Alliance Limits Concern

[ComradeRob]

I really don't see where the urgency for this change has come from. I'm all in favour of fixing problems, but why couldn't it have waited until next round? 50-member alliances are an experiment and the experiment should have been allowed to run its course.

[Nadar]

I agree with Rob. Stop making changes mid-round (eh...doh!) and let the experiment run through a whole round before deciding on anything.

[Hesekiel]

yup, maybe the urgency came from the ranked members of the alliances with those things called communities D

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kal

I believe this was not the correct way to solve this problem. I agree with some of the previous posters that there are alliances with spaces that could become good alliances.

Except as I kept pointing out everytime the 50 limit was brought up before hand theres NOT enough alliance to take the placers on, atleast not viable alliances.

The problem the game has with lack of viable alliances is after all [b[NOT[/b] down to lack of players for these alliances but the lack of viable command staff to allow the alliance to function. If an alliance struggles to get members its almost always for one of two reasons

1) They are being too picky, a problem common when big alliances players try and create an alliance but whom dont have the draw to make an instant top 10 alliance. If your outside the top10 and cant get members then you either have to live with it or start taking more risks in recruitment. And trust me the risks are worth taking, you may have to go through some people whom are a waste of space but theres enough quality just waiting for someone to give them a chance to shine.

2) The command isnt upto it. Alot of HC's make members lives easy as they are good at their job and that leads alot of people to think running an alliance is easy and that anyone can do it. However thats simply wrong its alot of work and some people just arent command material no matter how good a player they are. These people wade in with no thought or preperation and then wonder why whats working for the top alliances isnt working for them. If you dont have a command in an alliance whom not only understands the games workings and is highly active but also understands the situation the alliance is in and how they have to adjust their thinking to account for it then you will never grow because you dont provide a fun and friendly place for players to be and you hence either drive them elsewhere or out of the game



Like with most things you cant force a change and have success with it if the infrastructure isnt there to support it, and no matter how much people iike Kargool went on about new alliances being formed by experianced players which would help offer the needed infrastructer anyone whom took a few minutes to really look at the current alliances that would need to expand to help out would have seen that it was a pipe dream.

[Clogg]

Well some alliances aren't picky. They are just overlooked because they aren't top 15. I do think it's a DISGRACE that people turn down new players.

I must admit I would turn down new players when they tell you before hand they are online like 1 hour a day. You just need more online hours to play this game. If they tell you they are actvie and turn out they aren't, then there is always the kick option.

[-=Zyth=-]

It irritates me a lot that there is some kind of rank facism going on here, there are about 20-30 alliances posibly more that are ran by veterans, in exactly the same way as the top 5, but are not 100% veterans ejaculating over a posible win. THIS IS A FREE ROUND. As such it is a way of PA increasing its core base, its not going to that by polarising new players into a 'top' alliance.

I did a small guide for our new players in SiN to understanding what it means to be a part of an alliance, being a small alliance and commanded by some of the best players in the game, i read this thread and personally though 'ffs'. if you havent got room, send the new guys to those alliances that have room for them, and stop whining that you are the only people that can train them.

that guide btw: www.carlisletortoises.co.uk/Guide.txt

[lokken]

The fact is that there are alliances lower down the rankings that could well do with players of experience and skill who would benefit from it. People who point out that 50 is too few haven't tried for a whole round and aren't really qualified to comment on it, as I think the game as a whole can become a whole lot more open, and a whole lot more competitive.

50 was the concensus arrived at and to go back on it a week after the round starts when there's barely been any combat whatsoever seems somewhat counterproductive.

Alliances may well have agreed, but they agree things for their own advantage, rather than anything to do with the welfare of the game itself.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Clogg

Well some alliances aren't picky. They are just overlooked because they aren't top 15. I do think it's a DISGRACE that people turn down new players.

I must admit I would turn down new players when they tell you before hand they are online like 1 hour a day. You just need more online hours to play this game. If they tell you they are actvie and turn out they aren't, then there is always the kick option.

While ranking may play a little bit in helping people decide where to go its not the major factor. Afterall the biggest method of recruiting in this game is word of mouth and people simpy dont recommend alliances based on their ranking but rather on their pedigree. For this reason alone SiN shouldnt have any problem getting to 40 members and the simple fact you havent suggests to me theres something else holding you back. With most above #15 being at apoint where recruitement is limited it certainly should leave you as one of the main alliances that are being recommended. And considering the fact that fcrew have on a number of occasions been in your ranking place and still recruited members with ease I should know as well as anyone that ranking isnt a problem for recruiting if everything going smoothly and you have a resonable reputation.

