What's new

Fixing issue with ppl not playing and keep paying taxes.

prego_kamata

Active Member
Properties are not going to start requiring direct gold to pay them.
You're asking us to eliminate an item and its entire purpose for the sake of stopping people keeping what is theirs so easily.

Making it cost gold also isn't going to be a solution to your problem. People will burn labor a different way to afford the gold. Or its made expensive enough they can't do that and casual players suffer the penalty with many unhappy of how expensive it is to hold properties
You cannot stop people from owning properties that don't actively play without forcing activity as a requirement because people will find a way around it.
Properties are not going to start requiring direct gold to pay them- they dont have to

1 Making it cost gold also isn't going to be a solution to your problem - are u sure ????>
the problem with taxes are few and here they are :
- people can create endless ALT accounts each of them using different IP thru every VPN program
and now with this new Labor market system what they have to do its just go to the nearest community center using theyr main account and put an offer of lets say 1 gold for crafting 100 tax certs and do the job with any of theyr ALT accounts ,and no wonder my neighbor in Halcy has 10 exactly the same copy-paste houses next to each other and another 15 farms on the other side of the road (he is not using any of them tho he just owns them cuz he can ) it is impossible to maintain the 20+ propertys he owns with the labor from 1 account regardless if he is using labor stipends etc.

2-You cannot stop people from owning properties that don't actively play without forcing activity as a requirement because people will find a way around it - i dont think so and here is why :
the main issue here is that the price for crafting the un-bound tax certificate is very low i think its about 3/4 silver per stack of 5
this price needs to be increased to 2 gold per tax cert or 10 gold per stack of 5 and by doing so it will be irrelevant how many alt accounts u will own because even if the labor for crafting gets down to 180 lp per stack of 5 the price of 10 gold will remain

3- casual players suffer the penalty with many unhappy of how expensive it is to hold properties -are they ??? :
As a casual player i ca tell u that i have no problem with the taxes . i own 5 24x24 that go under the heavy taxation each costing 75 tax certs per week , 3 cash shop gazebos each at 15 tax certs weekly and 3 cash shop 8x8 at 5 certs x week each or a total of 435 tax certs, thats 15660 lp weekly for taxes (at 230k proficiency).
the price for crafting the bound certs which is i thing around 5 copper per stack of 5 certs the casual player will not suffer at all

my point here is - keep the price of the bound certs the same
- increase the price if the un-bound certs to 10 gold per stack of 5 by doing this it wont matter on how many accounts the player is gonna craft the tax certs since he cannot transfer bound tax certs to hes main account he will still have to pay the 10 gold per 5 cert
and the problem will be fixed because after the 5th property u get penalty tax rate (ithink it was 500%) if we increase this rate it will make the player spend all of hes weekly labor on taxes or spend gold on land that he does not use
 
Last edited:

prego_kamata

Active Member
Bingo ! Why not make some type of plants like the experia plants that give you housing xp instead of guild xp and you have to plant and pick so many too keep the xp up or lose the land.

You are using the land or losing the land !

Also, get rid of any type of properties that you are unable to plant on, they are obviously useless if you can not plant on them so people can see you are using them.
instead of making an experia -like plants they can make it the way guild mechanic works , a system that measures the taxes u pay,community center tasks, farmer workstation quests and why not vocation xp gained as well - as an Land ownership XP that resets every week at lvl 4 allowing you to own 4 propertys if u dont lvl up your Land ownership again to the requiered lvl to not be able to pay taxes for more than 4 propertys
 

Zeirlynn

Member
This is a strange conversation. The original argument is invalid because there is a lot of empty land in various areas, room for manors and mansions with adjacent land even, if you just look around for a few minutes. If anything there is more of a problem with people grabbing empty land just to sell it than there is with people holding on to land and not using it, but that would be a different conversation to get in to.

Also, it has gone from "we need to do something about people who have land but don't use it" to "let's drastically change the whole system and punish everyone who is active daily and using all their land every day by making them do something completely different to pay for it just because it's fun to change things."

What's needed is a system that will free up land if the owner doesn't log in for an extended amount of time. Something that requires them to log in periodically, more often depending on how much land they own, like maybe once a day or so, and use their labor, more labor the more land they have, in order to keep their land. If they don't log in periodically and use their labor, their buildings eventually disappear and that land becomes available for someone else to claim for free. I dunno, something like... the tax certificate system we already have? It seems to work just fine as far as i can tell.
 

Trixiy

Member
This is a strange conversation. The original argument is invalid because there is a lot of empty land in various areas, room for manors and mansions with adjacent land even, if you just look around for a few minutes. If anything there is more of a problem with people grabbing empty land just to sell it than there is with people holding on to land and not using it, but that would be a different conversation to get in to.

