Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gate
Several allances filled the tag last round. With a higher memberlimit, it's likely that they would have provided homes to more people. Although some of these would be defectees from other alliances, it is likely the net effect would be homes for more players.
We've shrunk alliances and not sprouted new HCs & officers to run new homes for people, so we've effectively been cutting the number of places for people who want to play PA 'properly'.
In the long term the extra players who learn the game from joining top alliances may go on to become these HCs and officers, leading to more alliances.
The top 60 score thing ensures alliances can compete if they choose to be elitist - as we saw from NoX reaching second this round.
Personally I'd prefer to see alliance limits removed, but that idea is effectively being ignored and has been strongly opposed by some, so this is a more realistic alternative.
|
I will assess your post in order.
*There were 3 alliance tags filled in the top10. The other 7 of the top10 had between 60 and 70 members. Hence, I propose it is not likely more people will find homes in these alliances. Even less when just 60 members are the "real deal". (We in Orbit had actives less than our 66 members, believe me
)
*The shrinking of alliance size had an effect that new tags were created (r25) and that new alliances were set up to accomodate players(r26). So, there are some new HC types standing up, you would think.
* You assert that players only learn from joining top alliances. I disagree. I think new or returning players thrive in a non-top alliance like Redemption, F-crew, Orbit or the like.
I see it as a pyramid: people rejoin (a relative large group *cough*), then they assess their abilities: join non-top or top, when non-top: they will learn too and may be able to develop to top-alliance (the top of the pyramid). Also, in a non-top alliance talent is directly rewarded by getting them active in the management of the alliance. (I now assume this is less the case in a top-alliance)
*Further, it is generally stated that people in smaller or medium firms have more chance to stand out the crowd and as such be recognised as talented people. Hence, larger firms tend to subdivide themselves or recruit even more people to get the % talented people required covered. The analogy applies here, in my opinion.
*Finally: the lower part (can't find the word atm) alliances would be totally fked by not limiting it. Then you would get the battle of the biggest and less people will find a real home. Therefore, I am proponent of alliance size limits of 75 (or even better 60) with all people counted. Removing alliance limits or making alliance limits less (i.e. 100 members) would be not a good thing imo.