Question: Company Shares System - Divinity's Suggestion List

Is it not what CLD/AUD/moon deeds/CP deeds etc are for ? From 2k peds a deed to 10 peds( once CP deeds are released) were created for the same reason.

The reason private investment funds work or dont work is because of the ROI they provide. This will make it safer yes but it will only work if all the provisions are met in terms of how a fund works, else it will be an expensive footnote at best.

PS : Some information/thoughts/plans from Mindark's side would add some direction to this discussion as currently we are shooting arrows in the dark. They have given very little information of how things will work and if i am to believe MA Team's AMA then this is already very much close to implementation for them to have released the one liner.

yea, it looks like a deed system, defnally
in the share centre tho there should be total amount of issued shares, not only the avaiability, like this it can be very misleading
but maybe the info button solves that purpose.
 
Last edited:
i would guess that shareholders won't have voting rights straight away althoughly presumably some companies might choose to implement an informal system. Maybe MA will add this later.

Whoever manages the land is likely to be the majority shareholder or the elected CEO of the company, which would probably be like the leader of the society. Maybe the company can change CEO in the same way a society can vote out its leader, by majority votes (each member with a signal vote rather that a number of votes based on the number of shares owned).

I am wondering if land owners will be able to set there own evaluation of the asset or if MA will do some kind of evaluation in order to set an inital offering. Given we won't know the income, and therefore a fair evaluation, of a land area ahead of the offering (unless the deed holder tells us) - i don't know how IPO evalutations work IRL, maybe it isn't important to know the assests/value of a company or maybe this is something that is made public prior to the IPO?


Hopefully this is a system that MA will work on and improve over time and not release, make PED from IPO fees or from the sale of every share and then abandon (like they did with the banks and stables).

Maybe this will work somehow like land is managed for societies which win land during land grabs.


Also i wonder if MA will role the current deeds into companies and do away with the PED centre. It would be nice to have everything in one menu rather that split it across two kind of similar ones. Unless they are going to be very different.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully this is a system that MA will work on and improve over time and not release, make PED from IPO fees or from the sale of every share and then abandon (like they did with the banks and stables).

Maybe this will work somehow like land is managed for societies which win land during land grabs.


Also i wonder if MA will role the current deeds into companies and do away with the PED centre. It would be nice to have everything in one menu rather that split it across two kind of similar ones. Unless they are going to be very different.

Currently there is no information at all from MA regarding whether the new system is there for things like CP deeds or they actually want small/medium scale players to be able to utilize the system.

I understand that with the easter event running and the plethora of issues being faced that should take priority. Hopefully we get some more information from them soon for us to explore things further.
 
Currently there is no information at all from MA regarding whether the new system is there for things like CP deeds or they actually want small/medium scale players to be able to utilize the system.

I understand that with the easter event running and the plethora of issues being faced that should take priority. Hopefully we get some more information from them soon for us to explore things further.

yeh theres so many possibilities.. could even have like a "convert to share deeds" context menu on LA deeds.. would maybe turn the one deed into a stack of 100 each representing 1% which the one holding them as current owner could sell for whatever he chooses. or converts it into one 51% deed and 49% stack of singles so you retain control and other 49% can be sold individually for people to collect and basically give owner a nice cash infusion.

option b seems more realistic cuz someone needs control. but the voting thing previously discussed would also be good if they can be properly merged together it be sweet.
 
Looks like its a new way of geting hold of CLD and AUDs. This new CP deeds to come.

Also I think those LAs managed by MA with so called Marcus the blabla can be put for sale with shares.

My 3 pecs
 
The company once created within the Company Creation Interface can

1. Create new shares.
2. Add assets. I presume Remove too but not sure how or what they will do to manage that.
3. Hopefully have a feature to remove costs etc from revenue ( I don't think it is there in the current design plans)

I'd say to make it even simpler. There will most likely be iterations required as we play with it.
Here's how I imagined V1.0 prototype.
1. Create Shares from property(ies) (LA deed(s) converts to x amount of ingame deeds for a fee).
2. Ability for manager to deduct cost from revenue.
*Add/Remove assets & shares manually via support.


