Alliance Upkeep

0.075% of income lost PER MEMBER of an alliance above AE
0.025% of income lost PER MEMBER of an alliance below AE
The percentages get added up and apply to ALL members of that alliance.
So the bigger the alliance in numbers, the higher the % cost

Also maybe additionally having this cost go up by 50-100% if the alliance goes hidden, since keeping the infrastructure gets costlier, having to keep it secret and whatnot


So let's say an alliance has 20 people. 15 big ones and 5 noobs in training... that's a 1.25% 'Alliance Tax'.
Consequently a hoarding alliance of 60 people with the same ratio ... that'd be 3.75% of income "wasted"
Might be an incentive to split up alliances, even if just pro forma.

Oh yeah, it's going to be applied before officer distribution

Sounds like a good idea to me but I'm sure that there will be some that will disagree.

How about the Bank also paying some interest?

Interesting idea.

Not sure yet where I stand, but I don't like the word "wasted". I would rather see some system instituted that uses said monies. If your goal is to split up larger alliances then allow a system to help "empires" cope. Possible messaging systems, perks, idk.


I'm sounding like I want the SGW system and I really don't, but "waste" is such a dirty word LOL.


*Bet Kenzu is gonna hate this one*


**Edit**
And be sure you don't make hidden alliances so costly they are not worth using.

I did a quick very rough estimate

TIE would lose 2.85%
WR would lose 3.35%, maybe less due to Kenzu dropping more dead accounts.

How is this going to be affected by people on vacation mode?

well if the empires thing is added then I would probably add the following functions

Leaders: Message ALL members
2IC: Message ALL leadership (advisors, 2ic, leader)
Advisors: Message Leaders and 2IC

Vac mode people, if they are part of the alliance then they will pull the income down, i think it's obvious

It shouldn't be named "Alliance Tax" because the money aren't collected by the alliance. Sounds more like an "Alliance Infrastructure Costs". I like this ideea very much. Well done.

PS. Weren't vacation accounts kicked out?

@Nigatsu - no he fixed that a while ago where you don't lose your alliance, CO, or peace/war settings.

Admin wrote:0.075% of income lost PER MEMBER of an alliance above AE
0.025% of income lost PER MEMBER of an alliance below AE

I do not think that a Alliance should be punished for not having enough members. Over yes even though I do not like it I agree with it, but the smaller alliances that will be subject to reduction I would say nay

Magnus wrote:

Admin wrote:0.075% of income lost PER MEMBER of an alliance above AE
0.025% of income lost PER MEMBER of an alliance below AE

I do not think that a Alliance should be punished for not having enough members. Over yes even though I do not like it I agree with it, but the smaller alliances that will be subject to reduction I would say nay

I absolutely fail to understand your argument, please explain

I am with admin on that one wtf

OK maybe I understood it wrong, but as I see it a alliance that has less members gets penalized with 0.025%. IS my view correct ?

Plus I do not like loosing kuwal again, but I agree with the update. Just also do not think that the kuwal should be lost. I think there could be a lottery or some kind of game where you could win it or part of it. Just think it would be a fun idea. Not really a serious thought, but a fun idea

Oh and sorry wrote everything when I got up this morning, but thanks for asking again and not just skipping over the post

Magnus wrote:OK maybe I understood it wrong, but as I see it a alliance that has less members gets penalized with 0.025%. IS my view correct ?

No. The members of an alliance get "penalised" with those ammounts for each member of the alliance. The more members, the greater the "penalty".

LOL to slow

Nice idea but a new feature should be added to make big alliances a viable option too.
Imagine you are at 40% AE and the alliance takes 4% of the total income.
That would mean -10% income, which in my opinion is a lot.

damgood wrote:Nice idea but a new feature should be added to make big alliances a viable option too.
Imagine you are at 40% AE and the alliance takes 4% of the total income.
That would mean -10% income, which in my opinion is a lot.

if the alliance takes 4% then you will lose 4%, it's going to work as if it were a negative income bonus

Admin wrote:

damgood wrote:Nice idea but a new feature should be added to make big alliances a viable option too.
Imagine you are at 40% AE and the alliance takes 4% of the total income.
That would mean -10% income, which in my opinion is a lot.

if the alliance takes 4% then you will lose 4%, it's going to work as if it were a negative income bonus

So that 4% is applied to the income remaining after AE is applied, thus 4% out of 40% ?

I said it's just like a negative income bonus by that i meant the personal income bonus you can get.

Meaning it doesn't matter if it gets applied before or after AE, it's a simple % drop

Admin wrote:I said it's just like a negative income bonus by that i meant the personal income bonus you can get.

Meaning it doesn't matter if it gets applied before or after AE, it's a simple % drop

yep. doesn't matter either way damgood

yeah lets not get into the numbers game again lol

Admin wrote:I said it's just like a negative income bonus by that i meant the personal income bonus you can get.

Meaning it doesn't matter if it gets applied before or after AE, it's a simple % drop

Here's an example to show that when it is applied is very important:

Income Total (Personal bonus) 100,000,000 (0)
Administrative Efficiency 40 %
Subtotal 40,000,000
There are 2 situations where 4% could be applied:
1) 4% out of Income Total (before AE) ==> -4,000,000 ==> 10% out of Subtotal ==> Empire Total 36,000,000
2) 4% out of Subtotal (after AE) ==> -1,600,000 ==> Empire Total 38,400,000

I take it it's applied after the AE is applied, thus 2nd option in the example above.

ok, explaining it the totally dumb way

the upkeep would be a multiplier, just like the personal bonus and the AE are.
When you multiply several numbers it makes no difference if you multiply a*b*c or c*a*b.

100*0.4*0.96 == 0.4*100*0.96

I hope this will end the talk of how ae makes income bonus weaker once and for all

Most of us understand that.

I think the missing link is how you do the math, bc I know teh process and the ()()()() can toss it off.

So from all I read, It's best not to be part of an alliance cause then you lose a % .

I like it. As long as there is a way for communication.

Admin wrote:Leaders: Message ALL members
2IC: Message ALL leadership (advisors, 2ic, leader)
Advisors: Message Leaders and 2IC

I dont really like how that set up sounds as if I had to choose between losing 2% of my income and not being able to send alliance wide messages to ever person in the empire I would definitely go with losing 2% of my income I think every HC member in TIE would sacrifice 2% of their income so that we can all stay in 1 lot and message all members. If we were to split up, we would need to create 4 or 5 different alliances all ran by HC members so that we can we can keep communication and being split up into so many groups vs 2% income lose seems to be an easy choice to make. I would give up 2% of my income to avoid leading an alliance.

Admin wrote:

Magnus wrote:

Admin wrote:0.075% of income lost PER MEMBER of an alliance above AE
0.025% of income lost PER MEMBER of an alliance below AE

I do not think that a Alliance should be punished for not having enough members. Over yes even though I do not like it I agree with it, but the smaller alliances that will be subject to reduction I would say nay

I absolutely fail to understand your argument, please explain

He is saying he is in support for adding upkeep for those above AE but not below. I'm somewhat in the same boat, but not sure I really like the idea in general since we already have AE. That's just my opinion though.