With SoF probably hitting the 100+ mark next set, is there a size when alliances get too large (either for their own internal reasons or because of their size in comparison to other alliances)?

In general, I'd say that most players would like to see more alliances on this server, but of course it requires willing and able leaders and at least a sizable number of members to get the ball rolling. As more and more smaller alliances fold and join to make larger alliances, is this good or bad overall for the game? Is it good or bad for the merging alliances?

Can some of the more politically-minded and/or experienced leaders make a statement about this? I know in other alliance games when there are only 2-4 main alliances, the game can get dry. Is that something we should worry about for EE?

100 is too big for the current population as is shown by their issue at finding a war.

When they are too big to fail.

Ask Rage.

Rage had 2k members, right?

Internally, 100 members does not strike me as being a major issue. There were periods of time in Earth 2025 when we had 15 or more 100+ member alliances... most of whom were stable.

Beyond the 130-150 member mark, things seemed to become more difficult... as the number of alliances who managed to stay in that range for multiple consecutive resets was always limited. It seems like well organized alliances usually peaked at around 200 members. IX, UCN, MD, SOF, SOL, TIE... all of them were around 200 members when they were the dominant force on the server.

Any alliances larger than that were usually spam tags. Sometimes they were tags like "Triadz" or "Recycle Used Condoms", which everyone knew were created as spam tags -- other times it was alliances like Rage or Arrow, who everyone was impressed by until a leaner, better organized alliance revealed them to be a straw man.

In any case, I think SoF has a long way to go before it runs into insurmountable internal problems.

Externally, on the other hand, I don't know. Having more than 1/10 the server in a single tag seems... unfortunate. I suspect that such a ratio is not really sustainable in the long-term.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Actually, I believe the highest Rage membership was like 500+ or so. There were undoubtedly some multis thrown in there as well. I was in Rage when they hit that mark, and I kinda sorta remember Tirol's speech about the high membership.

Nuke, Rage was essentially a spam tag by the time it reached 300 members. At 500, no one was even pretending it was a secret.

They did some impressive things in those times, but we all know if three well organized 100 member alliances had FSed Rage together, Rage wouldn't have had a prayer even with a 200 member advantage.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

atm alliance is way too big if it has 50%ish of servers players.

If SoF were to break into 2 or 3 clans it would probably make the server more interesting. The only problem is all 2 or 3 tags would protect each other so it would be pointless ;P

SoF = AT&T

this thread has no merit. tertius if you were in that 100 member alliance i seriously doubt you would still be making this post.

i would also say that sof could be around 85-90 members in a couple sets when some of the deadweight gets bored and leaves but that would be a lean 85-90 members. no straw as some of you would say.

maybe you should spend your time bringing wog back to play maybe it will have a bigger positive impact cause this is just useless babble that wont solve anything

Chevs, back off a bit man. Tertius' post wasn't condemning SoF. He was asking for opinions on a subject that's significant to the game as a whole.

This is a forum, we discuss issues here. You can call it babbling if you like, but it's why we're here. If you don't want to read it, go somewhere else.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

ya, good on SoF for getting that big

and WoG should play here.... the admins won't delete them because they are good :p

I thought it was a reasonable question, and I didn't think that I said anything poor about SoF. To answer your question though, I would most definitely be making a post if I were in SoF.

I am an Evo member, and I love it there, but honestly, when we were pushing 40 members I thought that was a bit much (not compared to the old days, but for the current server situation). I've just always preferred a smaller close-knit community that demands respects out of actions and not just numbers. *shrugs*

I wasn't trying to come of as harsh and an ass but maybe i did. at SoF there has been a massive recruiting drive of old vets to get the number to where it is. the assertion of the original post was no doubt that SoF is too large you can't dispute that. But i could just as easily assert that all the other tags are too small and they are doing a bad job recruiting their old vets and that is far worse for the game. will SoF stay at 100 members? who knows, but i dont see what the point of this thread is....

i think everyone in this forum can agree that we want more players, but SoF goes out and does it and now they are too big? Should we all collectively start a new clan for new players and collectively give them NAP? or where do you expect the new players to come from and what tag do you expect them to play in? wont all the tags just become too big? is that really a problem if we had 14 100 member tags?

the point i was trying to make was that there are more pressing issues to discuss, like bringing back tags like WoG. imo bringing back WoG would drastically change the political dynamic in this game and would be really good for the game

Yes, I can... that assertion really isn't there. The only assertion made in the original post is that "too big" exists... it then asks for opinions on defining it.