The alliances whom might be able to really say their ranking hinders them are those with no real background to rely on. They wont be recommeneded by people much yet and will have to build up a repuation. This though shouldnt stop them recruiting either, it may get lower quality applicants but if the commands solid and the members are presented with an enjoyable enviorment then word of mouth will soon get around.


As for your "Rejecting someone who says they are only one for an hour", thats a mistake alot of people make with new people. No-one comes into the game intendending for it to take over their lives but it does. They may say they will only be on an hour a day but that doesnt mean it will stay at that, give them a chance and make the game fun and you will get them hooked and then you might find a new highly active player, and as you said theres always the kick button if they dont get hooked

[-=Zyth=-]

wakey thats is such an assenine statement i regard you so much less tbh
there is no holier than thou here

[wakey]

Originally Posted by -=Zyth=-

wakey thats is such an assenine statement i regard you so much less tbh
there is no holier than thou here

How is it an asinine statement. You have less members than most of the alliances your actually competing for members with and unlike all but a couple you have a name thats known and respected and which people will be recommending. If you cant out recruit them then your doing something wrong and blaming the ranking for your failure is the asinine statement being made here. The people are there to be recruited if you just try and atm you have a major advantage which you should be making sure you take advantage of so you are challenging for top15 and higher like you should be

[Kargool]

I cant really comment about this issue, I assume that TGV was the only alliance that got screwed over by planning and playing based on that there would be an 50 members limit this round. So I guess that the PA-Crew didnt care about the situation they created for us, and went to increase the limit. I dont really see the problem for the alliances outside top 5 since you all were able to take in more players. But as I am really fed up and no longer really caring about what the PA crew does i'll just stop there before I start calling people names and get banned and all that crap.

[-=Zyth=-]

Originally Posted by wakey

How is it an asinine statement. You have less members than most of the alliances your actually competing for members with and unlike all but a couple you have a name thats known and respected and which people will be recommending. If you cant out recruit them then your doing something wrong and blaming the ranking for your failure is the asinine statement being made here. The people are there to be recruited if you just try and atm you have a major advantage which you should be making sure you take advantage of so you are challenging for top15 and higher like you should be

Don't you see? We aren't failing. we are succeeding in a way we didn't expect. What does taste sour is that those that are not succeeding in a way that they expected are using their position as a way of making others look less competant than themselves by way of rank, which is stupid and arrogant, thus this change. ergo assenine. we teach as do you, we are smaller, but we are no less for it.

[Remy]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

Any reason why a alliance cant accept a member and simply keep him out of the tag? If he is new and willing Im sure he'd accept the drawback of -1 eta for def for the time being until a spot opens..

Where is the problem ?

Dont forget the asupport planet rule....

[Ace]

Originally Posted by lokken

The fact is that there are alliances lower down the rankings that could well do with players of experience and skill who would benefit from it. People who point out that 50 is too few haven't tried for a whole round and aren't really qualified to comment on it, as I think the game as a whole can become a whole lot more open, and a whole lot more competitive.

50 was the concensus arrived at and to go back on it a week after the round starts when there's barely been any combat whatsoever seems somewhat counterproductive.

Alliances may well have agreed, but they agree things for their own advantage, rather than anything to do with the welfare of the game itself.

Lokken:
A lot of ppl don't want to join alliances way down the ranking wich is their choice nothing we can do about that.
you say 50 was the consencus, on what do you base that ? I know you are not added to the alliance rep channel and I bet you don't have access to that forums.
If you would you would have seen a vote held there before round about the limit.
choices where 50 or 60 and 60 had most votes.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Ace

Lokken:
A lot of ppl don't want to join alliances way down the ranking wich is their choice nothing we can do about that.
you say 50 was the consencus, on what do you base that ? I know you are not added to the alliance rep channel and I bet you don't have access to that forums.
If you would you would have seen a vote held there before round about the limit.
choices where 50 or 60 and 60 had most votes.

50 had most votes on the forum everyone has access to.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Banned

50 had most votes on the forum everyone has access to.

You know, just like in real life, it's not so much about what the majority wants, it is what the lobbyists want.

