Round XIII Alliance Size

[Kal]

There is as allways lots of debate about what the maximum alliance size should be. This is somethign we can change very easily though, so its a good idea to start discussing it early. To ease the mind of all of you thining we want to kill alliances at this time the intention is to stay at 100 unless it becomes overwhelming clear that a drop would be beneficial. To get things started here are some arguments.

Smaller alliances balences the playing field
Smaller alliances means more alliances
Smaller alliances means new alliances stand a chance
Smaller alliances means the power of any one alliance is smaller so blocking my be more likely
Smaller alliances makes defence harder, but this has good and bad aspects
Smaller alliances might make people leave
Smaller alliances might make new players stay

It is expected that most alliances could handle a drop to 60-75 without loosing many key players
A drop to 50 would have more of the benefical affects listed above but more of the negatives

I am sure there are many more positive and negative aspects and arguments on what sort of drop would be beneficial and what sort of drop would hurt the game etc, so get discussing.

Play PA like it should be played.

If anything the alliance sizes should be increased.

Kloopy, there is no such thing as a new alliance that succeed's, you cant manage an alliance in a forum. Basically - its either going to be filled with half the people from another alliance with another name or changed.

Planetarion moves too fast to cut alliances down, its not how people want to play PA.

All i hear is new alliances/players/galaxies being welcomed with open arms, but that isnt true, you cant succeed in PA unless you monitopr most hours of the day. its just too hard to play as a casual player -> and not many people can share the time to do that, especially if they sign up for fun.

So why welcome the people we hate to play with?

[Helix]

I think the current alliance limit is right where it should be. I agree wholeheartedly that decreasing the alliance size would increase (or bring back) blocking. I think that right now alliances can be powerful enough to operate as a lone entity while not being forced to resort to having allies to survive.

Also, decreasing the alliance size simply means that bad players will be displaced to worse alliances, further increasing the average strength of the top alliances, perhaps putting them further out of reach of smaller alliances.

How u should def. your selfe with 75 players in the mroning?
your owend ships get killed due to init
Your gal. members get atacked to.
your alli dont have enogh active players...
so they cant cover u
->great...

but u get one kind of def.... struct killers so they get converted....

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How u should def. your selfe with 75 players in the mroning?
your owend ships get killed due to init
Your gal. members get atacked to.
your alli dont have enogh active players...
so they cant cover u
->great...

but u get one kind of def.... struct killers so they get converted....

please do not turn this into a discussion about stats flaws this round

[Sn0w]

30 would be good just my opinion tight knit more friends closer bonds and if ya do loose 1 or 2 you will no doubt recruit and those new recruits will be a focus of attention a new toy to play with so to speak if alliance want to work with other alliances there going to do it no matter how big or small they are but having a close community in your alliance is such a good thing to have no one person would like chat with more then 10 people in there alliance usually get on best really well with only 5 of those. bigger might look good to some but its how ya use it the girls say.

[pig]

personally I think the 100 player cap, is probably the best amount, if alliances like 1up choose to go below that its entirely there choice, i dont think you should make other allies go less than 100, because theres a lack of quality alliances at the moment, players will leave etc etc if they cant find an alliance to there standard, past few rnds have shown that new alliances can be difficult to setup and maintain i.e. absolute and phraktos

[Dingo]

If people had the guts to go alone and not block at all, then the game might stand a chance of recovering some form of enjoyment.

With that said, there is zero chance of anyone finding 100 people to form a half decent alliance capable of functioning and being competitive. If the size was 50, then the chance of forming new alliances would increase dramatically.

Please look at this with the idea of trying to improve gameplay for new people as well as veterans.

IF PA can not attract and keep new players, then there is only one way it can go.

Likewise, if there is 100 smaller alliances rather than 20 large and 30 tiny it has to make the overall challenge for the more experienced allianced more enjoyable as well. You can only pound the crap out of the same people for so long before it gets a bit old and tired.

I would love to see alliance sizes set at 50, but concede that 60 or 65 may be needed to appease all sides of the argument.

