Katie Chalmers
Stalker
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2020
- Posts
- 2,421
- Location
- Australia
- Avatar Name
- Katie Chalmers
After following up on the extra context I’ll change my position and state that I was wrong on this point. Thank you.
List of official statments pertaining to loot post 2.0
- Thread starter Ferial
- Start date
There may be honest land owners, but I've seen people who own lands try to spread misinformation about how taxes on land areas work to try and convince people to hunt on their overtaxed lands
- Joined
- May 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,144
- Avatar Name
- Sheila Dr Girlfriend
Yea that’s the main source of tax misinformation, they lie and say there is a tax everywhere and that’s simply not true, LA do not replace a hidden “MA tax” and in fact it would be on top of it, if there was one.
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
Right this is to the root of what I posted earlier. Regarding what happens on "untaxed" land. I think the focus on people not wanting to pay LA owners and also the word "taxes" being distasteful takes from the real question.
There is an expected base return. Not to get distracted into arguments about it I hope but generally there's an expectation of 93ish (since 2.0) percent which is then affected by your personal modifiers (looter, eff, etc...). Again just some example numbers. But it leaves the real question.
If I hunt on an LA with a 3% tax rate, is my expected baseline still 93%, or is it now 90% ? If I'm uber and was expecting 97% after modifiers, is it still 97% or is it now 94% ?
At the end of the day, I don't personally care enough about it being called taxes or revenue or whatever. This is also given (by players) as the reason that there's not "double dipping" going on with land areas all over the universe that are not player-owned, but show current tax rates.
MA is definitely taking a piece. With a nod to the semantics again, it may not actually be referred to as "a tax" in any documentation or code, and inside the system it may be many separate things, etc... I'm not trying to ignore any other questions.
Still, expected loot returns on "untaxed" land are not 100%. I posit that what some people are trying to call a "hidden MA tax" is in fact, simply "MA's Cut" which obviously, exists. People definitely work out a lot of unnecessarily paranoid theories to explain what's right in front of them sometimes.
MA are very clear that the LA tax money comes from the loot. Then they stop. At least as far as I know, or have seen explained. This makes sense for MA though, as explaining with any more depth gets into how they're calculating or managing their own cut. MAs cut, clearly, can be said to "come from the loot" as well. And also the other holdbacks necessary for the system to work.
So it does leave questions, and thus room for people to (intentionally or not) stir up confusion. I don't really expect a straight answer though since, as mentioned, it only opens the system up for further speculation into how they're calculating drops, and what else they really hold back.
So far the only people I've seen willing to throw down for BIG tests on this have basically been LA owners. Of course
Personally I don't have even a tiny thought that MA is doing anything shady here. I just think that the explicit answer would be harmful to "overall immersion" so for now someone has decided we're better off with the mystery.
There is an expected base return. Not to get distracted into arguments about it I hope but generally there's an expectation of 93ish (since 2.0) percent which is then affected by your personal modifiers (looter, eff, etc...). Again just some example numbers. But it leaves the real question.
If I hunt on an LA with a 3% tax rate, is my expected baseline still 93%, or is it now 90% ? If I'm uber and was expecting 97% after modifiers, is it still 97% or is it now 94% ?
At the end of the day, I don't personally care enough about it being called taxes or revenue or whatever. This is also given (by players) as the reason that there's not "double dipping" going on with land areas all over the universe that are not player-owned, but show current tax rates.
MA is definitely taking a piece. With a nod to the semantics again, it may not actually be referred to as "a tax" in any documentation or code, and inside the system it may be many separate things, etc... I'm not trying to ignore any other questions.
Still, expected loot returns on "untaxed" land are not 100%. I posit that what some people are trying to call a "hidden MA tax" is in fact, simply "MA's Cut" which obviously, exists. People definitely work out a lot of unnecessarily paranoid theories to explain what's right in front of them sometimes.
