Quote:
Originally Posted by RexDrax
Interesting reading
Yeah Ult is the more dedicated alliance and they got lots of friends and def planets and they know how to use them well. I wish the admins would change the alliance rules so that ALL members count towards the score. This whole 60 limit and 40 counting is out of date with the community and has a significant impact on how the game is played.
....and no Butcher this is not an opening on discussing alliance tag limit. Tag limit can be whatever but ALL members should count.
|
This whole round is an opening to discussing alliance tag limits.
Lets take a few steps back to when this 60/40 thing was implemented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexDrax
I am curious to know what people thought of the change to alliance count and contributing score of members. Currently its max of 60 members with the top40 contributing to score.
What I like is now there are (potentially) more alliance able to go for the win. With only 40 counting towards ally score which is used to determine the winner mid tier alliance do have the chance to win the round. On paper its not the usual 2/3 alliances battling it out for the win.
|
The whole theory that "more alliance can(potentially) comepte for #1" is broken in itself.
There has always been only 2-3 alliance that has been able to compete for #1 each round.
Those rounds that there has been a surprise winner is because something realy unexpected happend the last part of the round, or because of some sort of "abuse" of the tag limits.
Norsemen round 65, and Faceless round 55 is perfect example of how "low counting limits " was "abused". They added members the last day to pop into #1.
We have allready been through it this thread about alliance focusing on not going for the win, Londo even said the whole reason for him returning to play was that they did not go for the win.
People dont want to win tag, and those that wants can easily be taken down because having similiar numbers to the people that "dont want to compete".
Small tag limits/planet counting is an disadvantage to those that want to compete, and an major advantage to those that want to "snooze and cruise".
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexDrax
Realistically (imo) an alliance just needs a few scanners so having 5 not counting towards score should be implemented. Something like 40/45 would "level" the playing field.
|
As we have seen throughout the last 10 rounds or so, having a scan bot is widely accepted, and you dont even need to have them in tag as scans can be requested/delivered through IRC.
BowS have 5 people that went "dedicated" scanners at the start of the round, and im pretty sure we have/had more than the other tags out there.
I feel that having a super active scanner is less valuable now than it was say 3 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
I think the init limitis a reasonable suggestion, though I don't expect it'll have that much impact.
As for tag sizes, I've historically been against lowering them, for most of the reasons Butcher listed. However, the increased political flexibility that would result from splitting up the player base into more and smaller pieces may be worth the downsides. Proceed with extreme caution, but I think a gradual reduction in tag size might be worth investigating. (And no, I'm not interested in rehashing that discussion for the umpteenth time.)
|
Its been claimed, time and time again that "smaller tags" would/could create more flexible politics.
This, atleast looking at this round as the evidence, is a joke.
From my experince, who hits who is more polarized this round than ever.
At the moment the majority of the player in this game is either in UltAstores, or NAPed to Ultores, if more flexibility means that more people can strike their indivdual deal with #1 while they are trying their hardest "not to compete", sure i think we have reached the goal of more flexible politics.