[Kal]

Wakey - as I said in my post I believe there are alliances outside the top 15 that are viable. If i signe dup an account now for example I would probably apply to join an alliance such as reinvented, as I know it has some reasonable command staff. If I know there are reasonable alliances with spaces then i'd have thought the rest of the active community do as well.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kal

Wakey - as I said in my post I believe there are alliances outside the top 15 that are viable. If i signe dup an account now for example I would probably apply to join an alliance such as reinvented, as I know it has some reasonable command staff. If I know there are reasonable alliances with spaces then i'd have thought the rest of the active community do as well.

The rest of the community doesn't know that since it doesn't help certain people in certain alliances when good and active new players join alliances which are "out of interest" for the top shelf alliances.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Heartless

You know, just like in real life, it's not so much about what the majority wants, it is what the lobbyists want.

Infact, in this case ... all that matters is what the alliance command thinks. The only problem a member might have with this limit is that the alliance he applies to is full. For the alliance command, the issue might be alot more important.

Fact is, a member doesn't give a fk howmuch members are in the alliance he's part of. It's not his job, he shouldn't even bother about it. If he doesn't like the fact that the alliance recruits x amount of pple then he can just leave.

In real life, if you make a vote about ... 'university' then you honnestly don't care about the opinion of some farmer who never even heared of the word (to put it harsh). Sure he has an opinion, but to you it's void because you know he won't be affected by any decisions concerning the topic at hand.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Infact, in this case ... all that matters is what the alliance command thinks. The only problem a member might have with this limit is that the alliance he applies to is full. For the alliance command, the issue might be alot more important.

Fact is, a member doesn't give a fk howmuch members are in the alliance he's part of. It's not his job, he shouldn't even bother about it. If he doesn't like the fact that the alliance recruits x amount of pple then he can just leave.

In real life, if you make a vote about ... 'university' then you honnestly don't care about the opinion of some farmer who never even heared of the word (to put it harsh). Sure he has an opinion, but to you it's void because you know he won't be affected by any decisions concerning the topic at hand.

The arguments pre round sounded like a shitload of people did actually care and you surely don't want to tell me that it is up to alliance HC's to decide what PA's alliance member limit should be? I think the majority of players voted different than that alliance HC's. We all know that 90% of the alliance HC's would just like to see the alliance member limit removed again, as stated earlier on this thread they got a different interest which is not benefitial to the game.

After all, in real life politics even farmers get a chance to cast their opinions in elections / votes - and they have a chance to inform themselves about the stuff they are voting about.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Infact, in this case ... all that matters is what the alliance command thinks. The only problem a member might have with this limit is that the alliance he applies to is full.

That's plain wrong. Perhaps it's irrelevant to many people, but for me the community an alliance represents has always been important. And while some people seem to think that more people equates a better community, I have rarely seen the same. To me, the alliance limit is a restriction placed on HC to defend the value of my position in an alliance.

For the alliance command, the issue might be alot more important.

From what I've heard, there was a discussion in #alliances that included no HC outside the top15, which means that the 10 alliances that had most reason to oppose the limit were all represented. The 10 alliances I mean are the 6-7 fighting for top5 spot. For these alliances it's obviously an advantage since lower placed alliances can recruit up to 100. This way they could argue to equalize and reduce the danger of being the 5th placed alliance. The 3-4 remaining alliances include alliances that are actively recruiting as quickly as possible (ie the ones named in the news post).

How can this cross section be seen as fair representation of the players? As you say, alliance HC have interests that often differ from those of their members.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

In real life, if you make a vote about ... 'university' then you honnestly don't care about the opinion of some farmer who never even heared of the word (to put it harsh). Sure he has an opinion, but to you it's void because you know he won't be affected by any decisions concerning the topic at hand.

Yeah those people who could't get into an alliance because of the limits sure weren't affected by that decision.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Infact, in this case ... all that matters is what the alliance command thinks. The only problem a member might have with this limit is that the alliance he applies to is full. For the alliance command, the issue might be alot more important.

Fact is, a member doesn't give a fk howmuch members are in the alliance he's part of. It's not his job, he shouldn't even bother about it. If he doesn't like the fact that the alliance recruits x amount of pple then he can just leave.

In real life, if you make a vote about ... 'university' then you honnestly don't care about the opinion of some farmer who never even heared of the word (to put it harsh). Sure he has an opinion, but to you it's void because you know he won't be affected by any decisions concerning the topic at hand.

Thats perhaps the most short sighted thing I have ever seen.

lets start with the pa stuff:

With the current system pretty much all of the top 15 or so would like to be able ot have more members - so we know what they "want" and will lobby for. The smaller alliances probably don;t care, or like it small so they can compete better, Members in the bigger alliances might want more members as they notice a shortage of defence fleets - they might weant less members as they like to have a small community in which they can know everyone.