This is a great way to limit wasted resource while innovating. The Easy stuff automated, the hard stuff manual. For now.

one thing I like about this share system idea is it does open up possibilities for newer players and smaller ped investments for those that don't have 150k+ for an entire LA. I guess there are the private investment funds but this system might be clearer, safer and much more seamless if done properly.

Nah, not about smaller ped investment here. It's about capitalizing on the creativity of the players and make it more Player to Player rather than just Player to MA/Planet. Great idea too, so many are pushing the boundaries regularly.
 
I guess this system was developed and will be used for Crystal Palace.
And will be used for other LAs too. Not bad.
 
They should have a way so that the manager can deposit the funds to be distributed among the shareholders. This would allow the manage to deduct any fees needed. Another nice feature would be to have a company wallet, where the available funds for the company can sit until needed to be used on purchasing things like LA's, deeds, etc with a log of in and out. This way shareholders could see how much funds are available and how much is tied up.
 

***1. Feature of Reducing Costs Associated ( Events/Fertilizers/Advertising) from the tax should be available for Assets under the Company. This is unlike the CLD/AUD etc deed system but will be intrinsic if active LA's/fund managers need to use the share system. ***Critical According to Me. Without this MA might as well not waste there time with this project.

I believe the best way to deal with Fertillizer cost would be to change the system to only use fertillizer when changing spawns. Once each DNA Maturity/Density settings are locked, then the fertillizer cost should be significantly reduced or removed.

This would be a similar change that happened with Shops in the past which all used to have a monthly Fee. That resulted in shop owners not paying the fee and most shops closed. Once that Fee was removed, it allowed more shops to be open which was good for shop owners and customers.

The same would be true here. Allowing LA's to keep whatever Maturity/Density settings locked without the fee associated. That would result in more interesting LA's spawns available to everyone!
 
Last edited:
I believe the best way to deal with Fertillizer cost would be to change the system to only use fertillizer when changing spawns. Once each DNA Maturity/Density settings are locked, then the fertillizer cost should be significantly reduced or removed.

This would be a similar to change that happened with Shops in the past that used to have a monthly Fee. That resulted in shop owners not paying the fee and most shops closed. Once that Fee was removed, it allowed way more shops to be open which was good for shop owners and customers.

The same would be true here. Allowing LA's to keep whatever Maturity/Density settings locked without the fee associated. Which means more interesting LA's spawns available to everyone!

I wholeheartedly agree with this myself. And even allow for smaller taxes to make it further attractive.
 
I disagree with reducing or eliminating fertilizer costs, after all fertilizer is a resource with markup and removing it would only move money away from miners to land owners with nothing gained expect for a small group of people.

Its also one of many alternative sources of income for mindark. Yes fertilizer costs cut some of the revenue a La generate for its owner and if poorly managed or with a bad location or mob setup they can render the profit into negative but thats ok, on a free market it must be possible to fail and lose money by bad management and bad decesions.
 
I disagree with reducing or eliminating fertilizer costs, after all fertilizer is a resource with markup and removing it would only move money away from miners to land owners with nothing gained expect for a small group of people.

Its also one of many alternative sources of income for mindark. Yes fertilizer costs cut some of the revenue a La generate for its owner and if poorly managed or with a bad location or mob setup they can render the profit into negative but thats ok, on a free market it must be possible to fail and lose money by bad management and bad decesions.

102.5% is Markup to you? A small group of people? How many people would benefit from unique spawns having lowered taxes? And completionists?

How many miners hold on to their Growth Molecules I wonder. Only people who would lose out a lot would probably be dung finders. Everyone else has something to gain.
 
I disagree with reducing or eliminating fertilizer costs, after all fertilizer is a resource with markup and removing it would only move money away from miners to land owners with nothing gained expect for a small group of people.