I thought that the language Tertius chose to use was markedly neutral.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I'd rather have 28 50 member tags... or 56 25 member tags the more alliances thier are the funner, with 56 tags of 25 even smaller tags that couldn't stand a chance in a war have some sorta fighting chance... even netters will have competition :-)

I guess everyone else better step up their recruiting? We've brought back a lot of old players. I even fired up icq after 5 or 6 years. It wasn't even on my computer anymore. :P

NA was ~160 members (largest by atleast 40 members at the time, tie was at around 110 at that time I think) about 2 years ago. That was a little difficult to manage. It was a FA nightmare

confirmeed SoF spammed me a ton recently other alliances should spam their old members as well apparantly it works

This will do one of two things.



1. It will force other alliances to step up to the plate, and grow....which I do believe SOF, for the good of the game would allow....(at other points in history a dominant group would attack to retain dominance.)

This would be positive pressure creating growth.


2. It does have the chance to strangle the server...and SOF would be the last dominant group in the game as we know it.


TBH, I don't see an alliance that has the chops to step up to the plate right now other than SOL....

I think sof has impressed me over this set from what they have done/said. A good first step in helping the server maybe?

I'm pretty sure he says SoF the 2nd word of his post, and 100+ the sixth word. I don't know any other clans named sof or any clans with 100+ members.

I'm done on this thread now no use arguing over it

At one time in recent memory, I was under the impression that LaF was a "too big" alliance that was bullying others; that impression has since fallen flat, and the buck has passed. Now, this doesn't tell me whether or not big clans fall apart or even how big those clans should or could be. What it does say is that a single clan that appears to be dominating a server at any given time will be a target against which the rest of the server can array itself (on the forums if nowhere else). Whether that target is LaF, SoF, or even RD (I couldn't help myself, pardon me), it acts as a way to unify us even as it divides us. And likely, we're better off for it because it gives us something in common with at least half of the rest of the server at a time.

I ran sof when it was at ~150. In terms of organization it's not bad. The limit for earth type alliance structures (game considerations aside) is probably around the 250-300 level (go go org-a). The limit for any organization to be effective based on all known methods is around 1000 people/overall project at which point you have to make a bunch of meta-structures and coordinate.

The feudal system tends to max out at that point for a project which is why the largest projects in human history didn't usually involve more than that. (Feudal system being the most effective form of organization in terms of projects - most corporations are based on this).

i remember rage at 500+, we were split into 3 separate sites and had different bloody leaders in each site, it was a nightmare so much dead weight.

SoF at 100+ isn't a bad thing, we've grown from under 30 members 2 sets ago to sitting around 80 active members most are old returning vets such as Helmet and Scorpion, with RAGE merging we'll be over 100, this will give rage the chance to rebuild their structure and will lead to another alliance returning in the future

you become too big when you have to special order your pants from the internet

gambit speaks truth there :D

hmm thinking about this a little more, i think it's rather unfortunate that RAGE is choosing to go to the BIGGEST alliance and make them bigger

I remember when TIE was thinking about where to go, a major consideration they had was making the biggest alliance bigger (LaF at the time) and they chose to go to LCN, who is now thriving.

I'm curious if RAGE considered this kind of thing as well during their discussions?

I'm sure they did, but as an alliance that prefers to war most sets, they probably weighed up their closest friends, who warred more often than netted. As far as I know the 3 remaining war tags are SoF, SoL and iMag. I'm not sure about their relationship with imag, but it takes a certain type of player to play in imag anyway. If they chose SoL it would be a similar situation, but they probably chose SoF, due to a closer history and number of ex-Rage players in SoF.

