Tax, Upgrades, Etc... OMG CHANGES!

UPDATE!: This thread has sort of evolved as I've been reviewing our current ruleset. Click here to see the first wave of major changes implemented:
http://www.theskjaldborg.com/index.php?threads/tax-upgrades-etc-omg-changes.7421/#post-151847

===============================
Previously, the following are the times when the 20% tax has been applied:

• Any profits of a lance from a mission (salvage or cash). Individual and Lance Event rolls are exempt from this.
• When purchasing a vehicle (including mechs) from the company hangar.
• When selling an owned vehicle to the company hangar.
• When removing a Negative Quirk from an owned vehicle.

The reason for the 20% tax when buying or selling units was to encourage reselling to the company hanger as opposed to directly to the market. However, I see a potential flaw:

Say for example your lance salvages a mech worth 5 million during a mission. According to previous rules, the mech would immediately go to the company hanage and your lance would be paid 80% of its worth (4 million). The remaining 20% would rightly go to the company wallet to cover repairs of the damaged mech. The more intact the mech was captured, the more all parties profit from it. Everyone wins. If a pilot then wanted to purchase the now repaired mech, they would be paying for its fully repaired "used cost" (you can find it listed in MekHQ). This would be more than the 5 million it was valued at in a damaged state. Additionally, they would have to pay the +20% for purchasing from the unit hangar. This 20% could potentially be earned back whenever the mech was sold back to the company hangar. Unfortunately, it still means that the individual was essentially taxed twice.

The same goes for cash. A cash mission reward is still split 20/80 between the company wallet and the lance. If an individual in that lance then wanted to buy a mech in the company hangar, they would have to pay the +20% again.

My solution is simple: eliminate the 20% tax for buying and selling mechs from the company hanger. Not only does this make mechs owned by the merc company easier for individuals to buy, it also makes their purchase one step easier... no more calculating +20% for transactions. There is only one slight drawback that I can think of; there is very little incentive to selling "in house" as opposed to the public market. However, this shouldn't be an issue with us; hopefully the prospect of offering a fellow mercenary a deal on a cheaper mech will be enough.

Unless I get a lot of objections in the next day or two, I will implement this new ruling starting with the outcome of the Tamar campaign.

 

Something else as well...

Currently Upgrade costs are set at a flat rate in 500k incriments. This makes upgrading Heavier mechs significantly more beneficial than lighter mechs. This also means giving the same upgrade to a 20 mech costs the same as a 100 ton mech. That doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps it would be better to set the Upgrades to a percentage cost of either the unit itself or maybe the tonnage. Tonnage would probably be much easier to calculate, but actual cost might be more accurate. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

-----

Update: a big chunk of the cost of a mech is from the engine. Was thinking more about it and I think a weight-based cost would be better and here is why:

With a unit value-based cost, if you were upgrading a Centurion to go from 4/6 to 5/8, it would actually cost you LESS than downgrading from 5/8 to 4/6. This is because the cost of the new engine (whatever it may be) would be based off the original combined cost of the mech.

A weight-based cost would ensure that regardless of a speed upgrade or downgrade, the cost would always be the same. Here is the basic forumla I am thinking...

The original costs were arrived from using a 50 ton mech as the mean. I see no reason to change what isn't broken. Therefore, if you are upgrading a 50 ton mech, you will see no change to upgrade costs. For every 5 tons more or less your chassis has, your upgrade costs will increase or decrease respectively. The best part about this is that it will keep costs in nice rounded incriments of 50k (which is what we have been doing for awhile). Overall, I think this will be an excellent addition to the balance between the "power" of larger chassis and the "efficiency" of smaller ones.

 

The taxes sounds good to me. For the upgrade cost though, I'm thinking Cost, as it would be easier, and still scale with the size of the 'mech. Plus, I'm looking to upgrade my PH once MH pays back the money I loaned him....

