[Aedolaws]

K, but let me clarify that the BGs idea is not meant for the sake of alliances. Quite the opposite. BGs are meant to give players that do not want to play as hardcore as allies (although some will play even more hardcore) a chance to have their own legitimate competition with other BGs. BGs would be defacto mini-alliances (but without the allied def bonus, but also without the attacking restrictions). The politics, especially that of BGs and clusters, might even be more flexible than that of the big allies, thus more unstable, and therefore more fun.

It would be like having different weight categories, like boxing:

(1) The heavy champions (top 20 alliances, excluding barbarians and rebels.)

(2) the middle-weights (top 20 BGs)

(3) the light-weights (barbarians and rebels, clusters and gals)

===========or using other images

(1) The major nations/noble houses
(2) The rogue states/paramilitary groups
(3) everybody else

============================

The idea is to allow different games within the same game and to modify the big XPed alliance focused PA dynamics that imo is killing the game. We need to target new players and all players' egoes (we need a main account system) and to keep the ranking of all 3 groups for the sake of increasing player's satisfaction and thus the likelihood of an increase in the volume of players.