Ragnarlee_Prime Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Though I am against the idea of Solar rails altogether, I can see OP's point. These "Solar Rails" are a business, they are there to be fought over. They are the rights to land that bears oil in our modern economy. They should have a tax, and the fact that everyone is just making them tax free is stupid. there is no reason to fight over nothing, well you could just have your clan symbol on a mission as a huge billboard advertising your clan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[DE]Momaw Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I WILL be attacking a 0% rail, and when your 0-tax policy fails to pay for your rail's damages, we WILL rule the system. Enjoy. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your 30% take of the zero credits I earn from [not] playing on rails you "rule", and the reputation as tyrant and warmonger which you will acquire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatantfool Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your 30% take of the zero credits I earn from [not] playing on rails you "rule", and the reputation as tyrant and warmonger which you will acquire. Where did he say he'd even want to charge 30%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakim0n0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your 30% take of the zero credits I earn from [not] playing on rails you "rule", and the reputation as tyrant and warmonger which you will acquire. It all depends on the missions. If after the tax you're making significantly more money and loot why wouldn't you run the mission? Spite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[DE]Momaw Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 If after the tax you're making significantly more money and loot why wouldn't you run the mission? Spite? - Party A offers a thing for free - Party B forcefully takes control of the free thing, and starts charging for it - Party B is surprised that nobody likes them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToeSama Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) It all depends on the missions. If after the tax you're making significantly more money and loot why wouldn't you run the mission? Spite? You expect WAY too much from people. People will spite other people for no good reason, such as they don't like the way they wear their clothes... Edited April 14, 2014 by ToeSama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakim0n0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 - Party A offers a thing for free - Party B forcefully takes control of the free thing, and starts charging for it - Party B is surprised that nobody likes them It all depends on the missions. If after the tax >>>>you're making significantly more money and loot<<<<< why wouldn't you run the mission? Spite? I posted it again because it seemed like you totally missed it. If party a offers a thing for free party b takes it and starts charging for it, but in the end the PAYOUT IMPROVES why is that a bad thing? If the pay goes down, ok... I can see why it'd be a bad thing. That's why I said it depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakim0n0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 You expect WAY too much from people. People will spite other people for no good reason, such as they don't like the way they wear their clothes... It's expecting too much from people to understand that getting more is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToeSama Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 It's expecting too much from people to understand that getting more is better? I do believe that answers your own question though. What's better than getting 70%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[DE]Momaw Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 party b takes it and starts charging for it, but in the end the PAYOUT IMPROVES why is that a bad thing? If the pay goes down, ok... I can see why it'd be a bad thing. That's why I said it depends. I am completely baffled as to where you think this extra money is coming from. If a mission pays 100 credits and there is zero tax, then I take home 100 credits. If you charge 20% tax, you take 20 credits and I take 80. There is not MORE money, the only thing that changes is how it's distributed. Battle pay? Okay, you can exceed the mission rewards by offering battle pay but a.) that's not sustainable and b.) it would be funded by the taxes that people paid into the system. At absolute best it is a deferred payout of the same amount you would have gotten from running the mission with no taxes. There is no investment. There is no compounding interest. Where is this "improvement" supposedly coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakim0n0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) I am completely baffled as to where you think this extra money is coming from. If a mission pays 100 credits and there is zero tax, then I take home 100 credits. If you charge 20% tax, you take 20 credits and I take 80. There is not MORE money, the only thing that changes is how it's distributed. Battle pay? Okay, you can exceed the mission rewards by offering battle pay but a.) that's not sustainable and b.) it would be funded by the taxes that people paid into the system. At absolute best it is a deferred payout of the same amount you would have gotten from running the mission with no taxes. There is no investment. There is no compounding interest. Where is this "improvement" supposedly coming from? What? If the battlepay overshadows the tax and you walk away with more rewards for the same time of play how is that "not sustainable"? What part of "it depends" do you guys have such a hard time comprehending? Serious question, do you think alliances are paying the battlepay now? If they are, how is taking zero tax "sustainable" exactly? I do believe that answers your own question though. What's better than getting 70%? What's better, getting 100% of 100 or 70% of 200? Edited April 14, 2014 by Bakim0n0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeAura Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 What? If the battlepay overshadows the tax and you walk away with more rewards for the same time of play how is that "not sustainable"? What part of "it depends" do you guys have such a hard time comprehending? Serious question, do you think alliances are paying the battlepay now? If they are, how is taking zero tax "sustainable" exactly? If the battle pay overshadows the tax the vault the battle pay is paid from runs dry. That is unsustainable. If they don't take more money from people than they pay them they run out of money. What's better, getting 100% of 100 or 70% of 200? Except it's not 100 and 200. It's 100 and 100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakim0n0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 If the battle pay overshadows the tax the vault the battle pay is paid from runs dry. That is unsustainable. If they don't take more money from people than they pay them they run out of money. Except it's not 100 and 200. It's 100 and 100. And again; if the battle pay is coming from the vaults than HOW IS COLLECTING NO TAX AT ALL SUSTAINABLE? Again, it depends on if the amount can be adjusted. Seriously try READING my comments. Notice words like "if" and "depends" before you reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[DE]Momaw Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 And again; if the battle pay is coming from the vaults than HOW IS COLLECTING NO TAX AT ALL SUSTAINABLE? If you didn't attack, there would be no need to defend, and no battle pay being spent. = Sustainable. It's