Alliance limit - a solution

[Red-]

Yes i been bitching and asking people to upheld the alliance limit and rules in general instead of circumventing them.

But i was thinking perhaps a compromise could be made.


Active Alliance Limit:

You can have max 70 members tagged as "Member" ranking or higher in your alliance - Those members will count towards Alliance Ranking.

Besides those 70 members you can recruit more, those will be ranked differently (i.e. Supporter). These members will not count towards alliance rankings.

These planets can not:

Send faster defence
Recieve alliance donations
Scan on alliance fund
(more?)

If you wish to promote a Support member there will be a 5 ticks delay from promotion till it happens, to avoid swapping members in and out of rank to send alliance defence.

For each time a planet has been at a member rank or higher and goes back to "supporter" rank there will be +5 ticks delay till they can rejoin (to make it harder swapping in scanners during the round).

The suggestion would leave room for the *arsecendancy members who wants more then 70 members in alliance, + it will still give a somewhat equal playingfield and the members above 70 will work mostly as replacement members still allowed to attack / communicate etc. for the alliance but not offering the defence and fundwise options of beeing in an alliance.

So what ya saying?

[Talin]

Is it just me, or there is no difference whatsoever between a player being a "Supporter" in tag, and being out of tag?

Where's the point? Unless you're limiting the number of "supporters" an alliance can have, which you didn't say anywhere.

[Mzyxptlk]

So basically you want to legalise support planets?

[edit]Yeah, what Talin said.

[Marv]

This is better.

[Red-]

Ssupporters out of tag should be closed instantly if they where found, unlike now.

[Mzyxptlk]

But how does it change anything?

[Achilles]

I suppose one difference would be that it would mean no maximum community size while still keeping the number of members visible ingame (ie allows/encourages arms racing).

[Red-]

I meant it as a compromise solution.

To still make rankings worth having but also leaving room for alliances with many people wanting in like yours.

The price is then that not all can be active contributors towards rankings etc. and not all can benifit from alliance possibilities ingame, wich will even out the playing field a bit as you wont see 100 additional fleets of investors vs. BS inc.

An option would also be to limit scoring to actual contribution while in tag, but then alliance score rankings would be rather static and instead of beeing able to hurt an alliance by killing thier value, score would be kept and accumulated.

[BADA]

Bad idea IMO

PA is a community that is growing smaller, all this will do is decrease the number of alliances in the game by letting more people into the T10 alliances and making competition / the rnd even more boring.

What we should be looking at is 25/30 person alliances and improving the alliance tools to run said type of alliances (EG Group scans etc) this in turn would bring more competition, more fun, and splinter up the alliances that have been making the rnds uber boring.

[JonnyBGood]

If we look at this round we can quite clearly see that even though the alliance limits are largely being reached new alliances are not popping up. This is because people don't form new communities when they reach arbitrary levels. They form new communities when they want to.

[Coltaine]

I support this suggestion!!! Great stuff

[Alki]

You just suggested a method which you have opposed in nearly every thread. I honestly dont understand you. Im still with dropping the tag scheme all together, you need to broaden how players can play, and stop restricting them

[Red-]

As i wrote its a compromise solution between people with your opinion and people with mine.

The difference is i can weigh off the arguments and come up with a compromise solution.

[Tomkat]

I think we can happily sum up all that is wrong with Planetarion by just putting Red- on a pedestal and letting people look at him and point.

[Mzyxptlk]

Like we do with you?