Its also one of many alternative sources of income for mindark. Yes fertilizer costs cut some of the revenue a La generate for its owner and if poorly managed or with a bad location or mob setup they can render the profit into negative but thats ok, on a free market it must be possible to fail and lose money by bad management and bad decesions.

Fertilizer has almost no markup. No one would miss growth molecules. Dung could be given another use.

Loss of fertilizer revenue I think would easily be made up for by increased activity on land areas because land owners could lower their taxes.

It's a really old, dumb system now.
 
102.5% is Markup to you? A small group of people? How many people would benefit from unique spawns having lowered taxes? And completionists?

How many miners hold on to their Growth Molecules I wonder. Only people who would lose out a lot would probably be dung finders. Everyone else has something to gain.

I have asked ND to remove Growth Molecules from Hell, i rather get oil at least that sells.
 
I have asked ND to remove Growth Molecules from Hell, i rather get oil at least that sells.

That's his option to put it at that rate, and your option to go there. From the looks of the revenues of Hell, the current rates don't seem to be an issue at all... so, your point?
 
That's his option to put it at that rate, and your option to go there. From the looks of the revenues of Hell, the current rates don't seem to be an issue at all... so, your point?

I dont undertand what you mean? The point i was making that growth monucules have little use in game and RT has even less need for them as they only have one land. So i would be more than happy to go to hell and not mine it. I dont mine for it atm, as its tt food.
 
102.5% is Markup to you? A small group of people? How many people would benefit from unique spawns having lowered taxes? And completionists?

How many miners hold on to their Growth Molecules I wonder. Only people who would lose out a lot would probably be dung finders. Everyone else has something to gain.

I dont think that the removal of fertilizer would lower the tax on the long run, people are used to a 4% - 5% hunting tax and the tax isnt that high because of the fertilizer but because its the "pain border" most hunters still willing to pay.

Yes, mu on Growth Molecules is low but its not just 2.5% that exchange hands its 102.5%. I like a free market and risk vs reward. I just dont like he idea that Land Areas should have zero risk and you just put the sliders once and go afk for 10 years, logging once per year and still get all the taxes for zero effort. Its not like i begrudge Land Areas of their income , they can earn as much as they are able to and if a LA is really profitable im happy for the owner but like every other activity the earnings should be tied to the effort the LA manager put in.

Having better spawns of some mobs would indeed be nice since some LA's are frosaken or poorly managed but
i still value the importance of the fertilizer system over that, my personal opinion nobody needs to agree with.

I could live with a auto fertilizer system if it would be significantly more expensive to run it on auto mode than putting fertilizer in manually. Like a option you can enable or disable and if its enabled the LA put up a fertilizer buy order for 130% on the market if its about to run out of fert. If you disable the option nothing happen so its up to the LA management to use this feature or not.

But just removing the costs to run a LA feels not right
 
I dont undertand what you mean? The point i was making that growth monucules have little use in game and RT has even less need for them as they only have one land. So i would be more than happy to go to hell and not mine it. I dont mine for it atm, as its tt food.

I misunderstood your post, I was blinded by rage I guess xD

Yeah you were right, would be wiser.

I dont think that the removal of fertilizer would lower the tax on the long run, people are used to a 4% - 5% hunting tax and the tax isnt that high because of the fertilizer but because its the "pain border" most hunters still willing to pay.

It's not the Fertilizer that raises taxes? No, it's not, it's greed! And there are many greedy ass players in this game for sure, a really big bunch, like the guy that cries rivers over 2.5% Markup items that only sell when people really need it. That's why there's so many scams and so many manipulations and exploitations. Greed drives it all.

Now, how much Fertilizer do you think a fully pimped out Land Area (6DNAs at your maturities preference and density) has to purchase monthly to make it break even? How much fertilizer it takes to change maturities and densities to cater to certain players? And let me remind you that to break even, hunters must actualy go there and hunt.