Also, it has gone from "we need to do something about people who have land but don't use it" to "let's drastically change the whole system and punish everyone who is active daily and using all their land every day by making them do something completely different to pay for it just because it's fun to change things."

What's needed is a system that will free up land if the owner doesn't log in for an extended amount of time. Something that requires them to log in periodically, more often depending on how much land they own, like maybe once a day or so, and use their labor, more labor the more land they have, in order to keep their land. If they don't log in periodically and use their labor, their buildings eventually disappear and that land becomes available for someone else to claim for free. I dunno, something like... the tax certificate system we already have? It seems to work just fine as far as i can tell.
This was never about people having land and not using it nor was it ever about no land for newbies, this has ever been and will ever be about people who want to expand on the land they already have but there are others in the way and it pisses them off because they don't even seem to play.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Drunkenhero

Active Member
This is a strange conversation. The original argument is invalid because there is a lot of empty land in various areas, room for manors and mansions with adjacent land even, if you just look around for a few minutes. If anything there is more of a problem with people grabbing empty land just to sell it than there is with people holding on to land and not using it, but that would be a different conversation to get in to.

Also, it has gone from "we need to do something about people who have land but don't use it" to "let's drastically change the whole system and punish everyone who is active daily and using all their land every day by making them do something completely different to pay for it just because it's fun to change things."

What's needed is a system that will free up land if the owner doesn't log in for an extended amount of time. Something that requires them to log in periodically, more often depending on how much land they own, like maybe once a day or so, and use their labor, more labor the more land they have, in order to keep their land. If they don't log in periodically and use their labor, their buildings eventually disappear and that land becomes available for someone else to claim for free. I dunno, something like... the tax certificate system we already have? It seems to work just fine as far as i can tell.
Pretty sure changing it to a closed system would be better than what it is currently. Patron is free here that is one wall totally bypassed , moving it to something untradable while still retaining something in its place that can earn players something being either gold or rewards is what it should be. It should not be free to claim, it should still cost something and active play holding more value would boost the server. As far as anyone thinking the current tax system is ok, well enjoy your opinion.
 

Alkapwn

New Member
You are playing white knight for the people that we complain about even though you have nothing to do with it. So why do you think you have the right to discuss things that don't affect you but I don't ?
Remember when you called me selfish ? 🤦‍♂️

Reason I'm here is because when I played, I was really annoyed by my ghost neighbour. And I think it makes more sense to have the devs act in favor of an active player rather than someone clearly neither playing nor returning.
This is your problem. There is plenty of land. I just started playing this game like 2 or 3 months ago. I started the account and character a few years ago, but didn't get to play due to life stuff. I just started actually playing like 3 months ago, no land before that and I have had no problem finding land just by looking. There is no problem to be solved here. You are trying to manufacture a problem because of something you want and think it's okay to forcibly take it from people who aren't breaking any rules. Even worse, it boils down to you want to spend your effort whining and playing the victim in an attempt to convince the devs to do the forcing on your behalf when you could easily just spend that effort looking for land in other locations and already have achieved your goal.

I had to make an account and post in here after seeing that responsiveness and opinions do affect the devs willingness to consider an issue. I agree with the vast majority here that the way it currently works with taxes is just fine and no changes are needed.
 

trapwhre02

Well-Known Member
Great! You took the time to create an account and to reply to me - what an honor. I wish you had put the same amount of time into reading anything.
  1. Nobody cares about your history of character creation and what you've been up to irl.
  2. I don't play anymore and already wasn't when I gave my first input here so no, I'm not trying to benefit from this thread the slightest.
  3. You clearly didn't read past page 1 of this thread, which I can tell by multiple of your statesment as they stand in conflict with what was said here.
  4. Availability of land isn't the issue as me and others have already tried to explain a dozen of times. Yet people like you with the inability to read still grow from the ground like weeds and try to make us look like the bad guys when we just found something we aren't satisfied with and are simply asking the devs to act in favor of active players over inactive ones. If that is an issue for you, then give us solid counter-arguments why everything should stay as it is. Saying "There's plenty of land, everything is fine." would be one if it didn't miss the point entirely.
  5. I'm not asking for forced removal of player property. What I'm asking for is to make it more challenging for inactive players to keep their stuff, as right now they don't put any effort into it.
  6. You talk about a vast majority being against the suggested changes, but at the same time you say the devs consider changing something. Don't you think that this doesn't add up ? I think the devs know that the majority you speak of, are people like you or others who misunderstood our intentions and were worried about losing land when they are unwillingly restricted from playing for a few weeks. So don't make me the root of your reply and instead, try to convince them otherwise. You're just wasting my time and yours by talking to someone that isn't affected by either outcome.

