R17 Alliance limits

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Are you or are you not top5 PURELY and ONLY because you have more members? A simple yes or no is enough. That was my point, nothing else.
If you had 55 members like the rest, you wouldn't be top5.

That's a very simple and basic observation imo. This isn't meant as an insult or anything.

You said top10 in your post, so perhaps you should stop trying to move the goalposts.

Would we be top 5 without the extra members, from the raw figures no but we would be top10 that your initial post claimed we wouldnt be without the extra members. Although you cant actually answer the question properly because only having the 55 players that would get in if we were to impose elite alliance recruitment requirments that we would have to would see us being a much more efficient alliance as giving players a chance brings alot of baggage that you have to deal with that distract, draws resources from elsewhere ect

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by wakey

You said top10 in your post, so perhaps you should stop trying to move the goalposts.

Would we be top 5 without the extra members, from the raw figures no but we would be top10 that your initial post claimed we wouldnt be without the extra members. Although you cant actually answer the question properly because only having the 55 players that would get in if we were to impose elite alliance recruitment requirments that we would have to would see us being a much more efficient alliance as giving players a chance brings alot of baggage that you have to deal with that distract, draws resources from elsewhere ect

Well, my apologies for saying top10 while I meant top5 ( because I know F-crew is decent enough to be top10, without needing some rule so they can recruit more).

It's about making choices. Very simple. If you only can get 55 members then you need to make a choice whether you want 100% dedicated or instead helping newer members.

I'm not criticizing F-Crew, you've not done anything wrong and you do what's best for your alliance with the setup PA offered you. It is however the SETUP that I think is fked up and plain wrong.

[BlueDemon]

Leave the cap the way it is.

Some have made a good point tho, in the fact that with the cap the way it is now, you have some alliances with less exp command teams.

A possible solution, as the alliance moves up in the rankings, they have to drop their membase numbers. Wave the 72 tics in between alliances for members dropped. Also, New alliances starting up, maybe do that at the beginning of each round. possibly locking them in so to speak. This should help to distribute some of the more experienced players into other alliances.
Not sure exactly how this would work out, but something worth discussing, imo

I'm sure you guys will show me where all the holes in this idea are.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by qebab

64 would be better! (It's rounded off too, just not in the traditional way. Penny to the first one to see it!)

10 in base64? 1000000 in binary? 40 in hexadecimal?

(PS 63 is rounded off too, in base 63)

[Nadar]

51,7

[furball]

Originally Posted by BlueDemon

A possible solution, as the alliance moves up in the rankings, they have to drop their membase numbers. Wave the 72 tics in between alliances for members dropped. Also, New alliances starting up, maybe do that at the beginning of each round. possibly locking them in so to speak. This should help to distribute some of the more experienced players into other alliances.
Not sure exactly how this would work out, but something worth discussing, imo

I'm sure you guys will show me where all the holes in this idea are.

You're saying that a successful alliance must lose members.

How on earth can this be a good thing? Either command gets kicked, loyal members get kicked or newbies get kicked....

[qebab]

Originally Posted by Banned

10 in base64? 1000000 in binary? 40 in hexadecimal?

(PS 63 is rounded off too, in base 63)

Hah, you're looking for something too advanced. It's way easier. (6+4=10!)

[Zirikk]

limit 64 for all alliances

[Razgriz]

just a random thought; if the allince limits were rock bottom low it wouldn't really nessicarly break up some of the larger alliances. For example say the limit was 50 and alliance 'x' would normally have 60 members they could just set up two alliances 30 members in each. They could still use the same irc chans, attacks and defence, an out of game forum and just work togther with keeping in-game forums and attacks etc up to date.... random thought i know, but it could be done fairly easily i think.

[Kesava]

well if we goign to see a different type of pa next round i would say 80
but if enxt round goign to be like this round with xp whoring 60
but if we play with value rather i say we need atleast 80 ppl per alliance

[XelNaga]

64 for everyone. Hooray.

[Clogg]

I'm with the 50 members. And no exceptions what so ever!

[Fal]

Um, ok I'm just going to throw this out there, mainly to see what people think etc.
Set the base at 50 members
The base is dependent upon average score, Rated from the alliance with the highest average score.

For example, lets say an alliance had the highest at 5mil

An alliance with an average of 2.5mil would get a bonus of 50% members, making a maximum of 75 members, etc.

Before you reply, I haven't read deeply into this, so if this has been suggested already/seems stupid then fair enough lol

Oh and I guess this could only be instituted 100-200 ticks into the game since average scores would be to erractic to start with :/

[Clouds]

60.

[Stoom]

I vote for 80 members again like in r15

[pig]

40

[The_Fish]

whatever the base is, there should be no exceptions imo

[pig]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

whatever the base is, there should be no exceptions imo

agreed

[Synthetic_Sid]

60/80 or 65/90 seems fine to me - but with only the highest 60 or 65 members of the alliance counted for alliance rank. All members would count for rank for the purpose of determining whether an alliance could recruit over the lower limit or not.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

60/80 or 65/90 seems fine to me - but with only the highest 60 or 65 members of the alliance counted for alliance rank. All members would count for rank for the purpose of determining whether an alliance could recruit over the lower limit or not.

mmm, I'd go for a fixed limit, very every alliance. No exceptions, nothing. What that limit is (50-90) doesn't bother me, aslong as it's the same for everyone.

[Gio2k]

69 / 96 Ftw!


Edit: Ok, maybe 96 is too high, but 69 is perfect

[Alki]

get rid of the limits alltogether?

[furball]

Hurrah, let's all join 1up/eXil/Angels and go back to old PA-style blocks!

[Sirad]

1000 .

[paolo]

let's make it 4 alliances max
- Pre-round determined HC
- official wars through options ingame
- fixed alliance only galaxy
- create a fifth alliance for the inactives and kicked members (up for abuse though)

etc etc

If I recall correctly, this has been suggested a couple of rounds ago?

[Flyer]

60.