Round XIII Alliance Size

[Dr_Zaius]

There was nothing wrong with the screwdriver so why invent the electric screwdriver?

IMPROVEMENT

It doesn't take any of the time of PA's development team to change the alliance max size, so its a simple improvement thats not standing in the way of other improvemnts. Also they haven't said they are going to change it, they have asked peoples opinions, it must have come up a good few times for them to start a major debate on it.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

trying to think a little outside the box here...

how about having galaxies sign up to alliances, and not players?
requests to join something like the gc voting system?
limit to ten galaxies or so?

would help new players in alliance galaxies too, since they could very well end up in an allaince straight off.

obviously then though there would need to be greater options in being able to pick your galaxy at sign up.

I already suggested this earlier, not a lot of response.

But to go back to how it would work and incorpotate new people...

1. Create 10 player galaxies with 6 of them being invited/co-joined or whatever, and 4 randoms per gal.

2. Each galaxy then has to vote to join a particular alliance..... obviious the majority of 6 will win.

3. The randoms will be automatically joined to that alliance,if they are active and play then they get member status on the alliance IRC channels etc and of they can be trusted ofc...

4. Active randoms then have an incentive to pay to play

5. If unable to pay, then gal mates would be inclined to help.

Not all is rosey obviously, as it is open to abuse with spies etc... but as stated membership in game does not mean membership with the alliance channels..

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Dr_Zaius

Primarily defence problems, if you get a whole gal attacked its hard to defend!

yes, but it is a level playing field

[Judge]

Thinking further along these lines but slightly off topic.

What is it that the larger more sucessfull alliances have that the smaller or new guys dont?

what is it that gives an experienced alliance an edge?

Techies !!!

The tools to do the job.

Yes I know, tools are not the be all and end all, but they do make a difference.

So make some freely available in game tools, ones that are usefull, similar to the ones the top alliances have developed for themselves.

After all if they were not so important (usefull) why do they have them ?

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Judge

I already suggested this earlier, not a lot of response.

But to go back to how it would work and incorpotate new people...

1. Create 10 player galaxies with 6 of them being invited/co-joined or whatever, and 4 randoms per gal.

2. Each galaxy then has to vote to join a particular alliance..... obviious the majority of 6 will win.

3. The randoms will be automatically joined to that alliance,if they are active and play then they get member status on the alliance IRC channels etc and of they can be trusted ofc...

4. Active randoms then have an incentive to pay to play

5. If unable to pay, then gal mates would be inclined to help.

Not all is rosey obviously, as it is open to abuse with spies etc... but as stated membership in game does not mean membership with the alliance channels..

There is a problem with your idea... What alliances are there to join if the galaxies will have to vote? I mean.. The HC's usually signs up their alliance, but now they'd have to make the galaxy vote to join it? And suddenly SethMace were 1up and Sid HR because their galaxies voted it that way? lol nah.. don't think that would work

ofc all of the top alliance like LCH mistu HR etc are going to say that they do not want alliance size to decrease, as they would not benifit at all from it, but it is a fact that smaller alliances will have a much higher chance of success if the bigger alliances are weakened, it will make PA better as there will always be a lot more competition, instead of just a fight between the top 5 or whatever. it may make it harder for top alliances... but if you are so good then does it really matter, if all alliances are equall in numbers lets say that is when you will find out who is the best, for me i think 1up this round as they have a lot less members but they are still pwning, although i dont like to say that because they pwned me all through last round :S

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Nadar

There is a problem with your idea... What alliances are there to join if the galaxies will have to vote? I mean.. The HC's usually signs up their alliance, but now they'd have to make the galaxy vote to join it? And suddenly SethMace were 1up and Sid HR because their galaxies voted it that way? lol nah.. don't think that would work

I dont see a problem

6 members form an alliance they form the majority of any galaxy.

The 6 members would obviously be from one particular alliance.

The only issue is the nubjes/randoms that automatically get places within that alliances Tag.

The exile option would still be available should a galaxy member be a problem/spy so could be removed from the galaxy and thus the tag/alliance.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

, although i dont like to say that because they pwned me all through last round :S

they pwned most of us last round

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Judge

I dont see a problem

6 members form an alliance they form the majority of any galaxy.

The 6 members would obviously be from one particular alliance.

The only issue is the nubjes/randoms that automatically get places within that alliances Tag.

The exile option would still be available should a galaxy member be a problem/spy so could be removed from the galaxy and thus the tag/alliance.

