Cap alliance tax rates at 50%

[Raphael]

Other people have made this argument better than I will, but people playing politics and war are here to play a game. Tales of "efficiency" and "min/maxing" may have merit, but they often trick new players into a command economy who then go on to be farms for their alliance for their entire PnW experience. Never actually "playing the game." People are much less likely to become engaged with the community if they can never do anything in-game without their alliance giving back their resources and cash - ie. their alliance's permission.

Alliances need the ability to tax their members, true. I feel that the game's quality will improve by enforcing a certain degree of freedom with resources though. Players can still deposit their incomes into the bank, but capping the tax rate would explicitly remove the ability for someone to create a tax farm alliance.

[TRM]

Bring back downvotes. 

[Arawra]

Don't like your alliance tax policy? Leave and join a different one. This is an attempt to solve a non-existent problem.

Quote

100/100 tax structures =/= inexperienced members. Telling your members to close themselves off from the community and telling them which actions to perform without insight will lead to being inexperienced and underdeveloped.

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Aether

[Blackbird]

How do you think will those alliances be able to provide you with such great grants?

[Ragnarok8085]

Stop trying to mess with my Econ mate, 100/100 stays, no one has to set taxes to 100/100, but that is what is most efficient.

37 minutes ago, Aether said:

Don't like your alliance tax policy? Leave and join a different one. This is an attempt to solve a non-existent problem.

 

You are completely correct, if only everyone else in this game had common sense.

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

3 hours ago, Aether said:

Don't like your alliance tax policy? Leave and join a different one. This is an attempt to solve a non-existent problem.

 

I have to agree, nothing is stopping people from looking for another alliance.

I personally feel
5% is fair for the protection an alliance offers
10% to 20% if you get help with new cities and a full rebuild after a war (full rebuild no 2k infra bs, if your at 3k infra and been paying tax on that get your 3K infra back)
20% to 50% if you are getting a city at least every 6 to 8 weeks
Anything over 60% i would be demanding cities within 20 days or leave.

This is me personally, lets face it if you are on 2500 infra, 20 farms and 114% you make about 760k in each city, so if you are on 20 cities that's 15.2m in 22 days you can buy city 22.
 

[durmij]

I normally don't comment on obviously terrible suggestions that needlessly narrow functionality, but then we lost downvotes, so I'm not taking any chances.

This is an obviously terrible suggestion that needlessly narrow functionality.

[Raphael]

See it as you will. Steps need to be taken in order to ensure the integrity of the game.

[Mitsuru]

I'm not a fan of command economies but I don't see how capping taxes at 50% protects the integrity of this game.

Not to mention that many alliances temporarily enforce high taxes that are close to if not 100% during rebuild phases after wars.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

6 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

See it as you will. Steps need to be taken in order to ensure the integrity of the game.

How misguided are you? You do understand the problem with GPWC, according to the rules, wasn't that they were farms, but that they were lured and bribed to stay with the promise of receiving something not game related.

And so now because of this you launch some inbecilic crusade on high tax econs and claim it's "integrity of the game". 

Bring back downvotes, this is ridiculous.

[Malakai]

On 2/20/2020 at 1:20 PM, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Players can still deposit their incomes into the bank, but capping the tax rate would explicitly remove the ability for someone to create a tax farm alliance.

Wouldn't alliances just force their members to pay for membership? Cities, infra, and improvements are visible, so it’s not hard to develop a calculator and present each nation with a bill for the revenue you are suggesting they be cut off from. Who wins a war in this game is largely determined by destruction and alliances track these numbers closely. What’s to prevent them from dividing the total loss by their membership and presenting another bill? If an alliance doesn’t have the funds to help their people, why have them at all?

Your intent has some merit, but unless you refine the method, you won’t gain any traction. It just adds an extra step to collection and most alliances take care of their people well enough to make the rates worth it and when they don’t members leave in favor of those that do. 
 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Optima

[Thalmor]

Bad idea. Let alliances do what they want.