I'm sure Rage chose the place they felt the most comfortable going and would suit them best. I would imagine TIE did the same thing. I doubt they even considering what some people on the AT would say or want for them. lol

you missed my point as usual.

my point was that TIE took the balance of the server into consideration when making their choice -- and I know this from chatting with TIE leaders during the process

my question was whether or not RAGE took the same considerations into account.

The problem with the game is two fold. One is not enough members and two is not enough leaders. If SOF broke into two alliances, we would lose our leadership structure which currently takes the burden off of specific people. To make splitting even more difficult, 95% of our members outside of RAGE are original SOF and that means that they are only oriented with the SOF site. I don't think it is fair to ask anyone else to take the responsibility of leading a split off let alone orient and arrange an entirely new site. Since both Pang and Slagpit recently stepped down from leadeship of their own alliances to balance their time among the many needs of their lives, this is certainly a reasonably line of thinking and expectations of SOF.

I agree that SOF is getting a little big for the server, but the answer is not to burden one of the only alliances improving in total numbers. The answer is that current alliances need to work on increasing leadership abilities within their own alliances. No one can do that for you and it is tough.

IMO an alliance being 100 members is not an issue as long as they arent using that size to push everyone else around in the server. that said i would rather see 2 50 members clans or 3 30+ member clans. it would make things more interesting.

agreed 100% -- i made that argument before though (not enough leaders are willing to step up anymore) and people flamed me to no end.

But on the topic of bringing in "new" leaders -> that was the vast majority of what I spent my time doing when I was leading LaF earlier this set -- just getting the right folks in the right positions after basically all the leaders had to bail due to RL issues over the previous 2 sets.

We lack the 16-17 year olds who used to be like us -- we enjoyed playing & leading, and actually had the time to do it :p

Yeah, I get it. I just don't think that even makes the top ten on the list of important factors.

While it's not overly surprising you feel that way, you should understand that not everyone acts in an entirely selfish manner when making their decisions (and SoF as a whole claims to be part of this group), and sometimes others take the whole landscape of the server into account when choosing their actions.

A lot of really great posts; I especially liked yours aponic.

@Chevs: I'm not trying to place blame on anyone. SoF has done a terrific job with recruiting, and I only mention them because a) they're the biggest and b) they recently had Rage merge.

My personal opinion is that alliances can get too big for the server, but they shouldn't sacrifice the stability of their own player base for a possible positive change in the server dynamics.

Good leaders are scarce, and if the number of players increases, it may take some time before the new players are ready to step up into those roles. A lot of veterans returning is great, but typically everyone is busier than they were 10 years ago, and some have given leadership a try and figured out it's just not for them.

The more diversity in alliances, the better, but that's not to say there should be some enforced member cap. I do think that SoF, while the largest and arguably most powerful alliance right now, is doing its part to improve gameplay as far as changing their retal policy and at least trying to change the way they choose whom to war. Someone has to be the largest, and in my opinion, that's a great mindset to have for the position you guys are in.

All of that said, I think it will be difficult for brand new alliances to form. Unless whole alliances from other games migrate here en masse, most new players will join an alliance and then most likely stick with them for teaching them the ropes etc. Of course returning veterans are looking to join their old alliances. Thus, no one is really looking to embark on their own and form something new. When all of the current alliances are 100-200+ then it will become even more difficult to have a new alliance hold their own and not become farmland.

I just hope that TIE, Rage, Ely and even the FIST will eventually come back as their own alliances in the nearish future.

I wouldn't call it selfish to take your alliance where you think it has the best shot at regrouping vs trying to do the impossible job of making everyone happy.

but I wasn't asking whether it should be the primary factor, I just asked if RAGE discussed it... to which you responded that it wouldn't even be in your top 10.

Flamey's response was good, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across, Helmet -- that you personally feel that the server's health is not something to consider and the invisible hand worked like it did in the past to balance things? ya... I got that from your other 4-5 threads where you tout that belief :p
Not sure why you're interjecting it here, unless you are speaking on behalf of your new clanmates from RAGE?