MA are very clear that the LA tax money comes from the loot. Then they stop. At least as far as I know, or have seen explained. This makes sense for MA though, as explaining with any more depth gets into how they're calculating or managing their own cut. MAs cut, clearly, can be said to "come from the loot" as well. And also the other holdbacks necessary for the system to work.
So it does leave questions, and thus room for people to (intentionally or not) stir up confusion. I don't really expect a straight answer though since, as mentioned, it only opens the system up for further speculation into how they're calculating drops, and what else they really hold back.
So far the only people I've seen willing to throw down for BIG tests on this have basically been LA owners. Of course
Personally I don't have even a tiny thought that MA is doing anything shady here. I just think that the explicit answer would be harmful to "overall immersion" so for now someone has decided we're better off with the mystery.
Ferial
Old Alpha
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Posts
- 784
- Location
- Sweden
- Avatar Name
- Chris Ferial Book
How do LA taxes work?
I know it's been asked before but from the info I can find opinions are all over the place, so I wanted to ask if there was any confirmed data under the new system that explains how land area taxes work? Is this simply taken out of my loot? If the tax is 5%, does that mean I'm guaranteed only...
2 month test comparing 10% vs 4% tax.
FYI: - Smilgs hunting log - 2016 and beyond
remove request, based on a misunderstanding
FYI: - Smilgs hunting log - 2016 and beyond
remove request, based on a misunderstanding
I believe that LA owners spreading misinformation is part of the problem. I think another problem is the user base being so determined on calling MAs cut a tax. Having the same name for two things that work in vastly different ways is confusing
EDIT: The whole point though is that there is no need to speculate anymore. We have an official statement. Given the context of the thread from which the statement comes, there is no ambiguity.
Last edited:
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
Yes, and/or confusion.
Thanks for taking the time to deep-link smilgs' log but also while it's clear that the tax setting on the LA has a direct and expected effect on loot. Yet there he is a couple of posts after Charlie's quote pointing out that it doesn't clarify what he has observed off the LAs.
I don't want to try and muddy the waters here any further though. I agree entirely about the tax thing, the semantics of it making it seem sinister or something. At the end of the day *for me* where they juggle the numbers doesn't have a huge impact If they back off on what I'm referring to as a "holdback" on an LA or not.
But that's because I stay small, and I've had good (tt+) sessions on and off LAs
And I guess that's my point. At the end of the day, if my returns are acceptable, it doesn't matter too much to me how it's "cut" up. I'm interested, but it's not a major factor in where I play. If I was trying to maximize returns over 100k events, I might be more concerned.
EDIT:
I want to add (I'm sorry I know, all the words) some clarity by what I mean when I say "holdback".
It's just that the globals and HoFs have to come from somewhere. Some event loot. Maybe some wave loot. Etc...
I'm not trying to create any other implication there. I'm just saying there's some of our collective losses that could be coming out of the beginning or end of any number of algorithms - but I wouldn't refer to it as a "tax" just directly. And noting that it is a positive/expected thing - most of the time.
Last edited:
David Joker Potanus
Dominant
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2022
- Posts
- 453
Having the LA tax discussion going again made me think if there was a way to skirt around LA needing a constant tax on every loot to survive and be worth maintaining.
The problem with LA tax is it doesn't really give a set amount that the players will spend by being there during the trip or how much the LA owner will make per day, I suppose this also has benefits depending on how you see it. It is random and it makes both sides kind of suffer. Players don't want to risk losing hundreds of peds to tax during the day and costs can sky rocket in that regard for sure. On the opposite end LA owners have a hard time trying to make sure expenses are paid for the land when it is hard to know the real budget in/out.
What I thought about doing is making Khorum into a daily/weekly rentable land. You pay a set fee like 100 ped a day and the tax on the LA is turned off. Hunters can then shoot anything they want for 24 hours without risking taxes getting out of hand for them. I would also know I am making a set fair amount each day to pay for DNA cost and investment in the land.
