Alliance Size Restrictions Discussion

[Vita`]

The limit is 1/3 of human-held regions on the island. It hasn't changed. But it can adjust dynamically.

[GoldPanda]

What happens if the limit gets adjusted and we're over the limit again? How quickly do we have to come back into compliance?

[Zakky]

What happens if the limit gets adjusted and we're over the limit again? How quickly do we have to come back into compliance?

I am assuming people will get at least 3 weeks like they did this time?

[Anaris]

I apologize; what I said before was unclear.

Growing over the limit through TO, unless it becomes truly egregious, will never result in GM intervention. The only reason we are doing this now is because there are grandfathered alliance blocs hugely over the limit.

[PolarRaven]

I know that it is unlikely to ever happen, but what if one realm manages to hold over the 1/3rd limit?
They could have no allies for starters, but would they be expected to hand off or rogue some of their regions?

[Anaris]

I know that it is unlikely to ever happen, but what if one realm manages to hold over the 1/3rd limit?
They could have no allies for starters, but would they be expected to hand off or rogue some of their regions?

By itself, that would not be sufficient to result in any admin measures against them. If they were actively using their size to stifle interesting interaction or conflict on the continentâ€"or we saw (either through explicit reports or our own investigation) a very clear pattern of other interaction being stifled simply through fear of them, even if they weren't doing it deliberatelyâ€"then we would probably start trying to talk to their leadership about what could be done to make things more interesting and dynamic. Giving up regions certainly would not be the only thing on the table in such a discussion.

[Glaumring the Fox]

I welcome this new change.

[PolarRaven]

I have looked around and recently thought to myself that there seems to be an inequality where alliance blocks are concerned.
I understand what the dev's are working towards with this type of restriction, but I am thinking that the current restriction based on REGION count leaves lots of room for inequality. 

What is it that actually makes an alliance?
I do not believe that the strength of an alliance (or a realm for that matter) should be based on the number of regions involved/included.
The true power of an alliance (and a realm) is the NOBLES that are involved.
It is the nobles that affect the world around them, not the regions that they hold.

On the EC, the
Perleone/Perdan/Sydgard/Vix Tiramor block includes 79 nobles.
Sirion/Caligus/Shadowdale block includes 54 nobles
Eponllyn/Nivemus block includes 46 nobles
There are 190 nobles total on EC.  190/3=63.33

On Beluaterra the
Thalmarkin/Ar Agyr/Gotland/Grehkia block includes 62
Nothoi/Angmar/Caelint block includes 38
Obia'Syela/Shattered Vales block includes 47 nobles
There are 162 nobles total on BT.  162/3=54

War is fought by the nobles of a realm, not by the number of regions they hold.

[De-Legro]

I have looked around and recently thought to myself that there seems to be an inequality where alliance blocks are concerned.
I understand what the dev's are working towards with this type of restriction, but I am thinking that the current restriction based on REGION count leaves lots of room for inequality. 

What is it that actually makes an alliance?
I do not believe that the strength of an alliance (or a realm for that matter) should be based on the number of regions involved/included.
The true power of an alliance (and a realm) is the NOBLES that are involved.
It is the nobles that affect the world around them, not the regions that they hold.

On the EC, the
Perleone/Perdan/Sydgard/Vix Tiramor block includes 79 nobles.
Sirion/Caligus/Shadowdale block includes 54 nobles
Eponllyn/Nivemus block includes 46 nobles
There are 190 nobles total on EC.  190/3=63.33

On Beluaterra the
Thalmarkin/Ar Agyr/Gotland/Grehkia block includes 62
Nothoi/Angmar/Caelint block includes 38
Obia'Syela/Shattered Vales block includes 47 nobles
There are 162 nobles total on BT.  162/3=54

War is fought by the nobles of a realm, not by the number of regions they hold.

This is partly true, but not the entire story. Nobles are essential in war, but so is resources gold in particular and quality RCs. The number of nobles alone is just as bad a metric as regions, how many of the nobles are active, how many are in armies, how effective are those armies?

[Zakky]

This is partly true, but not the entire story. Nobles are essential in war, but so is resources gold in particular and quality RCs. The number of nobles alone is just as bad a metric as regions, how many of the nobles are active, how many are in armies, how effective are those armies?

This. Having more nobles is more powerful than ever since it actually affects how many regions you can take but other than that if your realm of 30 nobles only has 10 active nobles, having 30 actually means very little.

Perleone, despite having more nobles than Nova and Alara, couldn't fight them head on due to their lack of gold and RCs. When they finally got gold and RCs, of course, they steamrolled both but I think realms on EC are mostly well equipped with gold and RCs.

[GoldPanda]

Inactive nobles tend to get auto-paused.

[Ocean Yong Kiran]

Inactive maybe only mean "no do nothing but make travel click" vs. nobles who make scouting, make ideas

Some realms have "inactive" generals and marshals

[PolarRaven]

Having 10 extra nobles in your alliance is much more appealing than having 10 extra crappy regions held by your alliance.
The region rule works well for most, because most realms are at, near, or above their maximum regions/noble. 
The inequality comes into play when a realm with many nobles holds only a small amount of "valuable" regions.

[Constantine]

Don't be facetious. There is like one or two crappy regions in every realm (unless you're OI). And when they become cumbersome, you can just drop them and chill like Nivemus did.