View Single Post
Unread 30 Sep 2010, 14:35   #95
Marka
xVx
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 165
Marka is just really niceMarka is just really niceMarka is just really niceMarka is just really niceMarka is just really nice
Re: Alliance Size for next round

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion View Post
No, because the arguments on the 'pro' side of small tag limits have been exposed as flawed or not being arguments at all.
While (most) arguments on the 'no' side of small tag limits, aka the side of high/no limits have no yet been countered or shown to be flawed.
If an argument is repeated continuously it does not get valid (admittedly that counts for both sides).
If an argument is challenged using unproven arguments it doesn't get invalidated.

So for the sake of argumentation let's have a look at the market for lemons theory concerning PA, the full extend can be found at http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=193999

Some problems I have with this:
  • View centric from a single alliance - no politics, interconnections etc
  • No factoring in of alliance communities
  • Assuming PA recruitment is an open market
  • Assuming PA having a basically unlimited resource of players
  • Giving no factors about what makes a high-quality player
While it is a very well-proposed argument, the model used is overly simple, does not take into account the influence of smaller tags on politics and has not been tested, since the top-tiered alliances having a full tag usually don't have an open recruitment. Besides even for (and only those) the possible lemon market has been countermeasured by having less members counting towards the final score.

Since you seem to want a more solid argumentation. I propose to create a system based on the number of competitive alliances desired in the game. Why?
  • Coalitions get more difficult to uphold the more alliances are in. More competitive alliances prevents superior blocks from forming and/or simplifies creation of counterblocks
  • Less alliance def improves gal play, since they are required as second source of def.
  • With more important gal play NAPs are countermeasured since you can't afford not to def ingal vs certain incomings
  • Political situations will change more quickly avoiding boring weeks as seen in R38
  • It is easier to form new alliances since a smaller core is required

To just throw in a random number what I would consider a good amount - 10.
Then I propose this very simple model to calculate tag:

tag_limit = number_of_active_players / number_of_good_alliances_you_want

Active players are folks that log on daily, participate in attacks and defence regularly.
Assuming we currently have 500 of those - the preferred tag size would be 50. Ofc decreases if you want more competitive alliances.
To prevent the market of lemons, I would suggest to make upper 80% count towards alliance score. So for a full tag 40 count, for a 20 man tag 16 (everyone needs scanners in tag afterall). Also referring again to the market of lemons, this might lead to more alliances being able to try out new players while sustaining a good average score attracting new players.
Assumptions of this model:
  • Communities with best leaders adapt fastest.
  • The "leadership quota" amongst PA players is high enough to sustain enough competitive alliances
  • The required leadership quality for smaller tags is lower thus increasing quota
__________________
xVx ftw
Marka is offline   Reply With Quote