Look, as an LA owner I don't personally want to bleed players dry just to pay off my investment faster, I am here for the long haul and many years. I know there is a stigma about greedy LA owners and I want to be upfront as possible. If Khorum generates enough ped to cover DNA cost and two thousand or so extra ped to pay off the deed every month I would be happy. I think I would also find peace of mind knowing there was a more steady income.
The problem with LA tax is it doesn't really give a set amount that the players will spend by being there during the trip or how much the LA owner will make per day, I suppose this also has benefits depending on how you see it. It is random and it makes both sides kind of suffer. Players don't want to risk losing hundreds of peds to tax during the day and costs can sky rocket in that regard for sure. On the opposite end LA owners have a hard time trying to make sure expenses are paid for the land when it is hard to know the real budget in/out.
What I thought about doing is making Khorum into a daily/weekly rentable land. You pay a set fee like 100 ped a day and the tax on the LA is turned off. Hunters can then shoot anything they want for 24 hours without risking taxes getting out of hand for them. I would also know I am making a set fair amount each day to pay for DNA cost and investment in the land.
Look, as an LA owner I don't personally want to bleed players dry just to pay off my investment faster, I am here for the long haul and many years. I know there is a stigma about greedy LA owners and I want to be upfront as possible. If Khorum generates enough ped to cover DNA cost and two thousand or so extra ped to pay off the deed every month I would be happy. I think I would also find peace of mind knowing there was a more steady income.
Ferial
Old Alpha
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Posts
- 784
- Location
- Sweden
- Avatar Name
- Chris Ferial Book
I think this is what you are referring to?
While it is interesting, it is non-conclusive testing as the parameters are vastly different. If instead the test had been done in an equal setting (e.g. 0% Osseo, and not an event mob in peak activity times) I would also be inclined to question the statement
This sounds speculative, at best
It is important, for clarity, that we call things what they are. LA tax is essentially income tax. The system pays you X, you have to deduct Y% and pay it to the LA owner. MAs cut, or rake, or whatever, is nothing like an income tax. To MA it doesn't matter if you get a nixe outcome in your hunt or a poor one. Their income is the same regardless (short term. Poor results have long term implications, but thats a separate discussion altogether.
Thats all fine, if you're okay with knowing that your result would have been Z% better if you wouldnt have been taxed, and you are happy with what that Z% less loot gives you (be it better density, better maturity, unique creatures) that is excellent. It is still important to know that you are essentially paying the tax for that.
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
I'm going to let go of this one, for now. I don't think I've directly contradicted one single thing that you're saying, until this moment.
There is no knowing this. If you could pre-calculate your returns ....
Ah, yeah. The question here is simply worth more than confirming any answer on MAs part. I'm not sure if I'm not explaining it well, or you want to discount it. In either case it's a very old argument. I don't have the resources to "prove" any answer, that's for sure. In this thread it's just distraction.
Ferial
Old Alpha
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Posts
- 784
- Location
- Sweden
- Avatar Name
- Chris Ferial Book
I don't think so either, but that is beside the point. It doesn't matter what I think or say. What matters is what we know based on official statements.
There is no way of knowing, that is correct. That is why the official statement on taxes is so important. Now we know
- Joined
- May 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,144
- Avatar Name
- Sheila Dr Girlfriend
Right this is to the root of what I posted earlier. Regarding what happens on "untaxed" land. I think the focus on people not wanting to pay LA owners and also the word "taxes" being distasteful takes from the real question.
There is an expected base return. Not to get distracted into arguments about it I hope but generally there's an expectation of 93ish (since 2.0) percent which is then affected by your personal modifiers (looter, eff, etc...). Again just some example numbers. But it leaves the real question.
If I hunt on an LA with a 3% tax rate, is my expected baseline still 93%, or is it now 90% ? If I'm uber and was expecting 97% after modifiers, is it still 97% or is it now 94% ?
At the end of the day, I don't personally care enough about it being called taxes or revenue or whatever. This is also given (by players) as the reason that there's not "double dipping" going on with land areas all over the universe that are not player-owned, but show current tax rates.