I was just simply asking if RAGE did the same thing TIE did when deciding where to go to retool -- look at not upsetting the balance of the server in the short term. I'm not trying to spin that either way, what Flamey said was pretty much what I was expecting to hear from RAGE as well. You don't need to attack everything I say, I'm just curious since overly large alliances are now a topic of discussion.

I didn't think I was attacking. Just stating my opinion. My point was that Rage did what they felt was best **FOR RAGE** and I was defending that point. They basically told us they thought they'd have the best shot at joining SOF and then leaving when they see fit. If some of the AT disagrees, too bad. Rage needs to do what is best for them.

Flamey is in SoF btw, so Rage hasn't really answered.

again you're not even listening to my question.
here is what this feels like to me:
me: "hey, Rage, why did you decide to take a plane to travel between Toronto and New York??"
helmet: "that doesn't matter. they will travel however they feel is best for them"
me: "but i'm asking why the plane is the best choice and how they arrived at that decision..."
helmet: "doesn't matter. they will do whatever they think is best."
me: "..."

Rage, if you want to answer my honest question because I am indeed curious, letme know. I'm not going to argue a useless point that's not actually relevant to what i'm saying.

Rage has no active leaders at this point and merged into their closest ally where ex-rage heads like Murf are currently playing. Rage knew that we have an abundance of active leadership currently and that we do not want them to become permanent residents. I know the issue came up of people picking their members off, such as what happened when TIE split mostly into LCN and partially into SOL, and maintaining their membership as a single group was their main aim. I doubt they considered the server balance having said that much. Really, I am not RAGE and am simply giving my opinion with a limitedly great understanding of their perspective than the average AT reader.

As I mentioned above, a major problem for almost all alliances right now is leadership. Without it all alliances fail. I think a real competition that involves the server, as was suggested on another thread about coalition wars or an all out netting competition (which I just find more abstract and less involved as IRC is largely removed from the equation), is the best solution to rekindling people's interest.

Rage cannot survive with the current structure in rage. most of us wanna just take it easy after years of leading. we do not have the numbers or the activity to survive against any war clans. it is in our best interest to join SoF because they are active, lots of ex ragers and the membership feels it is best for rage. ill put it this way. how do you fight a war with no care to win or fight within your leadership. you cant. for rage to survive in this game we need to step back and rethink, redo and play with friends.

ragers dont want to leave the game. so its this or we leave the game

There is never a situation where an alliance is too big IMO.

Ideally the game reaches a state where the larger alliances are around 200 to 300 and the smaller alliances are around 50 members minimum in the future.

Outside of that, anywhere past 200 members - bureaucracy and varying interests usually lead the alliance to break up.... so there are natural factors at play preventing alliances form getting too big.

Although I do think kills need to be a lot harder too do in general.

LaF hit its peak when i was Don back 6-7 years ago at 170. it didn't fit LaF well tbh, because there's just too much FA headaches especially how aggressive LaF loves to landgrab. traditionally LaF is usually in the top 5 in membership count but about 20-30% smaller than the biggest/traditionally war based alliances.

with that said though, from my own experience there's nothing too big about 100 members. its not too hard to manage an alliance that size. traditionally SoF had 120-ish members on average and LaF hovered around 100. so from a management issue its not like RAGE's 500 member alliance or whatsoever.

that was what made it fair though, because there was a lot of 100-200 sized alliances (which can be relatively lean and efficient) and the ones that try to go above 200 get inefficient so there was a check and balance there. the overall user base was close to 10k users, so as a percentage even 500 wasn't overwhelming.

now i think what is scary is that a 100 member alliance is considered super big and yet it will not have the problem of inefficient membership because its relatively easily and proven many times how to run a lean 100 member alliance. except nowadays that is 10% of the server.

i don't think of it as a problem though, i think of it as the other alliances need to step up. i give SoF props for what its doing, if I was in their shoe, i wouldn't do anything different. They want to the premier dominant fighting alliance and you need the size and the quality which they are trying to pursue.

but one thing that i am afraid is that this precedent that SoF is going to set is that other alliances might have to merge to keep up, and if that is the case it would be unfortunate to lose even more alliances in this game...

Pang is like a woman.

calling pang a woman is an insult to women ;)

jk <3 u dave

lol