2 - 3 - 4 all possibilities. We suggested 3 because (if you read the DRAFT posting) the 3 teams might be so well balanced that it will be a true free for all. IMO 2 give no choice who to fight and allows only two players to experience leadership and 4 almost requires that alliances pair together. That does not mean that neither would work. Three will hopefully allow all 3 to start at each other and, probably, only form a pact if the drafting process did not result in as even teams as desired .. in other words, the 3 alliance scenario can prove self correcting. But keep in mind, with experience and based on early participation and the desire of more to be leaders people may be coming here asking, 'why not 5 alliances?' down the road.
P.S. if we do go to 2 the ARENA will need to be reduced to under 20K .. likely well under or the alliances will just cap and get mighty bored.
tunameatball: Hi all. I will be monitoring when I have time. I am sorry that my involvement has been non-exsistant, but RL trumps EW. I hope everyone is doing super awesome. Take care, Your TunaMeatball.
Feb 15, 2014 14:12:39 GMT 1
mrself: thank you aginstdaworld for stoping the attacks on us
Feb 18, 2014 1:48:04 GMT 1
Deleted: Please read messages/Por favor, lea los mensajes/Si prega di leggere i messaggi/S'il vous pla�t lire les messages
Feb 22, 2014 23:27:11 GMT 1