MA is definitely taking a piece. With a nod to the semantics again, it may not actually be referred to as "a tax" in any documentation or code, and inside the system it may be many separate things, etc... I'm not trying to ignore any other questions.
Still, expected loot returns on "untaxed" land are not 100%. I posit that what some people are trying to call a "hidden MA tax" is in fact, simply "MA's Cut" which obviously, exists. People definitely work out a lot of unnecessarily paranoid theories to explain what's right in front of them sometimes.
MA are very clear that the LA tax money comes from the loot. Then they stop. At least as far as I know, or have seen explained. This makes sense for MA though, as explaining with any more depth gets into how they're calculating or managing their own cut. MAs cut, clearly, can be said to "come from the loot" as well. And also the other holdbacks necessary for the system to work.
So it does leave questions, and thus room for people to (intentionally or not) stir up confusion. I don't really expect a straight answer though since, as mentioned, it only opens the system up for further speculation into how they're calculating drops, and what else they really hold back.
So far the only people I've seen willing to throw down for BIG tests on this have basically been LA owners. Of course
Personally I don't have even a tiny thought that MA is doing anything shady here. I just think that the explicit answer would be harmful to "overall immersion" so for now someone has decided we're better off with the mystery.
It’s clearly you get 93% everywhere else and 90% in LA why do you pretend to be confused just to help spread misinformation on LA? Do you own one? Or your friend?
- Joined
- May 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,144
- Avatar Name
- Sheila Dr Girlfriend
If you get a 100% tt return of 10000 ped from good luck on an LA(to keep math simple) and the tax is 4%, you KNOW for a fact, without any possible room for arguement; you paid 400 ped in taxes that you would have had in your pocket, had you had the same results elsewhere
Hego Damask
Stalker
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2019
- Posts
- 1,582
- Society
- Victory
- Avatar Name
- Hego Damask II
The problem is not the costs of land areas or the fertilizer cost in my eye.
The problem is the lack of options to add good mobs to any LA, atm with a cheap 80-120k trash or mob free LA you can add Argonaut, Merp, Exarosaur or Neconu and thats it.
Mobs would drop DNA parts, we would be able to make good DNA's to add them to LA's, im sure there would be peoples to hunt them.
It seems MA not really want it to happen, they are rather add tax free new spawns, like Rextellum and Phasm spawns fixed recently.
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
This is a great thread. The OP anyways and the chatter is fun.. It's deja vu all over again though - and I don't want to derail it as Ferial is correct, it's a thread about what MA have explicitly said, not yet another thread about the things they don't say.
If I'm not clear on it, perhaps the comments from smilgs or forgo or some others in the linked thread Charlie decided to post in would help clarify this.
No, you don't. I'm sorry. Feel free to PM or revive the original discussion.
If I'm not clear on it, perhaps the comments from smilgs or forgo or some others in the linked thread Charlie decided to post in would help clarify this.
No, you don't. I'm sorry. Feel free to PM or revive the original discussion.
Hego Damask
Stalker
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2019
- Posts
- 1,582
- Society
- Victory
- Avatar Name
- Hego Damask II
There is no "they", there is one liar.
I have never seen other LA owners spreading those lies, talking about recent years ofc, not 2010 etc.
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
Entropia Universe - Developer Notes #14 - Loot 2.0 Update
One of MindArk’s primary long-term goals is to make Entropia Universe as affordable and entertaining as possible for all participants. Toward that end
www.entropiauniverse.com
Here's a link to some release notes from the time period of the discussion we're discussing
Being an official source it should be in line with the thread.It is very explicitly stated that there is a "MindArk Fee For Hunting". And that they can/do adjust it. Some people maybe like to call it a "MA Hidden Tax" or a "House Cut" or any number of things, and it isn't necessarily all taken in one piece. They don't tell us this. They also don't tell us at which end of which algorithm they take the "MindArk Fee For Hunting".
Does it come out of ammo, or does it come out of loot? Does it make any difference?
@DrGirlfriend I'm not trying to be rude - as soon as there is record of an actionable amount of "truth" they change it anyways. We can't know for an absolute fact at any time what per-session returns will be or would have been.
