Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Did you know:

That "gods and spirits" is a popular Achura and Minmatar expression of disbelief?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Author Topic: FW LP Tax  (Read 3358 times)

ValentinaDLM

  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
  • Totally a Toaster
FW LP Tax
« on: 25 Jan 2016, 08:42 »

Because, I don't want to ruin Utari's thread, and derail it from his CSM topic, I decided to start a new thread to address some issues brought up in it.

I simply couldn't disagree more with Nieyli's position on this. I have been a Director, then later CEO of Zaratha Zarati (at the time a LS Pirate group), and a Director of Pyre Falcon Defence and Security, and now Cofounder of #2LC a Minmatar FW coalition, Alliance leader for Of Questionable Repute and CEO of Khushakor clan. So needless to say I have been involved on many levels with corporation and alliance funding.

Bottom up funding, is incredibly important to corporations between 15-100 in size, that aren't part of a major alliance or coalition. Smaller corporations very regularly put taxes on line members, and during my time (on an alt) in Skulldogs. which was in Red.Overlord we even went to 100% taxes during CTAs. This was very normal. The vast majority of corporations do this sort of funding system. It has been provided by CCP so that corporations can grow.

In Faction Warfare, you have a large amount of new people coming in, with very little in the way of funding, and even less knowledge of doctrine fittings, and likely without logistic alts of their own. This compounds the problem dramatically for newer and smaller corporations, which many times struggle to grow and find their way, while not being a very big roadblock for very large corps/alliance or for very small groups that don't have very many needs.

There are several problems with the assertions made in that other thread. The assumption is Corps use funds for SRP, while many corps do use a form of SRP and my own does SRP in the form of giving out fit ships for doctrines or to newer players, But Capital investments and heavy assets (Like those JFs for the services mentioned in the other thread) are the biggest reasons corporations need these income sources. In small corps, being able to fund a dread might be difficult on the players level, but in a nullsec corp, it isn't very difficult at all, and it is all the funding method. Large corporations and alliance can protect moons, but smaller ones simply cannot.

Also, many people simply don't have the gametime to run FW missions, and they can be very difficult for the solo player in the current state of Minmatar or Caldari Faction warfare due to the recent changes that were made. While it is still possible for a older player to run those missions in a bomber, for newer players this isn't very viable, combined with the fact that in low tiers it isn't terribly profitable. Also it exposes people, especially newer players to a great deal of risk when done solo. But, in proper mission fleets they have to contribute a great deal of time to it. Running plexes also pays very little in tier 1 and not enough to support higher end ships in tier 2.

To say that there shouldn't be bottom up funding methods available to Faction Warfare corporations is very elitist and hurts those new players who aren't self sufficient yet. My alliance has had over 9 Billion isk lost so far this month, not to mention about 4 billion in investments and 1.2 billion in heavy assets. So, who if not the members collectively should share the burden of that? Should we have to get Sov, and upgrade a system, just so that we can get a way to provide isk that can be properly taxed so that the corporation can have isk? For the Record, that is exactly what we had to do. We also had to get moons in order to keep this up, and guess what Snuff Box has just RFed one of our moons, does my 70 person alliance have any chance at keeping that moon? No, no we don't, but we shouldn't even have to be getting into that sort of thing, incursion corps don't have to, nullsec corps don't have to, mission runners don't have to, etc.

In my opinion, all denying bottom up funding methods does is allow large moon and sov holding entities to farm their space with impunity, while preventing smaller groups from being able to compete in a reasonable fashion.
Logged

Utari Onzo

  • The Mods
  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
  • Dank Meme Consumer
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #1 on: 25 Jan 2016, 09:48 »

I can only reiterate my support for an LP tax option, as mentioned in the other thread. Top down income is great if you can start it off, but for the vast majority of corps/alliances it is supplimental in nature. It is as true for a corp in the CFC/Imperium (I was in a small-mid size corp that relied on bottom up funding before it could start its own moon mining operation) as it's true for a wormhole corp.

To recap from the other thread, my idea was that there is a seperate tax mechanic in place, so you can set an lp tax rate and an isk tax rate individually to cater to needs. This includes the option of no tax at all if that's what is felt to be appropriate.
« Last Edit: 25 Jan 2016, 09:52 by Utari Onzo »
Logged
"Face the enemy as a solid wall
For faith is your armor
And through it, the enemy will find no breach
Wrap your arms around the enemy
For faith is your fire
And with it, burn away his evil"


PTB is recruiting

Mitara Newelle

  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #2 on: 25 Jan 2016, 10:48 »

+1 vote for ability to tax LP.
Logged
Section 3) Shitposting. "The cluster would be a much better place if all Amarrians were set on fire"

Deitra Vess

  • Immature Quasi Terrorist Interceptor Pilot
  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #3 on: 25 Jan 2016, 11:30 »

+1 on the idea.

In addition to the obvious isk faucet aspect it also promotes corps/alliances using their own race's ships (why pay market prices for slicers to supply as a doctrine to your corp when you get hookbills to hand out for relatively dirt cheap via lp)
Logged

Pieter Tuulinen

  • Tacklebitch
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 662
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #4 on: 25 Jan 2016, 15:51 »

I suppose it might be necessary for some corps, but I'm not at all sure I'd bother flying for a Corp that made me plex and  then taxed me.

In other news, FW should really award more LP for kills and less for circling da butan.
Logged

ValentinaDLM

  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
  • Totally a Toaster
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #5 on: 25 Jan 2016, 20:06 »

I suppose it might be necessary for some corps, but I'm not at all sure I'd bother flying for a Corp that made me plex and  then taxed me.