Yes, well, I think it's a rather bad idea No offense.. but 6 peoples from same alliance in one galaxy? 60% of the galaxy from the same alliance? That'd mean a 60 member big alliance would be spread only in 10 galaxies

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Yes, well, I think it's a rather bad idea No offense.. but 6 peoples from same alliance in one galaxy? 60% of the galaxy from the same alliance? That'd mean a 60 member big alliance would be spread only in 10 galaxies

Level palying field for all.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Dr_Zaius

Conall
That quote in thier sig says it all, see the opertunity we have to change things here, and seize it.

Dr. Zaius - I have no problem with change, in fact I embrace change. But I beleive that change occurs for a reason. I don't beleive you start with an idea to make a change then justify it. I am simply asking what is the prposed gain in making this change. Will it imporve the game? If so how? Is it required because of technical reasons? Will it solve a problem that exist? If so what problem? Or is this change based on a small vocal group that simply wants things their way? Seems to me that is the thinking that gave us round 12 Ziks, which many complain about now.

I am not throwing cold water on the fire, I would just like to know what reasoning there is for a change. If we know why the change is being considered we can all make much more thoughtful suggestions towards its implementation.

[Dr_Zaius]

As said in my previous post, improvements don't need something to be broken to justify them, thats is how progress is made.

I would certainly like to see this change, I have said how I think this will be an improvement in previous posts, obviously it isn't required for technical reasons, it is not a technical change, the aim is to make an improvement, not solve a probelm, striving to be better, you can improve on something that works.

I don't think the PA team are acting on a few voices on this occasion, as stated, alot of the larger alliances are opposed to this, and it is usually the voices of the larger alliances that start these debates. But I can't tell you why it's being considered! So lets just wail for the PA team to answer!

[Conall]

Zaius -

Thinking I may have missed something in your post, I went back and read them all again, and then again. I cannot find a single improvement you listed that couldnt take place with alliance size at 100 or at 200 for that matter.

So I am back to my first question. What problem is being solved here OR how what will improve if this change is made. So far I have read speculation, much of which doesn't hold water. I think many people have forgotten that alliances were not a creation of PA. They spring from the human desire to have community and from the nature of the game. If you want to change alliances impact then change the nature of the game. But as long as the game remains smash, steal and destroy then alliances will remain. Artificial limitations will work as long as alliances find it to their advantage to comply. When its not they will work around the artificial barriers. If you want change or to improve the game, great foucus on cuase not effect. Alliances fall under effect in this case.

For my point I still maintain that smaller alliances hurt smaller/less skilled/less dedicated/new players. In fact this whole arguement is counter to the reasons private galaxies are not part of the game. There are no private galaxies because of the desire to have a mix among skill levels and to give new players a chance. So how is creating a system where skill levels will be homoginized in alliances any different than private galaxies.

As for opportunity and level playing field. The field is level at 100, it will be no more or less level at 50. With 164 alliances with less than 50 members there is plenty of opportunity for every person in this game to find an alliance. Smaller alliances will not spread the quality players around to new alliances, but concentrate them in a few top alliances giving less experienced players fewer oppotunities to interact with them.

Instead of fiddling with the max alliance size, i think it would be better to concentrate on mopping up all those little alliances that are currently completely useless. This wouldnt be hard either, just create a more user friendly way to organise and execute merges.

[Pinkerton]

Originally Posted by Judge

Thinking further along these lines but slightly off topic.

What is it that the larger more sucessfull alliances have that the smaller or new guys dont?

what is it that gives an experienced alliance an edge?

Techies !!!

The tools to do the job.

Yes I know, tools are not the be all and end all, but they do make a difference.

So make some freely available in game tools, ones that are usefull, similar to the ones the top alliances have developed for themselves.

After all if they were not so important (usefull) why do they have them ?

I think thats a good idea. Improve the ingame alliance controls or at least a good tech manual explainig what can be done and how to do it. The current manual on the portal is a lot of hotair about "what makes a good leader"

And tell new players that this is an alliance playing game. Have them sit in the 200 gals until they find an alliance.(modified to prevent abuse). Make the alliance link at the top with mail /news/alliance/ Have it glow red when the HC sends Alliance info. That way it is more prominant in the gameplay for newbs who are simply not aware.

I thought it over and I would relax my earlier position on Alliance size shrinking. Also make it so that you must have atleast15-20 members before you can start an alliance.

Also with most games I played when you reach the next level the game becomes more challenging not easier.

