[Marka]

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

This subject is one of the worst offenders, wherein only one side ever makes any arguments (hint: it's not your side Marka/Makhil/Kaiba), and the other comes back with the same tired bullshit time and time again (this is your side!).

I tried - but they are ignored.
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...7&postcount=95

I admit the other side is much louder. But I really can't be arsed to back down this time as usual.

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

in that case we might as well reduce your definition of activity to its core, count the number of pageclicks per account and that person wins!
In other words, your assumption as stated above is flawed. If you want to reward anything it should be efficient fleet use and score maximization.

I didn't give any definition of activity - neither did you. What you wanna read into this is your own problem

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

What? Shouldn't PA put more concern towards those players? As spinner also posted somewhere, this game design is inherently flawed as it needs a constant influx of roids and new players. You are suggesting the opposite it seems, I might be wrong, but please enlighten me then.
New players do not spontaneously organize. Really, this is a game, not a job or a calling. If you are new and you have to do all that stuff you are suggesting, you just find another game.

Actually they do. This is how alliances are formed in the first place

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

In general you seem to make a mistake a lot of 'smaller tag limit' posters seem to make and that is that if you 'force' people to create 'smaller' tags, they will. I think if you push people towards things they do not want in a game, they stop playing and leave. This point is backed up by the following studies:

Art of Game Design
Theory of Learning
Predicting how people play games

Less scientific, more accessible the points I am referring to are also listed here.

Cycling through those - none of them is related to the problem of alliance sizes directly. It is about good game design - that much we can agree on.
Where we disagree is how good game design should affect tag sizes.
You believe in a community-based approach whereas alliances should get the freedom to act as they like in regard to building up communities.
I believe that alliances have enough freedom with smaller tag levels and that this would have positive effects on politics, as well as options new players have.

Originally Posted by Light

but those 5 serious alliances contain most of the active players. So while it only effects the minority of alliances, it effects the bulk of the active players.

Which is the core of the problem.

Originally Posted by Light

Its not putting more concern, its maintaining the current status-que. At the moment, top alliances tend to allow semi-actives/casuals to remain in there alliance which means that you dont need to be 100% active to be in one of the top alliances. Lower tag limits, means that the top alliances will be requiring full activity and the competition to get in a top alliance is alot harder. Forcing lower active players into worse alliances which isnt really good for the game.
We should be trying to encourage alliances to recruit some casuals/semi-actives and not discard them.

How many of those casuals are new players? Since there is no recruitment but just vouching the number should be close to 0.
Besides the current status-quo has allowed some very horrible blocks.

Originally Posted by Light

The semi-active and casual players currently in the top alliances which will get kicked if the alliance limit is reduced to 40 wont be able to join another tag? as who will be active enough and good enough to HC/BC/DC it? Anyone good enough to do that, will be kept in the top alliances and wont be creating a new tag with casuals.

This argumentation is absurd. There are other alliances around with officers crews that are operating below tag limit.

Originally Posted by Light

Smaller alliances dont really allow for more competition, it ruins the alliance competition as it makes blocking much more important and the only way to win. With smaller alliances, it becomes more easier to overwelm an alliance with numbers and in a block war.. it allows for blocks to easily organise incomings on every single planet in an alliance, pwning them in one night.

The blocks would have to be made up by many more alliances which makes forming the blocks much more difficult in first place.
Right now you need only 2 alliances to form an impregnable "block".

Originally Posted by Light

I really dislike this thread, as the main reason people seem to be calling for this lower tag limit, is just for 'a change' and it all hinges on people stepping up and creating more alliances, when its been shown that its highly unlikely for that to happen. It could result in one of the worse rounds PA has ever had, It could result in it being a 'fun' round, the point is.. is the tag limit that wrong at the moment that its worth risking? and if it is, should it really be instantly reduced? but slowly reduced over multiple rouns instead.

Yes - the tag limit right now allows too few tags having too much of the active universe.