Guilds That Own NPC Towns Should Be Able to Set Taxes

[Kaemik]

If your guild has a keep near an NPC town or whatever mechanic is used to claim an NPC town in this game it should give you control over taxes. Your three main areas of taxation should be:

1. Vendor Sales Tax - Increases the price of vendor goods and passes the additional revenue onto the controlling guild.
2. Vendor Purchase Tax - Decreases vendor payouts and gives the difference to the controlling guild.
3. Broker Taxes - A small tax on all goods purchased from the local broker.

So what's the point?

If my guild controls a blue town, and we get tax revenue for everyone hunting, selling, and generally living in the area I'm going to go to Tindrem and recruit players living there to come live in our town. If people then come to that town to harass all the newbs we're bringing there, I'm going to take that as an attack on my guild's interests and wage war on them.

I'm noticing in the current debates whether people are pro-flag, anti-flag, pro-guard, anti-guard most people agree that players protecting other players is a good thing. So give powerful guilds a reason to take control of the NPC towns, reasons to welcome people there, and reasons to protect those people when they arrive. If it's within a large group's rational self-interest to bring newbs to their town and protect them, they're a lot more likely to.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Agreed. Towns that are controlled need more benefits instead of shitty prominence gains. The taxes should be minute all the way to highway robbery in guise.

Gives incentive for people to control towns, and allows actual dominion over a location not just through PvP pressure.

Can you imagine living somewhere and your taxes are 30%? You'd probably get real tired of it real quick, and people would band together to try and stop that. Sounds like organic conflict and politics in the making.

Oh, and guilds should fully retain control of whether guards are on / off, and the flagging is hopefully more open ended and sandbox unlike MO1 where you get reported no matter where you are.

Also, poll. Add a poll.

 

[Bernfred]

that would be enjoable for the guild who can enforce their power fantasy but MO was so good because of free towns without one guild play the police near NPC towns because these are the places where everyone can meet up. there will be enough ARPK roamers roaming around NPC towns looking for random player killers. its much more dynamic if you leave the area around blue towns free for all.

there are player controlled towns where newbies can spawn. buff these towns with better buildings and resources and give the NPC starter cities starter materials.

 

[Kaemik]

that would be enjoable for the guild who can enforce their power fantasy but MO was so good because of free towns without one guild play the police near NPC towns because these are the places where everyone can meet up. there will be enough ARPK roamers roaming around NPC towns looking for random player killers. its much more dynamic if you leave the area around blue towns free for all.

there are player controlled towns where newbies can spawn. buff these towns with better buildings and resources and give the NPC starter cities starter materials.

What towns guilds should and should not be able to own is really outside the scope of this discussion. I know at least some of the NPC towns were claimable in MO1 and I presume we may see the same happen in MO2. The scope of this discussion is entirely limited to should or should not guilds have the right to set taxes in towns they control.

 

[Bernfred]

What towns guilds should and should not be able to own is really outside the scope of this discussion. I know at least some of the NPC towns were claimable in MO1 and I presume we may see the same happen in MO2. The scope of this discussion is entirely limited to should or should not guilds have the right to set taxes in towns they control.

but you cant control a guarded NPC town. you need to change the game to do this and thats a bad idea. in MO1 there was for example Kranesh or GK with no guards. they were basically player controlled and adding taxes to these cities would make sense if you have the nearest keep but it wouldnt change alot because no one beside PVPers ventures to this cities.

 

[Turbizzler]

but you cant control a guarded NPC town. you need to change the game to do this and thats a bad idea. in MO1 there was for example Kranesh or GK with no guards. they were basically player controlled and adding taxes to these cities would make sense if you have the nearest keep but it wouldnt change alot because no one beside PVPers ventures to this cities.

You could control every city/town aside from Tindrem in MO1. You were able to turn off guards, I believe this function broke after TC update. IIRC It was re-added partially again for some period. You can also blacklist people from towns as the controlling guild.

It worked alright, but was very limited in functionality and really offered minimal benefit to controlling guilds.

 

[Bernfred]

You could control every city/town aside from Tindrem in MO1. You were able to turn off guards, I believe this function broke after TC update. IIRC It was re-added partially again for some period. You can also blacklist people from towns as the controlling guild.

It worked alright, but was very limited in functionality and really offered minimal benefit to controlling guilds.

this was before i played MO1 and i cant imagine a system without. all you need is to buff player controlled towns which were very bad in MO1. dont remove game mechanics, encourage people to work.

 

[Teknique]

We had this in late MO 1, mostly what people did was go to vendors nearish by that had no tax, like the GK equerry or cave camp, most ran to tindrem.

Still think it should be there.

 

[Bernfred]

also you can set public vendors everyone can use in your guild area so people pay taxes when they farm your spot and sell the materials. it wasnt used much in MO1 so this needs to be improved.

 

[Kaemik]

Ok, I added a poll. I'll explain my vote. I voted yes but I'm conflicted on if there should be limitations or not. I could swing either way on that issue as I can see the potential for it to be abused, but I think abusing the town and driving people away runs very counter to the interest of the controlling guild. So rational-self-interest should win out against the system being abused too hard. And as long as every town on the map isn't getting made unusable all at once that's more likely to drive interesting conflicts than drive people away from the game. If that proved wrong though limitations could be needed.