Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
I've tried to keep out of this (oft repeated) argument but .......
We're in danger of missing three important points:
1/ Many of the small(er) tags are that way through choice, not because they couldn't achieve a full tag if they so wished.
2/ No reduction in tag size could prevent alliances splitting into two parts. Indeed, it would be easier to fill two smaller sections than it would with the current limits.
3/ Former members of existing (full) alliances would be left with four options:
a/ Join another (lesser?) alliance (if they could find one with vacancies);
b/ Form (or join) a new alliance;
c/ Try to play "solo";
d/ Decide to not bother and just quit.
Can we really afford to have players facing these choices?
|
1/ While I agreed with this statement a number of rounds ago, that definitely isn't the case anymore nowadays. I am certain the likes of Faceless/Rogues/p3n wouldn't mind being at full tag this round. Unfortunately there just aren't enough 'quality' players around anymore. The sheer fact not even the likes of HR/ND/rainbows can recruit to a full tag anymore shows how much the tagsize has been caught by reality. Yes, Faceless/Rogues/p3n have the option(choice) of merging into what is effectively 2 full tags, but what makes an alliance is a common sense of identity. Merging tags often leads to some massive issues among the 'common' members, giving an already overloaded command team an even more stressfull time. Mind you, the smaller a tag is the more sense of identity the average Joe has.
2/ While this is absolutely true, and something that would undoubtedly happen a couple of times in the long run, I don't think anyone said that the sole reduction of tagsize would completely fix PA/the current complete lack of metagame. For one, there is a pretty big issue with how alliances are ranked solely on total score atm, where even having only 1 additional member can create a rather large score gap. Perhaps even 'fixing' the ranking could completely take away the need to lower tag limits. However, that is a pretty major fix, while a reduction of tagsize offers a much more on-the-fly bandaid-fix.
3/ that would pretty much be the 4 options surplus members have yes. tho there are some more, that can even have a pretty major impact on the end game, as stojke proved last round. I personally think that reducing tagsizes shouldn't be done within the single round, to ease the transition of such surplus members, however, the end goal should be around the 40-45 member mark imho. By gradually going down it may turn out that a limit of 50 allready fixes the current issues and lowering further might even turn out moot.