Ferial
Old Alpha
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Posts
- 784
- Location
- Sweden
- Avatar Name
- Chris Ferial Book
Noone is questioning the activity fee. I am questioning the choice to call it a tax when "tax" is an established term in the game.
From the loot 2.0 statistics update( if i recall correctly, it may be one of the other dev notes) you can infer from where said fee comes. There are also statements directly addressing this on the forum. It is however unerelated to loot 2.0 and therefor not in the OP
Edit: couldn't find it in the dev notes, so it is probably in a post discussing the dev notes. I'll see if i can find it when I have the time
Last edited:
Kain Dewey Fall
Guardian
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Posts
- 231
- Society
- SuperPED
- Avatar Name
- Kain Dewey Fall
You know, through the referral system, say you get a percentage of revenue gained off the players by MA.
That is what I am talking about by additional systems implemented similar to the referral system.
You aren't taking the players loot, you are getting a percentage of what MA/PP makes from what the player makes from the loot.
I mean, unless Referral revenue is strictly Deposits (And/or) withdrawals from the "tax" taken on them on initiation.
Can't say that it is taking your money or giving you smaller returns when it is just a naturally implemented system that possibly just factors in general gameplay within those criteria transferred to the manager of the affiliate system and players engagement through it.
Even more so if the criteria of returns is marginally random with a 0-7% chance of not being especially when killing a large group of mobs in a short period of time.
Creating a false sense of blame isn't productive, resourceful, or promotive so anything positive other than redirecting resources back to MA or to someone who commits libel, defacement, or fraud by a criminal standard. Pretty much like a Pirate who understands how to run a business. A corporate Pirate? IDK.
That is what I am talking about by additional systems implemented similar to the referral system.
You aren't taking the players loot, you are getting a percentage of what MA/PP makes from what the player makes from the loot.
I mean, unless Referral revenue is strictly Deposits (And/or) withdrawals from the "tax" taken on them on initiation.
Can't say that it is taking your money or giving you smaller returns when it is just a naturally implemented system that possibly just factors in general gameplay within those criteria transferred to the manager of the affiliate system and players engagement through it.
Even more so if the criteria of returns is marginally random with a 0-7% chance of not being especially when killing a large group of mobs in a short period of time.
Creating a false sense of blame isn't productive, resourceful, or promotive so anything positive other than redirecting resources back to MA or to someone who commits libel, defacement, or fraud by a criminal standard. Pretty much like a Pirate who understands how to run a business. A corporate Pirate? IDK.
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
Again 100% agreed about the verbiage, and people being salty about anything referred to as "a tax".
It's "The MindArk Fee For Hunting". At least, that appears to be the official reference to the cost that I'm referring to. Ferial said activity fee and that rings familiar, too. I can't find marco or ludvig from early times, talking about the "target percentage" but it happened. I'm comfortable that they can adjust it in many ways, where and how they wish by now. They have/do adjust this to normalize returns at their target levels.
If they want "overall returns" trending towards some target, that has to include LAs. So saying "this piece is taken from the loot" is something semantic that doesn't really clarify how "the loot" is determined.
If they had chosen to say "The LA tax is taken from step 42 of the looting event algorithm" it would not sound so warm and fuzzy, but it would be more meaningful. We could at least infer that there were clearly a minimum of 41 other steps. Probably.
Same (basically) for the LAs it's the whole point of the conversation that Charlie dropped this distracting "Factoid" in back then. MA has a cut. The question is, which part/how much is being sold with the LAs. Or the various other investments. And when is it "extra".
I don't believe they're going to outright lie to us, through official channels. But misleading or confusing (just a little)? Sure why not. It's literally a business, and they run it to their advantage.