This thread had already died and you just revived it. Thanks for giving it another spark and fueling the discussion. 👏
 
Last edited:

Alkapwn

New Member
Great! You took the time to create an account and to reply to me - what an honor. I wish you had put the same amount of time into reading anything.
  1. Nobody cares about your history of character creation and what you've been up to irl.
  2. I don't play anymore and already wasn't when I gave my first input here so no, I'm not trying to benefit from this thread the slightest.
  3. You clearly didn't read past page 1 of this thread, which I can tell by multiple of your statesment as they stand in conflict with what was said here.
  4. Availability of land isn't the issue as me and others have already tried to explain a dozen of times. Yet people like you with the inability to read still grow from the ground like weeds and try to make us look like the bad guys when we just found something we aren't satisfied with and are simply asking the devs to act in favor of active players over inactive ones. If that is an issue for you, then give us solid counter-arguments why everything should stay as it is. Saying "There's plenty of land, everything is fine." would be one if it didn't miss the point entirely.
  5. I'm not asking for forced removal of player property. What I'm asking for is to make it more challenging for inactive players to keep their stuff, as right now they don't put any effort into it.
  6. You talk about a vast majority being against the suggested changes, but at the same time you say the devs consider changing something. Don't you think that this doesn't add up ? I think the devs know that the majority you speak of, are people like you or others who misunderstood our intentions and were worried about losing land when they are unwillingly restricted from playing for a few weeks. So don't make me the root of your reply and instead, try to convince them otherwise. You're just wasting my time and yours by talking to someone that isn't affected by either outcome.

This thread had already died and you just revived it. Thanks for giving it another spark and fueling the discussion. 👏
As far as #1 & 3: I read every post on every page, including Havoc's off-shoot and the divert on pg 4 going into accusations of allowing illegal alt accounts, and the dev's responses. Your own post I replied to is on pg 3 by the way. You use terms like "nobody cares", "You clearly can't read" and other insulting things whenever someone disagrees with you. As for conflicting comments, see me addressing #6 below because you're all over the place and it fits better there.

#2: If you don't even play anymore, then your whole point is, well, pointless. Multiple people have clarified the system works fine as it is, except a total of 3 other posters. 2 of them were also unable to see the perspective of others, yet demand everyone else come around to their perspective and got mad when people didn't. Only one seemed to be rational and when told no didn't go off in what seemed like an autistic tantrum.

#4 & 6: You like to throw out this can't read thing and get all offensive towards anyone who doesn't agree with you, but it's clear you and a couple others are the ones who either can't read or refuse to accept that the majority doesn't agree with you. I recommend you grow up. As stated in my post it's been made clear that the devs consider such changes if a majority demand it, so it makes sense to add my opinion / vote. This is not contradictory, the context seems to just be lost to you. Sjinderson stated right on page 2 the thread shows majority is not in your favor. I'm under the impression the "-ArcheRage Technical Support-" label makes it official; but maybe that's another hole in my reading comprehension.

#5: The manner which you seek to implement changes IS forcing it. There's plenty of land, maybe not all together as some would prefer, or in the most prime of spots, but those are challenges to overcome by being more frequent and consistent in your game. Operative concept here being about improving yourself instead of hindering others. Either remain vigilant in monitoring the demolish dates of land in places you want, or grow your resources to offer such a deal the current occupant may be willing to take notice next time they're on and sell it to you. These are just 2 paths to get prime land and I'm sure there are others. Just because a piece of land isn't certed doesn't mean it can't be sold. I used to send in-game mails offering to buy land all the time back in retail. Instead, it seems you choose not to utilize the other options available, request that the devs change mechanics to make what you want easier and get very rude to those who disagree with you. In essence you're seeking to hinder others who are being active enough to maintain their property instead of improving yourself.

I really don't care how butt hurt you are about any of the rest or if you play or not. The point has been made clearly, by multiple people and you're clearly not of sound mind to have a reasonable conversation about it. My post wasn't for you, it was to point out the problems in your perspective. You've confirmed enough of those problems and I'm not gonna engage you any further.
 

