How do you feel about the height tax?

The height tax
from http://forums.secondlife.com/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=2628


Are height taxes necessary?

Do objects high in the air use more system resources? (do they use less?)

Do height taxes limit expression?

On the BPJ Scale -

I'd give it a -1 - I don't like floating castles, but if I want to build a floating castle, I don't see why I should be penalized.

BBC

The height tax sucks. My land is mostly mountains, with 2 large levels above ground level. I've got a neat build that is multi-level, and I don't think unattractive. The highest level is still lower than the Gov Mansion, which also sits on the mountain. So my build does not have that 'up in the air whack your head when you fly into it' thing going on. Seems awfully unfair that I have to pay more because some people build eyesores. But... for all I know, everyone else in SL sees my build as a crappy up-in-the-air eyesore.

On the other hand, I don't want to see castles in the air. My apologies to those who like them -- they're just not my cup of tea. And maybe that's my point. I like my multi-level build, you like your castle in the air, we should both, as BBC said, be able to build as we like.

Thanks -
Kerstin

More than a few times I've chosen a far away landmark to fly to (to save the teleport cash), gone off to make a sandwich or something only to come back to my avatar being stuck against some giant block hovering in the air.

So that aspect of it is kind of annoying. heh. I can understand a height tax if it's an attempt to cut down on useless objects in the air. But for people who wanna build legitimate tall/high buildings, hmm. Tough call.


I would also assume it would be calculated based on the real level above ground. For example, if I have an object on ground level just above sea, then on ground level at the top of a high mountain. They're both considered to be "ground level" ?

If so then what's to stop people raising a chunk of land to a ridiculous height, then building on top of that at "ground level"?

If not, then are all the people living in the hills gonna get stiffed on their taxes?

Yeah, running into mountains gets kinda annoying, even though I myself LIVE on one (I'm such a cynic) I think what matters is how much of a tax this height tax is, and until I know that factor, I don't really care because my stipend/tax is balanced anyways...

HOWEVER, seeing as the crucial flaw of beta-testing is that people get used to the game and can't see parts of gameplay that require changing, I will go out and do my job here and as a beta tester put myself into the position of a newb...

Hrmmm... extra taxes if I build stuff in the air... well I wasn't really planning on putting much in the air anyways so I don't mind. However I would like to live on a mountain and have a nice view outside my window, hrmm.....
Maybe if the height tax applied to "height above land" rather than "height above sim surface" I wouldn't care so much, but by the sound of things, it's height above sim surface, so I give height tax, on the bp scale, a -1.

Yep Dave with the upcoming change to preclude people creating those humongous mountains, height above land would work I think. Good idea.

On the bp scale, I'd give it a -2... While I don't want to see sky-castle after sky-castle in the air, I think some changes need to be made to account for people who want to make legitimately tall buildings. I'd love to see some nice, tall, New York-style cities on SL, but with the height tax as it is, I don't see that happening.

I think it's a server issue, really. The higher your object is, regardless of whether it's on land or not, the further away it can be seen, and the more bandwidth it consumes. I know that Kerstin's place is a good exception, because it's BEHIND a mountain to the rest of the sims, and it's only visible from the edge of the game. But the rule holds true for most places, and it will unfortunately hold for Kerstin's if a sim opens up east or south of Clementia.

I know Lindenburg is running bad, but imagine that without this tax, a group of people create a miniature New York City, covering the real-estate of Lindenburg. You've increased the number of primitives used exponentially, and your building is now visible for a considerably larger distance. In this scenario, it's not just a matter of Tehama lagging, it'd be Tehama and the surrounding sims lagging.

I think we're going to see a few decisions made that really curtail things in this economy, simply because when the floodgates open, those exact same rules will be less restrictive with more money, and a handful of people will still be able to accomplish the things that seem impossible now.

Just a thought.

good idea... but

BANG -> Nexus falls...

it's killing me!!!

are you sure about that? i may be missing something but i thought you see as far as your draw distance (or the see distance of the land you are on, whichever is lower).

or are you saying that if an object is short it is more likely to be obscured by some other object? and if that's the case, does the far object get loaded anyway, even if you cannot yet see it?

i envision the world being so big some day that it will be nearly impossible to keep up with all the new stuff being built. i would love to happen upon a floating city that i had never seen before.

i think lagging is a separate issue. optimization is needed.

i suspect that much more (maybe 10x more? 100x more?) of the bandwidth (server resources) is used for loading textures than for loading geometry. those higher resolution textures are loaded when you get close to an object.

let's take an example of a sim with building resources which are saturated. let's say half of the content on the sim is high, say - 400m up, and outside of your draw distance. it seems that flying across this sim would be less of a server hit than if all the content was on the ground and visible.

heh, i'm rambling =]

what i suspect is that it has nothing to do with server performance... but rather growth patterns. I think is it is more about keeping all the residents in the same plane of existence. I say fight the power!!!! Just kidding, but seriously i think that the tax is set to encourage people to build in the same general z vicinity. (my turn to ramble) although it is interesting to consider the extents of the sim... along the x and y axis, we are limited to 256m, but the z we have virtually unlimited space (there is a cap, but it is something insane like 256k or 512k)... not really going any where with that statement, just thought that it was interesting... I wonder if maybe they could turn a sim on its side, so that we are limited to 256 in say the x and z axis and, a nearly limitless y... We could make a giant tube... i want to do it!

Z is 300 flying... you need to be pushed (by a rocket or what ever script drivin with LOTS of force) to get higher then 300

*looks at Nada's SLeek*
Nada~ ?? hahaha!

which further suggests that they are trying to keep everyone within a certain range.

highest i have been is 60,000m, got bored so i teleported home, i think bbc has been higher, but i am not sure. it can be done, with a fairly simple script, or i could just make you an elevator, whatever

edit-

of course i had to change it otherwise i would have given it away heh.

Let's not forget the reason the economy exists at all -- it's not a means to profit from our building outsize structures, it's a means to ensure social interaction and community participation before we can clutter up the landscape.

Having a really tall building doesn't affect the servers any more than having a short, fat one does. What it DOES is make things annoying for the rest of us -- getting stuck on a big tower or mountain is definitely annoying. However, there's ways around that -- simply allow the flight function to follow the slope or angle of a building wall until clear, then continue on to its original location.

No, the main reason for the height tax is to get us to build at a more consistant level, to get away from having a skyscraper next to a log cabin, for example.

Oh, incidentally, as the owner of an increasingly insanely large building project out in Shipley, I find the tax annoying too, for the same reasons Kerstin listed. I can still afford it out there though... for now.

Catherine Omega

Are you sure that flying is 300 z?

I tried to build at 200z and was impossible for me to get up there - I could set the object that high - but I couldnt actually reach it flying.