Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGayAl
This debate is like politics for me - it all more or less comes down to your fundamental philosophy on life (pa) - which depends strongly on your upbringing (what alliances you've been in). Your opinions+proof are all built up around that, for most people. If any of you chaps that are against small tags can honestly say that you started out pro-small tags, but have since been dissuaded by these arguments.... I might eat my own words  Otherwise this thread is like watching tories (mostly, sophisticated with good educations and grammar) battling it out with labourites (mostly, the opposite  ). Or if hcs of more varied alliances all came in going "i agree with tzu" I may eat my own words as well! |
I can hand-on-heart say that I used to be pro-small tags. While I'd ask that you take my word for it rather than force me to find the proof, I can honestly say that 10~ rounds ago I was very much in favour of 50-man tags with full player score contribution.
At the time I was just starting my own alliance and the logic was that if I could get 50 people in a tag I would be able to compete with other 50-man tags on an even playing field. I didn't get my wish, the limit was set to 75 with t60 contributing.
So yes, you're right. I agree with the whole 'perspective' thing you're referring to, but I'd be keen to stress that now I'm not trying to build an alliance that can numerically compete with other alliances, my judgement is no longer 'clouded' by perspective.
At the end of the day this comes down to a 'bigger picture' argument. People of habitually smaller tags would like some kind of system in place that would help put them in a position whereby at least in theory they'd be able to compete by restricting the size of their opposition. In reality this will never work and in practise will be bad for the game.
So yes - my mind was changed through a combination of logically sound posts made on the forums, many of which from people with whom I don't see eye to eye with personally, and personal experience.
Seriously - can anyone put their hand on their heart and say that limiting the alliance tags to 50 will mean a 50-man NewDawn is any more likely to beat a 50-man Asc? Or will that, if anything, ensure the dominance of the alliance with the highest average skill level? Can anyone explain to me how forcing NewDawn to lower their member base to 50 is going to be any better for NewDawn when it comes to competing against other alliances?
I think in PA anyone who wants to lead an alliance, does. If you're capable of leading an alliance then you do so. You get your HC team together, recruit the people for your alliance you want and then play the round out as an alliance. At times when you can't get enough people to form a full tag then perhaps that's more a reflection on your leadership abilities than any malfunctioning game mechanic?
I wouldn't mind starting a new alliance again at some point but I wouldn't want to do so knowing that people are joining simply because the game wont let them play with their friends. If I started a new tag I'd play with the people I wanted to play with, and the people who wanted to play with me. Tag limit wouldn't stop me starting a new tag. Or at least it didn't in R26.