Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
Firstly, the top alliances will still tend to recruit known players, as running a large alliance requires greater absolute effort, although arguably a lesser relative effort, then running a small alliance. Therefor, each member they add has to have an expectancy of being to their net benefit, given the increased need for leadership, primarily in terms of a greater number of officers. They will tend to recruit players they already know, which given the state of the game would primarily be focused outwards or indeed to some former members who are playing less actively in smaller alliances.
|
Every step you say seems logical and then to still reach a wrong conclusion blows my mind.
lets take it from the smaller alliances point of view again.
We will lose our "known players" and are forced to recruit from the pool of noobs wich we train again for 1 or 2 rounds. whom then are "known to the bigger alliance and we will lose them again.
Quote:
|
However, in general the reason small alliances are small is not because the evil top alliance are hindering their growth. If they truly were able to offer competitive leadership and organization, barring a initial startup cost which all alliances face, they would be able to poach members just as well from the larger alliances as in this proposed scenario the larger alliances would be able to poach from them.
|
now you are really grasping, many 2nd tier alliances have competent leadership and officers.
what makes leadership great though is the competence of the men below you.
This is starting to feel like a pointless discussion anyway do what you ****ing like. see how long those 2nd tier alliances and there players will last (not like we lost many over the past couple of rounds)
.