View Full Version : Jewel Tax

08-29-2005, 06:03 PM
Instead of giving the occupier of a city a direct money bonus (as some people have recently been suggesting), I think there should be some sort of Jewel Tax. If a person collects a jewel from your city, you should get a modest tax.

This way, people are rewarded for occupying cities, but this bonus is subject to natural variation. If a lot of jewel hunting has recently been going on, your income keeps up pace, but the jewel hunters are making much more money (due to their active role). If not many people are hunting for jewels, you wont get very much money at all. And obviously, the more cities a player has, the more income he will make this way (though the system does not account for population).

I also would assume it would be relatively simple to program(or at least simpler than some other feature suggestions), though I dont know much about it.

08-29-2005, 06:59 PM
OK, I'm liking what you're saying but I'd add this -- let users "check-box" cities they want to collect Jewels from, and let Mickey's random walk limit itself to that set of cities. My reasoning is this -- there may be some players you don't want to do business with -- you don't want to pay any tax to them. So their cities would be skipped on your random walk. Perhaps it would be possible to specify a dynamic list of cities, by specifying players. As players occupy cities and move about, the enumeration of cities walked by the jewel hunter code would vary automatically.

Or not. Another aspect of taxing jewel hunting would be that if it WAS flat across the board -- if you ended up funding enemies by being forced to mine jewels in their cities -- it would influence your decision of whether to use jewel hunting as a major revenue stream for yourself, or not. On the other hand, since all cities are covered, really the jewel thing is a zero sum game with respect to whom it rewards, and it amounts to a mere benefit for owning a city.

I think the first option could be more interesting, and frankly I think it would be fascinating to make public knowledge. Whose cities are being boycotted? It would be even MORE intereting to run it through a Google-like "page rank" system -- how many players favor cities owned by players who also favor, etc. (the convolution of the Google system's hard to condense to a blurb, hear, so I leave the inferences to the savvy reader ;-)

A lot of the practicality of how this is implemented would depend on how much churn there is in city ownership. I think the "dynamic favoring" approach would require less constant management by players. Specifying cities, it'd end up with people clamoring for alert systems when cities changed hands, and so forth. Frankly, "change management" is the bugbear of a lot of advanced features that are likely to come on-line in this game.

Mickey, you're taking this game seriously, I can already see that. You DO know what you're on. Besides insane amounts of pharmaceuticals, I mean.


09-04-2005, 10:12 PM
I read this a couple days and liked the idea. The only problem with the suggestion is that if people could check cities off the list, it would be easy to limit the jewel collecting to a small area, which would defeat the purpose of jewel hunting. What if, when we find a jewel, instead of the only option for "Would you like to take it?" being yes, we could choose not to, and just be told where the next jewel is. Maybe this wouldn't be something you'd do a lot, but if you wanted to deny someone the tax, you wouldn't be forced to dig there!

I think this is something that should be seriously considered. It would be an added bonus for owning a city, but it wouldn't unfairly put money into the hands of just a select few, if you don't want it to, as was noted in another thread about jewel tax.