At the end of the day PATeams job is to increase the player base of the game - this isn't going to be done by listening to a small group of alliance hcs - PATeam needs to listne to the entire community - listen to the arguments - then make a decision - that decision should not be determined by which is the most popular option, but based on an analysis of the arguments presented.

The same applies to your univeristy and farmers point. Lets say the universities want more money from the government - the government can;t just listen to them, they need to listen to everyone else as i;m sure lots of groups want more money. Maybe the famrers are concerned that universities don;t have enough agriculture based degrees, etc etc. The point is that if someone has a well thought out opinion that they can back up they should be listened to - you shouldn;t have to be in the correct club to be heard.

[Kjeldoran]

First of all, I'm not complaining about the limit. Let that be clear. It doesn't matter if the limit is set to 50 or 200 ... because whatever the rules are for PA, alliances have no choice but to adapt to them nway.

A member cares if his alliance, that he's a part of, is quality or not. I don't think a member cares of the alliance has 50 or 80 members, aslong as the quality remains the same, not?

If you raize the limit from 50 to 80, what possible dissadvantage can that have to ANY player in this game? New players will have it easier to get into an alliance, allianceless players will have it easier to chose the alliance they WANT to join rather then going for their 3rd-4th choice (let's be honnest, alot of the tier 10-20 alliances get members that couldn't join one of their prefered alliances). For the members in the alliance, aslong as the HC can keep the quality the same OR even improve it, then I don't see how a member can be opposed to the limit.

With 50 members limit, alot more alliances can have a quality core. Simply because the quality that otherwise would be in exi, 1up etc, now has to look for other alliances to join. Obviously I prefer a higher limit, simply because I know that'd be FAR harder for some alliances to recruit upto that limit AND remain the same quality while I know for my own alliance that's not a real issue.

Yes that's a personal preference, because it benefits my own alliance. I'm sure other pple in Angels might feel differently but it's all just a matter of opinion.

Kal, you can call me short sighted or selfish ... and maybe there's some truth in this (imo each human being is selfish in its existance nway) but this is just my opinion. Again, I personally would like to see a higher limit but it doesn't matter that much to me either and I'm perfectly happy with the current limit.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Heartless

We all know that 90% of the alliance HC's would just like to see the alliance member limit removed again, as stated earlier on this thread they got a different interest which is not benefitial to the game.

Ofcourse the HC's have a different interest then the general member. The member's prime concern is to have a fun round and to win. If he's dissatisfied of his alliance, he choses another one in the next round.
An HC needs to think about the survival of his alliance and needs to motivate the members in being active, in being dedicated and in being loyal.

I'm not saying you shouldn't give a fk about the game, that's a step too far. But the first thing that pops to mind when a decision is made is: "how will it affect Angels" rather then "how will it affect PA". Nway, it's not the first time I'm saying this and atleast I don't try to wrap it up to mask the fact that allmost only care about Angels. Something alot of other posters often don't.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

If you raize the limit from 50 to 80, what possible dissadvantage can that have to ANY player in this game?

If you played the game by meeting the rules that was meant to be when the round started with 50 members in an alliance, and created an recuirtment alliance, then the people in the recruitment alliance would be seriously screwed over by this, especially when you only raised it by 5 to 55.

[The_Fish]

I really really dislike mid round changes.

[furball]

There's so much crap in this thread, it's unbelievable.

Heartless: I was happy with alliance limits as they were last round. I wouldn't want a return to pre-PaX alliances where smaller alliances had no chance of competing. Most alliances are happy running on 60-80 members, and I wish it had stayed that way.

Jester: we're not recruiting as fast as possible . We've just been trying to get our community in-tag while accepting a few worthy players as usual with every round. At the moment our recruitment is closed.

Originally Posted by Kal

At the end of the day PATeams job is to increase the player base of the game - this isn't going to be done by listening to a small group of alliance hcs - PATeam needs to listne to the entire community - listen to the arguments - then make a decision - that decision should not be determined by which is the most popular option, but based on an analysis of the arguments presented.

We're not going to increase the player base of the game when the main alliances have all closed recruitment. Just look at the experiences of NitanA's friend. Something had to be done, and it was.

As for analysis of the arguments presented, I would like to think that we did a pretty good job of that in #alliances. Certainly we had some intelligent HCs in there who were both considering the welfare of their own alliance AND the welfare of the game itself.

