Round 27 - increase alliance memberlimit to 100

[Mzyxptlk]

No, at this moment no one is forced to join ASS. But they will be if they're excluded from their tag of choice, which is what will happen if we reduce tag size to 60. Well, either that or they quit. Both are bad.

[HeimdallR]

well lets just keep that tag at 75 for now. im more inclined to reduce the tag limit then go to 100 tho.

[Sebos]

Hi hi

From a small alliances point of view upping the limit to 100 would suck although i like to think community spirit would keep my of my members i know for sure some of my guys and others will leave for that spot in a top alliance.

If the alliance limit were to be upped i guess there would be some 'merging' of smaller alliances into top alliances to fill gaps. However my use of the word merge is not what it might seem. Merges in this case will often be swallowing up of the smaller alliance. not that all of the HCs from top alliances are like this but if u had to take on a small alliance i'd assume u request that the poorer players get dropped and only a smaller band of actives/good players be brought into your ranks.

IMHO this would lead to exactly what gate didn't want with his idea. If poorer/ less active players were dropped i'd imagine this would be a large quantitiy of new players finding themselves homless and with the game mechanics how they are this would lead to many of them leaving the game.

to summerise a long post

alliance limits should be lowered to spread quality like has already been suggested. increasing it will kill the smaller alliances still playing or cause there to be two alliance ranks one of the top big communities and a second of the smaller communities.

cheers

Sebos

[[B5]Londo]

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the people opposed to raising the limit are all from the smaller alliances the proponents of raising it are from the larger ones. It is also increasingly obvious that the two camps/interests are essentially irreconcilable.
Therefore the system needs to be changed, I already suggested that the alliance ranking should be by average score and there should therefore be no limit because limits will be imposed by the larger alliances quality control. Although this is my idea im not sure it is really a good solution so can I ask if anyone else has any deadlock breaking suggestions?

[Ave]

Originally Posted by Dryph

Hi hi

to summerise a long post

alliance limits should be lowered to spread quality like has already been suggested. increasing it will kill the smaller alliances still playing or cause there to be two alliance ranks one of the top big communities and a second of the smaller communities.

cheers

Sebos

Having more room for players will instead leave space for the less quality players also.

[[DDK]gm]

what would you call a smaller alliance londo, last round all the alliance were opposed to the 75 member limit increse, I guess ct would be classed as a smaller alliance now and yes I dont want the limmit raised. I think we need some stability in the alliance limit for a few rounds.

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by '[B5

I already suggested that the alliance ranking should be by average score

in that case Alliances would need a minimum size, but it's not a bad idea.

[[DDK]gm]

you would just get alliances kicking members to increese the average then

[Mzyxptlk]

1 tag, 1 player.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Makhil

in that case Alliances would need a minimum size

You are quite right, but would that be a good thing?

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Achilles

You are quite right, but would that be a good thing?

A minimum tag limit combined with an average alliance score ranking is just as bad as a maximum tag limit combined with a total alliance score ranking.

In fact, it's worse, because it rewards accepting only the most hardcore players into your tag, rather than take in weaker (dare I say it, newer?) players. This is also why a "x members in tag, but only y of them count" system is bad, because after the first y members, the only role for the remaining x-y players is either scanner or defwhore. For all its faults, at least the current system encourages people to recruit as many people as possible, because every member adds score to the tag.

Some of you have argued against alliance tiers, but by introducing average score ranking you'll achieve that on a scale total score alliance rankings doesn't even dare dream about.

Further, an average score ranking can't be fixed by adding strict constraints, because the idea itself is fundamentally flawed, as is any system that rewards kicking out members, no matter what criteria that decision is based on.

And here again we strike at the heart of our reasons for supporting either non-existant alliance limits, or limits that are as high as possible. Higher limits mean there's less competition, meaning more people can join a tag of their choice, and tags will be less hesistant to take in players who have not yet proven themselves.

[edit]Imagine, this post started out as one sentence. That's a lot of edits.