trapwhre02

Well-Known Member
My dear apologies for offending you.
  1. You tell me my points are pointless because I don't play anymore. I legit don't get it. If you in fact, did read everything at the time of your first post, then why did you decide to talk to someone who is a pointless attendant of the discussion. Talk with someone else then that has relevancy to you ?
  2. "Multiple people have clarified the system works fine as it is." No they haven't. In fact there were multiple people that have clarified it does not work fine as it is because we aren't live. The labor regen we have is far higher which makes it unintendedly easy to hoard land without playing. So we are facing something unintended by the original developers of the game and are discussing whether it's ok or should be changed. On live you have to pay a monthly fee of 12-15€/$ to even start regenerating labor when offline. And here you get four times that amount without the need to pay a penny.
  3. You complain how I offend you with what I said but then go and call everyone that shares my opinion (except for one), autistic - very mature.
  4. "I recommend you grow up." 🤔 Are you talking to yourself or me ?
  5. Sjinderson is the right hand of Sparkle but he has no autority to make changes or decisions on the matter.
  6. Legit said there's plenty of land, again. Makes me wonder why I still take my time to talk to you. If you think we haven't tried to buy the property next to ours then you are very ignorant. These players have no prices. They don't play anymore and don't give 2 fucks about how much gold is in their virtual bag. They just want to hold their property for reasons that are unknown to me. And yes genius, I know that you can ask to buy property when it isn't certed.
  7. "You choose [...] to [...] request that the devs change mechanics to make what you want easier" - For real dude, I just can't comprehend how you can type something like this and not be like "Hey wait a moment, that makes zero sense." You clearly are aware by now that I don't play anymore yet you still accuse me of asking the devs for something that I personally will benefit from. I'm supporting the original idea of havoc because I enjoyed my time here and would like to contribute to server health and spare others from what I was dissatisfied with in the past.
  8. No point has been made clearly, it is still up for debate. Otherwise the thread would be locked already.
  9. Yeah yeah, the post wasn't about me. Which is why you quoted my post in particular and even went on a little rant to accuse me of trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist, right ? Man up to your words, don't try to twist things around now.
  10. Please quote me where I confirmed anything. You're delusional at this point.

I'm fine with continuing the discussion. But if you wanna dip out already then go ahead.
 
Last edited:

Sjinderson

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Technical Assistant
I did say there wasn't a majority favour on page 2.
That was page 2. So that statement is not accurate after the fact when the thread is 5 pages in. A majority of under 2 pages of comments in a 5 page thread is not a majority of anything.
 

Alkapwn

New Member
I did say there wasn't a majority favour on page 2.
That was page 2. So that statement is not accurate after the fact when the thread is 5 pages in. A majority of under 2 pages of comments in a 5 page thread is not a majority of anything.
Are you saying that now more people do want this changed, after considering the additional pages and nearly 2 pages lost to the unauthorized alt accounts divert? Are you counting people who have voiced an opinion, or number of posts total? I'm curious, not trying to start anything. As I read through more people/accounts were against such a change than were for, even after your pg 2 post. There was a lot of "for" posts from the total of 8 players / accounts, compared to the 19 players who were against (Numbers updated after tally). I saw it was still close enough to worry me (before tally), so worth posting my opinion. Disregarding the divert about selectively allowing accounts that violate the terms and other non-relevant tangents the majority you mentioned (against such a change) continued through. Either way it makes it relevant to post for 2 reasons. First being that if it is close, each players opinion / vote holds more weight. Second being that if it isn't as close, on an issue that I do care about, it would be negligent to not add the opinion / vote to keep the scales leaned in the preferred direction.

In regards to any debate, 1/2 the mechanic is to point out why the other perspective is incorrect, which is what I did. I addressed each of the main arguments for changing this mechanic and also addressed the underlying destructive personality characteristics that lead to ideas based in a desire to take from others vs earning for yourself, or in other words focusing on destroying the work of others instead of improving yourself and your own work. Admittedly I absolutely do and always will make an enemy of such destructively-minded individuals and offer no apologies for it. It is too easy to get ahead by improving yourself, without seeking to destroy or steal what others have worked for, especially in a video game. The folks who just want to watch the world burn for the sake of it, or focus on tearing down what everyone else has built cannot be allowed to succeed. If such people are allowed to succeed it only creates a downward spiral to the most destructive common denominator.

I went back through the entire thread to tally the individuals / players and their stances. Some have examples, a couple were moved from one side to another as they defined their stance more clearly. There are 8 players for such a change, 19 against and 2 neutral. For the sake of fairness, even counting both neutral players as "for" it's still a 2:1 ratio against and a clear majority. Here's the tally info below for posteerity:

For change: 8
havockitty (OP)
trapwhre02
idealist
Vapewave
(Didn't clarify a side, jsut that Gweo isn't prime, but will credit "for" to be fair)
Drunkenhero (Change tax certs to Gilda stars and watch how easy it would be to weed out inactive people.)
plamp - Moved to "for" because agreement with Drunkenhero
Kenseii (there should be SOME kind of system to discourage holding a lot of lands and not playing the game at all.)
prego_kamata - multiple scenarios, seems to believe this is a problem


