If you haven't seen the NC thread this is what me and Ender said in it:
Me: If these people have a chance at participating then the clan tax should reflect that. Could we perhaps go to a system like before where you weren't charged double your treasury for an extra 5 people? Doesn't have to be a super-radical amount, just say 1.5 times every 5 members or maybe just base the treasury off of each members level? I like the 1.5 times per 5 members more because it reduces the amount of low levels joining en masse in a clan.
Ender: I don't remember and can't find why clan tax raises so quickly after 20 members, but I'd appreciate a link to the history if anyone can find one. I think the subject of tax warrants its own thread though (it's complex enough and can be done independently of the changes proposed in this thread), so please start one if you'd like to pursue this more. I'm not against the idea of bringing down taxes, but I'd want to know the history before acting.
Link for him is here under Sep 26: http://bots4.net/forum/4/3066
Specifically this thread is to discuss these two topics:
o Every addtional 5 NC bots doubles the clan's daily tax.
o Each addtional NC bot decreases the maximum days of tax that can be saved in your treasury by 1 day per NC bot, to a minimum of 7 days.
And how to apply them with the new system where unlimited bots will be allowed into a clan and will be able to score if they wish to do so. Reduction in clan tax could reflect this as clans may want to expand to allow more scorers into the clan rather than the NCs they have now. bots2 used to have unlimited members at one time and the treasury was based off of the level of the bots applying. That is why clans like Tatanka could have 300+ members. That may be a big stretch for what Ender is trying to do here so maybe just a reduction in the double treasury per 5 members joining could be applied instead. Or perhaps up the number of members per doubling of treasury to 10. Or maybe you have a better idea? Feel free to talk about it here.
I only bring this up btw because clans find it hard enough to keep 10-20 NCs at a time in their clans because of the high treasury costs. Reducing it so that you could have say 100 or so members for what you get for 20-40 members now would increase the amount of social activity in clans and help keep new recruits coming in without having somebody like Xerex or Myriad have to bust their balls to keep the treasury full lol.
|
|
|
Considering the limited player base, i think the current setup is fine.
I don't like having to kick people from the clan because of taxes, but on the other hand, it forces a clan to pick and chose.
|
|
|
Well to make it more technical Jans it really has to do with the treasury cost of scorers versus NCs. Scorers treasury is based on their level and that sets the base level of the treasury for NCs. The NCs level is also added to the treasury but when you get 5 whatever the base is now is doubled and so on and so on. The specific idea here is how to add more members that could be NCs or scorers without breaking the NC doubling rule. Here's how it would be without the NC rule:
You have 20 core members. You add 40 more scorers and then 5 NCs under the new unlimited members idea. The 40 scorers could be added normally to the treasury by their levels and that's it. But the 5 NCs added would double the treasury. You see the problem here? You add 40 new members by those 5 members are more of a burden the the new 40 on the treasury. Plus it'd be too complex of code to create I believe, to have two different tax codes. So either you have the level-based treasury and rid of the doubling rule or we have the doubling rule and reduce it to a better rate so clans can expand and have competition for those 20 highly prized scoring spots.
Or as you said Jans we could leave it as is and have a max or so of 45-50 people scoring or NCed. Unless of course you have a super-dedicated treasurer or two on hand.
|
Eternal has one and he be smexy
|
Aw, thanks rith. I knew there was areas on iI really liked you lol.
|
|
|
O dear... Atrocious tablet spelling, I apologize to everyone's eyes.
I meant 'a reason'
|
I like the idea of raising a clan size based of off luxury taxes. Allowing clans to grow if they can afford the cost to keep it going. So if you have some sort of formula (say Tax = (Clan members)(Clan Average Level) ) or something like that to eliminate the need for NC at all.
Although this would increase the role of clan tax as a result, which might be the opposite of the direction Ender is trying to go.
|
Sorry if I'm missing it, but isn't that context link just a thread with a copy/paste of the changelog? I'm looking more for a thread where I explain why tax is structured the way it is. Sorry for having a bad memory and needing this in the first place. :\
I'm torn on this. On one hand, I recognize the rates are steep and that it becomes unrealistic to really get past a certain size at some point. On the other, I see Jans' point about it forcing you to make decisions, which can in turn result in those people going off and forming their own clans or joining others, which results in more competition, which is something I've strived for since the beginning.
