DeletedUser4878
Guest
not sure how long worlds will last with new end game but 50 person cap for WW worlds is way too low. you have to have sister alliances just to have enough people by WW time to fill 1 alliance.
i was trying to figure out if 100 player alliances would be better. guess it depends how long a domination world will last. if it last as long as WW world then it might be good to have it. in WW worlds 50 is too low. you either need to have a sister alliance or merge with another one down the road because of how many people you lose over time.
I'm just here briefly to pick up some gold (thank you for your generosity). But nice to see so many familiar names although it doesn't seem like there's that many people in total playing the world.
Josh is questioning the MRA tactics in a domination world. I'm guessing leaders want to kill off the other main threat before they get going is pretty much the answer. Also maybe half the alliance quits making it somewhat more manageable. I'm not saying this is a good thing just trying to think of the logic. If the purpose of domination is to stop the big MRA's then maybe more changes need to be implemented such as 100 player alliance limit and even possibly no pacts or forum sharing.
i was trying to figure out if 100 player alliances would be better. guess it depends how long a domination world will last. if it last as long as WW world then it might be good to have it. in WW worlds 50 is too low. you either need to have a sister alliance or merge with another one down the road because of how many people you lose over time.