[Light]

Originally Posted by Marka

If an argument is repeated continuously it does not get valid (admittedly that counts for both sides).
If an argument is challenged using unproven arguments it doesn't get invalidated.

So for the sake of argumentation let's have a look at the market for lemons theory concerning PA, the full extend can be found at http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=193999

Some problems I have with this:

• View centric from a single alliance - no politics, interconnections etc
• No factoring in of alliance communities
• Assuming PA recruitment is an open market
• Assuming PA having a basically unlimited resource of players
• Giving no factors about what makes a high-quality player

While it is a very well-proposed argument, the model used is overly simple, does not take into account the influence of smaller tags on politics and has not been tested, since the top-tiered alliances having a full tag usually don't have an open recruitment. Besides even for (and only those) the possible lemon market has been countermeasured by having less members counting towards the final score.

Since you seem to want a more solid argumentation. I propose to create a system based on the number of competitive alliances desired in the game. Why?

• Coalitions get more difficult to uphold the more alliances are in. More competitive alliances prevents superior blocks from forming and/or simplifies creation of counterblocks
• Less alliance def improves gal play, since they are required as second source of def.
• With more important gal play NAPs are countermeasured since you can't afford not to def ingal vs certain incomings
• Political situations will change more quickly avoiding boring weeks as seen in R38
• It is easier to form new alliances since a smaller core is required

To just throw in a random number what I would consider a good amount - 10.
Then I propose this very simple model to calculate tag:

tag_limit = number_of_active_players / number_of_good_alliances_you_want

Active players are folks that log on daily, participate in attacks and defence regularly.
Assuming we currently have 500 of those - the preferred tag size would be 50. Ofc decreases if you want more competitive alliances.
To prevent the market of lemons, I would suggest to make upper 80% count towards alliance score. So for a full tag 40 count, for a 20 man tag 16 (everyone needs scanners in tag afterall). Also referring again to the market of lemons, this might lead to more alliances being able to try out new players while sustaining a good average score attracting new players.
Assumptions of this model:

• Communities with best leaders adapt fastest.
• The "leadership quota" amongst PA players is high enough to sustain enough competitive alliances
• The required leadership quality for smaller tags is lower thus increasing quota

Your whole argument hinges on the fact that lower tag limit = more alliances. When its been shown time and time again, that lowering the tag limit does not create more alliances. Those players kicked out of their alliance simply turn casual or do not play that round. You lose players and the game loses revenue when you lower the tag limit.

tag_limit = number_of_active_players / number_of_good_alliances_you_want

^^ Is certainly not true.

The easiest way to explain it is, when you drop the tag limit.. you stop players from playing in the alliance they want to play in (or have been playing in). They do not automatically go join another alliance, some of them decide to sit out the round or play casually, rather than playing with people they dont know. This is in addition to the amount of decent HC's/BC's/DC's the community has.