Let's talk about taxes!

Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
187
Hello everyone.
I thought it would be nice if we could maybe have a civilized discussion about taxes and how they are generated in the game. I am a landowner and I am not even 100% certain how everything works on my land versus outside when it comes to tax. I have looked around and it seems hard to find any real concrete evidence as to how tax works in that regards.

I think quite a few people avoid land areas because they have a tax on income, but does that mean that there is not a tax on non player owned land? If there isn't a tax outside of lands on Calypso where does all of the CLD revenue come from? Is it from transactions at the auction house or decay spent at repair terminals kind of thing? There is a boost on CLD revenue during Mayhem, is there a hidden tax in the instances?

If there is a hidden tax on certain areas of the game, how much is it actually? Does it stack onto the player owned land? That would mean like 8% or whatever final tax on the players who are hunting there?

Perhaps Mindark gives up the tax rights to LA owners and instead makes their money off fertilizer costs? It costs me about 600-800 peds of fertilizer a month, that is $60 directly into Mindark's pocket right? It gets consumed and not recycled in the game at that point.

I hunt and mine on my own land quite a bit. And the tax that is taken from me is untouchable by myself and gets split back with my players at the end of the month. However, I don't notice myself losing like 8% every time I go out and play there it feels just like anywhere else. I don't believe it has stacked taxes but I also could be wrong.

This isn't a thread in an attempt to start a flame war or get people arguing. I am just curious about the negative stigma on text land because it feels all the same to me. I think you just pay somehow somewhere regardless of what you do and Mindark had it setup brilliantly where they always come out on top.
 

Jhereg

Stalker
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Posts
2,042
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Feng Huan SecretAznMan Zho
Using Calypso as an example.

MA/Planet Partner/CLDs/NI Deeds work off of planet revenue. This is somewhat invisible to the players what fraction of peds being cycled is being removed by the system, but we see the output in terms of how much CLDs generate, etc.

If you weren't playing on taxed land, that would be the only cost to you to play.

Doing stuff on taxed lands means your loot is having another % taken and given back to Land Area owner/AUD deed owners/CP deed owners, as examples. This is a flat percent on the player's output. That is, it is a cut from the player's actually looted TT.

This is after the initial cut taken by MA, PP, etc.
 

Jhereg

Stalker
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Posts
2,042
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Feng Huan SecretAznMan Zho
Here's another discussion of the same topic:

 

Hego Damask

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Posts
1,197
Society
Victory
Avatar Name
Hego Damask II
There is a boost on CLD revenue during Mayhem, is there a hidden tax in the instances?

Boost in CLD is because the increased activity, bigger cycles, many players cycle more during mayhems with enhancers, longer hunts than out of mayhems.
My own examples: MM december 241k cycle, January not even 100k, February 100k, March 70k April with easter mayhem 390k cycle.
More cycle from many, more ped to CLD payouts.

If there is a hidden tax on certain areas of the game, how much is it actually? Does it stack onto the player owned land? That would mean like 8% or whatever final tax on the players who are hunting there?

Hunting on player owned LA is same as any other area, LA TAX just removed from loot on top of everything else.
That is an understandable reason why many avoid LA. You pay just extra TAX compared to non taxed land.
LA owner job to counter that extra TAX with rewards worth to loose the extra TAX there, or provide a spawn that better than anything else ingame.

Perhaps Mindark gives up the tax rights to LA owners and instead makes their money off fertilizer costs? It costs me about 600-800 peds of fertilizer a month, that is $60 directly into Mindark's pocket right? It gets consumed and not recycled in the game at that point.

Yes, what about LA's that have natural mob spawn or mining LA's?
Those are using zero fertilizer whole year.

I hunt and mine on my own land quite a bit. And the tax that is taken from me is untouchable by myself and gets split back with my players at the end of the month. However, I don't notice myself losing like 8% every time I go out and play there it feels just like anywhere else. I don't believe it has stacked taxes but I also could be wrong.

Yes, you are wrong about it.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
187
I spoke to a fellow LA owner who extensively hunts/mines their land and also keeps logs of returns about it. The LA owner claimed they save about 200 ped a day paying themselves back on their own land comparing to the logs of data hunting outside their land. So in essence they are saving peds by hunting their land and getting the tax back versus paying the potential hidden tax elsewhere.
Granted I never saw any of these logs and who knows how accurate or true anything in this game is. Just food for thought.
Some real concrete proof on this would be nice or at least have Mindark chime in. I understand how they may not want make a comment on taxes because admitting they take a tax on calypso would tank their CLD revenue and people would hunt more player owned lands.I think it is all speculation like most things in the game, just another aspect we will truly never understand.

