Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Decrease the tax income instead of low spawn if LA owner not taking care

girtsn

girtsn

Slayer
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Posts
8,693
Location
Belgium
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Girts Smilgs Niedra
Instead of punishing the hunters for the fact LA owner is not taking care of the mob spawn, decrease tax income of the LA owner. The owner gets less taxes anyway because of fewer spawn.
This would fix the FOMA situation with dasps and corns.
 
girtsn said:
Instead of punishing the hunters for the fact LA owner is not taking care of the mob spawn, decrease tax income of the LA owner. The owner gets less taxes anyway because of fewer spawn.
This would fix the FOMA situation with dasps and corns.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with you? You want MA punish someone who's being in the hospital because he does not adjust spawns as you please? It's his property he can do what he want. You gotta live with it.
 
I said he is losing peds anyway because of lower spawn whats wrong with you? Not take them away entirely, not touch mining. There is no impact for foma (I hope he gets better ofc).
Az Bloodz said:
What's wrong with you? You want MA punish someone who's being in the hospital because he does not adjust spawns as you please? It's his property he can do what he want.
Click to expand...
 
I have been thinking of another change i think would be good.
How about changing so when mobs respawn it uses some fertilizer so depending on how heavily hunted an area is it consumes fertilizer in relation to activity, this change would let landowners adjust the spawn to how they want it but if no one hunts no fertilizer is consumed and with high activity more fertilizer is consumed.

When it comes to FOMA i think they need to get in contact with him and see if he is alive and well.
 
My problem is you expect MA to adjust something what's totally the decision of someone else. The owner has the right to set density, maturity or let spawns die out no matter if you like it or not. It should stay this way. I hate seeing people crying for MA every day...
 
Loosing money is not a decision anyone would make also becoming sick or dying is rarely a decision. If there is a unique spawn and the only person that can make the spawn happen is afk (for whatever reason) I can ask to get the spawn back. My point is in this way there is no real harm on anyone: hunters get the spawn (yea for hunters), the spawn stays unique (yea for LA owner), LA ower gets less tax (he got less tax anyway).
Az Bloodz said:
My problem is you expect MA to adjust something what's totally the decision of someone else. The owner has the right to set density, maturity or let spawns die out no matter if you like it or not. It should stay this way. I hate seeing people crying for MA every day...
Click to expand...
 
Changing rules/stats of somebody else property is just wrong and will only show us one more time that investments here are not safe - so no thx
 
I see where you coming from.

I think it would be fair to implement mechanism to spawn unique DNA mobs outside LA if there is no fertilizer for minimum period of time (e.g. 3 days). This would not decrease income of LA holder since there were no taxed mobs anyway and would let hunters find those unique mobs. After unique DNA is fertilized again, natural spawn would stop (even die instantly if no green dots in proximity).

Yay for dasps on Calypso ;)
 
I agree changing rules is not cool but then again they can change the mob so that it drops shit anytime, there is no assurance. If something makes sense, it is agreed upon just like IRL contracts
Alternative, allow others to fertilize maybe on their expense?
Dollymaus said:
Changing rules/stats of somebody else property is just wrong and will only show us one more time that investments here are not safe - so no thx
Click to expand...
 
It comes down to adjust to the game and not ask the game being adjusted to you. Just get used to it.
 
It comes down to ask the community if the change makes sense and if it does ask the game developer to rethink their rules so that they make more sense for the main games professions. It is dynamic, why not in a good way.
Az Bloodz said:
It comes down to adjust to the game and not ask the game being adjusted to you. Just get used to it.
Click to expand...
 
Cause it's not up to you or the community. For example I don't like MA changing stats of existing weapons and I would hate to see them changing the LA system. There've been rules when these get sold and the investors should be able to trust in them. So it's between the owners of the LA and MA and not between someone else in the community and MA.
 
toad said:
I have been thinking of another change i think would be good.
How about changing so when mobs respawn it uses some fertilizer so depending on how heavily hunted an area is it consumes fertilizer in relation to activity, this change would let landowners adjust the spawn to how they want it but if no one hunts no fertilizer is consumed and with high activity more fertilizer is consumed.

When it comes to FOMA i think they need to get in contact with him and see if he is alive and well.
Click to expand...
This is actually a pretty good idea. It's similar to the removal of rent that happened to apartments not long ago that massively improved estates. Hopefully Mindark is reading this.

I never really understood why 'fertilizer' was linked to mob spawns instead of to plant growth or something in the area... guess it's because 'farming' was never a system Mindark wanted to put in game. Funny that dung creates mobs. Just shows you the subtle message MA is giving you about what they think about the hunting profession I guess, lol.
 
Ones suffering are the hunters, i.e. the community so yes we have something to say and should be heard. The problem exists and it needs to be fixed.
The drop of spawn is a punishment for inactive LA owners implemented by MA. I am saying the punishment is not adequate as it not only punishes the LA owner but the hunters who did nothing wrong. The fix suggested is one which I find reasonable, but there are obviously more solutions like removing the measure, allowing hunters to feed the mobs etc.
Az Bloodz said:
Cause it's not up to you or the community. For example I don't like MA changing stats of existing weapons and I would hate to see them changing the LA system. There've been rules when these get sold and the investors should be able to trust in them. So it's between the owners of the LA and MA and not between someone else in the community and MA.
Click to expand...
 
Some people really need to learn the art of adaptation
 
Some people should learn the art of not spamming others suggestions with nonconstructive and repetitive comments.
K_rupT said:
Some people really need to learn the art of adaptation
Click to expand...
 
*sigh* clearly wasn't worth it in the first place , I guess its you against the world
 

FOMA is a boring place now
 
Just to be clear its not only about FOMA. Same thing issue with the banned avatars, and went on for years. Again, why take away the spawn from the hunters who didn't do anything wrong?
DoctorFeelgood said:
FOMA is a boring place now
Click to expand...
 
waste of a nice place to leave it that empty, and yes... maybe it's not just FOMA
 
What about someone don't want mobs to be there in the first place? I don't say the Dasps almost vanished on purpose but a mining LA would be a legit adjustment made by the owner. Your suggestion kinda kills this idea. Why not try to contact the owner of the La's you're unhappy with? I know this guy was/is in hospital and severelly ill but he still has posted every now and then. He is the one to talk to and not MA. If he doesn't log in it's just 5-10 years but I think you and the other people owning your account will find something else to hunt in the meantime.
 
Where does the dictatorship stop once a precedence is set?

If you own a shop and dont stock it - MA reduces all income?
If you own armor and dont wear it to kill mobs - MA should nerf your loot?
If you own an Imp Fap and not use it - MA should take it away and give it to lootpool?
If you own 1000 peds and dont spend it - MA should charge you more for TT AMMO?

If someone owns a LA, they can do what they please - without interference from people or MA police.

If you dont like it - I suggest you move to plenty of other LAs.
 
Last edited:
Shard-Angel said:
Where does the dictatorship stop once a precedence is set?

If you own a shop and dont stock it - MA reduces all income?
If you own armor and dont wear it to kill mobs - MA should nerf your loot?
If you own an Imp Fap and not use it - MA should take it away and give it to lootpool?
If you own 1000 peds and dont spend it - MA should charge you more for TT AMMO?

If someone owns a LA, they can do what they please - without interference from people or MA police.

If you dont like it - I suggest you move to plenty of other LAs.
Click to expand...

But since it's a unique DNA atm & it took dev time to make the mob & the loottables & the quest.. Calypso should adapt & we should see them on planet untaxed
Just like caperons came back.
Maybe that creates an incentive to manage such a mob
 
Az Bloodz said:
Mining LA would be a legit adjustment made by the owner
Click to expand...
It should be possible to differentiate "exterminate mobs" from "punish owner for not feeding them" right?
Az Bloodz said:
you and the other people owning your account
Click to expand...
I am the only owner of Smilgs, has been said before, in fact I am Smilgs. I let other people to do hunting for me because lack time to do it as I would like. I am not ashamed of anything, and it's not against the rules.
But, this thread is not about me or some people playing one avatar. Virtually nobody can finish the dasp & corn mission, and the banned avatars lands were empty for years. Why not acknowledge this "punishment" is stupid and change it?
 
Toads idea is a good one actually. If people generally want to mine a particular land area, then the spawn will stay at minimum and the land owner won't waste fert, and if more people decide to hunt on a particular land area, the spawn would increase, as would the fert usage and the owners tax income. It is win/win. AFK land owners will get maximum return for their land. All MA has to do is implement a way to offset the increased tax revenue with the cost of the fert that was used while the land owner was afk and not managing his land.
 
girtsn said:
It should be possible to differentiate "exterminate mobs" from "punish owner for not feeding them" right?
Click to expand...

