![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Harvester
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Posts: 181
![]() |
![]()
Given the size of the player base I feel like Alliance limits should be reduced from 20 to 10. Discuss...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Digger
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 4
![]() |
![]()
Agreed, may lead to a greater number of alliances competing FTW and more generally..
I think this was brought up before and the argument against went along the lines of: too few players in alliance means the 10 left need insane activity for clock coverage. I can see that argument 10+years ago, but now the player base has shrunk to a hundred or so active players, even in lockdown. Many of those prefer solo play. Smaller alliances may keep things competitive at the top and all the way down, creating a bit of positive chaos! Positive I feel, despite the game falling off this mortal coil. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Pruner
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 79
![]() |
![]()
Agreed; alliances should be reduced to exactly 6.4 players per alliane; no more, no less. It's optimal in every sense.
__________________
a new forum, ok, so you are all noobs like me now |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Harvester
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 135
![]() |
![]()
agreed
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Hydroponics Developer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,898
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
Noooooo it would boost activity requirements and make the remaining players even worse off. Hard pass. Next!
__________________
"To hack and to spy, from this tick forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in land thin-ness and in land fatness, to attack and to defend, till round end do us part." "Head straight down LURK MOAR, turn left on STFU, then go on to FAIL, catch the bus at GTFO and you will be right back in NOOB-VILLE by sundown kiddo..." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|