Originally Posted by Banned

From what I've heard, there was a discussion in #alliances that included no HC outside the top15

Yes, there was a HC from outside the top 15. However, by the nature of many alliances outside of the top 15, they have HCs active less often.

Since I'm in #alliances as AR moderator, I took some responsibility for the smaller alliances. However, it is rather difficult to do so without talking to them first. All I can say is that I did my best on that front.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by furball

Since I'm in #alliances as AR moderator, I took some responsibility for the smaller alliances. However, it is rather difficult to do so without talking to them first. All I can say is that I did my best on that front.

Lol, that is a load of bullshit. How the hell can you, as a HC of an alliance that is trying to recruit as fast as possible and has previously been advocating to lift the limits be able to AT ALL have an objective view on that issue.

And also, when you decide to change the game that much "grabbing" thoose avaliable at a time in #alliances and think that they are representative for all the views of the alliances in the game is utter bullshit. You could have atleast given people some time to KNOW that such an discussion was going on. One of our representatives was asleep and I wasnt around or got any notice or pm about such a discussion. If you want a decision like that to reflect the entire span of alliances, atleast give us the decency of an invite or pm knowing that a discussion like that is gonna commence in x hours.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

I really really dislike mid round changes.

I agree, mid round changes only shows how unstable the PA-Team is. They're the law, they give us the chance to have our input. But they shouldn't change the rules during a round. That's like during a football match that you can suddenly play with 15 players on the field instead of 11 (would be fun though he, or crap).

[frostbeule]

I didnt really like the limit change - a speed up for letting new members in would have done imo.
However this leaves almost all alliance below rank 18 almost waiting for applicants, they would all have wanted to teach the game etc - and now they have the chance again to get into a top10 or top15 alliance. so it takes possible members away from us.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Lol, that is a load of bullshit. How the hell can you, as a HC of an alliance that is trying to recruit as fast as possible and has previously been advocating to lift the limits be able to AT ALL have an objective view on that issue.

Kargool, what the hell do you know? I said in that very post, as well as in NitanA's thread, that we've been struggling to fit in our entire community. I warned in the original thread that suggested the limits that it would be a problem.

I salute TGV's efforts to work with the limits, but I'm not going to complain about the change because it allows Vengeance's community to play the round as a community.

As for my objectivity, I did say that it's difficult to keep the two roles separate. I do my best. Any complaints on that front and you know where to go.

Originally Posted by Kargool

And also, when you decide to change the game that much "grabbing" thoose avaliable at a time in #alliances and think that they are representative for all the views of the alliances in the game is utter bullshit. You could have atleast given people some time to KNOW that such an discussion was going on. One of our representatives was asleep and I wasnt around or got any notice or pm about such a discussion. If you want a decision like that to reflect the entire span of alliances, atleast give us the decency of an invite or pm knowing that a discussion like that is gonna commence in x hours.

Not my problem, I didn't initiate the discussion - in fact I arrived while it was going on. I suppose that Appocomaster was responsible for it, and if so, take your gripes to him.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by furball

Jester: we're not recruiting as fast as possible . We've just been trying to get our community in-tag while accepting a few worthy players as usual with every round. At the moment our recruitment is closed.

I should have specified, I meant adding people to the tag. The exact reasons why are irrelevant.

Since I'm in #alliances as AR moderator, I took some responsibility for the smaller alliances. However, it is rather difficult to do so without talking to them first. All I can say is that I did my best on that front.

So you agree that the decision should've been postponed in favor of gathering more input from outside the top15?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Ace

Lokken:
A lot of ppl don't want to join alliances way down the ranking wich is their choice nothing we can do about that.
you say 50 was the consencus, on what do you base that ? I know you are not added to the alliance rep channel and I bet you don't have access to that forums.
If you would you would have seen a vote held there before round about the limit.
choices where 50 or 60 and 60 had most votes.

I base it on the thread on planetarion discussions.

Of course i don't have access to that channel, i don't HC an alliance and quite frankly, I wouldn't expect any alliance HC to oppose upping the alliance limit, as it means that in any position they are far more secure than they would be otherwise. Does the fact that I'm not part of some channel suddenly make me not qualified to comment on this topic? The other reason i'm not in #alliances is that a lot of people probably wouldn't want me there.

The fact is, I don't recognise your credibility in making any decision, simply because you made on the basis on what was best for your alliance rather than for the game as a whole i.e. you wanted to recruit more players. As I pointed out:

Originally Posted by lokken

Alliances may well have agreed, but they agree things for their own advantage, rather than anything to do with the welfare of the game itself.

