Hey there,

So I've been puzzling about the current tax system and what doesn't feel right about it. I found two things from two points of view where the gaming experience could be significantly improved.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How?

I think the tax system needs more structure, my suggestion is that associates kick up taxes to their sponsors (in the end IRL sponsors aren't charity organisations either), those sponsors will need to pay their taxes to the hands which will each have a few sponsors under their command. The hands on their turn will pay their taxes to the big boss.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why?

So as I said there's two points of view on which I reason this to be a better way to organize taxes.

First of all, the roleplay perspective in which you are a member of an infamous mafia family. I have never in my life heard of a streethustler ever hearing about anything close to their big boss let alone kicking money up at them personally. In the above structure there will be a more realistic feeling of the actual mafia structuring and a more organized vision at who is responsible for who. There are great responsiblities at hand for the sponsor though, because when the associate fails to abide the rules or starts some trouble the sponsor will be the first one to look at in those situations. Now I don't think that part should change as it does in fact make the game put on some pressure on the layers, the lower layers feel pressure from upper layers and the higher you get the more power you have but the more trouble you'll get for a mistake, that's perfect! Just sadly the cashflow does not follow this same structure.

At second comes the perspective where we view the game as a game that is judged by it's gameplay such as  the mechanics and convience. From this perspective it seems the associate system is simply a little lackluster and therefor may be not used as much as it should be. Currently as a sponsor you carry a great responsibility over the person you took into your crew and often times, at least I think it's courtesy, you will pay your newly recruited associate with a nice bunch of cash to get started. Also you will now be the main target for questions and problems the associate might experience during gameplay. What's in it for the sponsor though? Absolutely nothing, then why would a person other than the crewleader even recruit. It just seems rather pointless to go through all the costs and responsibilities without a paycheck reflecting the work you've put in.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Final words

That being said, I do really love the game as it is already and I am sure not trying to crack down any of it. I do my job as a sponsor, including the charity starter bonus for my recruits and I do it to keep the crew growing. I just thought there might be a missed opportunity left in taxes for both roleplay reasons and motivating people to become more active sponsors. I'm sorry for the lengthy post and hope I made it readable with the effort I put into formatting it the way it's done.

I hope the team will consider this project and wish you all a nice day :)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

-Rez

I think this one has been explored a few times. I quite like the idea personally. I remember the days when the amounts were automatically deducted :P

Yes I do believe I've seen something similar pop up before but I couldn't find the thread anymore :(

The main reason called to not do it was because it was a lot of coding for a system that isn't used enough. But my main point is that the system isn't used for the exact reason it doesn't really feel right yet.

I really like the associate to sponsor idea, as well as Squishys idea of a designated accountant. I think a accountant would add a nice touch to the game and it would be fun to see happen.

I like it but I am a bit concerned. Lots of times donations take a play on those waiting for Made man. How does this look in regards to that? Will the CL know that the associate kicked up the money at all? Or will they just have to hope for the best?

There could be an accountant or spokesman involved under the name of something the likes of front man yes.

Structure would be associates > sponsors > LHM/FM/RHM > CL where the frontman will mainly function as a sort of global sponsor in case any of the sponsors have died/are not pressent so the lower struct can still come into contact with the boss. Consequently he will be responsible for unsponsored members where the hands will remain mainly functioning as advisors as they do currently.

I see your concerns there zephyra but as for donations are not taxed they will probably go unnoted for the leaders. However the tax will be counted as income just like petties or felonies do currently for the sponsor as I have imagined the system. That way the leader will be aware that there is tax payed to the sponsor and therefor money owed to him. Plus he will be aware of the lowers who pay their taxes and not as a low income registered for the sponsor means that the associates are not kicking anything up.

Ah okay. I think I used the wrong term but you answered it nonetheless so thank you.  I just worry if it was something that couldn't be seen considering the impact paying taxes or donations have towards Made man. 

Donations don't usually go unnoted though. They do count towards earnings I believe. I know many families don't always use the tax system but instead the donations one.

Interesting idea though. I think it would be kind of neat to see just as long as there is a way for the CL to know they are technically getting paid by the associates.

Yes for clanleaders this will be tracable ofcourse :) All that happens on their end is that they can now rely more on their sponsors at cost of a little piece of the cake that will be discussed by each crew individually like the current taxes have been I presume.

Rest of crew and sponsors money goes to LHM. (Or we have a designated accountant?)

I think the LHM slot would be perfect, and give that little extra responsibility without creating a whole new 'role' that doesn't exactly tie into the current mafia structure you've implemented. The LHM would technically be the one handling this in the current hierarchy, so it makes sense to just expand the role to include this new responsibility :)

To add, the RHM is technically the Underboss, and the LHM the 'advisor' or Consigliere to the Don (crew leader) and can be seen as the more 'money' and business literate.

