sense for MA/SDS to make a continent (amathera) filled with LAs and unique DNAs from which they won`t be able to get anything besides selling the land area on auc.

Or is this one of Legion type theories: "I cracked the system again, but since i posted it here they will change it tomorrow and my post is/will be worthless!"


Besides when i was mining on AOL #43 for solis i was getting on average 80-85% tt returns. Area had 5% tax, so otherwise it would be 85-90% - just as much you can expect...

 

[aridash]

theres an assumption being made, basing it on "90%". i thought it was 95% average returns? where has this increasingly common 90% number come from?

theres another issue as above, this theory completely ignores the "revenue comes from decay". assuming its true, then MA dont take anything from the loot directly (just manage the re-distribution to unacceptably wild variation). besides, if they did take a cut of returns, why would they offer this to be available to LA owners?

 

[MelMan2002]

it goes to lootpool and dcay goes to ma ( proven by ma itself)

Do you have a link to this proof please? I'm unfamiliar with it.

 

[MelMan2002]

lol, all taxes would be 9.99% than. It doesn`t make any sense since it would mean that on taxed LAs you could actually get more loot (if you are the LA owner or you know the owner and make an arrangement that you`ll get back your taxes) than in other areas. It doesn`t make sense for MA/SDS to make a continent (amathera) filled with LAs and unique DNAs from which they won`t be able to get anything besides selling the land area on auc.

That is exactly the reason that they made Amethera - they get the initial sale and lose out on some of the taxes. Of course they would never admit that this theory is true because then all LA owners WOULD set tax to 9.99% and MA would lose out on their cut...

 

[XeroX2]

Yes there is 10% taxes everywhere. 5% goes to MA and 5% to PP from what I read. So all you can do is avoid other taxes like fees,MUs and LA taxes... and yes I think the LA taxes are added to the player costs... however just 90% ofc since only 90% of the costs are looted and can be taxed. Quite a clever trick of MA... they tax the costs... the LA owner taxes the returns.

 

[MelMan2002]

MA dont take anything from the loot directly (just manage the re-distribution to unacceptably wild variation).

If this were true then everyone should expect 100% loot return in the long run...

 

[Oleg]

it could be true but impossible to prove.

It's very easy to (dis)prove.

Record your TT returns on taxed and untaxed land and you'll find the returns on taxed land are approximately 4% (or whatever) lower.

 

[toad]

Still only theorys since you cant ever repeat something in here to compare results, you will always get different outcomes.

 

[milduser]

Still only theorys since you cant ever repeat something in here to compare results, you will always get different outcomes.

Let us first not be confused what a Hypotheses and a Theory are to be able to discuss the matter intelligently.

A Hypotheses is basically a proposition where there is no prove of it.

A Theory is basically a proposition where there are some proofs under conditions and assumptions (and the so called proofs are experimentally repeatable).

So what the OP propose is simply a Hypotheses and not a Theory.

If anyone can prove his Hypotheses, it becomes a Theory.

But a Theory can be debunked and replaced by a Better one over time.

 

[aridash]

If this were true then everyone should expect 100% loot return in the long run...

and maybe they do after discounting decay.

 

[Oleg]

Still only theorys since you cant ever repeat something in here to compare results, you will always get different outcomes.

And that is why we have statistics

 

[toad]

milduser if you are intelligent you will know what i mean.

 

[Noodles]

Some evidence that you get lower loot on taxed land areas.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?132510-Mining-loot-analysis&p=1631222&viewfull=1#post1631222

 

[TonySamTaler]

I´m not thinking that the 90% theory is true but for a lot of people this theory is fact.
We need from more people return data. Best from all.
We need full return data from the first hours ingame and not only after some time of playing.
It´s like a religion. You can belive it or not.

 

[Mikeemooo]

I love all this "90%" stuff.

You all realise that there's a high probability that return rate isn't based on how much decay you make? So "90%" is meaningless - that figure depends entirely on who is hunting, how eco they are, how lucky they are..etc..

Not to mention that I think very very few people have camped a single mob for long enough for that figure to stabilize itself. It's no good saying "I get 90% returns on my 100 mob run" because that figure changes constantly during runs. A few mobs more and it could be 200%.

So many people plucking figures out of thin air..