Thread to Rampsy

Venture Bros

Elite
Banned
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Posts
2,526
Society
Death Lords
Avatar Name
Thaddeus Rusty Venture
I really respect you Rampsy but you got tax theory all wrong. I just want to continue the talk in this thread so we don't go off topic on the other thread.

MA doesn't pay LA owners.

A little explanation of how tax system works. For this I need to start with how a planet works.
If you do not believe what I will explain here, feel free to read an official announcement by MindArk here.

In the above link you can see the example for the Moon, but it works the same way on every planet:





So basically, how it works:
- The planet will get 10% tax of the loot found on this planet
- The planet will get 25% tax of all the loot from users who started on this planet. (doesn't matter what planet he is on now)


So this means that on every single moment you pay 35% taxes!
For example, if you started on Calypso but you hunt on Arkadia:
- 10% goes to Arkadia (the hunted planet)
- 25% goed to Calypso (your original planet)


So YES: if you hunt in Calypso on the Eudoria continent you ALSO pay taxes! People forget that, but if you look at the above link, you will see this! But this tax will get deducted before you actually loot something!

So the system calculates a 100ped loot, you will loot 65 ped. But most people don't know about this apparently. As mentioned, it is stated in the above official news message from MindArk!




Now how does an LA work?
- The planet partner sells LA's for peds
- In return, the LA owner gets a part of the tax from the planet partner.
So the planet partner gives up a part of its tax %, in return for immediate peds.

The Land area can now choose the tax % he wants, but it cannot be more than 10%, because 10% is the tax from a hunted planet.

This means that a planet only gives up the 10% "hunted planet" tax, but not the "original planet tax".

This means: if an LA owner puts his tax at 4%, then the LA owner gets 4% tax, the planet owner gets 6% tax.




People who still don't believe this system, because there are always stubborn people who will refuse to believe it, even with the above official post:

- You can ask planet owners. I asked 1 and he confirmed the above tax system to be correct on his planet as well, and confirmed that every planet has these same settings.
- Think about where CLD revenue comes from... Calypso was originally bought by a company called Calypso Inc. If I'm correct. They had to pay 6 million dollar for it. For this price, they would have the above mentioned taxes. But they had to do all the programming and designing etc (for example new items) themselves. This is also how it works on other planet partners. They create items, events,... but MindArk checks them & needs to give permission before launching these.

Calypso Inc. eventually failed paying this 6 million dollars, so MindArk decided to do something. Finding a new buyer for 6 million dollar on such a fast time was nearly impossible, so MindArk decided the following:
- MindArk would do the programming, designing, events etc for Calypso, and take 50% of the above mentioned taxes.
- Mindark would sell 60.000 CLD's for 1.000 dollar each. This way they received the same amount of money as originally planned via the planet partner. In return, the users would get 50% of the above mentioned taxes.

So don't be fooled! PLANET CALYPSO IS ALSO TAXED WITH 10%! This is where the CLD revenue comes from!!!
Or did you guys think that CLD revenue was paid by MindArk?

So there is NO difference between hunting on Calypso or on LA's, except for the fact that less % of the tax will go towards CLD owners.


So this means:
- No, MindArk does not pay the LA owners
- Yes, the hunter pays the LA owners
- The hunter also pays the Planet owner
- It makes no difference for the hunter to hunt on LA or on normal planet area
- The planet owner (in case of calypso: MindArk & CLD owners) get less money from a hunter who hunts on an LA than from a hunter who hunt on another place, but the planet partner already received the money from LA's in the past in return for this %
- This also means: a 0% LA will still mean you pay taxes!!! Do NOT think you are untaxed on an LA with 0% tax. It only means the full 10% goes to Calypso (Mindark & CLD owners)



You assume MA or PP make money from taxes or ped looted. That's not true. They earn from decay only. Not even from ammo. See this thread for developer proof of this.
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/...st-comments-about-decay-and-MindArk-s-revenue
The numbers for Monria you quoted were for decay not loot tax.

