How does mining tax work?

[chevrons]

Rob 4% tax on a global is 2ped mate not 2.08.

Oh dear. I think you need to study arithmetic again.

To be exact, tax at 4% on a 50 Ped global is 2.08333 Ped

 

[Matho]

Feel free to read through the following thread:

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?132510-Mining-loot-analysis

In this thread are some data taken a few years ago, and a subsequent analysis. The data suggest the following:

0. NRF or claim is determined.

1. Loot size is determined based on drop cost and a 'random' multiplier (note this is not usually the loot you actually get). Example, your drop cost 2 PED, with a 1.030 multiplier, so loot size is 2.060 PED.

2. Tax is applied. For the example in a 5.00% tax area, the land owner gets 0.0500*2.060 = 0.1030 PED. Your loot size is now 2.060 - 0.1030 = 1.957 PED. This is still not the loot you actually get.

3. Resource type is determined. Note that resource type could be determined earlier (like step 0.5). Timing of resource determination doesn't really affect this description of taxation and loot value.

4. Your loot size (1.957 PED) is rounded to a whole number of resource units. Example, if you've found gold stone, you will receive either 1 or 2 stones (at 1.00 PED per stone).

5. The rounding is done probabilistically, with more chance given to the number of stones that is closest in value to your loot size. In this case, since 2 stones (2 PED) is closer to 1.957 PED than is 1 stone (1 PED), you are more likely to get 2 stones. However, the chance of getting 1 stone is about 4.3%, with about a 95.7% chance of getting two stones.

6. The probabilities even out, such that if you found an infinite number of gold claims with loot size 1.957 PED, the weighted average of 1 PED and 2 PED loots would be 1.957 PED.

This hypothesis does predict that it is possible to turn a claim into a NRF, if you happen to round down to 0 resource units (may happen for high tt resources).

This hypothesis has not been proven beyond doubt, but it is consistent with the observed data.

There may be other hypotheses that also explain the data, and we might be unable to differentiate between them.

In conclusion, land owner always gets some tax from your claim, and you, on average, get the rest.

Best Wishes,

Noodles

This is brilliant

 

[dr3w]

You are right. Thats why you get shafted when mining on taxed LA´s. Some rare like ruga may become unhittable due to taxrate. Though by using higher amps the tax is more correctly drawn from your finds and your loss is less. 4% is what the LA owner makes but you are actually taxed somewhere between 4% and 50% just as you wrote.

Recent ruga hit. Area is taxed.

 

[Sircus]

Recent ruga hit. Area is taxed.

Oh you mean that possible fake screenshot made from an unknown hit?
I dont understand why you didnt read my quote carefully.

Some rare like ruga may become unhittable due to taxrate.

If you are saying this hit of ruga on a taxed LA somehow disproves my quote then please enlighten me.

 

[dr3w]

Oh you mean that possible fake screenshot made from an unknown hit?
I dont understand why you didnt read my quote carefully.



If you are saying this hit of ruga on a taxed LA somehow disproves my quote then please enlighten me.

Read carefully now: I just show picture, which just show recent ruga hit. From what you:

1. Tell me that I mean
2. Call screenshot "possible fake"
3. You don't understand something, but for sure you understand that I didn't read your quote carefully
4. Also thinking that I saying that "possible fake" "somehow disproves" your quote which I didn't read "carefully"
5. asking about enlightment.

I will enlight you, with another quote, and try to read carefully it:

“Stop thinking, and end your problems.”
― Lao Tzu

 

[Jimmy B]

Than enlighten me using this example how do you get taxed when you receive a single stone with a value of 3 ped?
Using your example you would never hit a claim with single stone of ruga or other high tt ores using a reference tax of 4% you would need to hit at least 75ped so the system could add the tax if each stone had a value of 3ped...

Noodles explains it well above.

The mistake is to think you find a single stone. You find some amount of PED from which tax is subtracted. Then a resource is probabilistically chosen (based on location, depth, claim size, etc). Then finally, the number of stones is determined (for instance let's say you have after tax deductions a claim of size 2.25 PED and the resource was chosen as Rugaritz. 50% of the time you'd get 1 stone (1.50 PED) and 50% of the time you'd get 2 stones (3 PED), making the average 2.25 PED).

It's unproven that it works like this, but all evidence points in this direction.

 

[Sircus]

“Stop thinking, and end your problems.”
― Lao Tzu

I have replied in PM so will just give this short reply here.
I personally prefer something along these lines instead “Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum.”
"I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"

 

[sndlwood]

Claim found, 50ped gazzurdite stone, tax is 4%. 50x0.04 = 52ped. Your claim before tax would of been 52ped after tax 50ped it was still a global based on the TT value. This is how I've known tax to work out. It takes out its cut or % out before giving you your loot, I think that is the only thing MA do. The money goes to the owner don't think MA intervere beyond that point. So MA gives you your loot - tax & - the possible 10% in TT overall.

