Alliance member Capacity
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: Strategies, Tips & Tricks
Forum Description: Player created guides and advice.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5633
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 02:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Alliance member Capacity
Posted By: Hiei
Subject: Alliance member Capacity
Date Posted: 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? |
Replies:
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date 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. |
Posted By: Hiei
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 20:53
| Appreciate the input thanks. |
Posted By: Sheza
Date 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. |
Posted By: Lagavulin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Arctic55
Date 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.  ------------- I'm pressed but not crushed. Persecuted but not abandoned. Struck down but not destroyed. |
Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date 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. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: AdamTheGreat
Date 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" |
Posted By: roughneck
Date 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. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/175390" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Bartleby
Date 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. |
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 22:14
|
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? |
Posted By: Procheck
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 22:16
 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. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2014 at 23:03
| 100 is quite enough, thanks. |
Posted By: Kurgar
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 03:44
|
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. |
Posted By: Hiei
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 04:24
| Sat accounts are being removed from the game, so that argument should not be valid anymore. |
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2014 at 14:08
|
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.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 03:30
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. |
Hiei wrote: