Question: Taxes on Planet vs LA

maiden

Alpha
Joined
May 28, 2015
Posts
678
Location
Drama
Society
@Rig
Avatar Name
Zarta Maiden Selios
Hello.
After a discussion with an LA owner I hear that hunting on an LA taxed 5% is more cheaper the hunting on planet itself where is a tax of 10%. That means LA override the planet tax not add on. Can anyone light me please?
If hunting on LA the final tax I pay is 5%(LA) or 15%(planet + LA). Thank you.
:scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2:
 
I would say LA tax is on top any other taxes applied by MA....so 15% from your example.

Can be wrong, but can't se reasons for MA to resign from their cut only course someone is using player owned LA.
 
Hello.
After a discussion with an LA owner I hear that hunting on an LA taxed 5% is more cheaper the hunting on planet itself where is a tax of 10%. That means LA override the planet tax not add on. Can anyone light me please?
If hunting on LA the final tax I pay is 5%(LA) or 15%(planet + LA). Thank you.
:scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2:

MA takes 10-5% from payouts, so there is 90-95% loot left, LA owner takes ADDITIONAL % (for example 5%, means 95%-))(95%*5%)=90,25% loot left if MA takes 5%.

Otherwise LA owner could set the % lowest and pretty much breakeven on every single hunt, which doesnt happen.


So to conclude, hunting on LAs is more expensive (TT wise) than hunting in non user owner land. Sometimes LAs have rare animals on them, which give out good markup loot, so hunting there can be more profiting if you know what you are doing, but TT wise hunting on taxed LAs will give you less back.
 
To the best of my knowledge it has not been confirmed exactly how this system works so all we can do is guess at best :wise:
 
So to conclude, hunting on LAs is more expensive (TT wise) than hunting in non user owner land. Sometimes LAs have rare animals on them, which give out good markup loot, so hunting there can be more profiting if you know what you are doing, but TT wise hunting on taxed LAs will give you less back.

Yeah and i think people hunt on LA also for others reasons :
- Specific maturity
- High density
- Non-mixed spawn

Did someone gather data from hunt on LA and out of ? (can be done easily with trox but it needs time and peds :wtg:)

:wise:
 
Yeah and i think people hunt on LA also for others reasons :
- Specific maturity
- High density
- Non-mixed spawn

Did someone gather data from hunt on LA and out of ? (can be done easily with trox but it needs time and peds :wtg:)

:wise:

Have been few hunting logs already, and many of them have counted taxed and untaxed areas separately and so far most of them have showed, that LAs with taxes cost extra money for hunter or miner.
 
Hello.
After a discussion with an LA owner I hear that hunting on an LA taxed 5% is more cheaper the hunting on planet itself where is a tax of 10%. That means LA override the planet tax not add on. Can anyone light me please?
If hunting on LA the final tax I pay is 5%(LA) or 15%(planet + LA). Thank you.
:scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2::scratch2:


There is no 10% tax on a planet. On average MA pay out around 90% of tt spent (But this is an average), where ever you are. If you are on a taxable LA, the LA owner will take their cut, on top of WHATEVER MA take.

For example:

If you get 60% tt return hunting on none taxable area. You will get 60% return
If you get 60% tt return on a 5% taxable LA, you will get 55% return (after LA takes their cut)

If you get 110% tt return hunting on a none taxable area. You will get 110% return
If you get 110% tt return on a 5% taxable LA, you will get 105% return (after LA takes their cut)

Regards

Ace

EDIT: people get really hung up on 90% tt returns, and they cry because they get 70% tt return on a run. The 90% is an estimated guess, based on very very long term logs. Short term it is massively volitile.
 
EDIT: people get really hung up on 90% tt returns, and they cry because they get 70% tt return on a run. The 90% is an estimated guess, based on very very long term logs. Short term it is massively volitile.

Yes, the 90% is never promised and also not verified. Long ago the returns were a lot higher, so what we would need, is data from 1000 players, 100 logged runs each, in the past 6 months, to have SOLID statistical data.

As we don't have: please listen to as Ace above:"massively volitile".
 
I have hunted in 0% tax LAs and I did not experience 100% returns, not even close :D

Planets dont have 10% tax, your average return in the long run should poinpoint arround 90% but that's very different from saying that a planet has a 10% tax.

If you want an advice avoid land areas when you can, it's very simple math.
 
There is no 10% tax on a planet. On average MA pay out around 90% of tt spent (But this is an average), where ever you are. If you are on a taxable LA, the LA owner will take their cut, on top of WHATEVER MA take.

For example:

If you get 60% tt return hunting on none taxable area. You will get 60% return
If you get 60% tt return on a 5% taxable LA, you will get 55% return (after LA takes their cut)

If you get 110% tt return hunting on a none taxable area. You will get 110% return
If you get 110% tt return on a 5% taxable LA, you will get 105% return (after LA takes their cut)

Regards

Ace

EDIT: people get really hung up on 90% tt returns, and they cry because they get 70% tt return on a run. The 90% is an estimated guess, based on very very long term logs. Short term it is massively volitile.



Be it 70% or 90% but as long as you dont get 100% on average TAX is one of best words to name such event. It have also most of features of classic RL taxes. Is taken by higher authority, serves purpose , is proportional to your activity etc ....

If not TAX how could you name gap betwen your expenditures and incomes during hunt ?
 
Be it 70% or 90% but as long as you dont get 100% on average TAX is one of best words to name such event. It have also most of features of classic RL taxes. Is taken by higher authority, serves purpose , is proportional to your activity etc ....

If not TAX how could you name gap betwen your expenditures and incomes during hunt ?

Payout ratio, as tax would be % of what you should receive, but payout ratio means it has never been set to be paid out, therefore is not a tax.
 
Be it 70% or 90% but as long as you dont get 100% on average TAX is one of best words to name such event. It have also most of features of classic RL taxes. Is taken by higher authority, serves purpose , is proportional to your activity etc ....

If not TAX how could you name gap betwen your expenditures and incomes during hunt ?


I prefer to think of it as MA's cut. It is their business model and how they make money.

TAX sounds too definitive. As it is never the same amount, (the cut from MA).

But that is just my personal point of view.


Rgds

Ace
 
There is no 10% tax on a planet. On average MA pay out around 90% of tt spent (But this is an average), where ever you are. If you are on a taxable LA, the LA owner will take their cut, on top of WHATEVER MA take.

For example:

If you get 60% tt return hunting on none taxable area. You will get 60% return
If you get 60% tt return on a 5% taxable LA, you will get 55% return (after LA takes their cut)

If you get 110% tt return hunting on a none taxable area. You will get 110% return
If you get 110% tt return on a 5% taxable LA, you will get 105% return (after LA takes their cut)

Regards

Ace

EDIT: people get really hung up on 90% tt returns, and they cry because they get 70% tt return on a run. The 90% is an estimated guess, based on very very long term logs. Short term it is massively volitile.

I would just like to point out that this data is a bit of simplification of the situation :p. 5% tax on "60%" returns would in fact give you a net tax of 3% on your 100% input i.e. 60% return * 95% is 57%, on 90% return that would be 4.5% of your initial 100% (90*95/100 = 85.5).
That being said, ive always preferred mining/hunting on land areas as they seemed to have been given more care in terms of ore spawns than some seemingly randomly generic areas outside of land areas. Mob wise I like to believe that mindark somehow has added a say x% better loot to account for the fertilizer spent which evens it out. That being said, all highly speculative as ive never really accuratly kept track of my returns.
 
I would just like to point out that this data is a bit of simplification of the situation :p. 5% tax on "60%" returns would in fact give you a net tax of 3% on your 100% input i.e. 60% return * 95% is 57%, on 90% return that would be 4.5% of your initial 100% (90*95/100 = 85.5).
That being said, ive always preferred mining/hunting on land areas as they seemed to have been given more care in terms of ore spawns than some seemingly randomly generic areas outside of land areas. Mob wise I like to believe that mindark somehow has added a say x% better loot to account for the fertilizer spent which evens it out. That being said, all highly speculative as ive never really accuratly kept track of my returns.

Simplified, to put the point across.


