Alliance cap

[Creel]

Personally I don't like it. All you are doing is providing a mechanism to do what this thread has been discussing trying to reduce. At best it would slow hopping down.

scenario: an alliance has 30 members plus 5 others that it would like to have. Leader looks at his current roster, sees who has not been on for a while and designates them a "floater". I agree for an alliance with 30 active members this would be impossible but how many of those exist. From my observations of 30'ish player alliances in shantytown, only Suckas would go close to having a full roster of actives and even then maybe contains one or two potential "floaters".

There seems to be enough discussion on this topic to suggest that there is a ground swell of players who do not like the practice and would like it gone. There are a few who argue for it, my suspicion being the same few that actually use the practice or don't care.

Would the game be better for the vast majority of players if the practice was eliminated? I suspect the game would not be weakened and probably strengthened. My call is still for elimination, its been a contentious issue for 10 years, get rid of it.

[Creel]

errr refer my contribution on the previous page. Point 3 of that missive is, from my admittedly casual perusal of related posts, the only suggestion I have seen that calls for total elimination.

To reiterate it though:
- no player upon leaving a top 10 alliance may ever re-enter that alliance.

Lets put that in a world view context.
- game maps tend to have a limited number of galaxies that each tend to get controlled by a single powerful alliance at some stage of the game
- these alliances will almost certainly be top 10 alliances
- these alliances have the ability to control movement, resources and accessories that affects every other player in the game
- these are the alliances that invoke annoyance for player swapping. Who cares if some lesser alliance does some swapping?
- how many other advantages do these powerful alliances need?

To further reiterate a point from my previous post. If a top alliance can not organise itself to perform a duty or op within the confines of its existing roster why should they able to circumvent the rules and spirit of the game to achieve that?

The majority of players in top 10 alliances stay in their alliance and never move so this suggestion have absolutely no effect on them.

Harry Krishna had some concerns to my previous post which I want to address:
Harry Krishna concern 1. Defining top 10 alliances - must admit to not understanding this concern. If an alliance is in the top ten on the rankings page then you may only leave once, never to return. If that alliance gets beaten up or loses players so that it drops to 11 or lower then you may return to that alliance.

I don't see how that is a problem or how it can be manipulated except in one way. Possibly an alliance could splinter into two or more lesser alliances that are not top 10 but that creates logistical problems in itself and good luck to them.

Harry Krishna concern 2. Prevents Harmless Tasks - Again I don't really understand this concern and can not for the life of me think of a harmless task. Any task that involves the jiggling of player rosters is harmless to the spirit of the game, if not the rules in my view. Perhaps Harry Krishna would like to expand on his thinking so I and others may consider further.

Creel
"LONG posts, nice fellow"

[JettJackson]

rejected