[Bartje]

Originally Posted by Kal

A drop to 50 would have more of the benefical affects listed above but more of the negatives

I am sure there are many more positive and negative aspects and arguments on what sort of drop would be beneficial and what sort of drop would hurt the game etc, so get discussing.

seeing most top alliances have 100ish players, my guess is they will just form 2 alliances of 50 and cooperate with each other.
so imo, keep it as it is now

[NitinA]

Alliance sized seem like a very touchy issue to both sides. 100 members per an alliance make an intresting haromony at the moment. Moving the alliance sizes up to 150 or so may prove to be very harmful, and moving the alliance size down to 75 seems harmful as well. In both cases it becomes clear that the loss/gain for lowering or raising the limit is proportional. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

IMO, we should stick to the current system we have. It seems to be working decenlty well.

-NitinA

[Dingo]

Bare in mind that most alliances will admit that currently they lose 1/3 of their member base each round anyway and just have to recruit. That would make 65 a realistic number leaving the ship jumpers and new people to form new alliances and refresh the PA gene pool.

[olle]

Lets have it all....

make a game/server with max 200 ally members.
make a game/server with max 100 ally members.
make a game/server with max 50 ally members.

Alternative mixs
Gal war - Planets fight eatchother in gal NO other gals can attack, kinda like a mini Unviverse for yourself without anyother and you stand alone against the rest if not ingal allys will be made.
Cluster war - Gals vs. Gals, only gals in the same cluster may attack eatchother.
Unvirse war - What we kinda have now... Every planet, every gal, every cluster all banging eatchoter.

[Aria]

My 2 cents....Alliance size should be reduced, how much up to debate....it will make the alliances more equal in size so that more alliances have a chance to make their way to the top 10 instead of every round the members with 90 to 100 members taking the top spots every single round.

Just think, those small alliances with 40 to 50 members would actually have a fighting chance in competing for top ranking and be more competitive and more active and actually feel like they have a chance for once. Instead of keeping it at 100 members to just guarentee being in top spots, take a challenge and reduce the size some so that all alliances have a fighting chance!

[Recluse]

I also believe 100 is the perfect balance atm. Taking it down to 50, or 65, will leave those slightly less then active peeps without a home, while alliances trim down to the most 1337 players. Also the smaller you go, the more you end up needing to recruit based upon timezones, as the less people you have, the more weakspots you will have. Going larger just takes it back to Fury/Legion pwnage days and we don't want that :P

Another thing is, I have heard people say that going smaller would encourage more competition. This is not true. Take 1up for example. if all alliances were capped at 65, 1up would be 20mill ahead of LCH and 40mill ahead of HR. By going smaller, you encourage alliances to put the best players into 1 spot. So now, you have ~4-6 alliances with 50 members that truly pwn, and 70 smaller alliances that really didn't have a shot to begin with, becoming feeders. At least with 100 members there is room for newbs to have fun, send def, attack, and still play the game without getting farmed every day. I mean, if you had, say, LCH1 and LCH2, Mistu1 would just farm LCH2, and then LCH1 would farm Mistu2. the so-so players are being left out in the cold, so to speak.

[Borg]

hmmm, well lets take a look shall we at the stats

Rank Change Name Asteroids Members AVG Score Score
1 LCH 88503 96 2.086.401 200.294.574
2 Howling Rain 80882 96 1.696.211 162.836.301
3 NewDawn 86254 93 1.717.580 159.734.963
4 1up 81321 67 2.352.364 157.608.418
5 MISTU 71709 88 1.724.918 151.792.851


thats the top 5 atm, strange that an alliance with 67 members has a higher average score than an alliance with 96 members, or is it. Probly not, because the smaller alliance is more tightly knit and has a better "spirt d corp" where the members are more likely to drag their sorry asses out of bed at 4 am to send def to their m8 who they laugh and joke with, not just a "sometimes seen when he needs def" member but a real m8

me view is that a smaller alliance is stronger because they care more for each other, and thats the basis of any alliance, caring for another and being willing to help out.

Ok atm the 96 person alliance is #1, probly because they can just flood enough ships out to do the job, wether the skill or alliance sprit is as good as the 66 player alliance I cant say because I aint in either of them. A smaller alliance is well balanced, they develop the skills to become really good players and share these skills, I personally would sooner have 40 plus smaller alliances to play against than 20 big alliances

thats my 2 1/2 cents worth

these are my PERSONAL views and are not intended as a statement from my alliance

[Dingo]

Another point regarding blocking..

If 3 alliances atm block they are like 15% of the active base. Make lots of smaller alliances and if 3 block its no longer as big an issue, and pretty near impossible for 6 to block and have any co-ordination.