[MegaNova]

If you want to keep the new players alliance size shouldnt be limited to 50 becouse when you look at alliance rankings, all the alliances that are worth talking about who are taking in new PA players already have more then 50 members.
So limiting to 50 wouldnt do much good to the new players.

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.

I dont think this will be the case, I think that reducing the numbers will just make alliances like LCH, 1up more choosy about who they recruit, they arent the best because they have more members they are the best because they have superior technology, i.e. website, private servers, etc. and they have the tallent, they are all good players that are dedicated.

I think changing the alliance numbers isnt a good idea. I like the balance, and saying its difficult to start up new alliances, look at Veneratio, they started last round around 20th as a group of friends, and much merging, and playing well they ended up 10th. I think it is still possible to start up new alli but you need dedication, and strategic playing.

Jase

[Hellcat]

Originally Posted by MegaNova

If you want to keep the new players alliance size shouldnt be limited to 50 becouse when you look at alliance rankings, all the alliances that are worth talking about who are taking in new PA players already have more then 50 members.
So limiting to 50 wouldnt do much good to the new players.

I dont think the alliances with over 50 players are taking in new players. They typically will not invite new players in unless that new player has achieved a score on-par with the current members of the alliance.

This idea of reducing alliance size is an effort to level the playing field and allow the casual player to survive. If you dont like that then you have to realise these casual players may well make up the majority of (1) the universe and (2) the funding. If you want a elite only PA you without doubt will have to pay more.

I must agree with previous posters that the alliance screen within PA is terrible. If alliances are to remain the main element of the game then isn't it about time tools worth using are embeded into PA.

Were talking:
- Communication systems (secure, real time communication for within the alliance) - reduce the dependance on IRC which is quite off putting for new players - especially those who may not be techy minded.
- A "Reception Desk" - where alliances or regular players may contact an alliance.
- A "Briefing Room" - where defence can be arranged within the alliance
- A decent in game system for binding alliances. choose the alliance to bind with from the box and they are sent a message. they accept and the two are bound. maybe some more communication tools to acompany that.
- Battle Calculators - the more the better.
- Attack bots - with functions for having multiple targets in multiple gals. After all in an alliance war your targets are not all in the same gal.

Sorry to drift OT a bit but reducing the size of alliances isn't the magic bullet to make PA easier to play well. It may help but without making running the alliances easier (ie less techy) then there will always be alliances that dont do as well because they dont have the tools to organise themselves.

[mist]

wouldn't any alliance communication system you introduce be pretty much the same as irc anyway? i'd have thought improving that would be more worthwhile?

binding alliances in game sounds suspiciously like blocking, what would this achieve?

-mist

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Jase

look at Veneratio, they started last round around 20th as a group of friends, and much merging, and playing well they ended up 10th.

and fell a part again and disbanded this round because they couldnt hold on to their members?

[Ultramar]

Seems to me like most alliances play with 100 members cos thats the limit, even tho some of these players arent as active as what the alliance would like...

As 1up have shown, u dont need 100 ppl to do well, sometimes it is easier to have less players, blend in more, get less incs and use the players that u do have to get it covered!

I think alliance size has a lot to do with the total number of players in the game and also a lot to do with the way in which galaxies are created, in this round an alliance with less than 100 players could quite easily hide for most of the round with only 2 planets out of 10 to cover in a gal attack, therefore having enough fleets to defend them easily whilst still being able to roid 5/6 gals 50/60 planets (depending on waves) per night!

[Rc mayhem]

I think lowering the limit is a good idea. will balance the alliances up. Also, noone left the game when the 100 player was introduced

[noah02]

1 LCH 97
2 1up 67
3 Howling Rain 96
4 NewDawn 93
5 [VsN] 95

Says it all really does'nt it.
Put a cap on if you really want to I think 100 is a good solid number.
Being number 1 alliance with 100 members does'nt make you good.
Being number 2 alliance with 67 members does.
50 Noobs versus 50 hardened PA players = no chance
100 Noobs versus 67 hardened players = bit more of a chance

[Nadar]

Isn't it about time with a free round of PA again anyway? So shouldn't be a bad idea trying out some new things just for a round and then change it back again if it doesn't work...

OK. now alot of ppl are saying that reducing the member base of each alliance will result in the other smaller alliances haveing more of a chance to compete.

I don't agree with this. I don't think this will make that big of a difference. Those lower alliances are just as albe to recruit players to fill there ranks and have up to 100 players like some of the top alliances! But as 1up is proving to the entire universe that quantitly is not going to win you the round! Its about the quality of players u get. and the reason your "smaller" alliance doesn't get these quality players is because either your alliance is too unorganized,or too inactive,.