I do like that this is more realistic - however, this is essentially just adding in more work for absolutely no reward. At the end of the day this IS a game, and sometimes realism should absolutely be ignored for the sake of fun and enjoyment. I do not see this adding anything rewarding at all, only making more work and stress for people in general.

I'm not sure you quite understood the point there Datorder. As this new system is all about getting more reward for the work you're basicly already expected to do. As a sponsor you will receive the tax money of your associates (reward) and the only extra work you have to do for it is keeping some extra money aside for your designated upper as you now have more taxed income yourself too. 

As for the accountant part, there has been a suggestion for an extra role to be added ingame to fullfill this function. Another post I've read was about LHM taking the responsibility. I've read this as dropping (a part of) the current responsibilities as a trade off. This has not been my entry though so I'm carefully looking at Axel to confirm that for me. Also consequently RHM and LFM will now earn taxes payed out by the sponsors and in their place will have to pay their fees to the big boss himself.

Concluding all above I'd say the crew leader is the only one who doesn't get rewarded in cash by this system. However, for losing the money he saves quite a bit of work being that financial duties are passed off and he will no longer have to act as a sponsor himself getting clear of the responsibilities over anyone but 2 or 3 people he contacts very closely already anyway. 

In case I still missed the point of your question please do explain more thoroughly what you mean by not rewarding and more work. I strive to take care of everyones concerns with either a statisfying answer and/or the appropriate tweeks to the original concept before putting together the blueprints for final approval :)

No dropping of responsibilities :) Just making the suggestion that the LHM takes on the 'accountant' role on top of the current setup, instead of creating a whole new 'slot' for a separate person to do this, as technically the LHM is seen as the Consigliere whilst the RHM is seen as the Underboss. How that matters is the Consigliere is more an advisor on business (and financial) matters to the Don, whereas the RHM is more the shadow of the Don, taking his place where need be. 

Hope that clears it up good sir. If not let me blaze a bowl and see what comes to pass :) It more get more confusing though, and a little philosophical.

Okay that's clear then ^^ Then it does actually mean LHM will have a bigger task to fullfill. However, Datorder is not a LHM himself so I'm not quite sure if that's the part he was concerned about. I wouldn't really know who else will have more work to do either in the plans as they are currently so I'm gonna have to wait for his reply on that one.

:) Just my input, but whatever works, works. If it's easier to assign a separate person to the role and peoples love it then it's best to give the peoples what they want. Riots and all that.

I genuinely don't think all the implications have been considered - ReznoV you're assuming that leaders will allow their sponsors to essentially skim off the top of the stuff they earn, and if they do this then surely the shortfall in taxes will have to be made up somehow? Which in my mind only leads to leaders setting higher taxes, which again essentially just means all the little guys will get taxed to shit which surely isn't what anyone wants.

Also, why are sponsors going to get rewarded on this system anyway? Quite frankly any sponsor could just send out invites and get lucky with a hard working associate, and still end up with more money coming his way (just for sending one invite and not much else) than a sponsor who takes plenty of time with their associate and does well with them but the associate just can't physically be as active. It's essentially rewarding sponsors just for having the luck to pick up hardcore players, not for their actual effort levels with their associates in terms of help provided etc.

The tools to reward sponsors are already in the game. You speak to their associates, you see if they get on well with the sponsor and if they feel the sponsor is actually doing their job and then you can send them money to reward them. Set incentives for them, etc etc etc. All this is shit that can be done in game without the need for making some extra tax coding which will force every leader to do this, whereas leaving it as is allows leaders to actually shine above others based on their effort put in and the willingness to grow.

I do appreciate that something like this has the potential to encourage sponsors to try harder with new players, however I think generally speaking this won't assure that the sponsor doing the work will actually do a good job and will just lead to more headaches in general especially with it being around the tax system. I think it would actually be better to start with rewards at the top of the chain - give rewards to leaders who have sponsors that actively recruit and have associates that reach Made Man. Allow them the choice of which sponsors to reward - or a system that gives extra money to the sponsors of associates that reach Made Man (yes, this is still rewarding a sponsor for something they potentially had nothing to do with, but at least it's not also creating a tax related headache). There are surely many different avenues that I think should be explored for the sake of enjoyable gameplay before adding in more work for a lot more players.