Against Change: 19
sjinderson (based on unnecessary work required)
axydus
papatuna
(don't think game needs to make it a job just to keep your land)
Trixiy
Thriem
( I think Havockitty made a good point but devs had a good counter point, seems like things will remain the same for now.)
RogueChoi
Sparkle
(We'll, however, keep this thread open, so you can keep the discussion going.)
jrch2k10 (I agree with sparkle, i found land all over the map in the last couple of weeks)
Aviendha
Mitis
(Yeah, this isn't a fix. I went two weeks with no internet because i moved across the country. We aren't missing the point; your "fix" isn't valid.)
Voidzero - Talks about redistributing other items first, reads like sarcasm illustrating the idiocy in pushing for this "fix"
Splodge (if you aren't using your land, why not open it up to your family or better yet... your guild?)
sugarrush
Zecen
Sodabubblies
Papatuna
gprime
(If you have an interest in their land, just asking them nicely and make an offer.)
Zeirlynn (...It seems to work just fine as far as i can tell.)
Alkapwn - me


Neutral: 2
Andres1917
- I interpret their post as being against, but they are so back and forth that I'm listing it as neutral out of fairness
Mistress - Provided an alternative, doesn't agree with making it gold, doesn't say there's any actual problem to be fixed either

Proof the issue is strictly about wanting devs to make retaining land harder so they can get better, more desirable land without purchasing it from the current owner:

Havockitty's OP - "we have many ghost houses and from time to time new ppl come to server and complain about land."
Later Havockitty posts:
- "i am seeing ppl coming back and complaining on lak of land from time to time."
- "My proposition is about making people life harder..."
- "Thing is to punish ppl that just log in to pay taxes..."

Havockitty's point is to eliminate passive accounts to make room for new players who can't find land. At the time OP was made this was not and has not been a problem as many clarified. Since the issue Havockitty presents is not an actual issue, it's an invalid point. Next we have the trapwhre02's more transparent admission of the desire here:

trapwhre02 - "as havoc mentioned in his first post already, he was speaking about 'ghost houses'. Property owned by players no longer playing and blocking valuable spots that others desire"

While inaccurate, trapwhre02 clearly states the goal is to obtain DESIRED land by having the devs do the work and force out currently passive, but likely returning players that may never return if pushed out in such a manner. Anything other than this specific objective is simply moving the goal posts in an effort to obtain this outcome by re-wording replies to the arguments posed against this initial and root desire.
 
Last edited:

Drast

New Member
Been reading thru this and it seems there is some kind of misconception making players pay gold for land would kill this game for a lot of people and i know that there are literally 100s of land spots available in fact in my area at least 3 demos tonight and it took me about 6 months to get decent land together also no offense but a player who isn't participating in the game itself wouldn't have that knowledge of how easy it is to obtain I have literally 1-3 spots people asking me to help build a week from all the open land I don't think the majority of players want a tax cert into gold change and unfortunately participation in the forums compared to actual players in game is quite low. I will do my part to inform in game players that some of the forum warriors are seemingly trying to get this change enacted because i know this will be a major upset for a lot of them. The entire premise of this post seems to be based on a falsehood.
 

oolongtea

New Member
I do not think that there is anything wrong with the current system. I have land to decorate. Just because I don't play the same way at the complainers, does not mean I have to lose my land or work harder to keep it. If the empty lot people feel that the land is important to them they will pay the tax certs. There is always the chance they forget and the land demos.
 

Sjinderson

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Technical Assistant
Are you saying that now more people do want this changed, after considering the additional pages and nearly 2 pages lost to the unauthorized alt accounts divert? Are you counting people who have voiced an opinion, or number of posts total? I'm curious, not trying to start anything. As I read through more people/accounts were against such a change than were for, even after your pg 2 post. There was a lot of "for" posts from the total of 8 players / accounts, compared to the 19 players who were against (Numbers updated after tally). I saw it was still close enough to worry me (before tally), so worth posting my opinion. Disregarding the divert about selectively allowing accounts that violate the terms and other non-relevant tangents the majority you mentioned (against such a change) continued through. Either way it makes it relevant to post for 2 reasons. First being that if it is close, each players opinion / vote holds more weight. Second being that if it isn't as close, on an issue that I do care about, it would be negligent to not add the opinion / vote to keep the scales leaned in the preferred direction.

In regards to any debate, 1/2 the mechanic is to point out why the other perspective is incorrect, which is what I did. I addressed each of the main arguments for changing this mechanic and also addressed the underlying destructive personality characteristics that lead to ideas based in a desire to take from others vs earning for yourself, or in other words focusing on destroying the work of others instead of improving yourself and your own work. Admittedly I absolutely do and always will make an enemy of such destructively-minded individuals and offer no apologies for it. It is too easy to get ahead by improving yourself, without seeking to destroy or steal what others have worked for, especially in a video game. The folks who just want to watch the world burn for the sake of it, or focus on tearing down what everyone else has built cannot be allowed to succeed. If such people are allowed to succeed it only creates a downward spiral to the most destructive common denominator.