- Joined
- May 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,144
- Avatar Name
- Sheila Dr Girlfriend
Entropia Universe - Developer Notes #14 - Loot 2.0 Update
One of MindArk’s primary long-term goals is to make Entropia Universe as affordable and entertaining as possible for all participants. Toward that endwww.entropiauniverse.com
Here's a link to some release notes from the time period of the discussion we're discussing
It is very explicitly stated that there is a "MindArk Fee For Hunting". And that they can/do adjust it. Some people maybe like to call it a "MA Hidden Tax" or a "House Cut" or any number of things, and it isn't necessarily all taken in one piece. They don't tell us this. They also don't tell us at which end of which algorithm they take the "MindArk Fee For Hunting".
Does it come out of ammo, or does it come out of loot? Does it make any difference?
@DrGirlfriend I'm not trying to be rude - as soon as there is record of an actionable amount of "truth" they change it anyways. We can't know for an absolute fact at any time what per-session returns will be or would have been.
The fee is how much returns they give you, it’s an adjustment in the loot algorithm that determine your total loot.
A tax is applied after that calculation.
Of course MA can adjust their loot calculation, that’s all they meant in that thread
- Joined
- May 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,144
- Avatar Name
- Sheila Dr Girlfriend
Affiliates do not make a cut of MA profit, they make a cut of the decay from the user, that user may or may not be causing a loss for MA it doesn’t matter
This was all outlined in the affiliate contract leaked by the nft egg
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
Right and it would seem, I would posit, whatever please pardon my hedging but I'm mainly arguing against abolutist statements here - it would seem reasonable from the collection of statements that we have, that MA balance LA taxes into their overall "fee structure" so that returns over all can be normalized towards a target.
At this point I just want to be clear that this isn't some dark and salty conspiracy theory about hidden taxes and MA sneaking an extra "cut".
It's a big black box so taking that piece from the output side of what we can measure rather than the input side is, I would think, the most palatable solution for both LA owners and LA users.
If the tax was removed "inside the box" completely, IDK how people would take that. If it was removed (measurably) from TT input the LA owner would get the same payment, no matter how the hunter/miner did. Removing it (measurably) from the final TT output means the owner swings with the hunter.
We're still all sort of left swinging
At this point I just want to be clear that this isn't some dark and salty conspiracy theory about hidden taxes and MA sneaking an extra "cut".
It's a big black box so taking that piece from the output side of what we can measure rather than the input side is, I would think, the most palatable solution for both LA owners and LA users.
If the tax was removed "inside the box" completely, IDK how people would take that. If it was removed (measurably) from TT input the LA owner would get the same payment, no matter how the hunter/miner did. Removing it (measurably) from the final TT output means the owner swings with the hunter.
We're still all sort of left swinging
- Joined
- May 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,144
- Avatar Name
- Sheila Dr Girlfriend
No they do not and your speculation of such is dangerous and continues to spread the LA lie, I ask again what benefit for you is there for causing and spreading these obviously false assumptions?Right and it would seem, I would posit, whatever please pardon my hedging but I'm mainly arguing against abolutist statements here - it would seem reasonable from the collection of statements that we have, that MA balance LA taxes into their overall "fee structure" so that returns over all can be normalized towards a target.
At this point I just want to be clear that this isn't some dark and salty conspiracy theory about hidden taxes and MA sneaking an extra "cut".
It's a big black box so taking that piece from the output side of what we can measure rather than the input side is, I would think, the most palatable solution for both LA owners and LA users.
If the tax was removed "inside the box" completely, IDK how people would take that. If it was removed (measurably) from TT input the LA owner would get the same payment, no matter how the hunter/miner did. Removing it (measurably) from the final TT output means the owner swings with the hunter.
We're still all sort of left swinging
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
I can't tackle this. I mean, If you've fully locked down this question that people have been explicitly asking since 2006 with no "satisfactory" answer, we're all done here.
I was trying not to be combative and off-topic here. It was the irony of the same discussion still going on that brought me here again .
Also the armor thing. Do you want the TT input or not? There is no "one rule" for that.
I was trying not to be combative and off-topic here. It was the irony of the same discussion still going on that brought me here again .
Also the armor thing. Do you want the TT input or not? There is no "one rule" for that.