I've had a couple ideas regarding taxes that might be of interest, so I'll share:
The first involves max days of treasury. Basically what I envision is a means for a clan to increase their default max days of treasury. Since tax is meant to weed out inactive clans, it makes sense that well established clans should be less vulnerable to this. The idea I have is to basically reward well-performing or long-existing clans with higher max treasury. So for example, if your clan has one a month, it should have a higher cap. Same goes if it's existed for awhile. The details and numbers would need to be worked out, but you get the idea. The other idea involves tax collection. Currently it's a pain for high level bots to fill the treasury because you have to switching between the train page and the treasury page. This idea is to basically automate that process. I haven't thought about it too much, but the two main parts to this would be an option for individual bots to automatically donate x% of their winnings from a battle to their clan. The other side of this is for there to be a clan-wide option so that all members automatically donate x% of their winnings. The second part could be annoying though, so maybe just the first is enough.
So given those two ideas for making tax easier to deal with, maybe we don't need to touch the actual rates?
|
Automatically taking a percent after each train/fight would be wonderful. It could be a setting under clans on the settings page, there's only one check box there now.
And with clans being the size they are now, and implementing the ideas you stated I don't think the current formula would need touching, at least for those clans with highest level bots in them because we get 5M kudos in 3 fights or less.
If for some reason clan sizes really increase after implementing no NC leaders could keep just a clan size that is manageable.
|
Sorry if I'm missing it, but isn't that context link just a thread with a copy/paste of the changelog? I'm looking more for a thread where I explain why tax is structured the way it is. Sorry for having a bad memory and needing this in the first place. :\
I haven't found anything in which you expressly state the tax structure when it comes to NCs. That was the closest I found I think. I did find you saying this though:
Yep, no limit to NCs, but the tax gets steep. Every additional 5 NCs doubles your tax:
0-4 = x1
5-9 = x2
10-14 = x4
15-19 = x8
etc.
From http://bots4.net/forum/5/4619
And this:
I don't know, I still like the idea of 20 bots per clan, even if that means 10 real players on average. The web game I played before bots was less active than we ever were, but the group size was limited to 10 with no alts and there was always plenty of competition for the top spot. Being able to have a huge clan with such a small community means that if one clan gets out too far ahead, they're impossible to catch and everyone else gives up. With smaller clans, the potential size of that gap is decreased and it's not as hard to fill up a solid team. Think of it more as cherry-picking an all-star team as opposed to being able to invite everyone and their cousins.
As for tax, I'm not sure I like performance-based rules. I do have some ideas for rewarding top clans (another topic in itself), but for now I think just the standard kudos tax is fine for weeding out the truly inactive. I will probably make the tax less than it was in bots2, but no promises.
From this: http://bots4.net/forum/4/239
As for your 2 ideas I can see them offsetting the doubling of the tax per 5 members well enough that reduction is unnecessary. I thought reduction would be a simpler task for you and thus suggested it. I see no downside to them except maybe lower levels having trouble keeping up with repairs and whatnot but hey that might make them level up a bit/cause them to make kudos bots and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm just glad my suggestion helped come to this somehow :)
|
Easiest way to donate to a clan.
Have two tabs open. Train in one and have an already submitted 5m kudos. When you train and notice it is close to 5m. Switch to the other tab, and refresh the form. It will resend the 5m kudos that you've just gained.
|
Its exactly how i do it. No need to close trainings.
|
Same for me, for a good while.
|
About the idea of automatically donating to the clan treasure, it would be bad for the scoring bots because kudos are very important to them. Maybe this could be a option per user and not a clan option?
|
Thanks for digging up that context. Thinking about this some more and how clans will no longer have to decide which 20 bots will be competing, I think that makes it all the more important to make it difficult to have a really big clan. The treasury ideas I posted above could help a little with this, but for now, I'm leaning towards keeping things as they are.
And yeah, it sounds like the automatic treasury contributions would be more useful/desirable for high-level training bots, so a per-user setting sounds better than a clan-level setting.
|
can the auto-treasury contribution be applied asap? that could help a lot for me now filling up a big treasury!:) make an option on it if it's a percentage on the winnings or the max amount (5M) itself. ^_^
|
Yeah, maybe. It should be pretty easy to implement and it sounds like it would be a welcome feature. That's a potent combo. :)
|
1
