[Closed] Alliance Size

[Pinkerton]

cap the size of alliances so that the game is more balanced,

That would force more planets into smaller alliances so that more players would be in a decent size alliance, and no one could win by the enormous size of thier alliance alone. They would have to depend on thier skill



Just an ides to be developed, not the final say.

[Cochese]

Alliance size is capped, at 100.

I'm assuming you mean less than that.

[TheRat]

That would benefit the "elite" alliances. Ie, best players of 1up, best players of lch, best players of alliance x. So it would in fact make the game less balanced.

[Pinkerton]

Originally Posted by TheRat

That would benefit the "elite" alliances. Ie, best players of 1up, best players of lch, best players of alliance x. So it would in fact make the game less balanced.

I disaagree An alliance fo 20-30 good players is not as bad as an alliance of 100.. plus they will have more competitors

The gap between old players and newbs is large,but there are alot of players in the middle who make up all the smaller alliances (outside the top 15) who would make the competition more interseting.

The point is that the top alliances have reached a level where there is no competition in the game.

You want to level the field so that competition is at its peak.. Allowing complete dominance because if size is not competition.

If they are so good then they will do just as well in smaller groups.



Its not the weaker players crying, its the older players who don't want to give up thier advantage. They are afraid of competition.

[Cochese]

Cutting alliance size to 20-30 would just mean fracturing the current alliances into smaller groups.

We would still win, you would still lose.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed...experienced, more active players will always do better than less experienced, less organized, casual, and newer players.

It's not about numbers, it's about skill and activity.

[Gate]

Alliance sizes have been cut down. It would simply make it less accessible to newer players IMO.

1up would keep their 50 best, LCH would keep their 50 best... as would VsN, Mistu, ND, and HR, and fill up these spots purely with elite players. This would make it harder for new guys to learn the game. I learnt the game (Quite well I feel) as I was allowed into ND in my first round and had a great time with an excellent command staff and some excellent players too. Due to the activity of the alliance I was able to BC several of my own attacks and set up a small temporary battlegroup; in a newer alliance I would never have learned the lessons I did there due to the simply fact that I wouldn't have received the fleets to experiment with. Also, with 10 man gals, it would be harder for single alliances to do efficient gal raids, and I could only really see the upper echelon of alliances actually collaborating well enough.

That said, many of these advantages SHOULD be the trappings of better players...

hard choice really

All of this said, I can understand the idea of

[Orion Treet]

Originally Posted by Pinkerton

cap the size of alliances so that the game is more balanced,

That would force more planets into smaller alliances so that more players would be in a decent size alliance, and no one could win by the enormous size of thier alliance alone. They would have to depend on thier skill



Just an ides to be developed, not the final say.

And you'd have them split off into wings which work together........ Not good idea imho.

[Nadar]

I think it should be capped at 50 really... should be interesting at least

[Pinkerton]

Originally Posted by Cochese

Cutting alliance size to 20-30 would just mean fracturing the current alliances into smaller groups.

We would still win, you would still lose.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed...experienced, more active players will always do better than less experienced, less organized, casual, and newer players.

It's not about numbers, it's about skill and activity.

Exactly, (didn't I say that?) so it won't hurt them if the alliance size was reduced.

If they still choose to work together afterward so be it. nothing is stopping them from doing it now.
I think most plyers join big alliances just so they won't be attacked by them.

More over 50 alliances of size 20-30 is more competitive than 10 alliances 80+, and 70 allinces of 2, 3 or 8. So, some alliances may still choose to work together , but I think most will concentrate on thier own new alliance. so the hundreds of players not in the big alliances(both old and new/good and bad) will be more competitve. Newbs will still learn, alliances will still band together, but I think over all it will still be more competitve.


The bottom line is balance. You are right that the active and skilled players will do well always. So it won't hurt them to take away size advantage. This doesn't make the game any easier, just more competitive..

"fundamentally flawed"??? I don't think so

[Cochese]

Originally Posted by Pinkerton

Exactly, (didn't I say that?) so it won't hurt them if the alliance size was reduced.

Right, but your trying to cap alliances at a smaller size for reason which won't work out (fundamentally flawed argument).

If they still choose to work together afterward so be it. nothing is stopping them from doing it now.

Then what's the point, if nothing will change? Flawed argument strike one..

I think most plyers join big alliances just so they won't be attacked by them.

No, most players join big alliances to play on a higher level, and achieve a higher rank. People joining an alliance just so they don't get attacked, probably won't last long (fence sitting and whatnot). Flawed argument strike two.

More over 50 alliances of size 20-30 is more competitive than 10 alliances 80+, and 70 allinces of 2, 3 or 8. So, some alliances may still choose to work together , but I think most will concentrate on thier own new alliance. so the hundreds of players not in the big alliances(both old and new/good and bad) will be more competitve. Newbs will still learn, alliances will still band together, but I think over all it will still be more competitve.

Except people most likely won't compete with one another, they'll work together as wings, still operate as a singular alliance, and be just as elitist as they are today (and always have been).

In theory, 50 20-player alliances would equal more competition. In reality, they wouldn't compete but instead work as seperate parts of the same entity. It's good on paper, but doesn't work out in practice. Flawed argument strike three, you're out.

The bottom line is balance. You are right that the active and skilled players will do well always. So it won't hurt them to take away size advantage. This doesn't make the game any easier, just more competitive..