These other alliance's that are doing well either have built there name and reputation up and have created a method either using bots or other programs to take care of a larger memberbase and be able to still have things run smoothly! These things did not happen over night!

For the new alliances like 1up....well not that new but newer. They either are a split from a powerful alliance that has folded or are players who already have alot of experience with running an alliance! thus they are able to recruit the quality players that are needed to make any alliance regardless of size a contender!

I think that having the alliance size at 50 would almost defeat the purpose of having an alliance. it would make the majority of the PA player base sit in a crappy alliance that is unable to organize itself for any kind of order and will make it extermemly poor game play for the ones not in the bestter organized alliances!

Some alliances like HR have spent nearly the entire existance of PA to build a bot to run all there channels and have spent countless hours to make there alliance as organized as possible!!

Also i think to increase the alliance memberbase would be very foolish for then we would just become even more stagnant and have even less alliances!

I believe that the best or most appropreiate DECREASE to try next round would be an alliance cap at 75 or 80 members.

this will hopefully give the creators an idea of how the size of alliances can change the outcome of the round without ruining alliances in the process. to cut to 60 or to 50 would be too much of an adjustment in my eyes.

[Hellcat]

Originally Posted by mist

wouldn't any alliance communication system you introduce be pretty much the same as irc anyway? i'd have thought improving that would be more worthwhile?

binding alliances in game sounds suspiciously like blocking, what would this achieve?

-mist

The point I was trying to make was that IRC is not the easiest system to use. Having to register a username for IRC and one for planetarion seems like a lot of effort, when you could have it built into PA. Especially as you already have an alliance nick and ruler name both registered under 1 account.

As for blocking, allied alliances and NAP's - well they happen anyway in IRC. At least this would make it out in the open.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Hellcat

The point I was trying to make was that IRC is not the easiest system to use. Having to register a username for IRC and one for planetarion seems like a lot of effort, when you could have it built into PA. Especially as you already have an alliance nick and ruler name both registered under 1 account.

As for blocking, allied alliances and NAP's - well they happen anyway in IRC. At least this would make it out in the open.

i think i can safely say we will not be dumping irc. Planetarion is a partner on the netgamers server which gets us some nice special abilities so I very much doubt we would dump it. Also it would be a lot of work to code such a system, as well as the increases in costs for the game which could well lead to price increases.

As to having proper in game politics, I like the idea, but it has to be designed very carfully in such a way as to make people use it and to make the uses good ones.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by supply

Also i think to increase the alliance memberbase would be very foolish for then we would just become even more stagnant and have even less alliances!

That's one of the best argument FOR decreasing the alliance size.. More alliances to fight against eachother = less stagnation = less boredom = funnier game to play = better and more attractive game.

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Kal

i think i can safely say we will not be dumping irc. Planetarion is a partner on the netgamers server which gets us some nice special abilities so I very much doubt we would dump it. Also it would be a lot of work to code such a system, as well as the increases in costs for the game which could well lead to price increases.

As to having proper in game politics, I like the idea, but it has to be designed very carfully in such a way as to make people use it and to make the uses good ones.

It might be a way to approach it the other way around.

Examples:
-Find a way to have people register a P nick ingame for instance.
-Let the GC set (and automaticly register) a galaxy channel with all settings in place for the duration of the round, adding all nicks of the people in the galaxy as users to this channel.
-Let people who use the com unit automaticly join this channel.
-Give alliances the option to set a default channel for their members to join in when opening the com unit etc.

(hmm maybe more something for the suggestions forum)

[mist]

a fair chunk of the above was discussed for the 'new' pa, but seems to have been dumped since :/

-mist

[Doorsdown]

Originally Posted by Hellcat

I dont think the alliances with over 50 players are taking in new players. They typically will not invite new players in unless that new player has achieved a score on-par with the current members of the alliance.

not totaly true, some see a player that can grow and be trained they may very well take them in. Not all of the top 10 may but some do.

Hellcat]
I must agree with previous posters that the alliance screen within PA is terrible. If alliances are to remain the main element of the game then isn't it about time tools worth using are embeded into PA.

Yes the alliance area/screen sucks but of the top 15 i would say almost none of them even look at it.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

- Communication systems (secure, real time communication for within the alliance) - reduce the dependance on IRC which is quite off putting for new players - especially those who may not be techy minded.

umm that would be IRC, just secure your channel with P and you will be alset. There is nothing tech too it.

