Next round alliance limits
With all the round 23 threads going around, I thought I'd kick start this discussion.
It really should be at least 150 so my inactive ass warrants a spot in the Ascendancy tag next round. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
... It should be kept at 70.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
because...?
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
No limits is fine aswell, the lesser restriction in this game, the better it is.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
I think i've listed my reasons for wanting a low alliance limit so many times I cannot be bothered listing them yet again.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
I want the supportplanet rule changed, I am currently working on a suggestion in regards to it to ease up on the current nazi order of interpreting the supportplanet rule.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
If people want a 40 man tag limit I'm fine with that but for the love of god stop with the idea that there's only going to be 40 people in the alliance or that that would be even a vaguely good idea.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
I think the alliance limit should be higher than any current alliance's member count, as to allow for growth, but at the same time low enough that no alliances will be able to be competitive solely by way of recruiting. 150 is a good balance here. On the one hand, it allows approximately 50-110% growth of most alliances. This is a good margin and means that the cost of accepting a new member is very low. However, the current 70 best players will still beat 150 'weak' players. If not by pure score, they can recruit newbies/small planets*. * A very specific, strong incentive for the 70 players to include "other people" by whatever definition. It's cheap, it's easy and it gets us more players. Edit: Oh yeah, while I used to be a big fan of the 'very low' (15-40) limit on alliances, I have absolutely no desire to play with alliances that small, as they allow only the 'hardcore' to play competitively. That sucks. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
I'm also for at least 150 man alliances. If you want to make planetarion bigger again, set up the game to cater for that increase. We have to stop putting limits on everything, because it makes the game less attractive. It takes people too long to really get into the game and get hooked and when they finally get hooked on the game, it's even harder to get into a good alliance. We really have to make the game more approachable and open.
The large bucks aren't with the hardcore elite players, but with the less active casual players. With the current set up you keep those players out of most alliances, which makes the game less attractive and fun for them. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
You dont need to have 149 allymates in this game to have fun, or to be a force in the game, 70 or even 60 is plenty enough. The arguments I still stand for is that the variety of alliances helps keeping the game alive, plus it also evens the playing field. Yes, there have been some who have been abusing the limits and having more planets than allowed, but whatever the limits is, that will always happen, and should not be an argument for changing the limit. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Definately, if the limits are kept at 70, some descisions need to be made regarding how the limits are, if they are, enforced. Just "because this alliance HC is nice and fluffly they get to break the rules, and this one guy is annoying, so he doesn't" isn't really a great way to enforce that sort of things.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
I've just mailed all the alliances that are significantly below the limit of 70 members to see exactly how many members they had applying to them. I know that the top10 alliances were very much over-applied for, but early indications suggest that almost anyone who wants to join an alliance joins an alliance in the top 15 or not at all. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
Incidentally, I don't need 149 other people in my alliance to have fun, I just need the right 10-20 people. And those 10-20 people probably each need the right 10-20 people. There will be some overlap, of course, but who decides where to draw the line? Why does your definition of fun cause 60-70 to be some sort of magic number? Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
Erm, I think you are overdoing the drama here to be honest, yes, fun is subjective, I wont find a universe with only a few big alliances fun ,but rather extremly boring. Playing in such an enviroment is not something I feel like trying nor would care to play in. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Personally (though I think that this has been stated by others elsewhere), I think that increasing the alliance limit to something sufficiently high would force the HCs to choose how many members they actually want in their alliance.
In the earlier rounds, the active but more compact alliances were often able to win over the bigger, more unmanagable alliances because they were better able to co-ordinate. It's not dissimilar to relating it to the issues with several alliances co-ordinating attacks on other alliances at the same time. 300 members in an alliance - how realistic is it to do defence calls, arrange attacks and so forth? On the other hand, how many experienced people are willing to start up alliances now? there's quite a lot of overhead, and more people are willing to play semi actively in alliances with friends |
Re: Next round alliance limits
The nature of PAX as opposed to PA means that the game is more weighted towards the "newbie mass" than the guys putting in the hours now though.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Ignoring c200:
1377 people in an alliance 36 people applied and waiting 950 people not in an alliance |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Part of what jester is saying is that increasing the size of the alliance limits is going to bring in more people kargool.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
This is one of the reasons I think that alliances should be allowed to be as big as they want. There's an obvious disadvantage to having too big alliances. Especially now that the scoring rule offsets 'pure' recruiting drives. Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
One round last 7 weeks, and using sociological arguments for advancing the removal of alliance limits is downwards just an overdo. Well, me as an alliance hc is completely against it, and so is several other hc's in various alliances. It is time to put this neverending saga to rest and just accept the fact that the game needs alliance limits. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
Maybe you also deny evolution and rather believe the creationists because it is much easier to believe into some rubbish without having to think about its background? Quote:
