Alliance member Capacity |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author | |
Hiei 
Wordsmith 
Joined: 28 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Alliance member CapacityPosted: 02 Jun 2014 at 20:48 |
|
I believe we should increase the alliance capacity to 200 members because of the new blasted lands extension. Any thoughts?
Edited by Hiei - 02 Jun 2014 at 20:50 |
|
 |
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General 
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 20:51 |
|
No change. 100 is a good number. The games I've played with no caps, the one or two biggest alliances became runaway powers in short order. The medium alliances and numerous confederations add a lot of texture to Illyriad. It also forces alliances to regularly clean their rosters of inactive members.
|
|
|
|
|
Hiei
Wordsmith
Joined: 28 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 20:53 |
|
Appreciate the input thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Sheza
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Oct 2012 Location: Kumala Status: Offline Points: 325 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 21:17 |
|
I was Host to a great allance in top ten . 100 members is enough. so many personalities to deal with . I would been bald in short time . LOL
So I vote no change . Za
|
|
|
If Horses don't go to Heaven when they die. then I want to go where they go.
|
|
|
|
|
Lagavulin
Wordsmith
Joined: 31 Dec 2012 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 21:35 |
|
I like the cap where it is. Alliances have to make choices this way. And it encourages more alliances.
|
|
|
|
|
Arctic55
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Sep 2011 Status: Offline Points: 379 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 21:35 |
|
I think we should allow 200 just because. I mean, why not. It's the role of the alliance leader to allow more or less members. It also gives more options to the players.
 Edited by Arctic55 - 02 Jun 2014 at 21:36 |
|
|
|
|
Captain Kindly
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Location: Fremorn Status: Offline Points: 276 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 21:37 |
|
I voted no increase.
But in fact I would be for a decrease to 75-80 members. Most 'full' alliances are loaded with alts and permasats as it is now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AdamTheGreat
Greenhorn 
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 52 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 21:39 |
|
I think no increase. I have never been an alliance leader, but I imagine it would be difficult to keep up with 100 players, let alone 200. Plus, newer alliances might get crushed easily by others with 200 players.
|
|
|
Sinn Fein "Ourselves Alone"
|
|
|
|
|
roughneck
New Poster 
Joined: 16 Feb 2012 Status: Offline Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 21:50 |
|
No increase. Alliances already have to option to join with others in confederations to make their might more formidable. Increasing alliance population limits would not change anything except add to the clutter.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Bartleby
New Poster
Joined: 05 Apr 2013 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 21:58 |
|
If we're actually clearing out permasats then I don't see a need for a capacity increase. LoU can take us over with two or three alliances if needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options