[Discuss] Re: Feedback on experimental tax system

[Jim Bowers]

That is very true, I have wondered about that.

On 10/20/06, Christopher Subich <csubich at subich.com> wrote:
>
> Tom Vogt wrote:
> > There are advantages to both systems. The advantage of the new system is
> > that distant changes have less effects. For example, 5 people changing
> > from Mentor to Hero doesn't affect your (Soldier) share.
>
> But there's not enough granularity in the new system, as is, to have a
> proper distribution at all.
>
> Looking at the experimental tax page, we can set 1-9 points per class.
>
> If a realm wishes to reward, say, Soldiers (50) and Mentors (1) equally,
> then the Soldier pot should be 50x the size of the Mentor pot.
>
> This is not possible at all under the experimental system, but the
> decision to have no bias between Mentors and Soldiers (and Cavaliers,
> and Heros, etc) is a common and reasonable one.
>
> To the extent that equal balance is possible under the new system, it
> will only be a result of the Banker constantly micromanaging the tax
> weights to account for how people have switched class that week.
>
> The existing tax system also provides shelter from distant effects, if
> the common situation of equal weights for most classes holds.  5 people
> changing from Mentor (weight 1) to Hero (weight 1) also doesn't affect
> your (Soldier) share.
>
> As a banker, if the new system goes into effect as currently written I
> will very likely drop class weights entirely, because it's just not fair
> to require nearly-equal weights (a change of up to a factor of 9)
> between classes, when class balance often can go 25-50:1 (see Mentor,
> Cavalier, Trader).
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20061020/0cd55f30/attachment.htm