oda
New Member
"DE OPPRESSO LIBER"
Posts: 10
|
Post by oda on Feb 5, 2014 1:17:37 GMT 1
Based on life experience....when 3 parts are in conflict.....two of them will try to ally against the strongest one.....why not choose only 2 teams to fight in Arena?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2014 1:33:46 GMT 1
Good point Oda and IMO would be better for 4 teams or 2 better fairness in all respects.
|
|
|
Post by scorpius on Feb 9, 2014 5:18:07 GMT 1
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.
|
|