I wonder why alliance hc's would be against it, nobody forces them to recruit additional members. Personally I think some HCs are simply too afraid that people dislike their alliance and thus don't want to join it, but there's a simple solution for it: make your alliance attractive towards people. Or would it be that alliance hc's just want some kind of equality? Well, every alliance has equal chances, they just have to take them. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
Or maybe it's harder to say no to people when they're under the limit. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
I just happen to disagree with using it for a community as Planetarion, based on the fact that sociological environments are based on immensely bigger societies than the current playerbase of this game. We still have split offs, but its no longer 150 people splitting out, its 10-15.. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
Edit: I think I need to expound. I'm not saying that the PA community is hitting Dunbar's number. I'm saying that alliances are societies, and as such are affected by Dunbar's number. That's the 'societal nature' I'm talking about half a page up that Kargool obviously didn't get. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Alliances are not societies. People band together quite losely. So according to Dunbar we should be looking at 30-50 ppl in alliances, given their nature. Might work i.m.o.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
I guess alliances are societies after all then. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
i wouldnt have a problem with raising the alliance limit , although the the likes of the support rule would have to be adjusted or removed
having larger alliances may mean we dont have the current political situation where its 1 half of the top 10 versus the other half larger alliance will require more work but each alliances hc can decide if they wish to recruit to the maximum limit or not personally i would prefer keeping some sort of upper limit i'm thinking of an intial limit of 80 which can rise to 100 , the last 20 members must be under each alliances average score , getting back to the initial post a desicion on this would be better sooner rather than later |
Re: Next round alliance limits
I'm all for removing the alliance limit, or increasing it to 150 (which is pretty close to removing it). I've always hated the fact we had to turn down recruits because of ingame limits. I also know various players quit the game because the game limits prevented them from playing with the group/community they wanted. You can argue the limits all you want, but fact remains that a out-of-game (irc) community simply cannot be restricted by ingame limits. It doesn't work, ever. You have ppl meeting eachother, enjoying to play with eachother, and they won't seperate because the game tells them to (well they have to atm, but that doesn't really make the players happy).
It serves absolutely no purpose at all, not to mention that atm there isn't any decent alliance left with open spots. If you honestly think that is better than perhaps ending a round with bigger gaps between alliances due to quality/communities standing out more, i don't know what you are thinking. Obviously it will mean a shift of players, some quality players might leave lower quality alliances for better ones. But in all honesty, this isn't a problem, if they leave because game limits allow them to join a better alliance, they most likely weren't that happy and/or loyal to begin with. Currently all seems to be done to support the desperate plea of "shit" alliances who risk losing their good members to better organized/quality alliances once space opens up (or them being annoyed by having to put in more work to compete). I doubt we'll see he huge change in the amount of alliances, there are simply to many existing communities that want to play their own way. No or higher alliance limits would allow for more players to experience "good" alliances, teaching them alot about the game, and should eventually give more experienced and quality players. Once alliances grow big, it becomes hard to please all members and that will most likely result in split-offs who think they can do better. This is a much better envirement for alliance "flow" than we have currently, as atm new/poor players have to play with other new/poor players and by that can hardly learn to play the game properly. And that doesn't help anyone, as its more likely to make those players quit. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
Same goes for counted score towards galaxy & alliance, there might be some great masterplan behind it but i just don't see why we need it. On topic: I think a memberlimit of 100 should be enough, 150 might be a bit too much but 70 is definetly not enough. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
^^ if my memory serves me, i think it was to prevent exiles from determining gal winners late in round and to prevent late round tagging of hidden high score people out of tag (or that had been in another tag) so your ally would win.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
70 is plenty enough.
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
So the bad isn't really all that bad. The good is that galaxy and alliance score actually mean something other than 'aggregate score of members', which is in itself a positive thing. Mostly it comes down to being about the sustained growth rates while together. So while the counted score rule reduces the calculated score to less than the sum of the parts, it actually turns galaxy and alliance score into a judgment of the whole, rather than the parts. It also stops bitches whining about shipjumpers, which is way cool. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Quote:
|
Re: Next round alliance limits
I think keeping them at 70 would seem to work well.
Although I haven't played the game with these new alliance features (not played with an alliance since round 6) but from what I've read up on and can tell, from an outsiders point of view they seem to have worked well and been reasonable. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
I think removing alliance limits is a great idea. If an alliance wants to have 150 members, there more likely to recruit shit/inactives/spies. It adds a whole new tactic to the game. you can either play:
A) small and elite B) large and brute force i say no alliance limits at all. |
Re: Next round alliance limits
At first I was skeptical about Jester and Rob's "let's remove the alliance limit" arguments but after a little thought, I think that it would work out as alliances would have to stop recruiting at some point as having too many members will merely damage an alliance.
The complications, however, are that two seperate alliances may be able to share a tag, function seperately and borrow defence from each other - they wouldn't get too big to function and would be able to benefit fromt he score of both alliances. This would, however, mean that the two alliances only gain half the credit of the win :/ |
Re: Next round alliance limits
Remove them for a round.
If it turns out to be shit, change it back for r24. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018