Quote:
Originally Posted by Marka
Last round we had 5 serious alliances that considerably exceeded 40 players, of those only 4 still play. Thus it only would effect a minority of alliances.
Also shouldn't activity be the deciding factor on how alliances perform, and not how many semi-actives you can drag along?
|
but those 5 serious alliances contain most of the active players. So while it only effects the minority of alliances, it effects the bulk of the active players.
Quote:
PA should not put even more concern towards lower active players. They are pampered enough as is.
It might be that the kicked players (the number will not be very high) don't form new alliances. But it is more likely that they will join another tag instead of playing completely random.
As for the activity drop...from my experience this hits larger tags worse than smaller tag, since it is not the core players that tend to get inactive but those you fill your tag up with.
Smaller tags decrease the obstacles required for creating a competitive alliance, thus might be incentive for new players to form their own or BGs to leave bigger tags and play under their own name.
|
Its not putting more concern, its maintaining the current status-que. At the moment, top alliances tend to allow semi-actives/casuals to remain in there alliance which means that you dont need to be 100% active to be in one of the top alliances. Lower tag limits, means that the top alliances will be requiring full activity and the competition to get in a top alliance is alot harder. Forcing lower active players into worse alliances which isnt really good for the game.
We should be trying to encourage alliances to recruit some casuals/semi-actives and not discard them.
The semi-active and casual players currently in the top alliances which will get kicked if the alliance limit is reduced to 40 wont be able to join another tag? as who will be active enough and good enough to HC/BC/DC it? Anyone good enough to do that, will be kept in the top alliances and wont be creating a new tag with casuals.
At the moment, the activity drop effects all alliances, its just more visable in the top alliances as they generally all start out pretty active and then drop when they realise they cant win or when they're getting owned. Smaller alliances tend to have lower activity anyway from the start, so the drop is less noticable.
Smaller alliances dont really allow for more competition, it ruins the alliance competition as it makes blocking much more important and the only way to win. With smaller alliances, it becomes more easier to overwelm an alliance with numbers and in a block war.. it allows for blocks to easily organise incomings on every single planet in an alliance, pwning them in one night.
I dont really want a game based purely around blocking, where blocking automatically beats quality. Blocking is important in PA at the moment but quality can still beat them, we've had countless times where top alliances have survived the heavy beating a bigger block has given them. While if its smaller, it becomes almost impossible to survive the offensive power of a block.
I really dislike this thread, as the main reason people seem to be calling for this lower tag limit, is just for 'a change' and it all hinges on people stepping up and creating more alliances, when its been shown that its highly unlikely for that to happen. It could result in one of the worse rounds PA has ever had, It could result in it being a 'fun' round, the point is.. is the tag limit that wrong at the moment that its worth risking? and if it is, should it really be instantly reduced? but slowly reduced over multiple rouns instead.