25 alliance max?

[OmegaRenegade]

1) More people would stay. I haven't heard of people quitting because of 30 man, but I do hear about people quitting because of 25 alliances. Stop being stupid.

If people think that 5 members is the silver bullet that has the ability to restore activity to the game, and will quit if they dont get thier way, they must have an IQ in the low 40's.

2) Yes. In HKFC, we have no room for newbies because we're at war with 2 alliances and we need every active person. Next game, we're taking in two newbies that would've stayed longer than if they tried to make it on their own. BECAUSE OF 30 MAN ALLIANCES

So you guys will bust and kill newbie alliance's attempts to build thier own galaxy when you have 25 members, yet you will help newbies next game if you get your way and have 30 members?

3) Vets always leave. However, keepuing it at 25 men would've caused more to quit. Again, this is an invalid argument.

As is your argument, if pepole quit cause they dont get thier way we should keep it at 25 just to get rid of these crybabies.

4) Yes. There's more room for error with 30 man alliances. With this being a worldwide game, it's not easy for 50% of your alliance to be on if most of em play on different time zones. The most we've been able to bring last game was 25. The most this game? 15. Most ops only have 10-12 people, where as last game over 15+ was the standard. Try busting a 70 with under 15.

Is it just me, or is your math flawed? If last game you pulled 25, and you are down 5 members, you'd think you'd still be able to pull 20. Also, you say 50%? So shouldnt you have 16-18 showing up? Seems you have bigger issues than only having 25 members.

5) In planet galaxies, there would be. 3 alliances have bothered to build a galaxy. With 30 man, ti's more likely that alliances can build. AS built a galaxy last game with 30 people but didnt even bother with 25. Same with LB. Hmm...wonder why.

As the original leader of the alliance this game, I can answer that. We wanted a lazy game, we wanted to not have to worry about busting or being busted, because that part of the game has gotten stale to alot of us.

No, this board sucks because people like you are able to log on.

And consider your sarcastic argument void and retarded. Have a nice day.

So hypocracy is the name of the game?

[Shady_FA-]

If people think that 5 members is the silver bullet that has the ability to restore activity to the game, and will quit if they dont get thier way, they must have an IQ in the low 40's.

Spock and PV and others have made the alliance limit 30. They wouldn't do it unless they thought it would benefit the game.

So you guys will bust and kill newbie alliance's attempts to build thier own galaxy when you have 25 members, yet you will help newbies next game if you get your way and have 30 members?

If you have paid attention (which you have NOT), we are helping a newbie alliance build a planet galaxy. In fact, when a certain someone STOLE a level 40+ planet from the newbies because they got kicked, we took it back in 2 days. Yea, we're killin their attempts alright.

As is your argument, if pepole quit cause they dont get thier way we should keep it at 25 just to get rid of these crybabies.

That would be stupid. Our goal is to make this game rise in activity, not get rid of crybabies. If you want to quit, quit, but don't try to make stupid arguments just because you want to. That goes for another person who "quit" but still feels like he has to make a say. The goal should be to improve the game, not get your own way. You haven't thought of a good reason why 25 man alliances should stay, you're just trying to spite us.

Is it just me, or is your math flawed? If last game you pulled 25, and you are down 5 members, you'd think you'd still be able to pull 20. Also, you say 50%? So shouldnt you have 16-18 showing up? Seems you have bigger issues than only having 25 members.

Theoritically, we should. Because of the cap, we lost some of the more active oppers that we had. And if you look at every other opping alliance, their numbers are down too. Sounds like everyone's got problems eh?

As the original leader of the alliance this game, I can answer that. We wanted a lazy game, we wanted to not have to worry about busting or being busted, because that part of the game has gotten stale to alot of us.

My mistake. But the cap has still had an effect on people building galaxies. I mean, if you want to kill what is supposed to be one of the funnest parts of the game, just for your own benefit...

So hypocracy is the name of the game?

No entry found for hypocracy.

Did you mean hypocrisy?

[Harry Krishna]

I think the point of all this is that the 25 max limit hasn't worked to improve game play or activity. I also think that by extension you can say that going lower to 20 or 15 would have the same result, i.e. nothing.

Going back to 30 isn't supposed to help that either, but it is preferable by the majority of players who are actually playing.

