Quote:
Originally Posted by HaNzI
**** economics, its the individual player who signs up to have a good time that matters. Being tossed into a 100man unorganized alliance just makes them a planet in the masses, with little sense of being anything else then a muppet.
I blame the HCs in the wannabe first tier alliances, they cant handle the masses but they recruit just about anything, and they dont care about their members. Thats not HCing, its called sitting on the top for a fancy title that means nothing in the modern PA.
With a 50man limit, those alliances would have no choice but to care for their 50 members, or they would simply die. If they cant care for their members, then perhaps they should die.
|
If indeed said alliances do not take care of their players, they are likely to lose said players over time, and even if they would retain those players, they would be unlikely to be able to utilize them, thus ensuring their downfall.
An alliance which is likely to fail will fail regardless the alliance size limit.
Oh, and economics is all about the individual having fun. If your input (effort) does not result in sufficient output (fun), then the individual will regard the enterprise as unrewarding and not take part in it longer. Therefor the goal of individual enjoyment is very much at the heart of both mine and Jesters arguments.