[edit2]Note that this post is not really aimed at proving Achi wrong (he didn't really make any claims to contest anyway), he just asked a good question, and I did my best to answer it.

[exblade]

doesnt matter, with the size of the PA community, the t5 would almost be overpowered over the smaller alliances so you would have to compensate, which in turn wouldnt make things fair. its almost like no chance for the alliances that are lower than t10 anyway - give them a chance.

[[DDK]gm]

how about remove ingame alliances :P

[Fatrick]

OK, just thinking back to football here....How about a league system for ally ranks. Lets say there will be 3 leagues, each with 5 allys in. (I know numbers may not match to current PA play but this is just an example)

This means that ND/CT/ASC/xVx/Den can fight it out in a straight fight for number 1 spot. Then the next 5 allys are put into Tier 2 league and they slog it out. If an ally proves themselves in the lower tiers than they can be promoted, and likewised the higher allys can be relegated.

This has several effects....

1. Consolidates ally honour and loyaty (Allys less likeely to disband after a one round wonder...dare I say 1up???)
2. Reduces likelihood of boring NAPs amonst equally strengthed allies.

To make this work across all levels of allies there may have to be some rules set up. For example the top tier of allies could have 75 member limit set, next tier limited to 60 and lower tier set to something else adequate. This means when you get your ally promted/demoted you will have to adjust you member base adequately.

Then Appocco and Co. can hand out rewards at EoRC for winnig each league.

Well thats my idea...let the slating begin

[Ave]

The basic idea aint too bad... (weather u post it serious or not) when there are equal fights for everyone. But everyone should be allowed to pick their league self. It's impossible to predict anyones success and it might get as booring game of securing ranks.

Think the universe is "too shrinked" to be spread out in pieces. Lets enjoy about the player amount while we can. There are several copies where are only left some core to fight it out.

This idea sounds more like a suggestion for the speed game. There we could consider some worldcup (national league) or alliance represental fights with some trophy ranks even. This could be something for the smaller alliances too. These speed cups could be ran in between the rounds, or replace havocs as mini tournaments.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Fatrick

OK, just thinking back to football here....How about a league system for ally ranks. Lets say there will be 3 leagues, each with 5 allys in. (I know numbers may not match to current PA play but this is just an example)

This means that ND/CT/ASC/xVx/Den can fight it out in a straight fight for number 1 spot. Then the next 5 allys are put into Tier 2 league and they slog it out. If an ally proves themselves in the lower tiers than they can be promoted, and likewised the higher allys can be relegated.

This has several effects....

1. Consolidates ally honour and loyaty (Allys less likeely to disband after a one round wonder...dare I say 1up???)
2. Reduces likelihood of boring NAPs amonst equally strengthed allies.

To make this work across all levels of allies there may have to be some rules set up. For example the top tier of allies could have 75 member limit set, next tier limited to 60 and lower tier set to something else adequate. This means when you get your ally promted/demoted you will have to adjust you member base adequately.

Then Appocco and Co. can hand out rewards at EoRC for winnig each league.

Well thats my idea...let the slating begin

I actually like this idea, it sounds like a cool attempt at making PA a more dynamic and fun place for alliances. And the alliances themselves can decide what "league" they want to compete in.

[JonnyBGood]

Have any of you actually looked at the history of this game and evaluated how alliances form and change over time?

Regardless effectively splitting up the already minute playerbase is probably not a good idea. The league idea would also ignore alliances which improve dramatically during the round (which is actually when most alliances do improve).

[Ave]

We should start a whole new topic about the matter... If there are people supporting such. But there could be a system to drop u to lower league if u drop to x% of total alliance score... u can try grow there in more piece and get back on action. Easy to abuse tho I assume.

[JonnyBGood]

The great Voltaire once remarked that a great many laws in a country, like a great many physicians, is a sign of malady. I would encourage everyone to bear this principle in mind when making suggestions.

[Achilles]

I want to win another World Cup so you guys decide a format for that at once please. I'm rather sceptical that this idea would work in the 1hr tick game though.