Originally Posted by Hellcat

Sorry to drift OT a bit but reducing the size of alliances isn't the magic bullet to make PA easier to play well. It may help but without making running the alliances easier (ie less techy) then there will always be alliances that dont do as well because they dont have the tools to organise themselves.

making the game fun again is the magic bullet, that will be found with more smaller allliances


----

on another note i would go for 70 to 75 as a the good ideal size of a member base for round 13

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Gerbie

It might be a way to approach it the other way around.

Examples:
-Find a way to have people register a P nick ingame for instance.
-Let the GC set (and automaticly register) a galaxy channel with all settings in place for the duration of the round, adding all nicks of the people in the galaxy as users to this channel.
-Let people who use the com unit automaticly join this channel.
-Give alliances the option to set a default channel for their members to join in when opening the com unit etc.

(hmm maybe more something for the suggestions forum)

we don't think any of that is possible, netgamers would not like it as it affects network security

anyway can we keep on track...

[Linkie]

tbh I dont believe this game has enough good/dedicated enough HCs to run 20-30 'top tier' alliances.

[Jeekay]

Originally Posted by Kal

we don't think any of that is possible, netgamers would not like it as it affects network security

anyway can we keep on track...

This has been brought up before, and NG have no specific objections to having more integration with PA and the network. Obviously we'd have to discuss specifics, but certainly it has been clarified to PA a number of times that we don't object to the idea per se.

GK

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Jeekay

This has been brought up before, and NG have no specific objections to having more integration with PA and the network. Obviously we'd have to discuss specifics, but certainly it has been clarified to PA a number of times that we don't object to the idea per se.

GK

the past discussions with netgamers did not run as far as the requested things above.

[Jeekay]

Originally Posted by Kal

the past discussions with netgamers did not run as far as the requested things above.

Sure they did. It stalled when we pointed out there might be namespace collisions, and we never heard anything back after that.

[Conall]

Okay - Since no one from PATeam has posted an answer to my question of what is the goal of this proposed change I will make a fwe assumptions.

Reasons to make a change:
1. Increase the "fun" factor of game play so that more people play and stay.
2. Weaken the impact alliances have on the game.
3. Help the smaller players learn and enjoy the game more.
4. Give weaker alliances a better cahnce to win.
5. "Level the playing field"
6. Make a change just to make a change hoping it does something good
7. Make a change cause a vocal minority wants it regardless of reason

My take on the above reasons.

1. There are a number of ways to improve game play and increase users desire to play that have nothing to do with alliance size. Alliance size is well down the list of things that make the game playable so if this is why this change is being considered I think many more issues deserve to considered first.

2. If the desire is to weaken alliances impact on the game then change the game structure. By its very natuer this is a team game thats why alliances came into existance. If the in game structure becomes to problematic for alliances they will find ways outside of the structure to play as a team. THe very nature of PA is a team game, not an indiviual one. Since it is a team game people with gravitate toward teams that best fit their needs. Since it is a team game alliances or some type of team will always exist. If you want to remove that factor and make it an individual game then do so, then you have a change of reducing alliances impact on the game. But frankly I am not sure that is possible without changing the entire natuer of the game. Making this game an individual game would mean no one has a travel bounus, not alliances, clusters or even galaxies, everyone is on their own. You would also need to remove the ability to defend other planets or see what is going on with another planet. But from day one this game has been structured as team game. Alliances are a logical result of that structure.

3. Helping smaller players learn to play the game better. Smaller alliances is actually counter productive to this goal. Currently 45% of the planets are not in alliances, that is their choice. If a player wants to be in an alliance they have the option to do so. SOme will say they dont have the option of getting a decent alliance, thats mostly true. But they have the option of joining an lower level alliance and learning there, as they improve then thy can improve their alliance or try to trade up alliances. More RIght now most alliances have a mix of players, poor, fair, good and great. Further restricting the alliance size means that the good and great players will be maintained and fair and poor will shuffle dwon to 2nd tier alliances. Those 2nd tier alliances wil not suddenly become top tier becuase they have 50 fair players, they will remain second tier or worse because the needed skills to create a great alliance will be missing.

4. Weaker alliances will have no better chance of winning than they do now becuase they will still not have the level of skills as the top alliances. You may have 6 or 7 alliances competing for the top alliance spot rather than 3 or 4 but the people will be the same.