I realize I am a LA owner and I have revenue at stake. However, I am hoping this thread drums up some interesting theories or observations in either direction.
 

Jhereg

Stalker
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Posts
2,042
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Feng Huan SecretAznMan Zho
I spoke to a fellow LA owner who extensively hunts/mines their land and also keeps logs of returns about it. The LA owner claimed they save about 200 ped a day paying themselves back on their own land comparing to the logs of data hunting outside their land. So in essence they are saving peds by hunting their land and getting the tax back versus paying the potential hidden tax elsewhere.
Granted I never saw any of these logs and who knows how accurate or true anything in this game is. Just food for thought.
Some real concrete proof on this would be nice or at least have Mindark chime in. I understand how they may not want make a comment on taxes because admitting they take a tax on calypso would tank their CLD revenue and people would hunt more player owned lands.I think it is all speculation like most things in the game, just another aspect we will truly never understand.

I realize I am a LA owner and I have revenue at stake. However, I am hoping this thread drums up some interesting theories or observations in either direction.
Is this Forgo?
 

Evey

Elite
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Posts
3,179
Avatar Name
Eve Everglades
Is this Forgo?

Heard some wild theories coming from people he would try to persuade that hunter can even tt profit on the LA. Adding the tax for the owner, one could draw the conclusion that MA actually pays both parties to hunt there. Spoiler alert - it's much much cheaper to buy the skill than to hun on taxed LA for mission reward =))
 

Hego Damask

Prowler
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Posts
1,197
Society
Victory
Avatar Name
Hego Damask II
I spoke to a fellow LA owner who extensively hunts/mines their land and also keeps logs of returns about it. The LA owner claimed they save about 200 ped a day paying themselves back on their own land comparing to the logs of data hunting outside their land. So in essence they are saving peds by hunting their land and getting the tax back versus paying the potential hidden tax elsewhere.
Granted I never saw any of these logs and who knows how accurate or true anything in this game is. Just food for thought.
Some real concrete proof on this would be nice or at least have Mindark chime in. I understand how they may not want make a comment on taxes because admitting they take a tax on calypso would tank their CLD revenue and people would hunt more player owned lands.I think it is all speculation like most things in the game, just another aspect we will truly never understand.

I realize I am a LA owner and I have revenue at stake. However, I am hoping this thread drums up some interesting theories or observations in either direction.

LA owner claims his TAXED LA gives better return than untaxed, everybody should hunt there and pay the tax to him.
WOW, sounds logical, right?

LA owner can hunt there as much as he want, as he gets back his own tax 100%, so for him only its like untaxed.
Unless you have a rewards system that makes it impossible, guess that is your case, you would loose part of your tax because of your reward system.

Claiming the hunt is happening there because of magically good returns is up to everybody if considred just "good marketing strategy" or "trust scam of a greedy LA owner" in his eyes.

Im too hunted non stop on my LA while i owned one, but reason was simple, it was like untaxed for me.
 

Evey

Elite
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Posts
3,179
Avatar Name
Eve Everglades
yes, MA answered that in the past already. It is just an extra % taken from your loot.
Some people refuse to believe it with multiple clear proof & theories, bit like flat-earth I guess :)

Atami, ex LA-owner :)

It works as mentioned a couple of times in this thread. Land areas simply take a cut based on the set tax amount from each loot from creatures spawned in the area or mining claims found in the area.
Hope this helps.
 

halftoasted

Provider
Joined
May 17, 2014
Posts
199
Avatar Name
Frank Halftoasted Redhot
where does all of the CLD revenue come from?
There is a playing tax and a land tax. Do they stack ? Do land owner "own the land" and make MA forfeit their player tax ? Maybe... Thats what I believe or else the return would be way way terrible. Still, taxes yield lower results in general without giving bigger hof. The only thing I seem to see in taxed lands is that many of them are less dry of MU because less player play them. Is it worth it ? Always debatable. I do know hunting taxed exa usually yield nothing more because they are way more hunted considering how convenient the hunting is there.

Perhaps Mindark gives up the tax rights to LA owners and instead makes their money off fertilizer costs? It costs me about 600-800 peds of fertilizer a month, that is $60 directly into Mindark's pocket right?
Right! That's my theory. You pay a deposit that give them USD interest via locked peds of the original sell and the fertilizer pay the rest.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
187
If it is true and there is a not a hidden tax then I am more glad for how I set up my land reward system. I believe LA owners then need to do what they can to support and payback the players who frequent the lands.

