Cal Predine
StarKnight Security
37
   |
Posted - 2013.02.28 08:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Wow, I'm amazed...
From the sound of it, this will not be a popular statement, but am I the only one who thinks the taxation system in Eve is (at best) fundamentally flawed?
Allow me to explain... In the real world, we go out to work for "the man". "The Man" provides the tools and environment needed to carry out our trade, and our efforts make money for "the man". We are in turn compensated for our time and skills.
In Eve, we train ourselves, equip ourselves and go out to do our thing. We're talking about taxation here, so let's assume that "our thing" is agent missioning and collecting NPC bounties (since that is what taxes are applied to). We make money for ourselves, and if we choose to join a corporation, part of the fruit of our labours is taken away from us. In affect, all corps are charities and we're opting into a give-as-you-earn scheme.
Yes, I'm aware that some corps offer free skillbooks to members. Free ships too, in some cases, although that tends to go to replacing PvP losses rather than replacing those (hopefully rare) losses in PVE which happen whilst creating the wealth.
I'm also aware that Eve players are notoriously creative, and have achieved stunning results using this rather odd system, they are to be applauded.
For an economy-based game like Eve, though, this feels rather broken, and (for me) always has.
I understand why it's never been changed in Eve, since it would be a massive job (although I'll admit I'm confused it isn't discussed and requested more frequently).
To change this meaningfully, player corporations would need to become the source of work instead of NPC agents. It would be no bad thing for our corps to be able to create agent missions, in my opinion.
Players could then accept corp missions, and carrying them out would (in some way) generate income for the corp.
The Player is reimbursed by the corp for his time, and would allow corps to track player contribution in a more effective manner than just rewarding the guy who drinks with the personnel director.
On the face of it, this doesn't seem *too* excessive a change, but could impact the standings system (and probably other areas) as well.
Enough about Eve...
In Dust, we are mercenaries. We can take private contracts for which we get paid directly. We can accept corporate contracts for which the corp gets paid (which is great but could probably use some added incentive). All makes sense so far...
The only really odd thing so far is that the corp relies upon player donations in order to even accept out corp contracts, and those contracts are (across the entire game population) designed to be unsustainable without player contributions. And we're back to charity again.
I'm not suggesting for an instant that the Dust economy couldn't use some work, but I don't think it should be throwing away what it already does better than Eve in favour of an Eve-like taxation-based system. |
Cal Predine
StarKnight Security
37
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 20:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
With respect Cortez, you're making a few unfounded or unsupportable assumptions here.
Cortez The Killer wrote: For a mission running corp or a mining corp taxes might initially seem like charity to a new player in Eve. I'll get to how it *may* work for un-implemented features of Dust.
Although I've never been in either a mission running or mining corp, you're right - taxes seemed like charity to me as a new Eve player. And here, 9.5 years of Eve playing later, they still seem like charity - a fundamentally backwards model where you pay your employer for the right to work for them, which has only been made to work by the creativity of Eve Corps. And I would indeed be interested to read your views on how taxation may work in Dust, although as I noted, it can and has been made to work.
Cortez The Killer wrote: Many Eve corps eventually have corp assets like research and manufacturing POSes that need to be both bought and maintained, both with market resources and labor. If a member wants to use or in any way benefit from those assets, they need to be paid for by those using them or benefitting from them. Taxes. Wars come and defenses need to be mounted, or mercenaries hired. Taxes.
In any working environment, you are expected to bring the basics with you. For simplicity, let's call the basics a pair of boots and willingness to do the job. After that, it is expected that the employer foot the bill for any advanced materials and training.
In Dust, would you expect your army to fund themselves? If not, where does your corp get the money to keep fighting? From the CEOs personal wallet? Dust promises to those armies conquerable territories that can be upgraded for both defense and material productivity. Direct conflict to gain and hold those assets cost money.
Again, all good points, except that repeating the word "taxes" doesn't make it the only possible way for a corp to raise funds.
You ask the very question yourself right there - where does your corp get the money to keep fighting? And then you give the answer (or one of many possible answers) - those conquerable territories. The manufacturing facilities on them. The players will already be paying for those things in blood, seems only fair they shouldn't also be taxed! These territories should be revenue generators, not sinks (other than when, as you note, you have to fight to keep them).
And we're mercenaries, so it's not unreasonable to expect our Corp to be paid to fight - as indeed they already are for Corp matches. Now if we can just have a method to filter some of that wealth down to players - say the corp CEO assigns a percentage of corp battle income which is divided among participating players based on their contribution in the match (WP seems a good enough measure, although I'm sure others are possible). this could get calculated and paid at the end of each match, no lingering book-keeping, all done by the time the credits have rolled.
Meanwhile, the corp slice can be invested in buying (possibly eventually manufacturing) warfighting equipment for the soldiery, or funding territorial conquests/ upgrades to make the corp more attractive to new recruits - exactly the kind of choices Eve corps make about how to spend their wealth
Under this system ,mercenaries would still have the option to take a private contract (instant battle). Maybe you get no stores support from your corp, and the pay's lower, but it goes straight to you and you get to keep it all. There's real economics in action, because if the corp gets too greedy and takes too large a slice of the battle income, it will make more financial sense for the most efficient mercs to "go solo" and pay for their own gear... While this is exactly the type of player that corps will want in corp battles - effective soldiers who are "cheap to run". your reputation becomes, literally, valuable.
Cortez The Killer wrote: Direct conflict to gain and hold those assets cost money. Where exactly do you expect that money to come from? Lemme guess, I dunno, so long as it ain't me.
Agreed on all counts, but you say that money shouldn't come from you...
Then you advocate taxing corporation members... Am I missing something here? If it's tax, then it *is* coming from you. Isn't that the very point I made in the first place?
Paying your employer for the right to work for them.
All I'm saying - quite simply - is that there are other ways for corps to gain income than taxing their members. one of these is already in place, and it's entirely fitting that a mercenary corp is rewarded for fighting for the big factions.
I'd like everyone to stop and think if they really want corp taxes...
Or if they just want a sensible and effort-based method for the corp to raise funds.
Dust is still new - these don't have to be the same thing. It's an ambitious game, we can be ambitious too. |