 

Finally, I'm considering implementing a "tax rebate" for all mechs you currently own. This means you will get 20% cash back of the "used value" of any mechs own. This of course will be a one time offer assuming the new 20% tax rules are implemented.

 

review the previous post i made before yours (I was in the middle of updating it). do you still think that? the other problem with cost-based (besides the engine cost issue) is that it means more "long number" math. I think the weight-based system gets us closer to the ideal while also being super quick to calculate. I'm more inclined to go that way since I have to do most of the work, but if I get a lot of pushback on the idea I can go cost-based.

 

Ah okay. Now that you've laid it out in that manner, I can go with the weight based cost per unit. Sounds good across the board, especially that tax rebate

 

Agreement!

 

You will get 20% cash back of whatever the current value of your mech is (after repairs, naturally). If you sell your mech after that, it will be for the standard used price (again, listed in MekHQ).

And before anyone asks, you will only get a tax rebate if the mech you own was bought from the company hangar. If you are still in a starter mech you bought from the open market, no 20% tax was applied and therefore you do not qualify for the rebate. Sorry about that, but fair is fair.

 

everything has been updated (some more than others) :

New GM-Admin Master Rules:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pbm3pbsxyvf6roh/GM-Admin Master Rules 2.0.doc

New Economy & Upgrades Table:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kwwiew42b7yad57/Tables - Economy & Upgrades 4.0.xls

Dynamic Mission Map:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/84troh1nfr2b8hd/Dynamic Mission Map v0.8.xls

Dynamic Mission Generator: (UNFINISHED - WORK IN PROGRESS)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8eyi9uonq5egey3/Dynamic Mission Generator v0.4.xls

Anyone willing to brave this hydra of bullet points and charts long enough to give me some insightful feedback will receive twenty virgins in their chosen afterlife and a $5 coupon to their local coffee shop.

 

My reason for this is a simple one: if you can get any Astech to do the upgrade, then you only need one person with Astech to do all upgrades. Granted, upgrades are not the only reason to have someone with the Astech skill, but it certainly is a big part of what makes them important. To be honest, I'm not 100% behind the idea either. Your reasoning is very sound. I just figured I would try it with the more restrictive approach first.

I am certainly open to the idea of relaxing this rule. Here's a good compromise: make it so that any Astech can provide the upgrade service, but rather than making it a guaranteed thing, make the upgrade tied to a skillcheck. The more and better skilled Astechs you have, the better chance of success. However, if no Astech succeeds in "drafting" the upgrade, you have to wait until the next downtime period between contracts... or maybe one month later... whichever happens first. You would only be charged in the event the upgrade skillcheck succeeded. In a real world sense, this would be the same as a mechanic not expecting full payment until the job was finished.

We could also limit the number of upgrade jobs a single Astech can do at one time, but you are right that (while an interesting concept) it could create some additional problems.

 

UPDATE: something else too in addition to above: I could apply modifiers based on the difficulty of the upgrade. this would make simple jobs like armor and light weapon replace easier than chassis or engine overhauls.

Another way of putting it: a simple armor upgrade with a beginner Astech would be about as difficult as a full overhaul with a well skilled Astech.

 

the more i think about this idea, the more i like it.

 

Economy & Upgrade Table updated based on Sardonic's suggestions:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5kpd9gnfqsbksvt/Tables - Economy & Upgrades 4.1.xls

 

And just when you think it couldn't get better:

Economy & Upgrades 4.2

• "For Class C and D upgrades, units that are being converted to canon designs are exempt from Astech level requirements and skillchecks."
• Adv. Equipment upgrade now allows you to REMOVE hand actuators.

The reasoning for the first: This will greatly increase the validity of running a canon design... especially in the early game.

The reasoning for the second: Before this, your only option was the very expensive Overhaul upgrade if you wanted to remove anything structural. I think this is the most reasonable solution; if a person needs *just a bit more* room to squeeze something in, hand actuators would be the easiest structural part to remove first.