"this is a special round"

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by adjuhh

I hope u do remember how r31 turned out for the smaller tags? I do recall the bigger tag to win. Everyone needed to work together to not make it the most boring round ever, with asc winning by pt100. For a while this was done, but it was clear from the start that asc would dominate. Which they did afterall, and most of the small tags ( at least Evo, where I played) got totally raped. Really fun round that was

I wasn't saying r31 was fun. I said that the smaller alliances didn't give up pre-round or whatever, which is what krypton implied with his "smaller tags are less inclined to get involved". In fact that round signified the start of the long-term blocking efforts which have largely characterised the most recent rounds of pa.

Would that round have been more fun with lower ally limits? That depends on where u played, xvx and asc had an almost full tag, so they would say no. I'd say yes because then those smaller tags might have had a bigger influence on the round, because as you said, numbers are not everything, but having only half the members, that you just cannot compensate with skill/activity, because you just miss the fleets to do it.

This is totally irrelevant to what I'm saying. Round 30 had even higher tag limits and was a great round. Round r28 had lower tag limits and was even more of a stagnant "kill everyone who isn't asc-fest". It's not about the size of the tag limit. You're thinking that a lower tag limit=more alliances. This just isn't true.

So next round you say you haven't heard any alliance who will be playing with full tag? Then why have the alliance limits been changed that much? Ofcourse, if ASS (or any other alliance) has more than 70 members it would be a shame if they should say no to ppl who want to play with them. But they could also make the limit 80 or so then.

Well, every alliance I've seen has been whining about it. I'd hope pateam made the alliance limit 100 as part of an idea regarding game direction as opposed to listening to the constant whining of the inbred retards who make up #alliances.

Last round most alliances ended with 40-65 members, this round Asc will play active again (i think?) and Exc is coming back, where do you find all the new members to make all those alliances have (close to) 100 members? Perhaps a very actively recruiting alliance can fill 1 tag with 100 ppl, leaving the others at ~60. And with the cross-tag defense removed, like Mz said, those numbers do make an even bigger difference, because the smaller tags in r31 could defend each other, that's not possible now.

I dunno if actively quite accurately describes us. Ascendancy always plays. Sometimes more people play and sometimes more people play more actively. I wouldn't see next round as one of our more active rounds but then again it's hard to predict sometimes. Who is this actively recruiting alliance going to be anyways? Personally I'd get rid of the retarded no def outside of tags rule to be honest.

I hope all the allies will be around the same size and the tag limit won't make the difference, but it could.

It'd certainly be a first.

Originally Posted by Krypton

Well, of course no one is entirely sure of numbers at this stage. But I fully expect to see allies like ND and CT benefit with full tags or as good as. I don't see their being 20-30 man tags getting involved at all this round - in fact quite the opposite. I see them folding. Reason it'll cause less fighting between alliances because simply put I see there being less alliances because of the changes. Without any disrespect to these alliances being mentioned, Vsn were potentially folding last round but didn't, p3nguins almost folded the round before but didn't. I see these changes to the tag limit meaning quite the opposite affect to what most people desire...which is more fighting between alliances and more personal rivalries - in much the same mould as we (p3nguins) had with CT last round. For example, 50 man tags, more alliances, less of which will be involved in needless boring block wars and are more likely to take a neutral political stance. They're less inclined to be bullied into either side of a block and instead be quite happy to have their own personal battle or gal raid as this is more beneficial to them.

Why do you see them folding? We've had a round like this before. Of the smaller tags that round, insomnia, dlr, wafhh, evolution, spooon and EC 1 was making a one-round comeback, one is still playing, one was more of an injoke than an alliance, one played again 2 rounds later as a full alliance (and is arguably pretty similar to euphoria now), one was a bg making a one-round entry and one played the next round afterwards. In my opinion none of those alliances, who might have at the beginning of that round reasonably expected to play the next, ended up not playing it. In fact all of them who did play again actually played with a larger playerbase. Alliances don't fold due to being small or whatever. They fold because "self-centred" (this isn't an insult) HC don't see keeping those alliances alive as being worth their time. Why is next round going to be worse or whatever anyways? I haven't heard a single alliance yet say they won't be playing (or more significantly can't play) due to these changes. Fifty man tags don't mean more alliances. Alliances don't miraculously spring into existence when you lower the tag limit. Alliances are created when people become dissatisfied with their current circumstances and decide to change them.

This 100 tag system will see allies such as (again no disrespect) DLR, Subh, Vsn and even p3nguins struggle to succeed solo. Therefore you're bound to see exactly the same political stance that I feel everyone is completely bored of...i.e. DLR/Euph working together, Asc/Apprime working together (obviously not last round but like in previous rounds)

What do you mean succeed? None of those alliances have finished #1 or #2 or whatever recently? Do you mean survive and keep their top planets alive? I don't see why this is suddenly made harder by this change? If anything I'd imagine next round will see a more diverse mixture, alliance-wise, of t50/100 planets. Why? Because the political changes to the metagame are vastly more important than tag limit changes. The fact that you seem to be saying that raising the tag limit is to blame for keeping together the same rough alliances that existed last round and the round before that is absurd. You might as well start crediting the birds singing for the rising of the sun every day.

Alliances will die simply put, because people want the best...its natural for people to want to be at the top. People will leave alliances for say asc (who are bound to be competitive at the very least) and this movement of players throughout the round is likely to increase with these changes. This will result in allies folding, resulting in the opposite affect of what people want to see (more neutral ground alliances). Correct me if you disagree

It's not a case of me disagreeing. It's a case of history proving you wrong. This just hasn't happened. People leave alliances regardless, if they consider them substandard, there's always space somewhere else for them, or alternatively they just ****ing leave and stop playing that particular round and wait until the next one. To be honest the whole more alliances=more fun/less stagnation/domination is untrue. I could make a good round of pa happen with 3 alliances, or even 2. It's just not about the tag limits.

[Linkie]

Originally Posted by Cowch

lolfences are going to force us into blocks

No, they're not. You can still attack galaxies with your alliance in them.

[Krypton]

Ok JBG, ty for your opinions/answers - I shall watch and see what the round brings and whether history repeats itself...

[Mzyxptlk]

We should have a lower tag limit as well as an upper one! New suggestion for r36 name: Recruit Or Die.