In a more simplified form what hogfather said .

So what do you think happened in the pre-VU10 days when I hit a strange signal inside a taxed LA? I received a robot beacon and the remainder of the loot in residue. The total of both equaling exactly 50 PED as always.

 

[langsuyar]

So what do you think happened in the pre-VU10 days when I hit a strange signal inside a taxed LA? I received a robot beacon and the remainder of the loot in residue. The total of both equaling exactly 50 PED as always.

The system calculates a hit of 52ped, deduces the tax of 2ped, and than calculates the type of resource which instead of tridenite was a spacecraft!

Or something similar as stated above, the system has a huge database, records your finds makes an average, than calculates a probability based on your hits historic and returns resource or not. Lacking a better explanation I'll take this one.

 

[Moonbiter]

Oh you mean that possible fake screenshot made from an unknown hit?
I dont understand why you didnt read my quote carefully.



If you are saying this hit of ruga on a taxed LA somehow disproves my quote then please enlighten me.

The screenshot clearly shows a find. At least he's presenting proof, unlike your empty theorizing.

IF finds were always of a fixed size, then sure, tax would prevent for some resources to be found. But finds are always in interval from min_cost_drop +/- to X. So same as mining in untaxed land, you might hit a claim of a size which prevents good stuff to be found. And as you are well aware, amps are influencing heavy what stuff can be found too.

 

[Moonbiter]

The system calculates a hit of 52ped, deduces the tax of 2ped, and than calculates the type of resource which instead of tridenite was a spacecraft!

Or something similar as stated above, the system has a huge database, records your finds makes an average, than calculates a probability based on your hits historic and returns resource or not. Lacking a better explanation I'll take this one.

And your proof for this is?

Not to mention that since ruga bomb, such big finds of tridenite are simply not possible.

 

[Sircus]

IF finds were always of a fixed size, then sure, tax would prevent for some resources to be found. But finds are always in interval from min_cost_drop +/- to X. So same as mining in untaxed land, you might hit a claim of a size which prevents good stuff to be found. And as you are well aware, amps are influencing heavy what stuff can be found too.

Yes you are right. Unhittable would only be the correct word when the tax is so high that your hits reach over the cap on rare ores. Right words would be tax makes rare even more rare to hit, since you have to pinpoint a smaller interval for the average miner. Would you say this fits better?

PS. Nice of you to finally stand up ;p

 

[Cerberus]

I don't even get why there's a discussion about this whole "LA tax gives less rare ores".
1) Grab 20k probes, mine outside ruga land, get a % of different ore types.
2) Grab another 20k probes, mine inside ruga land, get the % of the different ore types.
3) See if the delta is anything noticable.

I don't get the discussion about getting ruga either.
Without tax, you need to hit 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6 ped etc etc
With tax, you need to hit 1.546392, 3.092784, 4.639175, 6.185567 etc etc
Loot system has the capacity of going down to 1*10^-6 Ped, so idk what the fuss is about.

 

[danimal01]

I don't even get why there's a discussion about this whole "LA tax gives less rare ores".
1) Grab 20k probes, mine outside ruga land, get a % of different ore types.
2) Grab another 20k probes, mine inside ruga land, get the % of the different ore types.
3) See if the delta is anything noticable.

I don't get the discussion about getting ruga either.
Without tax, you need to hit 1.5, 3, 4.5, 6 ped etc etc
With tax, you need to hit 1.546392, 3.092784, 4.639175, 6.185567 etc etc
Loot system has the capacity of going down to 1*10^-6 Ped, so idk what the fuss is about.

Finally someone that realizes loot does not get rounded off to .xx digits. I tried explaining this in my post but it was quickly overlooked...

~Danimal

 

[-Archangel-]

Finally someone that realizes loot does not get rounded off to .xx digits. I tried explaining this in my post but it was quickly overlooked...

~Danimal

I like to believe that it is like that.

Now a simple question:
Has anybody ever received a global loot message on taxed land arround 50 PED and check the loot and only found less than what was advertised in chat ?

 

[langsuyar]

And your proof for this is?

Not to mention that since ruga bomb, such big finds of tridenite are simply not possible.

And your proof that I don't have proof?

Read here...

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?132510-Mining-loot-analysis

than you'll understand it was a joke...

And since no one is discussing the tax system any more, because we are too busy looking for proof... cya on the next tread gathering proof that you don't have proof that makes proof of anything...