I went back through the entire thread to tally the individuals / players and their stances. Some have examples, a couple were moved from one side to another as they defined their stance more clearly. There are 8 players for such a change, 19 against and 2 neutral. For the sake of fairness, even counting both neutral players as "for" it's still a 2:1 ratio against and a clear majority. Here's the tally info below for posteerity:

For change: 8
havockitty (OP)
trapwhre02
idealist
Vapewave
(Didn't clarify a side, jsut that Gweo isn't prime, but will credit "for" to be fair)
Drunkenhero (Change tax certs to Gilda stars and watch how easy it would be to weed out inactive people.)
plamp - Moved to "for" because agreement with Drunkenhero
Kenseii (there should be SOME kind of system to discourage holding a lot of lands and not playing the game at all.)
prego_kamata - multiple scenarios, seems to believe this is a problem


Against Change: 19
sjinderson (based on unnecessary work required)
axydus
papatuna
(don't think game needs to make it a job just to keep your land)
Trixiy
Thriem
( I think Havockitty made a good point but devs had a good counter point, seems like things will remain the same for now.)
RogueChoi
Sparkle
(We'll, however, keep this thread open, so you can keep the discussion going.)
jrch2k10 (I agree with sparkle, i found land all over the map in the last couple of weeks)
Aviendha
Mitis
(Yeah, this isn't a fix. I went two weeks with no internet because i moved across the country. We aren't missing the point; your "fix" isn't valid.)
Voidzero - Talks about redistributing other items first, reads like sarcasm illustrating the idiocy in pushing for this "fix"
Splodge (if you aren't using your land, why not open it up to your family or better yet... your guild?)
sugarrush
Zecen
Sodabubblies
Papatuna
gprime
(If you have an interest in their land, just asking them nicely and make an offer.)
Zeirlynn (...It seems to work just fine as far as i can tell.)
Alkapwn - me


Neutral: 2
Andres1917
- I interpret their post as being against, but they are so back and forth that I'm listing it as neutral out of fairness
Mistress - Provided an alternative, doesn't agree with making it gold, doesn't say there's any actual problem to be fixed either

Proof the issue is strictly about wanting devs to make retaining land harder so they can get better, more desirable land without purchasing it from the current owner:

Havockitty's OP - "we have many ghost houses and from time to time new ppl come to server and complain about land."
Later Havockitty posts:
- "i am seeing ppl coming back and complaining on lak of land from time to time."
- "My proposition is about making people life harder..."
- "Thing is to punish ppl that just log in to pay taxes..."

Havockitty's point is to eliminate passive accounts to make room for new players who can't find land. At the time OP was made this was not and has not been a problem as many clarified. Since the issue Havockitty presents is not an actual issue, it's an invalid point. Next we have the trapwhre02's more transparent admission of the desire here:

trapwhre02 - "as havoc mentioned in his first post already, he was speaking about 'ghost houses'. Property owned by players no longer playing and blocking valuable spots that others desire"

While inaccurate, trapwhre02 clearly states the goal is to obtain DESIRED land by having the devs do the work and force out currently passive, but likely returning players that may never return if pushed out in such a manner. Anything other than this specific objective is simply moving the goal posts in an effort to obtain this outcome by re-wording replies to the arguments posed against this initial and root desire.
I can already tell you're both miss informed and do not fully understand the situation of this thread.

I am neither for or against such a change. The changes do not affect me.
It is a change that if people want they need to show a reason to why such a change is beneficial and have others agree.

You claim alt accounts tried diverting the thread when you do not get to decide of an account is an alt. So its a defensive excuse to discredit that side.

As to who's side has the bigger support that would be keeping it as it is now.
There isn't a system to appease both sides. 1 will always be on the losing end.
 

trapwhre02

Well-Known Member
For change: 8 10
havockitty (OP)
trapwhre02
idealist
Vapewave
(Didn't clarify a side, jsut that Gweo isn't prime, but will credit "for" to be fair)
Drunkenhero (Change tax certs to Gilda stars and watch how easy it would be to weed out inactive people.)
plamp - Moved to "for" because agreement with Drunkenhero
Kenseii (there should be SOME kind of system to discourage holding a lot of lands and not playing the game at all.)
prego_kamata - multiple scenarios, seems to believe this is a problem
Mistress Provided a suggestion (You ignored him entirely)
prego_kamata Said taxes are too easy/cheap to obtain (You ignored him entirely)