[Kattepis]

Keep the numbers this way or increase with 10..

[noah02]

Well to be honest if you put a 50 cap on them 67 will kinda just split into 2 alliances and work together.
Everyone still in the same channel same server just with a different alliance name ie 1up and 1up2.
I dunno maybe I am just being stupid and they wouldnt do that but in my eyes more alliances makes no difference if you gona make them really small ie 50.
100 is perfect coz its good managable number were you can recruit and kick without to much loss.
/me is usless at alliances hence Ark (Alliance of the Rightful Killers Round 2 N00b Alliance with 300 inactives)

Originally Posted by Aria

My 2 cents....Alliance size should be reduced, how much up to debate....it will make the alliances more equal in size so that more alliances have a chance to make their way to the top 10 instead of every round the members with 90 to 100 members taking the top spots every single round.

Just think, those small alliances with 40 to 50 members would actually have a fighting chance in competing for top ranking and be more competitive and more active and actually feel like they have a chance for once. Instead of keeping it at 100 members to just guarentee being in top spots, take a challenge and reduce the size some so that all alliances have a fighting chance!

well if u just have 50, u will kick the worst 50 one now... so good players get in good alliance... and average/bad players get in the rest... and get fuked the hole time....
->no use...

[derry]

indeed

will get the less active players who are now allowed in an (top)alliance cause they are still good ppl without an ally,

alliances WILL have to kick their smaller/inactive/euro players... why

cause they are even more dead meat then that they are in a 100 player ally where you maybe have 75 actieves(if lucky) and the remaining 25 are those who play.... but thats about it... not that active but they know the game

if they get kicked... they are f*cked...

and you say that that gives the (now) smaller alliances a better fighting chance... nope... they miss the better players AND the activity to even manage now... they won't be getting newer activer players, so now you got 50 ppl who need def at night, thats 50 ppl less who could be online... easy roids

and it will only work in flavor of the trully good alliances imo, they already got those very much needed core players that smaller alliances don't have...


Only players affected will be the less actives who now have 2 look for a new (prolly less active) ally, and thus they get b*ttf*cked cause pa team thinks alliances aren't balanced which is BS imo

tired of typing now

just my 10 dollar
-derry

u can only cut down alliance size... if their is protection time at night... every planet should get 10-12 hour prot. day where no atackes are allowed to lunch...

[Kal]

Originally Posted by derry

indeed
Only players affected will be the less actives who now have 2 look for a new (prolly less active) ally, and thus they get b*ttf*cked cause pa team thinks alliances aren't balanced which is BS imo

where did anyone say what PaTeam thinks?

[Nadar]

I like the idea of 50 players per alliance.. Much easier to form alliances that actually got a slightest chance of doing good then. Personally I'd love to play with an active core which stays active throughout the whole round instead of having a 100-mans alliance where 50 of the members drops down to a really inactive level after the first week...

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

u can only cut down alliance size... if their is protection time at night... every planet should get 10-12 hour prot. day where no atackes are allowed to lunch...

are you insane? I mean... really`?


Time to go back to the roots: Larger shipnumbers, Larger roidcounts, aaand, the alliance count can be left as it is, simply because it fits the current playerbase nicely.

decreasing the ammount of players you can work with in one alliance would more or less make way for one angry demon. his name is Boredom!

Gee... I remember when I last played 4 years ago, a lot has changed, like no scanning for roids and no 'PDS'. I have only just started playing again and to be honest in these last few weeks i'm not part of an alliance...never was, really I'm a new player again and it's no - where near as hard to survive now as it was 4 years ago, back then you could be scanned and hit upon till the cows come home and never get a chance to rebuild - oh yeah and the 'roid farms'.

So in my opinion the game seems to be more balanced to new and 'hard core' players alike, and alliances are not too bad...if somewhat a bit vague to new players, personally I don't think that changing the alliance setup would really make a difference - but new people would probably benefit more from understanding how alliances work and wether or not they should be a part of one.

Respect to all you players out there

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Nadar

I like the idea of 50 players per alliance.. Much easier to form alliances that actually got a slightest chance of doing good then. Personally I'd love to play with an active core which stays active throughout the whole round instead of having a 100-mans alliance where 50 of the members drops down to a really inactive level after the first week...

I find myself agreeing with this.

