It's very short-sighted to attribute all the blame for lower player numbers on alliance sizes. I've played the last however many rounds in top3 alliances with full tags and realistic opportunities to win rounds but this round I've joined a "BG". I'm enjoying the freedom much more and actually enjoying a round of Planetarion again which is novel.
As for the argument of leaders, you don't specifically need a rigid structure. Sure there's 2 or 3 people who essentially housekeep but other than that there's no reason why you can't step up and set up your own raids, or organise defence for your planet. Hell chances are the "leaders" would much prefer it if you did as I don't know many that would tell you not to.
However I do think this round with the number of smaller tags created with an aim of having a more fun round is a real statement. With player's who have ran big alliances choosing to do this it really reflects the way they feel about the game. Sure Ascendancy have a full tag with goodness knows how many out of tag once again, and yeah i'll get shouted down on an internet forum for saying it, but I think this rounds over already. I cannot see where the challenge is going to come from. So well done, you've got the biggest tag, the best players and have won again, this time within a week. Whats the aim for next round? pt 72 have it settled?
Lowering the alliance limits will lead to far more fluid politics and would reduce domination from individual alliances. I understand the argument that you have your own communities in your alliances, but when that community is pissing all over the Planetarion community I wonder what's more important.
StudentUniverse