Land areas work on loot tax and not decay however. They make a percent profit of all loot on the area. Not a percent of decay like Monria makes.


Hope this clears things up for some users.
 
Also if that's the case mellee users are doomed
 
Also if that's the case mellee users are doomed

It's always been decay. But my suspicions are swords have a different mechanism to determine decay. A portion as internal ammo and then decay. I say this because my best results were always with a blade.

And yes this guy is wrong. Thanks for creating a separate thread.
 
It's always been decay. But my suspicions are swords have a different mechanism to determine decay. A portion as internal ammo and then decay. I say this because my best results were always with a blade.

And yes this guy is wrong. Thanks for creating a separate thread.

I also had better results with melee when i come to think of for some reason :scratch2:
 
In order for this discussion to have any teeth, you'd have to know how MA defines "decay". You don't.

Also, that information is from a statement from 8ish years ago made by someone who hasn't worked for MA for a long time, and was known for making statements that were later shown to be mistaken.

The word "decay" can be used to cover anything MA wants it to cover, and can change from time to time with no notice to the players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aio
I think the point rampsy tries to make is that hunting mobs on landareas is not more expensive than killing them in the wild but he got tax and decay mixed up?
I don't know if that's true. He is ofcourse an evil landarea owner, the spawn of satan. They are almost as evil as Mindark themselves.
 
I think the point rampsy tries to make is that hunting mobs on landareas is not more expensive than killing them in the wild but he got tax and decay mixed up?
I don't know if that's true. He is ofcourse an evil landarea owner, the spawn of satan. They are almost as evil as Mindark themselves.

LOL...I don't think people have a problem with LA owners, they 'can' develop an ego complex which goes into hyper drive, and then tell us we've all got it wrong with our hunting style and items. When in reality the income off LA's allows them a huge margin of swing to keep their head above water.

Still it takes an element of risk to invest into a mature EU market at current LA requested prices. So respect to them that they went out on a limb to make it work for them.

Your post made me laugh.

Rick
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mac
In order for this discussion to have any teeth, you'd have to know how MA defines "decay". You don't.

This is vital. As MA do not take a constant "cut" or "rake", it is consolidated at set intervals. PP's have revenue share (revenue is this cut/rake). LA's have tax (100 PED loot = 95 PED to player, if taxes were 5%).

The best way to consider tax is to just think every time you get a loot, multiply it by 1/(1-tax) to get the loot MA "gave" you.

On the topic, Rampsy is incorrect as PP's and LA's are different entities calculated in different ways. Players do pay a tax to MA (revenue), but LA taxes are in addition to this, not instead of.

If you want to test it, just get a good log going on an LA with 0% tax, get the owner to set maximum tax, and see the difference in average loot.
 
Putting some numbers on it:
  1. Fictional PP which is taking 25% revenue share.
  2. Fictional LA on that PP which is taxed 5%.
  3. Fictional revenue rate of 5%

Turnover on Planet = 1M PED.

Revenue = 50k PED. MA share = 37.5k PED. PP share = 12.5k PED.

Loot = 950k PED.

LA share = 47.5k PED. Player share = 902.5k PED.
 
Lol, I deffinitely agree with this Rampsy dude. Look at Rocket's mining log searching for ATH; he is doing only indoors. Point me to that tax.
 
Just as a little caveat by the way...

In no place does it say MA's revenue cut would be static. Two different areas with the same tax, but a different revenue rate...
 
Lol, I deffinitely agree with this Rampsy dude. Look at Rocket's mining log searching for ATH; he is doing only indoors. Point me to that tax.

Good point
 
Lol, I deffinitely agree with this Rampsy dude. Look at Rocket's mining log searching for ATH; he is doing only indoors. Point me to that tax.

Poor example. Indoor mining is highly volatile, even with a large sample size it is a poor dataset for determining tax mechanics. I wouldn't really trust a Dasp log either, unless you shot 50k+ of them ;) but even then, DPP complicates the equation.

Either way, I don't think examining long term loot trends is going to get us anywhere. There's too much variance.

