Archived Different Tribute System (for Wars & Raids)

[Mecharic]

(Taken from the [Increase Max Tribute] thread)

I think that as a factions size gets larger the per-person tribute should decrease (which would encourage larger factions) rather than increase. This is for the simple fact that once you get more than 40 people the tribute has increased from 180 (max tribute of first bracket[1-9 people]) to 3,920 (max tribute of 5th bracket [40-49 people]). That is 21 times the amount for 9 people [note, the population has increased by 5.4 times), which is INSANE. A faction with 80 members (which isn't common but happens to be about the largest sustainable population due to the rate of inactivity v/s recruitment) must pay a whopping 8,000r to cover those people which is 44 times the max tribute of the first bracket. I think that it should go as follows:

Bracket 1(1-9): 60r per player (60 to 540) - | - (450 more than zero lul)
Bracket 2(10-19): 50r per player (500 to 800) - | - (1.5 times larger than B1)
Bracket 3(20-39): 40r per player (800 to 1,160) - | - (1.5 times larger than B2) (2.1 times B1)
Bracket 4(40-49): 30r per player (1,200 to 1,470) - | - (1.8 times larger than B3) (2.7 times B1)
Bracket 5(50-59): 25r per player (1,250 to 1,475 ) - | - (1.3 times larger than B4) (2.7 times B1)
Bracket 6(60+): 20r per player (1,200 and up - | - 80 players = 1,600) - | - (1.1 times larger than B5 for 80 players) (2.2 times B1 at min, 3 times greater for 80 people)

You may be saying "But Mechish, that causes the max tribute to drop after entering the next bracket!" to which I reply: being a larger faction should not result in a punishment from the server. The server recently initiated a shrinking of the min distance between factions because there isn't enough space to store all these tiny 1-20 player factions. With my bracket system the general cost of tribute for a larger faction goes up, but much less exponentially than with the current system. It ensures that small factions still need to pay more than 20r after getting involved in stupid warfare, while also ensuring that larger factions have more risk (but not an insane amount of risk). This will lead to larger factions, stronger communities (within and between factions) and more massive cities/settlements. You may actually see factions get over 100 players and sustain that level of population, with actual "cities" (by minecraft standards) being built. It would declutter the worlds of small, often inactive, minifactions that don't have any reason to increase their population and every reason not to.

Every single one of my factions that got over 50 members collapsed because I got tired of be attacked for the tribute. The largest faction I had held over 100 players and had a tribute (under the current system) of over 10,000 regals. Under my system the tribute for such a faction would be around 2,000 regals, which is both realistic (who the f*ck has 10k to burn?) and reasonable (who the f*ck is going to pay 10k?) without being crippling to PvPers (its still worth as much or more than a new faction).

And begin discussion!

 

[Laach]

Of course, newer factions will be placed at a disadvantage, and factions that suddenly lose all of their members will also suffer from this.

How do you suppose we prevent that problem from happening?

 

[Kezlok]

 

[BenRekt]

I really like this, good post Mech.

 

[Mecharic]

Of course, newer factions will be placed at a disadvantage, and factions that suddenly lose all of their members will also suffer from this.

How do you suppose we prevent that problem from happening?

Click to shrink...

It gives new factions an incentive to grow quickly, and as for a faction that loses most of its members... well, if it's lost most of its members there probably a reason (like inactive/poor leadership) and that also creates an incentive for factions to be good to their people so that they stay.

 

[Tokuu]

I am kind of on the fence for this one at the moment, as the larger the faction is, the more responsibilities said faction should have, and should be better equipped to defend itself. However, it does somewhat discourage large factions from forming. Perhaps, instead of having the tribute decrease or increase with size, it could stay at a constant level, a set amount of Regals per person inside said faction.

 

[Mecharic]

-quietly bumps his thread-

 

[OldManJ98]

-quietly bumps his thread-

Click to shrink...

-quietly tells him to only bump after 3 days of no commenting-

 

[Dworvin]

Yeah this is great stuff, if you ask me the server should encourage players to cluster up rather than scatter anyway.

 

[Mecharic]

With taxes implemented I think this should happen as well, since taxes increase as a faction claims more land (aka, grows in population) so this could help prevent the disappearance of large factions altogether.

 

[MonMarty]

Bumping as per my statement in other thread @Mecharic

Perhaps we could get some player input and ideas on whether an increasing, decreasing or flat rate should be taken into account. In order to make the right decision, we should discuss all available options instead of comparing two systems.

 

[Mightor]

Okay well I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum from Mecharic so I have a different opinion on this. Although I think that big factions rates should be decreased, I don't think it's the small factions that should have to pay more. Small factions are usually less developed without as much accumulated tax money to spend on war tribute, not as many defenses to keep the invaders out or even put up a fight, and generally smaller factions are inexperienced and don't know some basic principles such as hiding from the dynmap.

I'm the leader of a small 15 person faction and I was put into war after 1 week of having my faction. Now the tribute was 300r or something. And you have to realize that as a new faction I didn't have bonds with my members yet, so I didn't have any aspiration to cover them when they were all recruits that hardly ever played on the server. Basically my suggestion is that it should add in some more variable involving...

1. Faction age
2. Claim size
3. Members

In order to make this work well, I think it should be calculated in-game by Factions and then displayed in your /f f. So for example it would be:

Faction Max Tribute: 150r [56 claims + 14 members (x4.4) + 64 days (x0.5)]

The formula could be tweaked etc, but I've always thought that only looking at player count will never get that ideal max tribute. Instead, I think all factors need to be calculated into one answer. This way a faction can tweak itself as-well to lower it's max tribute.

Benefits:
- Charge a 1.2x multiplier or something for over-claimed land
- Give new factions a slight decrease in tribute cost so they have time to build up a worthy defense
- Keep the member count as a tribute variable

Downsides:
- Would take a lot of optimizing for the rates
- Some heavily overclaimed factions or very long-running factions might have a hard time (Although maybe you could actually begin to decrease the age multiplier again after 6 months or so to give factions a reason to stick around)
- Would take precious coding time and be more complex

 

[Absorbius]

I believe @Mecharic's suggestion is sound. In order to encourage larger factions, the tribute should be less for each person, but still larger than a smaller faction's. It makes complete sense in my mind, both as a faction owner and a player.

Because, as a larger faction may be able to generate a larger income overall, it's individual players' incomes don't increase - just the volume of players receiving the income.