Against Change: 19 12
sjinderson (based on unnecessary work required) Clarified his neutral stance
axydus Missed the point because he says there is plenty of land available.
papatuna (don't think game needs to make it a job just to keep your land) Nice of you to only quote his second sentence and completely acting unaware of his first. He called it a definite problem but he simply has no good solution that would work.
Trixiy Missed the point because he says there is plenty of land available, also argued that because he voluntarily donated, he is entitled to keep it under any circumstance
Thriem ( I think Havockitty made a good point but devs had a good counter point, seems like things will remain the same for now.) It literally doesn't get any more neutral than this, yet you put him into "against" 🤦‍♂️ Thriem hasn't clarified his view on the whole thing at all so you cannot put him anywhere.
RogueChoi
Sparkle
(We'll, however, keep this thread open, so you can keep the discussion going.)
jrch2k10 (I agree with sparkle, i found land all over the map in the last couple of weeks)
Aviendha
Mitis
(Yeah, this isn't a fix. I went two weeks with no internet because i moved across the country. We aren't missing the point; your "fix" isn't valid.)
Voidzero - Talks about redistributing other items first, reads like sarcasm illustrating the idiocy in pushing for this "fix"
Splodge (if you aren't using your land, why not open it up to your family or better yet... your guild?) He himself said "There should be some kind of use it or lose it mechanism to property."
sugarrush
Zecen
Sodabubblies
Papatuna
You literally put him twice into this list
gprime (If you have an interest in their land, just asking them nicely and make an offer.)
Zeirlynn (...It seems to work just fine as far as i can tell.)
Alkapwn - me

@Alkapwn
Here, I corrected the list for you. Had a few flaws in it, happens to the best! Thank me later.
Jokes aside, there goes your 2:1 ratio. Now if I was a douchebag too, I'd do some fine-tuning to the list and add some untrue adjustments, some duplicates and deceptions by cherry-picking quotes - voilá - We have a sudden majority for a change. On a real note: Come up with fair counter-arguments already. What you've been doing since you joined the discussion is nothing but make up lies and twist thing said by others in a matter that are favorable to you and your opinion.

I'm fine with nothing changing. It doesn't effect me. I was just hoping others wouldn't have to get annoyed by these things like I did when I played.
Cheers.
 
Last edited:

witchbell

Member
Since this thread is here and not exactly dead, I'd like to chime in. I recently expanded my estate. I now own a Mansion, 5 upgraded farmhouses, an upgraded cottage, the 3 marketplace gazebos and the 3 marketplace gardens. Since I'm active atm I've been using the land to upgrade gear and maintain an income but I know i'll get demotivated and eventually take a small break. I can buy the taxes with gold and use my labor to craft taxes. Eventually I'll burn through my funds and i'll have to utilize my labor. However I have the option to just throw 20 bucks and buy taxes or use loyalty coins to purchase them. I think there lies the solution to issue that derailed this conversation. We have individuals that want to make the system harder to own land and we have people who don't want any changes to the system. So how about we do both? Lets remove taxes from the marketplace and loyalty store. The game mechanics already provide penalties for owning too much land but it's circumvented by the developers desire to monetize everything. You take that option out and you're simply left with natural supply and demand. Now people with high construction won't need land to provide a decent income and those with the land can utilize it to create resources but owning too much land may cause issues if the AH supply dwindles. Eventually it will lead to people finding a average estate size that they can manage themselves while freeing up land for others and giving people who don't own land a profession to make a decent income from. I'd also ask for a max construction prof craft to turn bound taxes into unbound taxes. So those working toward max construction won't have the spent labor invalidated if they don't wish to own a home.
 

Aviendha

Well-Known Member
Since this thread is here and not exactly dead, I'd like to chime in. I recently expanded my estate. I now own a Mansion, 5 upgraded farmhouses, an upgraded cottage, the 3 marketplace gazebos and the 3 marketplace gardens. Since I'm active atm I've been using the land to upgrade gear and maintain an income but I know i'll get demotivated and eventually take a small break. I can buy the taxes with gold and use my labor to craft taxes. Eventually I'll burn through my funds and i'll have to utilize my labor. However I have the option to just throw 20 bucks and buy taxes or use loyalty coins to purchase them. I think there lies the solution to issue that derailed this conversation. We have individuals that want to make the system harder to own land and we have people who don't want any changes to the system. So how about we do both? Lets remove taxes from the marketplace and loyalty store. The game mechanics already provide penalties for owning too much land but it's circumvented by the developers desire to monetize everything. You take that option out and you're simply left with natural supply and demand. Now people with high construction won't need land to provide a decent income and those with the land can utilize it to create resources but owning too much land may cause issues if the AH supply dwindles. Eventually it will lead to people finding a average estate size that they can manage themselves while freeing up land for others and giving people who don't own land a profession to make a decent income from. I'd also ask for a max construction prof craft to turn bound taxes into unbound taxes. So those working toward max construction won't have the spent labor invalidated if they don't wish to own a home.
tl:dr only keep tradeable taxes in the crafting system with 230k contruction required, and remove it from other sources? did I get that right?

it's a bit of a wall there x)
 

witchbell

Member
Sorry about that. Yeah that's what I mean. Tradeable taxes 230k construction. No other sources and create a new craft to turn bound taxes into unbound versions.
 

havockitty

Active Member
You missing point a bit i think i didint read everything but. My idea was just to remove people ability to keep paying for their land just by loging in for 5 min and spend labor in short if u want keep ur houses u need play if u dont play well dont hold land. I myself right now abusing this system and just log in for 5 min and pay for my houses and i will do it till server dies cuz why not.
 