I think working similar to a CLD/AUD and paying back the players what you can is the way to go. I just wanted to see what you all thought and make sure I was on the right track overall.
 

Vadio

Alpha
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Posts
568
Location
Space
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Jhan Delarea Freitas




I hope its end this kind question
 
Last edited:

halftoasted

Provider
Joined
May 17, 2014
Posts
199
Avatar Name
Frank Halftoasted Redhot
but it's 2.0 now. They said they were changing how loot work to provide a more stable experience. That decay might be a thing of the past.
 

Joat

Elite
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Posts
4,262
Society
M.I.S
but it's 2.0 now. They said they were changing how loot work to provide a more stable experience. That decay might be a thing of the past.
Loot 2.0 have same basics as before, difference is all new parameters that are included in calculation of loot.
They did an overhaul of excisiting system which made it optimized and improved compared to Loot 1.0, but not a complete new system. ;)
 

halftoasted

Provider
Joined
May 17, 2014
Posts
199
Avatar Name
Frank Halftoasted Redhot
Loot 2.0 have same basics as before, difference is all new parameters that are included in calculation of loot.
They did an overhaul of excisiting system which made it optimized and improved compared to Loot 1.0, but not a complete new system. ;)
overhaul = take apart.

Loot 2.0 Version Update that will overhaul the way in which hunting loot is calculated and distributed.
{...}
Loot Changes

  • Loot calculations will be optimized and improved to better factor in the various costs associated with hunting activity, including: healing, ammo consumption, buffs, tool and armor deterioration, attachments, and more.
{...}

The largest components by far in loot value calculations are costs, such as weapon deterioration, ammo consumption, armor deterioration, healing costs, etc.
It's not the same.

Before loot 2.0
Marco|MindArk said:
MA makes money on decay on item usage. All other monies are transferred back into the Entropia economy.
 

Jhereg

Stalker
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Posts
2,042
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Feng Huan SecretAznMan Zho
Be careful...MA's definition of 'decay' is different than the player's version of 'decay'

Spent ammo is also 'decay' in MA's eyes. Both are TT value input into the system.
 

Joat

Elite
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Posts
4,262
Society
M.I.S
overhaul = take apart.


It's not the same.

Before loot 2.0
Overhaul = take apart, look what can be reused and then assembled again, basics used from origin, yeah
I know what overhaul is.

I can add this too since you missed it:

Later this month, MindArk will be releasing a special Loot 2.0 Version Update that will overhaul the way in which hunting loot is calculated and distributed. Many of the features and systems added over the past few years have gradually led to this update...

Intersting part is the green, now add this:

Loot calculations will be optimized and improved


Nothing about new system, just old system improved and optimized withy new parameters. ;)
 
Last edited:

halftoasted

Provider
Joined
May 17, 2014
Posts
199
Avatar Name
Frank Halftoasted Redhot
Loot 2.0 have same basics as before
It's not.
Overhaul = take apart, look what can be reused and then asembled again, basics used from origin
If you overhaul a system or method, you examine it carefully and make many changes in it in order to improve it.
Overhaul as a mechanic is very different from every other usages of the word.

To revise extensively
We can see that overhaul is split into 2 categories.
1. An act of overhauling.
2. A repair job.

As we can see from Marco post, the old system was a item based profit and now it is not true anymore.
 

Hijacker27

Marauder
Joined
May 14, 2007
Posts
5,294
Location
Mississauaga Ontario, Canada
Society
Crimson Devils
Avatar Name
hijacker Hijacker27 inferno
Yeah any land area owner that tells you MA doesn't take their cut first and then their taxes take another cut is super delusional or outright lying.
 

Joat

Elite
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Posts
4,262
Society
M.I.S
It's not.


Overhaul as a mechanic is very different from every other usages of the word.


We can see that overhaul is split into 2 categories.


As we can see from Marco post, the old system was a item based profit and now it is not true anymore.
Yes I guess we can arguee about the word in many ways, but I still don't see them saying they ditched the old system. :p
So "overhaul" + Many of the features and systems added over the past few years have gradually led to this update... doesn't
look as if they are saying there is a complete new system but rather an improvement of old system?