I'd like to thank Spock and PV for having the ability to see this.

[OmegaRenegade]

If you'll go back earlier Shady, I supported going back to 30, not because I think it will make a difference, but because it wont make a difference.

You claim I havent been paying attention, and for the latter part of the game you are correct, however when I was still playing I got requests from a newbie alliance saying you guys were attacking them and asking for my help, after I went in I saw several of thier planets owned by members of your alliance, and news entries of your members killing them. You may have changed your policies later on, but the fact of the matter remains that your alliance attacked and killed newbies (though you were not the only ones to do so)

In truth I honestly dont care if its at 25 or 30. Testing 25 was worse than not testing anything at all, the original idea was 20 and scale back planet defences, neither were done and the 25 member test was a failed attempt at doing what the original test was supposed to.

My saying we should keep it at 25 is a shot at those who threaten to quit if its kept at 25. This game has suffered long enough because of fools who threaten to quit if a major change is suggested. At least most of the remaining players can see that a change is needed, but no one seems to want to suggest one... Still if people are against the 25 member cap, why not be mature enough to make a case against it instead of threatening to quit?

[Harry Krishna]

You claim I havent been paying attention, and for the latter part of the game you are correct, however when I was still playing I got requests from a newbie alliance saying you guys were attacking them and asking for my help, after I went in I saw several of thier planets owned by members of your alliance, and news entries of your members killing them. You may have changed your policies later on, but the fact of the matter remains that your alliance attacked and killed newbies (though you were not the only ones to do so)

I just want to say for the record that the "killing of newbies" incident has been over-inflated by OmegaRenegade as a case in point in the argument for creating a separate newbie playground, a pet idea of his, which is why he keeps bringing it up. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, I think OR just likes to keep bringing it up cause it makes him feel superior.

It has some basis in fact, i.e. the planets were busted and the newbs were killed by HK members. However this was NOT an alliance sanctioned action, and was the act of only one player. It did not last for longer than a day or two and was stopped a.s.a.p. for all the above reasons.

And it has nothing to do with the 25 member limit being effective or not. Thanks for letting me clear that up

[OmegaRenegade]

actually the only reason I brought it up was in responce to shady's comment about taking in newbies next round.

this has no connection to the newbie playground idea, and so what if it is a pet idea of mine? I dont see anyone else suggesting anything, hell no one has even taken the time to point out the flaws with any idea that has been suggested, have you all become so complacent that you dont care anymore?

[Briz]

My vote is to go back to 30, if for no other reason than I am in one of the less populated timezones and it gets kinda boring answering your own questions in chat.

[acidtrip]

id like to see a round with no alliances so theres no complaining when a alliance dominates or over mines and there would also be no pack hunting just a either kill everyone or trade as high you can depending on your style sure we take away the funnest part of the game as in the ops but then we see peoples true skills in the 1 on 1 battles besides the game is so dead now that it would probably make it hella fun when you have noone to watch your back but unfortanately i think there would still be people grouping together for kills even though theres no alliances. i remember 1 round me and 2 others hunted together and all 3 of us was in different alliances so it still would defeat the purpose but worth a try. would be interesting

not only do you take away the ops, but you take away the interaction that makes the game fun. The whole teamwork thing. I wouldn't have fun because I'm not good solo, adn there are other players who arent as well, but have just as much fun because they're on a team.

Besides...you basically described semi wars

I agree with Shady. The Team thing rocks.

[Vober]

WOW HK YOU OPENED MY EYES!

so to save the game, we add 5 people to alliances

wow.

so to make the game uber sweet and awesome we should add more!

make the allinace cap 100! or 200!

[/sarcasm]



Hk- all you have is childish personal attacks

if you had an ounce of logic in you then you wouldnt find a stupid scapegoat like 5 players that arent in your alliance to blame the game being ruined on.

Instead you revert to childish personal attacks and no logic at all.


You want to go back to 30 man alliances then fine. But use Briz arguement rather than childish personal attacks.

I quit the community and the game (except for 2 posts so far and 1 op with a friend) for two main reasons. 1. The game is dead. 2. People like you in the community.

Im starting to realize however that that #2 may directly cause #1.

[Harry Krishna]