People aren't prepared? The very idea of having 50 per alliance was to force them to, to make things far more exciting and to ensure rounds are that much more open. I am a player who could probably walk into many alliances on ability alone, yet I wouldn't ever rule myself joining an alliance like F-Crew who do a lot of good work in this game. While I won't for a second claim that this is the way everyone should think about planetarion, I don't see why people are so upset when they can still chat to their friends on IRC and try something different in-game.

What annoys me most is that no one is willing to try out 50. They haven't even allowed any wars to become underway. More alliances = more competition = better game and that in my opinion was all that was ever needed to be said. Alliance HC's don't want competition, they want success and in my opinion giving them exactly what they wanted on a plate wasn't wise.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Banned

So you agree that the decision should've been postponed in favor of gathering more input from outside the top15?

Any decision benefits from greater information behind it.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by furball

Any decision benefits from greater information behind it.

I'm not talking about information, I'm talking about opinions. It seems to me that the decision was taken on the basis of complaints from a bunch of people with an interest in seeing the change happen.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by frostbeule

I didnt really like the limit change - a speed up for letting new members in would have done imo.
However this leaves almost all alliance below rank 18 almost waiting for applicants, they would all have wanted to teach the game etc - and now they have the chance again to get into a top10 or top15 alliance. so it takes possible members away from us.

Waiting for applicants is something that those alliances whom have yet to establish themselves have to do and it really wouldnt matter what the limit was from that pov. Anyone whos recommending alliances to people has their repuation on the line and they arent about to recommend a totally unknown alliance that they arent sure has the right command or enviorment to suit the person. Its just something you have to work through and its actually a good thing to have your hc go through because it weeds out those whom really arent upto the task of running an alliance and helps prepare those whom are up to it for the struggles they will have to endure later on.

If you stick at it, give people a chance and offer them an enviorment that allows them to have fun you will find that not only find your members will start recommending you to others but other people will start to consider you as a place to send people to.

Just remember that while it may seem otherwise theres plenty of people waiting for you to recruit, you just have to work a bit harder than the likes of SiN and G-II to get them as you dont have an established name to fall back on but if you really put some effort into recruiting then you will see it pay off

[The_Fish]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Lok has said.

We try something radical, give it LESS THAN A WEEK to see if it works, and make a quick change. Now a t5 alliance has 61 members, might as well of scrapped the alliance limit thing in total if its going to be changed so dramatically so quickly.

[Clogg]

I really can not understand how appoco can say the majority of HC's where consulted. I talked to many and none of them were consulted. Probably only the top 10 were consultanted and I think that is a bad thing.

Cause I have to be honest, the majority of recruits we had so far we refered to us by gal mates who have had experience with SiN. We have 30 members atm. and the majority of those members is still the SiN core from previous members. So that leaves about 10 who are new to SiN. Of that 10, 5 are totally new to the game. Probably the galmates who are reffering are already filtering for us, since the new recruits look promising, and will be quality members before the round has ended. So the PA community will benefit from this aswell. Due to the filtering I haven't turned down a recruit yet (unlike what Wahey might think).

But the altering of the alliance limits have affects for us aswell. We get less referals. Also you can see it in the allaince stats aswell some alliances are already losing members, perhaps that is because an opening in a top 15 alliance has occured.

So to summarise this, the MAJORITY of HC wasn't consultated. And I think the new rule should be cancelled and set back to 50 again. It's almost like the support rule, that was pushed trough by only 2 alliances aswell!

[lokken]

Well I have some interesting questions for pa team therefore.

Who exactly was consulted?

Why were only they consulted?

Why not others?

Why should it be that alliance HC's have an opinion to determine this rule?

What made you think that it was fit to break the golden rule of changing rules mid round when a loophole wasn't being exploited?

[Kentaminated]

why do we have to bias the game. Set a Limit. Same for all. the community voted for 50 member alliances. Lets shake things up and give them a 50 member limit. (For ALL Alliances) A handicap doesnt serve the community, and changing the rules mid round doesn't either.

[Kargool]

As soon as I get time, i'll make a list over all the alliance hc's that wasnt consulted on this.

[Clogg]

Think it's easier to go around about who were consultated. Guess is that will take you less time.

[DrunkenViking]

Bah.
Changes during round is bad in general, but i dont see the really big problem with the changes 2 days ago. I dont expect a huge impact in any way, except full allies gaining more possibilities(and unallied ppl)