Quote:
Originally Posted by berten
I think rather then those asc mid-section playing in a 2nd-3rd tag, they can be drawn out to play for another alliance. (Afaik, they haven't been Asc for their entire pa career, so why would they stay asc).
|
This is exactly what (at least a lot of people in) Ascendancy are actually favouring over artificially limiting alliances: If you want people to not play for Ascendancy then go and make them want to join your alliance. It is
not Ascendancy's fault that its members don't want to join elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berten
Next to that we still have the support rule that could be re-invoked
|
And the support planet rule is the biggest pile of rubbish this game has ever seen. The outcome of the game should be decided by its game mechanics, not by some arbitrary rules that inconsistently enforced.
And, with that in mind: Quite a few people in this thread did more complain about broken game mechanics than anything else, and use that as an argument for lowering alliance limits. Seriously, think again about that. I do fully agree that this game's mechanics are utterly broken, inconsistent and enforce too much one-dimensional gameplay. But I urge everyone to reconsider whether those broken mechanics are really fixed by lowering the alliance limit. In my opinion they aren't, and maybe someone can once again post the statistic for "amount of players per round linked to alliance limits" to show that it would actually do more harm than good to have lower limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berten
We saw 7 new alliances this round, all with their respective dc/bc/hc 's.
|
I count 3. In the top 15 tags. Where do you get those other 4 alliances from?