Rgds

Ace
 
I would really prefer if MA stepped out and said very clearly, if indeed the ones hunting on taxed areas will get the tax amount reduced from their longterm returns and how exactly the distribution works.
Since currently it is a black box and I think it is bullshit if the tax amount if (fully) deducted from returns. Imho the hunter/miner should be getting the same return everywhere, the alignment of the cut should be distributed between the layers (MA/planet partner/LA owner).
Of course, could do it partially e.g. up until the point where LA tax is <=5% or so. Or maybe that is already the case. Point is, we don't know since it is a black box. And people are avoiding to hunt on LAs since it is safer.
 
I would really prefer if MA stepped out and said very clearly, if indeed the ones hunting on taxed areas will get the tax amount reduced from their longterm returns and how exactly the distribution works.
Since currently it is a black box and I think it is bullshit if the tax amount if (fully) deducted from returns. Imho the hunter/miner should be getting the same return everywhere, the alignment of the cut should be distributed between the layers (MA/planet partner/LA owner).
Of course, could do it partially e.g. up until the point where LA tax is <=5% or so. Or maybe that is already the case. Point is, we don't know since it is a black box. And people are avoiding to hunt on LAs since it is safer.

Then who in the right mind would set tax anything lower anything below 5% if loot was the same or why 5% why not 10% ?

I think it is very easy :
Hunters buy ammo repairs etc with total tt value of 1 million peds
MA takes its portion of that money, lets say 10%, and transfers 900 000peds into loot pool.
Half of the hunters hunt taxfree areas and receive 450k peds
Half of the hunters hunt taxed areas and receive 450k-5%(tax of LA)=427 500 peds
Owners of these LAs receive 22,500 peds as taxes.

IF it was some otherway around then ppl hunting on untaxed land areas would be paying for the others also as LA owners have to get their money from someplace.

I ll try to look up those old hunting logs that showed difference between taxed LAs and untaxed areas (or mining logs) to show that it is most likely the way it is. MA doesnt tax your loot, but charges all peds spent by fixed ratio and transfers rest of the moeny to the loot pool.
 
I would really prefer if MA stepped out and said very clearly, if indeed the ones hunting on taxed areas will get the tax amount reduced from their longterm returns and how exactly the distribution works.
Since currently it is a black box and I think it is bullshit if the tax amount if (fully) deducted from returns. Imho the hunter/miner should be getting the same return everywhere, the alignment of the cut should be distributed between the layers (MA/planet partner/LA owner).
Of course, could do it partially e.g. up until the point where LA tax is <=5% or so. Or maybe that is already the case. Point is, we don't know since it is a black box. And people are avoiding to hunt on LAs since it is safer.

I totally agree, I'm one of them avoiding taxed land due to the lack of information.
 
I totally agree, I'm one of them avoiding taxed land due to the lack of information.

Lack of information? Every time you go into land area you receive notification that TAX is being applied.
The lack of information is a delusion created by ppl who claim that every other area is also taxed, while theres no proof of it.

If you go to supermarket and it is said on one bottle "Due to production failure this container contains 10% less product" will you think automatically that all the others without this kind of label also contain less product? no.

MA has given out clear enough indications on which LAs there is additonal tax, what more do you want?
 
Only insight on how LA tax works from MA was Marco's one around 2006 or 2007. It bringed so much confusion that there was thesis arised out of his statement that LA tax is paid from other pool than hunters expenditures (iirc from auction fees) but somehow dependant on hunter activity on LA.

But that was so many years ago and Marco said many things which turned out to be BS or PR, that i doubt it can apply anyhow now.

MA should finally end with that damn "hiding numbers" politics and reveal officialy and fully how mechanisms at least for CLD's ,LA's and other assets works. Also replace those words in items descriptions like "exceptional" 'Good" etc with solid numbers.
After all most EU players are kond of number/stats freaks as this game is literally full of it everywhere.
 
...
I ll try to look up those old hunting logs that showed difference between taxed LAs and untaxed areas (or mining logs) to show that it is most likely the way it is. MA doesnt tax your loot, but charges all peds spent by fixed ratio and transfers rest of the moeny to the loot pool.

This is probably one of the threads you want: How does mining tax work?
Note in particular Noodle's post #28, and Jimmy B's at post #36.
 
