View Single Post
Unread 11 Jun 2008, 15:55   #41
Buddah
Knight of Ni!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oslo Norway
Posts: 298
Buddah is a jewel in the roughBuddah is a jewel in the roughBuddah is a jewel in the roughBuddah is a jewel in the rough
Re: No new alliances?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gate
By increasing the memberlimit, there is a marginal cost in terms of officer time eg 20 more members may require 1 extra DC. But this cost is very small compared to the initial outlay eg you need 10-15 officers/HC to provide infrastructure, regardless of whether you have 20 or 100 members.

With a memberlimit of 30, that means there are 15 slots for non-officer members. With a limit of 90, there are 75 slots. Tripling the memberlimit quintuples the number of slots for non-officer players.

Of course, the alternative is that alliances get by on less officers, decreasing alliance quality so that members of most alliances have a worse time. Either way, given that active officers are a finite resource, I'm still convinced that lower memberlimits are a bad thing for the game. If you have the officers to generate new alliances (only anecdotal evidence supports this), you end up with poorer quality alliances or with less slots for players who can't commit to DCing/BCing.
1. a memberbase of 30 would not need 15 officers/hcs..... you would 1person to fix some tools(arby/forums/attackbot) 1person to handle all the whine/meetings/members/whatever. 2BC is clearly enough for 30 ppl, 1 could possibly be enough aswell. lets say the BC's arent n00bs and DC aswell then you would need a few more dcs lets say 2 more. i count 6, yay thats leaves 24for members. there is however 1 problem with smaller memberbase though.
lets say you have 2members in gal A, 2 members in gal B. gal A and B get 5waves each. that leaves 26 ppl to cover 20 incs and we all know that ppl aint availible 24/7 regardless of what they say, so max 20ppl availible to send def. and if its big incs you wont have enough fleets:>
Buddah is offline   Reply With Quote