Alliance member Capacity |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |
ajqtrz
Postmaster Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The size of the alliance is a tough question because it depends on if you want a lot of players having a lot of opportunity to rise and fall or a more realistic scenario where only a few come to dominate. The first is probably more profitable for the company because it keeps mid-level and hopeful players around as they have a stronger sense that they can rise to the top. The second makes it impossible for that to happen unless you get into one of the top alliances and thus, probably would discourage some players from full participation. So it's a trade-off.
In addition, while 200 accounts is a lot, it's still an artificial barrier just like 100. So you get 200 and everybody else gets 200 (or at least a few) and the game is dominated by 200 member alliances and their offspring/feeder/training alliances anyway so what's the point? We would then probably be talking abut making the limit 300. As for the opening of new lands making being an opportunity for alliances with 100 members to grow (by allowing more members), that is a difficult thing to decide. Large alliances are large because they have mastered a lot of the game. If they move/expand to dominate the new areas, which they can do more easily because of their size, will that not discourage the smaller alliances? But is it fair to the larger alliances to tell them they can't expand? Again, it's just the artificial barrier at work. If the game really wanted to reflect "reality" more it would allow unlimited alliances and super-alliances but have the cost of those alliances increase as their complexity increased. Just as in life the overhead of a company grows with the number of layers and complexity of the organization, so too should the cost to the alliance members. Perhaps a tax for "wealth re-distribution"...LOL? In the end it probably doesn't matter what the top size is, it's going to reflect the nature of the players and their goals. No game can be fun for everybody, let's just try to be a community which takes an active part in making things fun for as many as possible. Those are my "rather lengthy," thoughts. What are yours? |
|
Procheck
New Poster Joined: 25 Apr 2014 Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
no new taxes! lol 100 is fine no reason to increase with the option of confederation. With alts and dead sat accounts this could turn into a cheaters paradise! 200? why not 1000 lol got to put a limit somewhere. 100 seems to be right to me.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 7078 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
100 is quite enough, thanks.
|
|
Kurgar
New Poster Joined: 18 May 2014 Status: Offline Points: 23 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The only significant difference when alliance number caps are changed is in communication.
It is easier to communicate within the game with 1 large alliance than 2 or 3 smaller ones working together. |
|
Hiei
Forum Warrior Joined: 28 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 239 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Sat accounts are being removed from the game, so that argument should not be valid anymore.
|
|
Myr
Forum Warrior Joined: 26 May 2011 Location: Orlando, FL Status: Offline Points: 437 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Few alliances achieve 100 members so I don't see that an increase is needed. I have a hard time keeping up with all the members in an alliance less than 100 and I would probably opt out of going larger.
Edit: Larger alliances have fewer options, you can only 'play' with other really big alliances. I think the small to mid sized alliance have the opportunity to have more fun in the game as there tends to be a lot of alliances near your size and you can have little wars without anyone taking much notice as long as you keep it off the forums and GC. Big alliances are good if you want the illy public to examine each move you make under a microscope before they dissect it and criticize it's structure. Edited by Myr - 03 Jun 2014 at 14:12 |
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'll believe that when I see it. Besides, most permasats aren't in the parent alliance. They are sheltered in training alliances or off the books completely. |
|
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 |