I think it would have then but now it is likely too late. People jumped ship early and those of us who stayed to try and work it out now just feel stuck.
1 Like
I send gold to companies that need help with upkeep. Especially if they are just.
Maybe this is a case of AGS reviewing the costs of running a settlement. It needs to be profitable but should allow for some freedom for companies to be fairer in regards to setting taxes.
Even setting taxes on low should give companies some tidy profit, if itâs too much of a struggle, maybe AGS need to tweak the numbers a bit.
Yes and with the current gameâs design PvE players are required to engage in PvP regardless of if there are PvP centric players or not so I am not sure what youâre upset about here if it goes both ways.
If you want PvE to influence faction control without PvP then surely you will also advocate for PvP players being able to get BIS gear/consumables/trophies from exclusively PvP content also?
Thank you for proving my own point for me.
1 Like
An honest question is:
What does the ability for the governing company to set the taxes really add to the game?
I donât think it adds anything at all. Much to the contrary, it detracts from the game becase of the potential to create toxic environments. The governing company should earn unchangeable (low or average) taxes by default. Thatâs enough incentive for companies to govern a territory. We donât need the ability to change taxes.
2 Likes
Why would I not be okay with this? The best gear in a game like this should be pvp gear. I also think gear shouldnât lose durability during PvP
Thank you, this is an interesting point.
I guess the taxes are for the whole player-run economy concept. But is it really needed?
That is the question.
1 Like
At the moment, if we donât like the taxes set, we fight for the zone. Every other day. I like this system. It pushes the people running the zone to either change their ways or lose the zone eventually. Yâall arenât taking into the account the cost (mentally and gold wise) of actually fighting the wars. itâs tiring, and expensive (t5 food, t5 pots, t5 balms, t5 honing stones, etc.) ESPECIALLY if your guild is more pvp focused and you need to buy these items because youâre focused on pushing your watermark to stay pvp relevant.
What I wonât like is streamers getting zones for being streamers, for example.
What I also wouldnât like is being that streamer with a zone, an entire group server hopping to the server just to vote me out of the zone and troll in the chat.
At the moment, the work you put in is reflected. A democratic system has no traces of this as far as I can think about it. Nothing anyone has posted here seems to change that either.
Even in a player run economy the adjustment of taxes add nothing in terms of intersting play of the game or the market. Even if they do or did, I donât think it outweights the toxicity it creates. The ability to set taxes should be removed from the game. Default taxes should be left instead with either low or average values.
? the best gear in the game is dependent on what youâre doing at the time. If you go into the sprig arena without anti sprig gear youâre going to get faded.
Conversely, if you go into pvp without respective pvp counter gear, youâre going to get faded.
âbestâ is only dictated by what youâre doing at the moment. Itâs why so many people are having problems finding a meta(i am glad for this), too many counters.
Just want you to take a minute and understand what youâre advocating for as this change would instantly make the economy even worse and make territories even less able to sustain income than in their current state.
Okay do you want me advocating for nice things for you or not likeâŚmake up your mind.
this implies there isnât a way to push out companies that hold zones. If your faction is incapable of doing this, put in the work to be able to. They are putting in work to be able to hold the town.
Iâm getting a lot of âwe want low taxes and all crafting stationsâ vibes from this thread and I donât personally like it because it would destroy the current economy setting of the game.
If you are more focused on pve, crafting, donât want to do siege- band together with other like minded people, pick several killers from your faction and start juicing them up. Youâd be SURPRISED what even 10 people can do to 50 when they are juiced, slappin and clappin.
this is to say that you are just as important as someone who likes âpve onlyâ as someone fighting in the wars. You supply them, so they can focus on whatever it is they need to focus on(for us, itâs currently gear and constant fighting so we can experience more builds/etc. and flesh out our craft).
She asked me if I would advocate for the best gear/consummables/and trophies to be from PVP content. Thatâs what I was responding to. Its almost 5am here so excuse me if Iâm not being perfectly clear.
PVP content should reward you PvP players with the best stuff. There is that better?
Except nobody has actually said that so maybe youâre reading it into what weâre saying.
The best stuff in what setting?
There are several different avenues that require different âBISâ gears. BIS for pvp wonât be BIS for arenas. If that makes sense. Are you implying that BIS from pvp should also be BIS for arenas?
Furthermore, this would take away from craters, which I do not want. At the moment, BIS pvp gear (for me) is crafted. I want to keep it this way as it creates dependency between my craters and I AND anyone who does NOT do this will be set back. This creates a full circle.
yeah no one has said it but thatâs the vibe iâm getting:
âintegrity and fairnessâ I read as âdo what we say or you donât get thisâ.
So far the majority of complaints I read on a daily basis is âwhy hasnât x made a T5 x yet? Why are taxes so high?â Technically these two things are counter intuitive. You cannot have both but based on the above statements, I assume itâs what is wanted.
I implore yâall to take a look at the governors table and desk inside the town halls in each town. It will give you SOME(not all) insight as to costs, profits, etc.
Look the real point is, they said that as if I dont actually want PvP players to have nice things. They were implying that I only care about the PvE experience. So, Iâm trying to say, yes I care about your experience too, so if you (the other person) BIS gear to come solely from PvP content then I will back you.
If you (actual you) want particulars on what that other person wants youâll need to ask them. All I was trying to get across is that I want PvP players to have a wonderful in game experience too.
But this is a natural part of running a settlement with citizens. I see Windsward as my home. I have a house there and I pay my taxes. I do the boards and mostly quest in Windsward.
The company that runs it is like a faceless master to me. They can upgrade what they want and set the taxes as they want, but I have no say in my own home settlement.
Just from a game system point of view, your citizens should be happy or they have a chance to vote-kick you from leadership. Integrity and fairness just means the money goes towards upgrading things and not letting the settlement stagnate.
1 Like
reading this post, Iâm imagining a setting where there is no reason to use pvp run towns because the pve run towns can do everything that is asked of them or they get voted out. Without the people asking for this understanding how the current system works and why what is asked of the pvp run towns(currently) arenât as they are asked for.
EG. âWhy arenât all of these stations t5?â: cost and cooldowns
âWhy are taxes so highâ: we want to make a profit for WHATEVER reason(likely funding more wars, as they are expensive) as well as continuing to upgrade the town into a capitol.
I ASSUME based on what I read in game and on this forum that these are the two things that will be asked against of a democratic based system. AS thatâs what the perspective of âfairâ and âintegralâ is.
Which would mean, there is no reason to use pvp towns, which means they do not generate profit, which means the ONLY reason to do them is pvp then let them decline because there are not sufficient taxes coming into the town to run it.
Yeah for me, good leadership of a territory consists of 1. Defending the territory, 2. Upgrading on a regular basis as funds are available, and 3. not setting the taxes to max with zero explanation.
1 Like