[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Red-

Your not doing math, your doing onsided assumptions.

Who says there is 1000 players supplying themselfes?

It's an assumption based on player- and alliancefigures throughout my late time on PAX (that is, round 17 onwards). I presume it's a fairly good view of the amount of players who actually want to be members of an alliance and cooperate at some level.

Who says all players are of the same quality and hence does is the demand there for them?

In fact, I did not state so. In fact, if you read carefully, you'll see me talking about skill levels. I went on with the assumption you made (that the top alliances want to have 80 players if possible), hence the top alliances will recruit up to their limit irregardless of the evident decline on the skill of the available players. And as I said, this will eventually cause the least competent alliances to crumble. Additionally, it's not "wrong", instead it's a vital part of the alliance competition, that competitive players seek to join competitive alliances.

Who says all alliances share your spam troll gangs intentions of impersonal mass recruiting?

If they don't, and they feel posting affects recruitment outcome, then they're incompetent at that field, and should indeed make to have a forum team to enhance recruitment efforts. I press here, that I'm not representing my opinion as a member of any alliance, and in fact, there's little way except a priori knowledge to connect me to my IRC nick even less to my alliance.

Who says alliance will cheat by any means?

Not me. You seem to be in favour of branding a lot of alliances for having support planets.

Your trying to apply flawed capitalistic market economics for 1 type of goods and 1 market to a more complex scenario where both the goods and the markets are varying, its simply not adding up.

First, it's not capitalistic market economics. Second, as elaborated above, the analysis scales good. If top8 alliances are able to recruit 10 more players (assuming they don't work it out to make room for the support planets you accuse them of), they will be recruiting competitive players. By default, the competitive players will usually want to join competitive alliances. This is why it'll scale upwards, and the fall will hit on the lower register. This will actually make it easier for even less skilled players to join a decent alliance, as currently you don't see any very bad alliances being on the top70 limit.

Wonder why? Because people want to join decent alliances, and more room in decent alliances will unarguably lead into more people being able to join decent alliances. This is secondary to the point of the discussion, but applies still.

Instead of your silly and wrongfull assumptions try and look on the empirical data for R19, 20, 21 and now 22 - Its clearly not supporting any of your assumptions.

In fact, having been a high command member of an alliance you might name decent on two of those four rounds, I'm probably well up to date. How and why does my analysis not fit the empirical data of round 19, 20, 21, and 22? You should instead look into empirical data. In terms of "modern planetarion", Omen might have been at one point scaled as a decent alliance (though particularily impressing it never was). Knowing our recruitment policies, the increase in the size of the alliance limits actually did expand into recruiting less known players. These often came from galaxies of our own: a few good examples would include add and Mortalp, who both were fairly unknown prior to their joining Omen (from fAst's galaxy of round 17). In fact, I myself vouched for having add join us, even if there was some pessimism mainly because he was inexperienced and unproven.

In fact, the empirical data would, if you looked at it, point out that the more room there is in "decent alliances", the easier it is for players to join one of these "decent alliances". A very solid claim would go that if you would reduce the the alliance limits, you would contradictionally come up with less decent alliances, hence less options to join those.

Why would this happen? Because the will of people to join the officer staff of an alliance to actively help organize the alliance is on decline. Hence, if you break the 70-man alliances in to 35-man alliances, and enforce ruthless limits, you will have alliances which will collect the cream of the officer crop, and work effectively, and alliances which will be left with little staff to speak of, hence work less effectively.

Please, do elaborate what part of the empirical data of rounds 19-22 points out that increasing alliance limits does not aid more people to join these alliances, memberlimits of which successively have been increased (since round 17).

Originally Posted by JBG

According to the example you just laid out the level of difficulty involved in getting into a decent alliance is exactly the same.

In fact, I disagree. The ones that will eventually be the ones to pay the price of increased member counts will be the alliances in the bottom level (beyond top15, or so, varies). Why? If we make the blunt instrument that while increasing the membercounts of top7 to 70, this will in practise be primarily recruitment of a) friends, b) promising members of lower ranking alliances. The sled will ride downwards with "better members" of lower ranking alliances joining higher ranking/more proven alliances that have room for recruits. If we define that a "decent" alliance is one that consistently ranks say top10, we'll end up having 100 more spots in these "decent" alliances (presuming we'll have 10 of them).