On top of that factor, take into account the really big bad press Land Areas have, and as such have to accomodate with extra spendings on prizes for events, since "theres no point in hunting in an area if it takes more money off me" factor. Not to mention lack of any MindArk support in bug solving like bad terrain features and auto trapped mobs...

Yes, mu on Growth Molecules is low but its not just 2.5% that exchange hands its 102.5%. I like a free market and risk vs reward. I just dont like he idea that Land Areas should have zero risk and you just put the sliders once and go afk for 10 years, logging once per year and still get all the taxes for zero effort. Its not like i begrudge Land Areas of their income , they can earn as much as they are able to and if a LA is really profitable im happy for the owner but like every other activity the earnings should be tied to the effort the LA manager put in.

For Your Information, Growth Molecule has a steady and whooping 101% Markup, almost as low as animal oil, so it's not even the figure you mentioned. 0 risk? How about the money put in the first place? The money in events prepared? the money in purchasing more DNA part?

Having better spawns of some mobs would indeed be nice since some LA's are frosaken or poorly managed but
i still value the importance of the fertilizer system over that, my personal opinion nobody needs to agree with.

I could live with a auto fertilizer system if it would be significantly more expensive to run it on auto mode than putting fertilizer in manually. Like a option you can enable or disable and if its enabled the LA put up a fertilizer buy order for 130% on the market if its about to run out of fert. If you disable the option nothing happen so its up to the LA management to use this feature or not.

But just removing the costs to run a LA feels not right

The Fertilizer system IS AUTO!! What are you talking about? 130% for this resource? Even more Land Areas would shut down. So no more good spawns for you cause those would cost even more money...

I am starting to think you're talking without any thought behind other than: does it affect me? No? then fuck it, keep it. It's a really outdated system and should be chaned, and what Buzz said makes sense... Want to change your LA? Buy fert and do it?

Honestly, what I don't feel right is people who don't make an educated effort to understand what they are talking about before arguing a point. It damages everyone and is definitly not constructive to problem solving.
 
Last edited:
I dont think that the removal of fertilizer would lower the tax on the long run, people are used to a 4% - 5% hunting tax and the tax isnt that high because of the fertilizer but because its the "pain border" most hunters still willing to pay.

Yes, mu on Growth Molecules is low but its not just 2.5% that exchange hands its 102.5%. I like a free market and risk vs reward. I just dont like he idea that Land Areas should have zero risk and you just put the sliders once and go afk for 10 years, logging once per year and still get all the taxes for zero effort. Its not like i begrudge Land Areas of their income , they can earn as much as they are able to and if a LA is really profitable im happy for the owner but like every other activity the earnings should be tied to the effort the LA manager put in.

Having better spawns of some mobs would indeed be nice since some LA's are frosaken or poorly managed but
i still value the importance of the fertilizer system over that, my personal opinion nobody needs to agree with.

I could live with a auto fertilizer system if it would be significantly more expensive to run it on auto mode than putting fertilizer in manually. Like a option you can enable or disable and if its enabled the LA put up a fertilizer buy order for 130% on the market if its about to run out of fert. If you disable the option nothing happen so its up to the LA management to use this feature or not.

But just removing the costs to run a LA feels not right

The risk is the fairly sizeable cost of buying the LA in the first place. Money sunk into a game that could end at any moment with zero protection for the investor. If an owner then wants to just set it and forget it that's fine with me, and there will be no more dead LA's because the fert ran out. We could have had daspletor all these years...
 
I dont think that the removal of fertilizer would lower the tax on the long run, people are used to a 4% - 5% hunting tax and the tax isnt that high because of the fertilizer but because its the "pain border" most hunters still willing to pay.

I guarantee you that if we didn't have to pay for fertilizer taxes would go down. I for one would be more than happy to operate Songkra Valley at 1.99% tax rate if I didn't have fertilizer to pay for.

Also please see Xen's post above regarding risk of buying an LA.

Furthermore, there is a LOT more to land area management than just adding fertilizer. If all you do is add fertilizer and "set it and forget it" you will lose PED on 90% of land areas in game.
 
Back
Top