I said the 10% of planet based on Monria thread (https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...ent-opportunity-Monria/page2&highlight=monria) and this:
Revenue Sharing

Revenue generated through participant activity will be shared with the Moon Manager as follows:

Activity on the moon estate by participants recruited by Moon Manager: 35%
Activity on the moon estate by all other participants: 10%-> I guess that is on any planet
Activity elsewhere within Entropia Universe by participants recruited by the Moon Manager: 25%

Thank you for the post and open my mind.
 
I said the 10% of planet based on Monria thread (https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...ent-opportunity-Monria/page2&highlight=monria) and this:
Revenue Sharing

Revenue generated through participant activity will be shared with the Moon Manager as follows:

Activity on the moon estate by participants recruited by Moon Manager: 35%
Activity on the moon estate by all other participants: 10%-> I guess that is on any planet
Activity elsewhere within Entropia Universe by participants recruited by the Moon Manager: 25%

Thank you for the post and open my mind.

That is revenue, has nothing to do with tt returns.

Rgds

Ace
 
I said the 10% of planet based on Monria thread (https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...ent-opportunity-Monria/page2&highlight=monria) and this:
Revenue Sharing

Revenue generated through participant activity will be shared with the Moon Manager as follows:

Activity on the moon estate by participants recruited by Moon Manager: 35%
Activity on the moon estate by all other participants: 10%-> I guess that is on any planet
Activity elsewhere within Entropia Universe by participants recruited by the Moon Manager: 25%

Thank you for the post and open my mind.

Bit of a misconception there.
What you've posted above is how MindArk shares the revenue with Monria (which may not be exactly how they share it with other Planet Partners. Note that Monria was specifically designated a 'Moon Partner' not a 'Planet Partner', at the time of purchase.)

Sharing out of the revenue between the various financial entities involved has nothing to do with the loot mechanics.
 
Be it 70% or 90% but as long as you dont get 100% on average TAX is one of best words to name such event. It have also most of features of classic RL taxes. Is taken by higher authority, serves purpose , is proportional to your activity etc ....

If not TAX how could you name gap betwen your expenditures and incomes during hunt ?

No, it's their profit-margin, every company have that. Using the word "tax" just confuse people, just like in this case.
 
Last edited:
Monria has two sources of income. Revenue from players visiting Monria (10%), and Revenue from Monria-born players (25%).
Unique revenue model - get a cut of all revenue including crafting, auction fees, armor decay etc.
... where "etc" = weapon decay, amp decay, mining finder decay and extractor decay (sic! probes and ammo spent is not included).

Revenue from LA however follows totally different logic (it's based on loot not decay), as best described here.


I think best way to understand it is to think in terms of separate revenue streams. If this viewpoint is correct those are not mutually exclusive - meaning, while hunting on LA both income streams can be applied at the same time (unless hunting/mining tax is set to 0%).
 
Is there actually a limit to tax on a land area ? if not, any land owner willing to test by setting tax to 99.99% see if you a few pecs of ammo all the time? That would prove it getting deducted directly from the tt of your loot.
 
Is there actually a limit to tax on a land area ? if not, any land owner willing to test by setting tax to 99.99% see if you a few pecs of ammo all the time? That would prove it getting deducted directly from the tt of your loot.

I think the max they can set is 10%

Rgds

Ace
 
Very interesting info here. Thank you very much for your support. It starts to make a bit more clear about how hunting and things work around which brings new perspective in my development.
 
I'm going way back into the depths of the grey matter here and may be mis-remembering it but......


That whole -Soc name removed- fiasco years ago was about botting but they were doing it on their own LA (Longu I believe) which somehow enabled them to profit fairly consistently.Then with the botting on top made for round the clock profit or so it was reported at the time.

I'm probably just muddying the waters bringing this up and it probably has zero bearing on how things work today but it gives me pause for thought that maybe its not-or wasn't-as black and white as we think.


I'm sure there are LA owners out there that hunt their own LA's exclusively at times but I've not seen them reporting 100% returns when doing so-I mean 100% when they include their own 'tax refund'.


At the end of the day only MA can answer this one with any confidence as there is just too much room for variance between person to person to get a solid answer from any testing method we have on our end.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top