Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Heartless
Just because there are lower memberlimits it does not necessarily inspire people to form new alliances. It is actually much more likely to drive people away because why should I play the game if I cannot play it with the ones I want to play with?
|
The actual mechanics of alliance recruitment mean that rarely will someone be unable to play with their friends - because if there are several of them in an alliance then with multiple vouches its possible to Q jump
This obviously is not necessarily a good thing because ppl who dont know loads of ppl R excluded. (But they should still be able to bet in by a good record)
if 'the ones I want to play with' actually means I dont know em but i think I should be able to play with the best anyway - thats the situation that existed for most of the early rounds where there was no limit at all -no ingame alliance mechanism.
The way i see it the ingame alliance mechanism demands a limit - because otherwise a mass recruiter can win without any skill at the game (except mass recruitment ofc) the obvious solution to that is to have alliance victory not on total but on average score. Then all are happy because even without a limit the top alliances will not hoover up all the quality players because they would become very selective - a bigger alliance would be harder to maintain quality control of.
There are obvious (And major) problems with this as it is likely to head towards a Legion/Fury situation, but I am just pointing out the other possibility