New income stream idea?

OP 05/04/2011 · 09:51 AM #1

Admins have the ability to change race income modifiers, right?

Actually requires stephen but i`d like to see where this goes if needed i "can" get stephen to change race mods lol

Well, in this case why don`t we look into making tax a viable income source for collective?

What I mean by this - is give collectives something like a 0% modifier for tax. Currently, the modifier is set at -50%, which means that food has to be around 2 in order for tax to be break even in profit. At 0%, I haven`t done the calculations, but collectives should be able to make some decent money from taxing.

What are the implications for this? Well collectives can only grow food on individually assimilated planets. If they capture a large cluster C1/C2/C3, they can`t grow food on it. If this suggestion goes through, then perhaps collectives can use these captured clusters to tax their population, while growing their own food so they could be market independent (to an extent) with a high base PR.

This might add a very unique element to the game, and perhaps bring collective (which is a pretty uncommon race to be played) some unique challenges and opportunities for veteran players.

Edited by BadWolf on 2011-04-05

C Crack

06/04/2011 · 05:20 PM #33

Very naive.. Already expect that from certain players..

What we do is not to accept EVERY and ANY changes.. What we do is open up logically for the good of this game..

C Crack

06/04/2011 · 05:18 PM #32

What i wish is for gc to enjoy success especially iin recruiting players.. But if we were to always stick to old decisions.. Well the old decisions doesnt help does it?? So why not open up.. Many of u have played this game and seen it grow.. Like a parent seeing the baby grow.. If u dont wish for it to grow.. U are either selfish or stuckup.. Cheers..

H HoneyBucket{HH}

06/04/2011 · 05:17 PM #31

Yeah so let`s all just accept any idea that comes along so that the game doesn`t become stagnant.

G GradualIncline

06/04/2011 · 05:09 PM #30

Crack, sounds like Japan before they were forced to trade with the Americans back near the end of the Shogunate, they enforced isolationism and fell behind tech wise, until they were forced to sign trade agreements by American naval forces, and they sent a delegation to the US, realizing they needed to Westernize (to a degree) fast if they wanted to survive as a strong independent nation

*looks around awkwardly*

yeah, history major, my bad.

C Crack

06/04/2011 · 05:01 PM #29

If everyone doesnt open up to refreshing ideas.. The game will be stagnant..

Gc already have a problem in gaining more players.. Its like an island which refuses to get all the technology that is provided.. Now it doesnt even want to hear others perspective as shown by certain players who regards themselves as vets.. Zzz..

Plz note im not a coll in any of the servers.. 2 aminer.. 2viral.. In tb.. And a stagnant terran in rt..

H HoneyBucket{HH}

06/04/2011 · 04:57 PM #28

true there are borders on turn based...... but problem with collective on turn based is, it is a very turn consumptive race, not all that efficient......slow build rates etc.... this the main reason I would assume it`s not popular on turn based...... as for RT, there aren`t all that many low PR empires to fight\attack.

C Crack

06/04/2011 · 04:51 PM #27

In tb.. Theres borders.. I battle more in ultra then all servers combined but i still think colls lack a few thingy.. A bit more cons than pros.. Tweaking it a bit will do.. No need to buff it all up.. Jus a teeny wee bit..

H HoneyBucket{HH}

06/04/2011 · 04:02 PM #26

Okay, I think that the topic of trying to make Collective \ Marauder more appealing \ popular has been discussed many, many times. And I do believe that every time, the majority have decided that the main reason for their current lack of popularity is that there are so few sources of borders. The overall lack of players in GC, makes it very difficult to play a none explorable race, especially bottom feeders such as collectives.... just my ten cents. Peeka Boo. I see you. Heehee haahaa. Silly you, Tricks are for Me. Pee pee. Poo poo. Lalalala.

F FistOfNoRemorse

06/04/2011 · 03:46 PM #25

could remove some collective ships and let them RE 1 ships from terran miner and maru

H HoneyBucket{HH}

06/04/2011 · 03:19 PM #24

This was just from yesterday....

XXXXXXX`s fleet
H.Man-O-war Starbase 18,000 18,000 0
Large Strafez Fodder 20,000 20,000 0
H.Barkentine Cruiser 1,160 1,160 0
R.Sloop Frigate 6,724 6,724 0
R.Snow Battleship 290 290 0
H.Galleon Destroyer 912 912 0
R.Schooner Destroyer 740 740 0
Tyr Dreadnought 28 28 0
Hercules Juggernaught 1 1 0
Small Strafez Runner 240 240 0

Colonies Captured
Name Type Land Size
E.3774 Oceanic 25
X.4226 U.Rich 2
C2.4247 Similare C.2 1,868

F FistOfNoRemorse

06/04/2011 · 03:17 PM #23

do any current collectives still use manowar?

C Crack

06/04/2011 · 02:42 PM #22

The collectives ratio to other races is definitely low.. Md sure is on the right track.. Feedbacks from established collectives will definitely help..

B boudicca

06/04/2011 · 01:53 PM #21

MD, nice thread, if things went into play i would consider heavily playing collective at least on one of my servers.

M MajorDineroOP

06/04/2011 · 01:22 AM #20

So taking some of these considerations into mind, perhaps we can work on boosting snow, just slightly? I could be wrong, but I don`t see snow used much. Back when I was a collective, I tended to rely on gal/brig instead, even though they were slower building.

We could look at:
1) taking away the no-defence.
2) giving it 100% capture
3) raising it`s ECM shds a bit to protect from cap ships

M MajorDineroOP

06/04/2011 · 01:19 AM #19

Yeah, getting feedback from current collectives, especially the well established ones would be helpful.

So, there is the potential implication that if base PR is going to increase, we will need to give collectives another cap ship.

I can think of reasons FOR this and reasons AGAINST this.

Starting with the AGAINST side:
Colls have some great ships already by PR, ignoring build rate. Stuff like sloop/pinnace pack a HUGE amount of fire power/hull by PR and of course the mighty gall/brig aren`t bad either. So, from that I`d argue that colls already have some of the means to deal with a high base PR. They don`t neccesarily need ships that build fast, because the ships that they have are packed with amazing by PR stats.

But of course the FOR side:
Of course, colls severely lack in the cap ships department. The one cap ship they have (snow) doesn`t tend to do fairly well against most things and can be predictable, since it`s the only ship they have that builds faster than 30k/turn

C Crack

05/04/2011 · 11:40 PM #18

Perhaps drunkenmaster should have a say..
Seeing that he`s a collective on ultra..

M Mazuku

05/04/2011 · 08:33 PM #17

A cap ship for collective similar to the one on UC would be reasonable. Granted youd need to change the stats around. But a giant R class none the less would be useful.

J Jammer

05/04/2011 · 07:05 PM #16

Well ven as long as the collective has their own food production on their planet they shouldn`t be market dependent. The tax idea was for captured planets that they can`t use to produce food to be tax planets.

Considering their double Population, it could be cool.

But once again, the same issue high base low build

Perhaps we are on the track of creating an all new race?

T Travvivian

05/04/2011 · 05:00 PM #15

"kinda hard to build pop when theres no ore on the market - derp"

I`ve never had any issues as a Maru.

MD, You`ve piqued my interest....

F FistOfNoRemorse

05/04/2011 · 02:43 PM #14

kinda hard to build pop when theres no ore on the market - derp

Reply