5. I don't even understand what people mean when they say it will level the playing field. THe field is level. Every alliance has the same opportunity to recruit, build and maintain an alliance as every other alliance. THe game structure is the same for everyone, some jsut play the game better than others. The people that truly maintain alliances are not going to split up because the allinace size is capped. THey will simply stick together and frankly have more time to spend playing the game rather than running an alliance. SO the top tier alliances will broaden their gap over 2nd tier.

6 Making a change of for the sake of making a change accomplished nothing. People can demigog the issue and say people like me are in the way of progress all they want but it doesnt change the fact that you can only make progress if you determine what direction you want to progress in. IF you simply want to change things hoping that "things" get better then you are relying on shear luck for improvement.

7. Changing things because a small vocal minority wants it is exactly why we have some of the game imbalances that we currently have. And if that is what is going to drive change then no sensible conversations can be had about change. We are reduced to who can scream louder and longer. THat does not sound like a recipe for moving forward.



I still maintain that if we want to imporve the game then lets start with a primise of what is wrong so it can be improved. Or if you prefer outline elements that may not be broken but that could be improved. For example you might state that "Alliances are bad for the game because the best players join forces and can dominate other players, so they need to be removed from the game to make it easier for less talented players to compete." At least that is a premise, not a good one but a premise. Or another example "There are racial imbalances because some races can effectivly attack only 1 race while another may effectively attack 3 races. TO balance game play we need to balance the races better. HOw can we accomplish this." That premise ask a question and seeka a solution. Lets treat this question this way, we would get much further.

[Doorsdown]

Originally Posted by Linkie

tbh I dont believe this game has enough good/dedicated enough HCs to run 20-30 'top tier' alliances.

some will step up for sure

[mist]

i agree with linkie to a point

i think running a smaller alliance is easier than running a large one, purely numbers wise, so this would mean more were able to do it. however, i don't think there are enough players to fill more than 20 top tier alliances either, assuming alliances were halved to 50.

realistically, i think that halving alliance size would have little effect on the large alliances, but would result in more medium level ones

-mist

[Foxman]

without Blocking, i would say 50-75 members but that wouldent happen then, so keep it as it is

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Foxman

without Blocking, i would say 50-75 members but that wouldent happen then, so keep it as it is

It's better having a blocked universe with 50 member alliances than 100 member alliances...

[mist]

looking at things from a differnet perspective, how low would the player base have to go before people think 100 person alliances are too much?

-mist

[Quartz]

I'm sure this has been said before... But why don't you put a quick questionaire in peeps accounts after a couple of weeks play,asking maybe. 1)- How often do you play? 2)- Are you part of an alliance? 3)- Would you be part of an alliance {a} No {b} Yes {c} Only if a good-reconised alliance. 4) If you have played before do you think alliance size is right?....With a qiuck vote 'tick' system.

Would that help?
{non alliance member-last played this game in 2000!}.

Personally I think the game has imporved a hell of a lot...But as they always say 'There is room for improvement'. respect all.

[Foxman]

Originally Posted by mist

looking at things from a differnet perspective, how low would the player base have to go before people think 100 person alliances are too much?

-mist

the playerbase is ok with 100persons in each alliance, but i think the wars would last longer/more wars, and more alliances would stand a chance, also the newer once with less experiance

[mist]

was that an answer to my question? 'cus if so it didn't...

-mist

[Ferretus]

I think we have exhausted this thread now as little more constructive arguments are being made and no new ideas have been raised in a while that are any good. Now is the time to let the community vote and see what people think. Add a link to here so players can read the discussion for the first 20 posts or so before getting bored with the same arguments and let them vote. Keep it simple for example

What do you think about alliance sizes?
1) Alliances should have no max member limit size
2) Aliiances should be made a little bigger
3) Alliances are fine at 100 max members
4) Alliances should be made a little smaller (eg 75-85)
5) Alliances should be made a lot smaller (eg 50)
6) I don't like alliances
7) I don't care

[Gerbie]

You could try making a poll, but they won't listen to who gets most people on the forums.

[Linkie]

Originally Posted by Doorsdown

some will step up for sure

I never said no one would step up, I said there won't be enough competent leaders to run that many 'top tier' alliances. Especially as I don't see why the command teams of the existing alliances would split up.

Well... I think smaller alliances may make the game more attractive for more players in the universe. Unfortunatly I don't think the actual cut will make the difference, because it will be no problem for good, active and powerful alliances to split the current alliance in two and maintain in contact with eachother. + that previous rounds have proven that alliances always tend to forge (bigger) alliances when they are not able to dominate the universe

[Kal]

this isn't about what most people want, its about what affect different things will have on the game. What people want do come into that, but its not the final answer.