All alliances I have been in have a hard core of 40-50 really active players, the rest make up the numbers, althought it is not always the most active who have the largest/strongest planets.

[thaeter]

why does the PA team always feel that they need to change something. If it aint broken dont fix it. just leave things as they are.

[Ferretus]

To get this back on track and cut the bitching...ahem...here is my 1 cent (I'm poor, and I get screwed over by the exchange rate )

To reduce an alliance to 50 woould simply make the larger alliances of 90 or so split into 2 co-operative alliances. If it was reduced to 75 this would encourage most alliances around that number to simply shed some of its garbage allowing smaller alliances to nab these players if they wanted to, or better still create new alliances. I personally think that the 100 alliance limit is fine as my alliance is well under that and we have recently done some booting to get below 50 we are happily not considered a threat as its affected our ranking and therefore can mostly sleep easy at night. Remember people, the closer you are to the top the less fun life becomes as you spend it all on here instead! Essentially the top alliances are whoever has the most players which is a common complaint, if you reduce this size it would make it more competitive.

I have said on numerous boards before that alliances damage this game more than anything else (in my opinion) and ideally it should be galaxy wars. But unfortunately there is no way to get rid of alliances as it is part of human nature blah blah blah. Whatever is decided an increase in alliance size would be bad news, I think we can all agree on that. A decrease would only affect a small minority of top alliances. From our point of view, a decrease in membership could possibly put alliances like mine closer to the top, we don't want to be close to the top... I like my sleep!

As regards alliance blocks, alliances always block anyway regardless of size. The more alliances that nap etc however the harder it is to manage and communicate. So reducing the alliance size will at first cause large 6 alliance blocks for example, however as the rounds pass these alliances will become their own entity and so it would be better in the long run as these blocks will reduce down to the standard 3 alliance naps we have now (I think it can be agreed that 3 alliances is about the average and is easiest to manage).

[Rhino]

Well Well, lets open the floodgates....

If the limit was set to 50 players per Alliance, yes, it would create more Alliances, and a bigger spread of old'v'new players around. Not just 1337 players banding together to create the ultimate 50 player group, If that happened, there would be 4 - 6 groups of these, and you would see the sparks fly from the battle reports. Being the Alliance time compensation for defence to same ingame Alliances, this would make for whole "TEAM BUILDING" idea of Planetarion coming to the forefront.

A point of interest here would be tha addition or ability to cross link the Allainces,
For example, Alliance A wants to "join" up with Alliance B, the HC's would be able to access a check box, like the one already in place to join an ingame Alliance.
By making this fixed at two (2) only, amalgamations. This would stop the select few banding together, creating a block.
If there is a disagreement betwen parties, the same would apply as it does now ingame, you uncheck the "join" checkbox and are unable to re-join for a period of 72 ticks.
This would make the joining very interesting, as it would give the two (2) Alliances the co ords of the bond, knowing that breaking this could end up being used against them, and making the bond choices a critical factor.
Suggesting all of this, is as it is , suggestions, this post and all of the preceding ones.

The only way that this game is going to compete for gametime over the internet and attract more players, is to start to listen to the players that keep this game going, after all, if it wasn't for us, the game would fade away.

Lets be reasonable here, if the Alliances' sizes don't get changed, it might as well end up with two Alliances battling it out to the end. .................................. Us V's Them.

Yeah I would have to agree with you there Rhino,
all that will happen is that your going to get mixed galaxies anyway...with all peeps saying i'm in this alliance...and this and this alliance-to the point where there would be a massive merge of of alliances...or even worse - A massive confusion over who is allied with who and everyone will be allied with eachother and the idea of galaxy wars will go out the window.

And the new players that join will be scared off at the fact they can't attack no one as they are allied to X amount of peeps...

Just a point

[Judge]

A radicall suggestion:-

/me waits for flames...

Instead of allowing individual planets to join an alliance,make it so an entire Galaxy has to join it with a maximum membership of 6 Galaxies per alliance.

This would require a complete re-think of the galaxy set up for the round, but imho one follows the other.

Obviously membership of a particular alliance would be dependant on a vote within the galaxy.

[Jonas]

100
nuff said

[olle]

look at my updates from last post

It says itself the bigger the ally member size is the fewer allys right...? The good thing with that huge of a limit there will be room for plenty and there can be biiiig ally wars. Lower ally member size and you will see more allys, given the smaller allys a chance. In a game like this there will always be a NAP or ally between another ally. Id suggest you make a gamer/server for eatch limit...