Imo reason for Loot 2.0 is something else. :p

Btw about MArcos "revenue stream" yeah remember those mentioned to the left and right. :D Revenue stream in PE = tool to decrease
ingame total value in a steady stream, so there is a need for new depos in an continious stream = MA profit.
Basics are still the same though, create a steady loss for the players in a collectively p.o.v so the need for depos are there all the time.... ;)
 

halftoasted

Provider
Joined
May 17, 2014
Posts
199
Avatar Name
Frank Halftoasted Redhot
I still don't see them saying they ditched the old system.
Marco said previous system was item deterioration based prior to 2.0 and everything else was back in the pool.
2.0 state that there is a return on those items. Thats ditching the old system
 

Joat

Elite
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Posts
4,262
Society
M.I.S
Marco said previous system was item deterioration based prior to 2.0 and everything else was back in the pool.
2.0 state that there is a return on those items. Thats ditching the old system
If you wanna see it like that go ahead, I just see it as tweaks in what parameters are included and ofc in their values . ;)
 

Ferial

Dominant
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Posts
420
Location
Sweden
Avatar Name
Chris Ferial Book
I hunt and mine on my own land quite a bit. And the tax that is taken from me is untouchable by myself and gets split back with my players at the end of the month. However, I don't notice myself losing like 8% every time I go out and play there it feels just like anywhere else. I don't believe it has stacked taxes but I also could be wrong.

I´m currently hunting a bit in taxed areas. This past week I´ve gotten my new top two highest loots in said taxed areas. If I would go by feeling, or thinking, I´d be inclined to say the same at this point. That is why feeling is a bad idea in this game. That feeling, is incorrect. Because it takes so long for everything to even out, feelings are more often than not incorrect :D

There are easy ways test tax, and it has been done numerous times, by various different people and they have all concluded the same thing. The fact that some people are willing to lie about their conclusions is not surprising at all considering the impact the results of tests could have on their income. Either that or their testing was flawed :)
 
D

Deleted member 58836

Guest
I´m currently hunting a bit in taxed areas. This past week I´ve gotten my new top two highest loots in said taxed areas. If I would go by feeling, or thinking, I´d be inclined to say the same at this point. That is why feeling is a bad idea in this game. That feeling, is incorrect. Because it takes so long for everything to even out, feelings are more often than not incorrect :D

I've long suspected the rate and size of multipliers are adjusted on taxes lands. Perhaps it's done at the same rate of which the tax is set?
 

miathan

Dominant
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Posts
420
Location
Sweden
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Alindrina Alli Golden
We already know from official statements that the tax taken directly from your loot.
This is also quite easy to test. I did a quick run today on Exarosaurs on 3.99% taxed land and on untaxad land.
To not have to kill 1M mobs I used a similar approach as:
That is, you look at low multiplers only.

As you can see in the data below the multiplier groups are quite easy to separate:

index.php


This makes it possible to look at the average returns in one or a few groups. In this case I picked out this range:

index.php


The average multipler here is:
0.4892 in untaxed land, and
0.4702 in taxed land

tax = 0.4702 / 0.4892 = 0.9612 => 3.89%
Pretty close to 3.99%.

If you need to be more convinced just gather more data. I know this is a small data set (only 1000 kills in each area) but I don't think more is needed since it already correlates well with official statements.
 

Hijacker27

Marauder
Joined
May 14, 2007
Posts
5,294
Location
Mississauaga Ontario, Canada
Society
Crimson Devils
Avatar Name
hijacker Hijacker27 inferno
We already know from official statements that the tax taken directly from your loot.
This is also quite easy to test. I did a quick run today on Exarosaurs on 3.99% taxed land and on untaxad land.
To not have to kill 1M mobs I used a similar approach as:
That is, you look at low multiplers only.

As you can see in the data below the multiplier groups are quite easy to separate:

index.php


This makes it possible to look at the average returns in one or a few groups. In this case I picked out this range:

index.php


The average multipler here is:
0.4892 in untaxed land, and
0.4702 in taxed land

tax = 0.4702 / 0.4892 = 0.9612 => 3.89%
Pretty close to 3.99%.

If you need to be more convinced just gather more data. I know this is a small data set (only 1000 kills in each area) but I don't think more is needed since it already correlates well with official statements.
Thanks for actual hard data! 99% of us except forgo accepted this already though but maybe it will help him stop spreading misinformation now too
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Posts
187
I will admit it was my fault for making the thread and posing the question. I wanted to make sure things weren't different somehow with capped 2.0 returns. Kind of new to the whole land management thing so it was a way to verify if my payback settings were sufficient.
 

halftoasted

Provider
Joined
May 17, 2014
Posts
199
Avatar Name
Frank Halftoasted Redhot
If you need to be more convinced just gather more data. I know this is a small data set (only 1000 kills in each area)
Someone that know what a small sample is. This alone give your data credibility seeing you know there could be something off and put you miles ahead of others on forum who claim to have done a "statistical study" with same, less or barely more.
 
Top