In other news, FW should really award more LP for kills and less for circling da butan.

I absolutely agree here, the current system basically is Missions>Plexing>PVP but, while plexing has an impact on the WZ somewhat, and PVP has a pretty big impact, missions don't have any at all while being the largest source of LP. This part is kinda messed up, ideally PVP should have the largest LP gains, but it needs to be a way that isn't exploitable.

My idea on exploitability was take the base LP payouts we have now, and treat players more like an ihub, for each player you kill and collect LP for you create a LP bounty pool for yourself when you are killed. This means if Rude X kills 50 people and has 1 loss he should pay out quite a bit, assuming he was killing other active PVPers.

Also interesting you should mention racial ships, Dietra, we are running a slicer doctrine recently for Novices, and we didn't really want to deploy it before due to the isk cost involved (Our slicers cost several million isk more than our caracal or rupture fits after all), but now that Amarr are winning the Warzone we felt that it would start to be cheap soon to buy them off the market. So Corporate level purchasing choices are certainly being made with LP and tier in mind. We would have a much larger incentive to stick with firetails however, if we had a corporate supply of LP.
Logged

Deitra Vess

  • Immature Quasi Terrorist Interceptor Pilot
  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #6 on: 25 Jan 2016, 20:30 »

Ya, that's what I was thinking it would also support the "purists" by adding an incentive to fly their corp's mother militia. Not to mention cut costs down for doctrines to be handed out. To branch out from this they could also add more variety into the navy ships (rf breacher for example) to flesh out the different races. That or allow, I don't know, "captured" ships when a system flips that has a lp store for an opposing militia with a different color scheme reflecting the capturing militia ("captured augorer navy issue").
Logged

Rin Valador

  • The one who cant sit still
  • Clonejack
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #7 on: 25 Jan 2016, 21:29 »

A rust bucket with an imperial paint job is just a rust bucket with fresh paint :/



Serious note it would most likely be implimented as a skin if such a thing were in the pipeworks of CCP.
Logged
On the internet no one knows you are a giraffe... no one...

Ria Nieyli

  • Delicate Feminine Flower
  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #8 on: 03 Feb 2016, 06:28 »

100% tax during CTA is used to check who's ratting when they shouldn't be and purge them.
Logged

Ria Nieyli

  • Delicate Feminine Flower
  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #9 on: 03 Feb 2016, 06:36 »

To say that there shouldn't be bottom up funding methods available to Faction Warfare corporations is very elitist and hurts those new players who aren't self sufficient yet. My alliance has had over 9 Billion isk lost so far this month, not to mention about 4 billion in investments and 1.2 billion in heavy assets. So, who if not the members collectively should share the burden of that? Should we have to get Sov, and upgrade a system, just so that we can get a way to provide isk that can be properly taxed so that the corporation can have isk? For the Record, that is exactly what we had to do. We also had to get moons in order to keep this up, and guess what Snuff Box has just RFed one of our moons, does my 70 person alliance have any chance at keeping that moon? No, no we don't, but we shouldn't even have to be getting into that sort of thing, incursion corps don't have to, nullsec corps don't have to, mission runners don't have to, etc.

In my opinion, all denying bottom up funding methods does is allow large moon and sov holding entities to farm their space with impunity, while preventing smaller groups from being able to compete in a reasonable fashion.

Ok, so here's the problem. Out of those 9b lost, how much on average is lost per member (A) and what's the average monthly tax income per member (B). If B>A, that's disincentivising me to join your corp. I'd be paying you for content that I can find myself. At that point I'm a customer, not a member.
Logged

Jev North

  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #10 on: 03 Feb 2016, 06:55 »

Don't forget C, the opportunity cost of buying, fitting, and schlepping around your own replacement ships.
Logged
Pinocchio forces another handful of flesh into his tiny wooden mouth. "You are what you eat," he sobs. "You are what you eat."

Ria Nieyli

  • Delicate Feminine Flower
  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #11 on: 03 Feb 2016, 07:02 »

Multibuy, courier services and fitting a ship at the click of a button. C might as well not be there. Regardless, if you're paying someone to be your friend, he's not your friend.
« Last Edit: 03 Feb 2016, 07:04 by Colonel Nieyli »
Logged

ValentinaDLM

  • Wetgraver
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
  • Totally a Toaster
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #12 on: 03 Feb 2016, 08:40 »

The average loss of a ship is irrelevant since there is a lot more to funding a corp than SRP, who finds the transit of the ships? Who funds heavy assets like bridging ships, staging towers, structures and structure upgrades, etc.

In our case SRP is done thru handing out pre-fit doctrine ships, so there is also the time and energy to fit the ships too not just move the parts.
You seem to be making the argument that taxes are disincentive because they provide nothing more than SRP but that simply isn't true, if it were than any player with a reasonable income would have no reason to be in a corp at all.
Logged

The Rook

  • Watcher in the Void
  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
    • FalconNET
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #13 on: 03 Feb 2016, 09:04 »

Multibuy, courier services and fitting a ship at the click of a button. C might as well not be there. Regardless, if you're paying someone to be your friend, he's not your friend.

All those things basically do themselves in the timeframe of 10 minutes!

Anyways, taxing LP is long overdue. You'll find out who taxes too much quite quickly - if it's not worth it, go somewhere else.
« Last Edit: 03 Feb 2016, 09:09 by The Rook »
Logged

Ria Nieyli

  • Delicate Feminine Flower
  • Egger
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: FW LP Tax
« Reply #14 on: 03 Feb 2016, 12:18 »

Ok, so what else do taxes provide?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5