I've already explained exactly why you won't see more competition. It's foolish to think otherwise.

"fundamentally flawed"??? I don't think so

Having played this game for a very long time, and others like it, my experience says yes.

[mist]

in fairness, if putting people in to 20 person alliances means that an alliance will just form 5 wings, then they're just as likely to recruit etc etc and therefore there's no loss by doing it

-mist

[Cochese]

Yeah, but who would buy into it mist?

I'd bet people would complain, and either not play, or whine enough to keep pa team from doing it.

Besides, why should we cater to the needs of everyone else and go along with it? The big alliances right now, comprise the bulk of your customer base.

They're they ones who keep the game going, not the minority who are at a disadvantage because they're in small alliances.

You can't alienate your key demographic based upon the possibility (since the success of this idea is far from guaranteed) of making the game more "fair". It's a disaster waiting to happen imo.

[mist]

i didn't say it was a good idea, just that your argument was as flawed as the one you were picking apart

it won't be done because the alliances will throw a hissy fit. ofc, they'll still complain about the lack of targets, but *shrugs*

-mist

[Pinkerton]

Then what's the point, if nothing will change? Flawed argument strike one

Thats hardly a rebuttal. The point is that it would change the dynamic of the game. The changes would be subtle, but I think it would have a larger effect in the end

No, most players join big alliances to play on a higher level, and achieve a higher rank. People joining an alliance just so they don't get attacked, probably won't last long (fence sitting and whatnot). Flawed argument strike two.

MOst members of large alliances are not necessarily loyal to that alliance. Many good players go along to get along. But if they had a chance tp splinter off into thier own alliance that would be equal in size to others they likely would doit.

In theory, 50 20-player alliances would equal more competition. In reality, they wouldn't compete but instead work as seperate parts of the same entity. It's good on paper, but doesn't work out in practice. Flawed argument strike three, you're out.

No I think your assumption is flawed. I think once everyone is in a separtate alliance they WILL compete. There may be a few that band together, but other small alliances will do that too.There are already small alliances of 15-25 that are well organized. They had a chance to join one of the MEGA alliances but they chose to compete for themselves.

Besides, why should we cater to the needs of everyone else and go along with it? The big alliances right now, comprise the bulk of your customer base

Maybe you would prefer and empty gal where you just collect roids. You could have a fleet of pods only. Or how about anyone not in your Mega alliance cannot build ships. only you. since you are the only paying player.
Non-sense. It sounds like you don't want any competition.

I don't think players will abandon the game if that can't have a 100 member alliance. Maybe you would, but that says more about you than anyone else.

Originally Posted by Cochese

I like naked boys

Umm, too much info .

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Pinkerton

No I think your assumption is flawed. I think once everyone is in a separtate alliance they WILL compete. There may be a few that band together, but other small alliances will do that too.There are already small alliances of 15-25 that are well organized. They had a chance to join one of the MEGA alliances but they chose to compete for themselves.

No.

Just take a look at the rankings as they stand right now. 1up are right up there and they have a considerable disadvantage numerically than the rest.

Now consider alliances of 20. There would be more competition in the top10, but the game will stagnate a lot quicker as blocking is bound to occur. The small, newer alliances will still struggle just as they are now as they're nowhere near as active and dedicated as the top alliances. In theory it's a good idea, but so's communism, in practice it won't work.

[Forest]

Alliances being cut smaller will actually FORCE blocking.

Imagine an alliance of 20 people (which imo is one of the silliest ideas i have seen suggested ever).
After 5 days of the round, they would never be able to hit the top galaxies, as u need more than 20 fleets to start getting through. Then they need to ask for help, which in turn leads to the block, we are all so desperate to avoid (except this round everyone has blocked anyway)

The top galaxies will become even more harder to hit (even harder than they are now), the winners will be the galaxies that fencesit, which is the lamest way to win (lo 31:3), and the losers will be the galaxies that don't fencesit, as theyw ill be only available targets to a whole host of players.

[mist]

while it may force blocking, wouldn't blocks of, say, 60 be more fluid than the current 'blocks' of 100?

-mist

[Kal]

if u have a smaller alliance size then u need fewer of each alliance in a gal for good defence options which means your buddy packs of 3 in fact need to be 3 people form different alliances which will basically force at the very least triads.

[Pinkerton]

The only players that want to keep the big alliances are the ones that created them. We all know that many players would want to form there own alliances.

If 25-30 is to small then make it 40-50. Or give an advantage to smaller alliances. A % decrease in eta depending on the size of the top alliance.

The top galaxies will become even more harder to hit (even harder than they are now), the winners will be the galaxies that fencesit, which is the lamest way to win (lo 31:3), and the losers will be the galaxies that don't fencesit, as theyw ill be only available targets to a whole host of players.

Thats assuming the gal is in one alliance, Next round there won't be private gals. so the dynamic will be different

The idea is to optimize score due to skill and activity, not because you are in a MASSIVE alliance that has a member in every gal.

How about one big alliance and we just roid a bunch of defenceless farms.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kal

if u have a smaller alliance size then u need fewer of each alliance in a gal for good defence options which means your buddy packs of 3 in fact need to be 3 people form different alliances which will basically force at the very least triads.

Or alliances could just order their members to go random.

I'm all for reducing the size of alliances, preferably to about 50. Any less than that is too little, it's impossible to have an alliance that has both community members, active players and scanners with much less than 50.

[Kal]

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?p=2783834