But if theres have to be just one limit and game id say 100 is nice, just like now. Even with the max limit 100 you see that even the top allys dont have full memberbase or it swings a lot.

[Jonas]

lemme add...the smaller alliances are, the bigger r the chance of them seeking allies, hence blocking. We dont want that? or do we?

[asd]

Originally Posted by thaeter

why does the PA team always feel that they need to change something. If it aint broken dont fix it. just leave things as they are.

with this conservative attitude pa will keep dying, dont you realize?

id rather like to see cutting alliance size down to 50-60 and having more interesting fights between top20/30 alliances which have same membercount than top5 alliances with 100 members roiding top20 with 40-70 members alliances.

[Henck]

if it's 50 then alliances need to kick ppl, guess what we even end with fewer ppl playing pa, this must be a damn good idea.
go PAteam
so just keep it at 100, alliances can recruit or what 1up is doing playing with 2/3

if you check avg atm, top alliances are still bigger then 10 to 25, would that change if top10 alliances kick ppl they only grow in avg then, will make it same as it's now.

[Nadar]

You assume that alliances will split in two and work together. What if I assume not? It's still better for the game remember...

[Bashar]

I think even the notion of reducing alliance size is a stupid one that is detrimental to the game. Quite simply, the single biggest thing that keeps this game going is the fantastic community/communities. By decreasing the alliance limit, you are breaking up some of those communities, which can only harm the game. A lot of the people play purely for their alliance. If they were forced to be smaller, less people would play. I think it is madness to even contemplate decreasing the alliance limit.

As for what it should be, 100 does work, but I can't help wondering, based on what I said above, if increasing the alliance limit might increase the player base due to alliances having more spaces, and bringing more old friends back to fill them. This point is debateable, but I think worth considering.

[Eol]

Originally Posted by Ferretus

I have said on numerous boards before that alliances damage this game more than anything else (in my opinion) and ideally it should be galaxy wars. But unfortunately there is no way to get rid of alliances as it is part of human nature blah blah blah.

As a slight aside... In round 4 a lot of the game revolved around the parallel alliances, and in-parallel affairs. Probably more so than alliance politics for most players of the game. Obviously, there was 100k + multis to take from, but there you are. This was achieved by a low ETA in a geographical region, and seemed to weaken the power of traditional alliances, at least by a bit.

I agree that on no account should alliance limits be increased. If anything they could probably be decreased without much harm done, down to about 80. But the 100 limit is fine by me tbh. Some alliances are unable to get to 100. Some alliances don't want to get to 100. Other alliances have trouble keeping below 100 and have to leave some members untagged. *cough*. But most people don't seem to have this problem.

[Kal]

Let me reiterate something here, this is not a PaTeam idea, in fact it was an idea proposed by anumber of alliances. I also stated that there are no plans to change it at this team so I see absolutely no reason for people to be attacking PaTeam over this. There are actually a lot of vlaid arguments for why for example we woudln;t get LCH1 and LCH2 etc. The point of thsi thread is to dicuss things and try to work out the actual affects of doing things, it is not a vote on what should happen.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Dingo

If people had the guts to go alone and not block at all, then the game might stand a chance of recovering some form of enjoyment.

To be honest I think the fluid politics you pioneered in round 4 are more enjoyable than some sort of enforced machismo. I do agree that blocking in the 'let's ally for a whole round' sense is shit.

With that said, there is zero chance of anyone finding 100 people to form a half decent alliance capable of functioning and being competitive. If the size was 50, then the chance of forming new alliances would increase dramatically.

I agree. I think 50 may be slightly on the bad end of the scale, but 75 is definitely a reasonable number to cut down to. Much less than 50 and you start losing coverage for significant portions of the clock no matter how active your players are.

Please look at this with the idea of trying to improve gameplay for new people as well as veterans.

Yes!

I would love to see alliance sizes set at 50, but concede that 60 or 65 may be needed to appease all sides of the argument.

As mentioned earlier, when size goes towards 50 it's hard to maintain any decent amount of coverage, especially when not all your players are uber-hardcore. I think 60-65 allows a tight community, a decent spread of players and good opportunities for new alliances to gain a competetive amount of members.