Thriem

Active Member
I can already tell you're both miss informed and do not fully understand the situation of this thread.

I am neither for or against such a change. The changes do not affect me.
It is a change that if people want they need to show a reason to why such a change is beneficial and have others agree.

You claim alt accounts tried diverting the thread when you do not get to decide of an account is an alt. So its a defensive excuse to discredit that side.

As to who's side has the bigger support that would be keeping it as it is now.
There isn't a system to appease both sides. 1 will always be on the losing end.
For change: 8 10
havockitty (OP)
trapwhre02
idealist
Vapewave
(Didn't clarify a side, jsut that Gweo isn't prime, but will credit "for" to be fair)
Drunkenhero (Change tax certs to Gilda stars and watch how easy it would be to weed out inactive people.)
plamp - Moved to "for" because agreement with Drunkenhero
Kenseii (there should be SOME kind of system to discourage holding a lot of lands and not playing the game at all.)
prego_kamata - multiple scenarios, seems to believe this is a problem
Mistress Provided a suggestion (You ignored him entirely)
prego_kamata Said taxes are too easy/cheap to obtain (You ignored him entirely)




Against Change: 19 12
sjinderson (based on unnecessary work required) Clarified his neutral stance
axydus Missed the point because he says there is plenty of land available.
papatuna (don't think game needs to make it a job just to keep your land) Nice of you to only quote his second sentence and completely acting unaware of his first. He called it a definite problem but he simply has no good solution that would work.
Trixiy Missed the point because he says there is plenty of land available, also argued that because he voluntarily donated, he is entitled to keep it under any circumstance
Thriem ( I think Havockitty made a good point but devs had a good counter point, seems like things will remain the same for now.) It literally doesn't get any more neutral than this, yet you put him into "against" 🤦‍♂️ Thriem hasn't clarified his view on the whole thing at all so you cannot put him anywhere.
RogueChoi
Sparkle
(We'll, however, keep this thread open, so you can keep the discussion going.)
jrch2k10 (I agree with sparkle, i found land all over the map in the last couple of weeks)
Aviendha
Mitis
(Yeah, this isn't a fix. I went two weeks with no internet because i moved across the country. We aren't missing the point; your "fix" isn't valid.)
Voidzero - Talks about redistributing other items first, reads like sarcasm illustrating the idiocy in pushing for this "fix"
Splodge (if you aren't using your land, why not open it up to your family or better yet... your guild?) He himself said "There should be some kind of use it or lose it mechanism to property."
sugarrush
Zecen
Sodabubblies
Papatuna
You literally put him twice into this list
gprime (If you have an interest in their land, just asking them nicely and make an offer.)
Zeirlynn (...It seems to work just fine as far as i can tell.)
Alkapwn - me

@Alkapwn
Here, I corrected the list for you. Had a few flaws in it, happens to the best! Thank me later.
Jokes aside, there goes your 2:1 ratio. Now if I was a douchebag too, I'd do some fine-tuning to the list and add some untrue adjustments, some duplicates and deceptions by cherry-picking quotes - voilá - We have a sudden majority for a change. On a real note: Come up with fair counter-arguments already. What you've been doing since you joined the discussion is nothing but make up lies and twist thing said by others in a matter that are favorable to you and your opinion.

I'm fine with nothing changing. It doesn't effect me. I was just hoping others wouldn't have to get annoyed by these things like I did when I played.
Cheers.
To clairify I am for a change but since I had no solution to the problem I felt it would be ignorant to just complain. I do believe that there is plenty of land to grab for free or cheap at the moment but that has nothing to do with the reason Havoc started this thread.
I agree with Sjinderson that there will be someone on either side of this that will be on the losing end and the impact to myself will be small if anything at all.
I like the idea regarding crafted(unbound) tax certs and giving them more value. Now I have not invested a lot of thought into this but what if it took less "crafted" tax certs to pay taxes for a given week but increase the amount it would take for "unbound certs" to achieve the same effect. You would not fix the problem completely but the inactive players would have to log on more often to make unbound certs to pay taxes. A player then could work toward max prof to make unbound certs if they did not have it already but some may fuck off because now it is more trouble than it's worth. Just a thought
 
Top