Recording minimum mob loot or minimum claim size on/off taxed zones, would probably be a more reliable way to gauge whether or not tax affects your loot window -at all-.
 
Lol, I deffinitely agree with this Rampsy dude. Look at Rocket's mining log searching for ATH; he is doing only indoors. Point me to that tax.

I'll have a better understanding of tax and returns in the coming months, but my theory has always been that tax doesn't take from individual returns but rather inputs and outputs on each looting event, taxing the pool as a whole (server, mob, resource) increasing variance in loot swings, but never hurting long term return since there's more than one player filling up that loot pool (mob, resource, server).

Basically if I get a LA on NI and I'm the only one who hunts it for months at 4% tax then I would expect my returns to be 4% lower. But that's rarely ever the case. LA owners take ped from the overall pools, not individual players' long term returns.

This might create more variance across the community as a whole, but I doubt any one player sees the effects of tax on their returns.

If my long term TT for the rest of the year is 85% instead of 90%+ then I'll admit I'm wrong. Until then I'll believe what my own data shows.
 
I'll have a better understanding of tax and returns in the coming months, but my theory has always been that tax doesn't take from individual returns but rather inputs and outputs on each looting event, taxing the pool as a whole (server, mob, resource) increasing variance in loot swings, but never hurting long term return since there's more than one player filling up that loot pool (mob, resource, server).

Basically if I get a LA on NI and I'm the only one who hunts it for months at 4% tax then I would expect my returns to be 4% lower. But that's rarely ever the case. LA owners take ped from the overall pools, not individual players' long term returns.

This might create more variance across the community as a whole, but I doubt any one player sees the effects of tax on their returns.

If my long term TT for the rest of the year is 85% instead of 90%+ then I'll admit I'm wrong. Until then I'll believe what my own data shows.

This is all true, apart from tax is taken at the looting event. You still get the overall competitive variance which would confuse any return analysis, but it is still true that your tt / ma / true returns would be 1/1-tax higher if all the other variables were the same on a non tax area
 
You get different sizes of mining claims in and outside of LAs.
 
In order for this discussion to have any teeth, you'd have to know how MA defines "decay". You don't.

Also, that information is from a statement from 8ish years ago made by someone who hasn't worked for MA for a long time, and was known for making statements that were later shown to be mistaken.

The word "decay" can be used to cover anything MA wants it to cover, and can change from time to time with no notice to the players.

That's fairly conspiratorial. Decay is decay.
 
You get different sizes of mining claims in and outside of LAs.

One of the many reasons why I believe tax is not specifically out of your loot when you loot it but rather a certain type of pool or multi-factor, in the absence of the test that I mentioned in a different thread, is sanc cove and lidacon stones. I will leave it there because I am actually tired of this type of discussion. There is a sheer way to solve it once and for all which I commented on in a different thread. Someone just needs to do that test.

Lol, I deffinitely agree with this Rampsy dude. Look at Rocket's mining log searching for ATH; he is doing only indoors. Point me to that tax.

You would of course be wrong just on the merit that mindark isn't taking 10% or 20% of your loot, which is asserted in his dissertation. If this were the case, this game would stop dead. Let's be a little reasonable with our theories, shall we?
 
I used to think the player payed the LA tax. It seems the most logical thing. Only in the last 10 years I haven't found any sign of this in returns. I actually reported a slight increase in return on taxed land compared to untaxed areas.

In the end, it might be calculated very differently.
I wouldn't be surprised that MA/FPC pay the taxed part and lower the loot pool for everyone when they need to.
If this is true, depending how it is implemented and how high the tax is, you might end up doing a bit better in taxed LA's.

Of course none of us really knows how it works. Just like we don't know how the auction tax gets distributed. While there is a lot of money spend on auction tax. And teleporting and driving/ flying vehicle, painting, texturing,...
 
Do people forget that the landowners set tax rates?

I'm real concerned about the selective fact/stat analysis... Or maybe not. Just surprised.
 
Back
Top