depressing that everybody saying "But you can't actually run it that way!" fails to see that the reason it can't be run that way is because they themselves screw it up with their greed and aggression. If the whole community wanted rails to be free, there's no current obstacle to running them free. But a few bad apples rots the whole bushel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morec0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 If you didn't attack, there would be no need to defend, and no battle pay being spent. = Sustainable. It's depressing that everybody saying "But you can't actually run it that way!" fails to see that the reason it can't be run that way is because they themselves screw it up with their greed and aggression. If the whole community wanted rails to be free, there's no current obstacle to running them free. But a few bad apples rots the whole bushel. More like a few bad apples add something new to the game rather than just more farming spots, something which a large group of the playbase, myself included, wouldn't mind seeing. Sorry if you disagree with our policies, but Commies have no place in space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakim0n0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 If you didn't attack, there would be no need to defend, and no battle pay being spent. = Sustainable. It's depressing that everybody saying "But you can't actually run it that way!" fails to see that the reason it can't be run that way is because they themselves screw it up with their greed and aggression. If the whole community wanted rails to be free, there's no current obstacle to running them free. But a few bad apples rots the whole bushel. And as BlatantFool pointed out; we'll see how those tax free rails respond to seeing repair costs. You say that it's bad apples, but some people just want things to be *INTERESTING* If we were just going to have permanent free rails and nobody ever attacks it then what's the point of even adding them to the game? DE should've just given us new nodes. I'm not saying "oh this can't work this way" I'm simply saying that the community is going to go with what is in their best interest. If I'm going to run missions *I am going to fight for who pays me more* period. If they stop paying me more than someone else I stop fighting for them. That's all I ever said, and for some reason you seem to think I'm part of the "it wont work that way" crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeAura Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) And again; if the battle pay is coming from the vaults than HOW IS COLLECTING NO TAX AT ALL SUSTAINABLE? Again, it depends on if the amount can be adjusted. Seriously try READING my comments. Notice words like "if" and "depends" before you reply. Because if the cost of battle pay > income of tax then the vault runs dry. But it can't and that'd be pretty silly and downright backwards if it could. Taxing isn't meant to benefit everyone. That's not how this kind of system works. Edited April 14, 2014 by LukeAura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barbetti Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 - Party A offers a thing for free - Party B forcefully takes control of the free thing, and starts charging for it - Party B is surprised that nobody likes them - Party A offers a thing for free. - Party B also offers the same thing for free. - The main thing behind the Dark Sectors becomes pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakim0n0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Because if the cost of battle pay > income of tax then the vault runs dry. But it can't and that'd be pretty silly and downright backwards if it could. Taxing isn't meant to benefit everyone. That's not how this kind of system works. You make a very good point. That you don't even read what you respond to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buuli Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 And now someone do a South Park "If you don't like taxes, you can just GGGET OUT!"-meme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeAura Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 That you don't even read what you respond to. I can't find it actually. But it sounds like you're suggesting a system in which raising tax increases the payout at the node. In which case there is still a theoretical optimal for players, which will become the new 0% the whole system will be balanced except it will also reinforce the clan giving out the optimal level making it harder for it to be taken as now the clan can provide a battle pay and still give out the 0% rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altale Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 but some people just want things to be *INTERESTING* Ding ding ding. I don't want to keep playing on infested survival/defence when I've been doing the same thing for over a year now. If tax-free rails rule the system, the Dark Sectors are nothing more than glorified infested missions with slightly better rewards. I LIKE the idea of competition that arises from rival alliances duking it out for a Dark Sector node. It motivates players to do something (other than grinding/scamming people), and turns the game into something more than a space potato farming simulator, where things actually happen. TEAM CHAOS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatpig84 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) Note. DE never said anything about other PvE factions not invading. In fact the tweets seems to hint there will be. So you could be 0% then suddenly Salad V and his cronies decide to set up shop, and offer 50k battle pay with unlimited coffers while your side struggles to cough up the 200m minimum to sustain a battle. You chase them off, but they damage the rail and you have to fix it again. Edited April 14, 2014 by fatpig84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakim0n0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I can't find it actually. But it sounds like you're suggesting a system in which raising tax increases the payout at the node. In which case there is still a theoretical optimal for players, which will become the new 0% the whole system will be balanced except it will also reinforce the clan giving out the optimal level making it harder for it to be taken as now the clan can provide a battle pay and still give out the 0% rate. And again; if the battle pay is coming from the vaults than HOW IS COLLECTING NO TAX AT ALL SUSTAINABLE? Serious? You quoted it in that response. You said if the taxes don't meet the battle pay it's not sustainable... And yeah, that's exactly what I said... if there are NO TAXES COLLECTED then the tax > battle pay and the vault runs dry. So you basically retorted my point *with* my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggh Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 (edited) If you didn't attack, there would be no need to defend, and no battle pay being spent. = Sustainable. It's depressing that everybody saying "But you can't actually run it that way!" fails to see that the reason it can't be run that way is because they themselves screw it up with their greed and aggression. If the whole community wanted rails to be free, there's no current obstacle to running them free. But a few bad apples rots the whole bushel. It was inevitable and tbh, the system was designed to work out this way so I don't know this is coming as a surprise to some people. Besides, if we don't have contested towers we wouldn't get to see the Orokin Tenno spectres :| Edited April 14, 2014 by Aggh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now