Gunshots Tradable Permits

[LYK08]

Is your proposal not a type of compulsory charge/ levy (in the form of sellables and melees) imposed upon the playerbase if they wish to shoot more than the allowable gunshots?

Nope. Its not a levy, but a product that can be exchanged.

You could say you have to trade for it with items, but you can also trade it for items.

Point is, it pressures the players to be more skill based by making their shots count. Say, if I want a 250 kill streak and with my old skill level I need 10 permits worth of shots. But now that there's an incentive for me to improve my skills as I could sell a couple of permits away if I can get 250 kills with fewer shots. I.e 8 permits used, so I could sell 2 away.

10 permits is equivalent to 5000 shots and its more than enough since it will not be counted in spars or basing.

Its meant to push for skills improvement, rathed than restrict anything.

Moreover, it changes the difficulty level for pkers. For instance, if I dominated a street with 400 kill streak and I ran out of permits, I could go pk in a base (which is more difficult) to get streaks. This in a way filters the overpowered pkers away from the streets, to allow weaker players to pk or new players to roam.

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

[LYK08]

Alternatively, if I am skillful and I want to avoid permits, I can buy any gun under 30k and pk. Its harder to use the weapon as they are less powerful, but because I am skillful enough, i can evade the cap. This is what skillbased gameplay is supposed to be.

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

[Abdullah1441]

Alternatively, if I am skillful and I want to avoid permits, I can buy any gun under 30k and pk. Its harder to use the weapon as they are less powerful, but because I am skillful enough, i can evade the cap. This is what skillbased gameplay is supposed to be.

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

Or just add rewards for shooting under the cap, instead of penalizing for shooting over.

This way, people can practice without penalty, and actually WANT to shoot under.

[BlackandWhite]

Nope. Its not a levy, but a product that can be exchanged.

You could say you have to trade for it with items, but you can also trade it for items.

Point is, it pressures the players to be more skill based by making their shots count. Say, if I want a 250 kill streak and with my old skill level I need 10 permits worth of shots. But now that there's an incentive for me to improve my skills as I could sell a couple of permits away if I can get 250 kills with fewer shots. I.e 8 permits used, so I could sell 2 away.

10 permits is equivalent to 5000 shots and its more than enough since it will not be counted in spars or basing.

Its meant to push for skills improvement, rathed than restrict anything.

Moreover, it changes the difficulty level for pkers. For instance, if I dominated a street with 400 kill streak and I ran out of permits, I could go pk in a base (which is more difficult) to get streaks. This in a way filters the overpowered pkers away from the streets, to allow weaker players to pk or new players to roam.

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

This is merely semantics. The point is that exchanging/ trading/ whatever you wish to describe it, is a form of transaction to wish one must buy a cost (permit) imposed/added onto pking (to which prior did not require a cost ,hence, imposed)

You seem to insinuate that people must buy permits since you use the word "sell", (to sell something one must buy it), this buying of course is a form of charge.

[LYK08]

This is merely semantics. The point is that exchanging/ trading/ whatever you wish to describe it, is a form of transaction to wish one must buy a cost (permit) imposed/added onto pking (to which prior did not require a cost ,hence, imposed)

You seem to insinuate that people must buy permits since you use the word "sell", (to sell something one must buy it), this buying of course is a form of charge.

Going by your line of reasoning, lets illustrate with an example of a brella. Say, if I want to do the damages caused by a brella, I have to pay for a brella. The price of a brella is therefore a charge/fee/tax and therefore it should not be implemented.

Prior to buyung a brella, I could still Pk with any other weapons such as the noob sword or the starter gun. Since the brella has an additional cost, it is an imposed cost and so is a tax.

Does this make sense?

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

[Abdullah1441]

Going by your line of reasoning, lets illustrate with an example of a brella. Say, if I want to do the damages caused by a brella, I have to pay for a brella. The price of a brella is therefore a charge/fee/tax and therefore it should not be implemented.

Prior to buying a brella, I could still Pk with any other weapons such as the noob sword or the starter gun. Since the brella has an additional cost, it is an imposed cost and so is a tax.

Does this make sense?

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

No, as the cost of the umbrella is to OWN it, not to look at it.

The permits reduce purchases from completely owning it, to just being able to look at it.

Why did I but the weapon if I can't use it?

[BlackandWhite]

Going by your line of reasoning, lets illustrate with an example of a brella. Say, if I want to do the damages caused by a brella, I have to pay for a brella. The price of a brella is therefore a charge/fee/tax and therefore it should not be implemented.

Prior to buyung a brella, I could still Pk with any other weapons such as the noob sword or the starter gun. Since the brella has an additional cost, it is an imposed cost and so is a tax.

Does this make sense?

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

I want to own black brella so I wish to trade it from someone for 10 000 shells. Prior to buying a brella there was no restrictions, I purely paid the amount of shells to wish my partner wanted (10 000). Suppose that Graal Era steps in and introduces a trading permit in which they take 50 shells in trades/ transaction of greater value than 5 000 shells; if they wish to continue. I now must pay my partner 10 000 shells and pay a compulsory incurred cost of 50 shells.

This permit IS tax

Do I make myself clear?

[LYK08]

I want to own black brella so I wish to trade it from someone for 10 000 shells. Prior to buying a brella there was no restrictions, I purely paid the amount of shells to wish my partner wanted (10 000). Suppose that Graal Era steps in and introduces a trading permit in which they take 50 shells in trades/ transaction of greater value than 5 000 shells; if they wish to continue. I now must pay my partner 10 000 shells and pay a compulsory incurred cost of 50 shells.

This permit IS tax

Do I make myself clear?

Did u not read my clarification on taxes vs tradable permits?

Taxes regulates the use of an item through prices (something that everyone does not want and I have not suggested this either) while tradable permits directly regulates the use of an item (which is what I am getting at)

taxes are one-way payment whike tradable permits are just like any other trade transactions.

You seem to assume that the permits have to be gotten through payments and so you say its a tax. Its a wrong assumption. Just because I put the permits up to the free market, you assume that its a tax when its transaction of items (just like any other goods).

You analogy is flawed as that is clearly an imposition of a tax. I have not written that in my idea please read first post.

I will develop from your analogy. When I pay 50 shells, I am paying for the trade permit (a product) that allows me to trade (a utility gained from the product). This is not a tax as a tax is a payement that does not give me any product.

If I pay 100 gralats for a gun (a product) that allows me to kill (a use of the product), can I say that the 100 gralats is a tax? NO!


Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

[LYK08]

By your logic, ammo refills and revive are taxes because they add to the cost of using a gun/staying alive.

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

[Abdullah1441]

By your logic, ammo refills and revive are taxes because they add to the cost of using a gun/staying alive.

Sent from my SM-J600G using Tapatalk

Ammo refills and revive areN'T as you pay for special services.
You pay to revive, then you revive. You don't pay to revive, then pay to exist, lad.