I honestly don't think crewleaders will be too nancy bout it as the taxrates will be up for discussion for each crew individually. If a crew decided to put a 100% taxrate on their sponsors that's fine, but given not every crewleader will do this they risk losing valuable hard working sponsors to other crews putting those crews on top sooner or later. That being said, ofcourse there will be less income for the crewleaders as a result this new system. But putting higher taxes is not necessarily required as more active sponsors means more actively recruiting sponsors and therefor more members (unless you're up to the cap ofcourse but I've never heard a capped crewleading complaining about lack of resources to be honest).

Second, I do believe it's the sponsors responsibility to motivate and stimulate a new recruit into playing as actively as he can. Not in the new system only that's already your job right now, you just can't be bothered to do it because there's nothing in it for you. There is ofcourse a slight element of luck on whether how actively the member is able to play. But so does it for the current system where even those with a lot of time don't get stimulated to actually spend this time usefully because their sponsors couldn't care less how active they are until they have to HQ wack them for inactivity. You have a very lazy view of being a sponsor currently where just clicking a button is enough and that is exactly the reason why I want to blow some life into this system. If you are putting time and effort into sponsoring, both you and the crew will end up with more money and strength than a bunch of unorganized crew that can't be bothered to do anything until you need the money and strength but it's too late.

As for the tools to reward sponsors, it's nice that they're there ofcourse, were it for them to be actually used. There's no big tag on the frontpage of your clan telling "This leader doesn't donate to sponsors" where as with taxes it will show globally. This gets us back to the argument where competition between the better paycheck leads to more successful crews and more motivated sponsors, better introduced and motivated associates generating a lot more money than you might initially think right now.

Finally, I do understand your concerns on the matter as we will not know for sure how the big picture will actually look in the future until it's already implemented. Going from the fact there is quite a bit support for the idea so far I don't think it will be cancelled completely. However, I would like you to think along with me how we could make these plans suitable to fit your comforts. After having read the arguments above and either agreeing or disagreeing with them, do you have any suggestions to make this idea more comfortable with you? I do realise the plan is not perfect in any way yet so I would love your input as in how to fix the problems you have with the way it's currently pictured. For instance, would you recommend a maximum tax level? Or would you rather see the accountant come into play where taxmoney will be awarded through accountant discretion on which sponsor put the most effort? Nothing has been permanently locked in yet so please speak your mind :)

"that's already your job right now, you just can't be bothered to do it because there's nothing in it for you" - I'm not even a sponsor. Please don't assume things about me that you don't know. I haven't once attempted to call you lazy or talk about you personally in any way, shape, or form, so staying on the topic of the suggestion would be very much appreciated.

"You have a very lazy view of being a sponsor currently where just clicking a button is enough" - this isn't just my view I'm sure. Perhaps I've just been very unlucky but 90% of the sponsors I've had have mailed me until they have me as an associate and then don't bother with me any more past perhaps the second and sometimes third day. I've tested this quite a lot over time, so I know it first hand. I think I've only had about 1 in 10 sponsors that have checked on me regularly on previous accounts to see how I'm doing.

What it all boils down to for me, is that I don't like to see things hard coded. If leaders want to put in effort to reward their sponsors, then that should be up to them. But also, I can see how doing it this way can potentially make it so that they don't reward people at all which obviously isn't helpful to new player retention etc if the sponsor also doesn't put any effort past the first mail (like I have described).

The question I have is this - how can the game itself judge whether someone is a good sponsor and actually deserving of a reward? Being a good sponsor is not the same as having a good associate, and likewise being a good sponsor doesn't necessarily mean you'll even have a good associate just like being a bad sponsor doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a bad associate. I genuinely don't know how the game itself could judge something as complex as that, and I think adding a stepping stone onto taxes will take away from some people's enjoyment - to give an example; currently the taxes are accrued individually and we all pay them individually. If tax from associates is paid to sponsors, sponsors now have to work out how much is sent to the leader. The leader now has to work out if the sponsors are kicking up the amount they should, and are most definitely going to get less money than currently (since it is incredibly unlikely that every single dollar will be paid forward). This shortfall will most likely lead to the general tax % being raised because the leader finds they're a bit short, which means that the people that are actually paying all of their taxes will end up paying for the shortfall. So in essence - the leader ends up with what they already had, sponsors get a bit more, but all the non sponsors gets less money (if they pay their taxes at least). Or, the leader ends up with less money, sponsors get a bit more, non sponsors stay as they are. Or, Leader stays as they are, sponsors pay everything forward so stay as they are, non sponsors stay as they are. In all of these scenarios someone loses out or nobody gains at all, and because it would be hardcoded in then there would be no choice in whether to do it or not. I'd imagine you'd most likely see taxes just turned off, and everyone told to just directly tribute their money to the leader.

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong - I don't know. I do tend to be a bit of a cynic.