Alliance bank

I propose an Alliance bank system, where alliances can set up a "tax" between 1% and 5%, which will deduct that much from each member each turn, which can be later distributed accordingly or given to those who need it the most, or used in wars as emergency money for repairs, or in any way the alliance decides.

2% from the tax should be deducted as fees, just like when you deposit in your bank.

The reason why not more than 5% should be allowed is to prevent a kind of "autobanking". If alliances could set 50 or 100%, then this would obviously destroy the game. Therefore only 1-5% should be allowed.

Alliance banks are a bad ideea.
If you mean, that people can deposit kuwal at their will in alliance banks, that can be abused by multies, cheaters... urogard has an ideea of what happens in DW.

If you mean, a bank where only the custom % is deposited, then it has pros and cons. You enumerated them. And there will be one more con: the leaders could scam the entire alliance.

All in all, I think that alliance banks are not a good ideea.

PS... you could add another fee that will go to the ingame market though; being a member of an alliance, has many advantages, especially in AW, so give a small income boost to those not apartaining to an alliance, by taxing 1-2% from the alliance members income.

It can be abused in soooo many ways ..... NO

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:Alliance banks are a bad ideea.
If you mean, that people can deposit kuwal at their will in alliance banks, that can be abused by multies, cheaters... urogard has an ideea of what happens in DW.

If you mean, a bank where only the custom % is deposited, then it has pros and cons. You enumerated them. And there will be one more con: the leaders could scam the entire alliance.

All in all, I think that alliance banks are not a good ideea.

PS... you could add another fee that will go to the ingame market though; being a member of an alliance, has many advantages, especially in AW, so give a small income boost to those not apartaining to an alliance, by taxing 1-2% from the alliance members income.

If leaders abuse it, this can be exposed in the forums and he/she will loose reputation.
the alliance tax will be max 5%, so it wont pose much danger, since this is only a small fraction of the income.

the 1-2% tax for simply being in an alliance i don't really want to do as it might in some cases be a giveaway to people who are in a secret alliance

Sorry kenzu, but 5% is a lot.

example: 30 members with 30k income, means 30*5*300 kuwal/turn that could be used by the leader(s) at his(their) will... if this fee goes to the market to help the inflation, i agree with it. I`m not found of ONE/TWO person(s) controlling MY finances.

lol again, if you're in an alliance where the leader or the 2ic is using the kuwal for their own benefit, maybe time to leave that alliance?

if the alliance is crappy how will it help to change the system, changing the alliance is far simpler i think

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:Sorry kenzu, but 5% is a lot.

example: 30 members with 30k income, means 30*5*300 kuwal/turn that could be used by the leader(s) at his(their) will... if this fee goes to the market to help the inflation, i agree with it. I`m not found of ONE/TWO person(s) controlling MY finances.

how many % do you think is fine?
people can agree how finances are distributed.

lol admin... you have a point... but imo, if an alliance wants to tax their members, they can do it, without imposing it. This proposed system, would "force me to pay" but what if i don`t want to pay?

then leave the alliance and make your own where members don't pay
I mean i could also simply add a tickbox where you say if you want to pay or not into the alliance bank, tbh it would cause more problems than it would solve. (people turning it off when they need the extra kuwal, but then still claiming they payed all the time, would pointlessly create clashes in the alliance, although in that case, again, the alliance should discuss that amongst themselves. I still don't think it would be really helpful)

But i'd have to look into detail as to whether or not it would be effective or not in terms of coding and calculating income for the user and the alliance.

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:lol admin... you have a point... but imo, if an alliance wants to tax their members, they can do it, without imposing it. This proposed system, would "force me to pay" but what if i don`t want to pay?

You can leave the alliance if you dont like how they do it!

The alliance tax shouldn`t be an impediment for people to be part of one alliance. Just because "i`m greedy" with my economy, doesn`t have to be an obstacle for "me" to be part of an alliance, because there is a system that force the alliance leaders to "tax" me.

Once again... i`m not against this ideea, but i`m very against the fact that 2 people can decide what to do with x% of my income. This is the little "great" thing that many people don`t understand... how a few people control everyone else with sweet talks and promises and how they convince you that it`s for your good and for common good to "donate" and how good it is to have that... the biggest weapon... the biggest MS... and that "they" the leaders are the ones to have that weapon, because "they" are the elite... they "know" exactly what to do... got my point?

If you can, add this:

I mean i could also simply add a tickbox where you say if you want to pay or not into the alliance bank, tbh it would cause more problems than it would solve.

It is very important.

If this message doesn`t convince the "electorate" to vote against this system, then they deserve their fate to be taken as fools.

Yep .... any decent alliance has programs and credits are raised for different goals : UP increase, UU purchase, covert levels, MS, etc.

There is no need for a forced system ...... except for those who want to get their hands on more credits .... one way or the other.

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:It is very important.
If this message doesn`t convince the "electorate" to vote against this system, then they deserve their fate to be taken as fools.

Although i'm no proponent of the fascist method of the electorate voting system i still have to say this.

There's something called pure public goods, you cannot exclude people from using it (clean enviroment, standing army to protect a country) and hence people can access it without actually having to pay something for it (taxes, factory owners investing into technology to reduce pollution) resulting in the free rider problem.

Now lets say an alliance decides to focus resources to give access to a better spy level to one person, the whole alliance benefits from that when in a war. Consequently the person who decides not to pay via the ingame tax still should pay something (although they can also do it then technically via manual deposit to the bank.)
In that case it's up to every individual to make sure they are in an alliance where they are ok with how things are run and if not then there's not much you can do except leave.

I'm up for an alliance bank, as a matter of fact some parts of it are already coded, and have been since alliances were released, just have been hidden and currently the alliance bank size is meant to be 40% of the combined bank size of all members with a 5% fee on deposits.
Although personally i don't really want to be coding the automatic deposit as long as it's not above 5% of someone's income (although maybe 3% would be more appropriate). If an alliance wants to use a higher % of the alliance income then they can also make members deposit extra amounts manually in regular intervals.

the redistribution should be automated, so the leader cannot abuse (corrupt) the alliance tax. And then all weeaker member will benefit and the stronger will really be helping out other members.

What is the purpose of the tax ?

A. Redistribution of the wealth
B. Concentration to a unique powerful member
C. Upgrades that affect all members

I would rather contribute to redistribute the wealth, this would also encourage people to join alliances