Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
What I pointed out in your post is not trolling, it's called aporia. Arguably, my last lines might come close to what's called trolling, fair enough. I shall refrain from such comments. But please enlighten me how your posting about the boredom - tag-limit-size correlation you described is not a paradoxon in itself?
Thanks for that. So we can see that lowering alliance member limit has no influence on the number of alliances playing, and no influence on the average members per alliance. See the development of avg members per alliance and number of alliance for the rounds where the tag limit was constant. Granted, that was not really stastitical methods applied, but if wanted, I can do that, too. |
Ok, I'll elaborate. I said that alliance limits lowered might cause alliance 1 to turn into alliance 1a alliance 1b alliance 1c, etc, however, they will still be independent tags, and thus cause greater friction between the split parts of the alliances. Also causing some sort of internal competition.
Now, I am not claiming that alliance limits being lowered will be the 1 remedy for the game failing to attract a decent amount of players into the game. (For that I think Planetarion needs to remove itself from the way it is currently running.) However, it brings the playing field to a more competivie level, and makes the wars between the various tags more competitive and more fun for everyone.
If you want me to say that all alliances but xVx and Ascendancy are shit cause they can't fill up their tags, then sure, I can say that too. But the main fact is that the current situation only calls for abolishing alliances as a whole if we don't lower the alliance tags.
Am I saying this out of selfishness? Absolutely not. I could have played in both the "big" tags this round if I wanted to, however, I chose not to, cause I don't see any challenge at all for the players in the big tags at the moment.
Oh, and I'll also like to thank you for changing your tone to a more friendly debating way