Where is the difference? In both cases you would complain about not being able to hunt Dasp.


girtsn said:
Virtually nobody can finish the dasp & corn mission, and the banned avatars lands were empty for years. Why not acknowledge this "punishment" is stupid and change it?
Click to expand...

There is no need to finish Dasp & Corn missions. You can play this game w/o doing these missions perfectly fine. At the moment no body can use the make up system nor tame animals and still people are able to play. Perhaps someone enjoys mining the Dasp domes w/o mobs in it who knows. Still none of your business how someone else manages his property.
 
Az bloodz, stop attacking people that are trying to make the game better...
Girtsn makes a great point and I think if there is a DNA in a LA there should be at least a mob always spawned, specially if is unique.
Not sure how the spawn is now and I know the LA owner wants it to be a mining place but
I think maybe an LA with mining locked out for dasp on FOMA could be a great thing
It wouldn't solve the dung problem though. Maybe in the same lines of 1 mob always spawned per DNA.
Better yet, mix Girtsn, Das and my suggestion together:
Separate LA, with no mining, on FOMA and if the owner doesn't have fertalizer it wont decrease the spawn but instead decrease taxes.
It would help all.
MA would get the Decay, LA owner would get very small taxes (like down to .1%) and miners wouldn't have to worry about mining since it is a new hunting only LA.
I only give this suggestion since it is a unique mob.
 
Skullseige said:
Az bloodz, stop attacking people that are trying to make the game better...
Girtsn makes a great point
Click to expand...

he doesnt hunt dasp he hunts rex thats his problem so many people hunts rex now he wants 10million rex by his side...gl girts btw
 
MA can't just go around adjusting owner programmable settings just because they don't suit someone else's need. The LA owner paid a great deal of money to own that land and do whatever they see fit with it. If they choose to have minimal mobs like many domes on FOMA so that they can be eaiser for miners (and get much more taxes from miners than hunters), then that is there option. MA can't just start populating mobs against the owners wishes. And no, it is not necessarily possible to tell the difference between "owner let fertilizer run out so mobs reduce" from "owner forgot to put fert in", so it would not be right for MA to subjectively make that determination either.

I know there are some unique mob DNA in many of these cases, and maybe MA can monitor how LAs are being operated and make adjustments by adding new spawns elsewhere. LA owners have never been given a guarantee of "eternal exclusivity" to any DNA that I know of, so if the community asks for spawns elsewhere that could be one possible solution. But I understand resistance from MA's part to even do this, as what happens if LA changes hands and now the new LA wants to pump out the mobs, does MA need to eliminate the new spawn? Certainly ramifications on LA price if it holds unique DNA and MA starts popping up spawns elsewhere. That's fine if the current LA owner isn't taking advantage of the unique DNA now, but do you punish all potential owners by removing the uniqueness in adding other spawns?

I am more in the boat of "it's the LA owners decision, live with it"...if you want a different spawn, buy the LA and do what you want with it, otherwise there are plenty of other options for hunting in EU :)
 
Skullseige said:
Girtsn makes a great point and I think if there is a DNA in a LA there should be at least a mob always spawned, specially if is unique.
Click to expand...

If Dethifier decides to let Letomie, Fresco and Furor spawn die out should MA just interfere? I say if someone pays for something it's his right to do with it as he pleases. Any of you can try to buy the FOMA dome and adjust the spawn. That's the way it is and I guess no one cares if you like it or not. I also think the players affected by the lack of Dasp are a small minority anyways. Also you can still see Dasp globals it's not like it does not exist just the spawn sucks at the moment.
Try to contact the owner of the LA, tell him your suggestions or just buy it and manage it yourself. Either he is still alive and his health's getting better (all my best wishes btw.) or you will have to wait until his property gets returned into the game. Changing the rules after selling the LA's to the player base without talking to all the owners of LA's is NOT the way to go and everytime MA is doing such thing like changing ressources etc. everyone feels kinda cheated. And that's what you're asking for basically.

Skullseige said:
I only give this suggestion since it is a unique mob.
Click to expand...

If I was about to buy an unique item I'd like to do what I please with it and also make sure it won't get altered without talking to me first and also want it to stay unique. I don't think that's just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top