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
All right, I've got time to sit at the desk for a while again. I'm going to double post instead of editing because half a day is gone.
This 'crowd' has often been rough but it was early for me and I wasn't expecting that. Minor interactions and some time aside put me to where I can directly address this question. I want to ramble but I'll try and avoid being 'extra'.
The only tangible benefit for me here is that if I better understand how the game works, I can better manage my gameplay. There's no list of false assumptions here but I have some guesses.
At the time of this thread starting, Loot 2.0 was out and during the period of adjustment mindark decided to release some data about returns, right.
With the data there was some discussion about their methodology. Now, EU is dynamic. Any "hard numbers" released were considered out of date within weeks, etc... as they explicitly said they were still adjusting things. But the thread is still here, about things MA actually said. And in this they dropped some more answers to an old argument. An argument that people are still quite fervently having? They may or may not still, 5 years later, be using any of this stuff. But they stated a lot explicitly at the time.
So, from posts linked from the OP:
Do those points fall on the list of "obviously false assumptions"?
This 'crowd' has often been rough but it was early for me and I wasn't expecting that. Minor interactions and some time aside put me to where I can directly address this question. I want to ramble but I'll try and avoid being 'extra'.
The only tangible benefit for me here is that if I better understand how the game works, I can better manage my gameplay. There's no list of false assumptions here but I have some guesses.
At the time of this thread starting, Loot 2.0 was out and during the period of adjustment mindark decided to release some data about returns, right.
With the data there was some discussion about their methodology. Now, EU is dynamic. Any "hard numbers" released were considered out of date within weeks, etc... as they explicitly said they were still adjusting things. But the thread is still here, about things MA actually said. And in this they dropped some more answers to an old argument. An argument that people are still quite fervently having? They may or may not still, 5 years later, be using any of this stuff. But they stated a lot explicitly at the time.
So, from posts linked from the OP:
- MA replaced "Taxes are generated by an avatar's activities on an LA" with "Taxes are taken from a player's loot on an LA".
- MA stated that they were tuning the system towards an "Average return".
- MA then clarified that "loot" is not the same thing as "returns" by stating that loot "paid in taxes" was not calculated into "returns"
- MA clarified further stating that if loot "paid in taxes" had been considered as part of "returns" then "returns" would have been higher.
Do those points fall on the list of "obviously false assumptions"?
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,144
- Avatar Name
- Sheila Dr Girlfriend
No everything there is basically right, the false assumptions are that there is some preset “tax” set by MA when it’s in fact a complicated algorithm whereas Taxes mean it’s just a simple % calculation
Atrax
Prowler
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2011
- Posts
- 1,138
- Avatar Name
- Mutant Atrax Stalker
I truly don't care about the name, other than to note that names/semantics sometimes push people towards value judgements.
There's no reason to do anything shady. There's no need for mindark to be sneaky when they're not telling us that much anyways. Consistently what they decide to tell people usually is measurable, and (within whatever guidelines) pretty accurate.
There's no reason to do anything shady. There's no need for mindark to be sneaky when they're not telling us that much anyways. Consistently what they decide to tell people usually is measurable, and (within whatever guidelines) pretty accurate.
- Joined
- May 25, 2022
- Posts
- 1,144
- Avatar Name
- Sheila Dr Girlfriend
My point is MA does not take a simple % from your spending, it’s a complex calculation. Whereas Land Areas get a simple % off the top of what MA already calculates.
There no terms or special language.
Kain Dewey Fall
Guardian
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
- Posts
- 231
- Society
- SuperPED
- Avatar Name
- Kain Dewey Fall
I've read a lot of that stuff and talked to affiliates, and I remember it saying that the affiliates receives a percentage of PP revenue obtained from the users gameplay.
The way you say it makes it seem like the player is losing more by signing up under an affilliate link.
But also, I am not so sure there are any comments about whether or not MA takes a % from gameplay.
And a player can determine more or less how much of their money they lose from their gameplay based on skill utilization and time priotization.