[Aidan_Pryde]

Originally Posted by Judge

A radicall suggestion:-

/me waits for flames...

Instead of allowing individual planets to join an alliance,make it so an entire Galaxy has to join it with a maximum membership of 6 Galaxies per alliance.

This would require a complete re-think of the galaxy set up for the round, but imho one follows the other.

Obviously membership of a particular alliance would be dependant on a vote within the galaxy.

This really wouldn't be so bad as long as private galaxies were brought back...at least then it would be some true alliance wars

[Haarken]

If you make smaller alliances you are going to get a polarisation of the best and the worst players beyond that of what we have now. If smaller alliances want to be competitive then they should show some political acumen and consolidate. Several of the smaller alliances could band together and actually get somewhere, I'm not saying that they would have a chance at the top spot but they wouldnt stand a snowballs chance in hell under the system of smaller alliances that is being proposed.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Bashar

Quite simply, the single biggest thing that keeps this game going is the fantastic community/communities. By decreasing the alliance limit, you are breaking up some of those communities, which can only harm the game.

The community is the soul of an alliance, but who is really the members that is the soul of the alliances? That's the core members. Can you honestly say there's an alliance out there which has over 50 core members? Don't think so tbh..

Everyone is talking about how many people can actually join an alliance, but why not make a score cap system too? In other words, alliance X with 100 players means each must have a score of around 10000 and alliance Y has 10 players with 100000 score each. This way the top players are in small alliances while the newbs//inactives are in large alliances which gives them a chance. Another way is to give a bonus to alliances that are smaller, like 5% more resources or something. Obviously the formulas for actually getting these would have to be complex, but it could work well.

[Nadar]

What if the alliance members suddenly gets a score boost and break the limit? Will they get auto-kicked then?

[mist]

Originally Posted by Bashar

I think even the notion of reducing alliance size is a stupid one that is detrimental to the game. Quite simply, the single biggest thing that keeps this game going is the fantastic community/communities. By decreasing the alliance limit, you are breaking up some of those communities, which can only harm the game. A lot of the people play purely for their alliance. If they were forced to be smaller, less people would play. I think it is madness to even contemplate decreasing the alliance limit.

As for what it should be, 100 does work, but I can't help wondering, based on what I said above, if increasing the alliance limit might increase the player base due to alliances having more spaces, and bringing more old friends back to fill them. This point is debateable, but I think worth considering.

personally, i believe that alliances are 'bad' for the community of pa. they each have their own seperate small community, which probably does keep people playing, but outside of these communities there's little left. it's fine if you're in an alliance, but if you're not then there is no community.

also, if you make alliances size 50 everyone says they'll form two wings and it'll be just like before. if this is the case, why not do it? you won't loose people 'cus they'll still be in those wings. hell, if you make 'em size 60 you'd gain people, according to the logic that's being displayed in this thread.

whatever people may say, planetarion is currently very broken. incase you'd not noticed there's not quite so many players as they used to be. imo, alliances making up a significant portion of the universe is part of this problem, and needs to be fixed one way or another

-mist

[jerome]

if the cap was 65 members, i have no idea what kind of person would assume 1up would be 20mil or whatever you(strider) said ahead ... heh, what if LCH kicked out all their inactives? or have you forgotten about them? mind you, 1up have our own inactives too, i think too many people are assuming all of 1up are doing it hardcore heh.

all that smaller alliances promotes is elitistic alliances really. or ofcourse small-core "friendship" alliances too i suppose. 100 is maybe a bit too big however now though, maybe reduce to 80 or so to get each alliance to "round off" It`s hardly as if there`s an overflow of new players that need decent alliances to get in & with absolute cleaning up (and mistu?) they`ll always have a home to find if they deserve it really.

if alliances wanna go smaller that`s fine but there`s no real need to disrupt the rest of the alliances just for one`s choice.


the score cap idea reminds me of this from GD on pa forums

[Catwoman]

By reducing numbers of an alliance you will again leave new players out in the cold with out any alliance.
As it stands bigger alliances are taking in new players and teaching them the game while giving them protection. Drop numbers to 50 and big alliances will just form 2 alliances.
I say keep the number at 100.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Nadar

The community is the soul of an alliance, but who is really the members that is the soul of the alliances? That's the core members. Can you honestly say there's an alliance out there which has over 50 core members? Don't think so tbh..

1up