[chardonnay]

I see this as very unfair on the hard work some have put in to their dynasty.

Surely there is a better way to help the small dynasties. MMC Mob was small once too remember, and very few of the big dynasties at the time were interested in helping MMC MOB with an alliance. When I joined our daily average was around 40 and we were about 6th biggest with only one big allie.

Just look at Mini Ming dynasty for a more recent example. Bosh had only one member (bosh) for one to two weeks, then slowly started growing, a couple of months later it's big enough that MMC Mob have now allied with them! So with hard work it can be done.
Another example is the Untouchables, fattynoob and team got that back from the brink of extinction just last month.

[shumadija]

My vote goes against this "improvement". That rule is good for gamers who switch dynasties so often, but not for loyal ones.

For success rules is matter. Fair and strong dynasty rules guarantee success of dynasty, with or without strong allies. I think that MMC Mob have stronger rules (boot under 300 clicks), and that is one of steps for good positioning, but not hidden links in small dinasties.

[parafron]

My opinion is that with the proposed change of 60 members per dynasty the dynasties are going to be even more elitist. Already some dynasties impose some kind of lower click limit to let somebody in. I joined real mini village because I sought a dynasty that was relevant to my game (myminicity). I didn't even know what a dynasty average was.

The dynasty tolerated me while I was a newbie and hadn't found out how to get a better average. Some competition among dynasties is good, but the feeling of belonging to a group is more important to some people than averages. I hate to loose some friends from the dynasty in the future, just because they couldn't catch the imposed high click limit.

I'd propose to increase the allowed number of dynasty members, in order to increase the numbers of freedom degrees for dynasty emperors! Is it better to have more people for a better average or is it better to lower the number of members and impose strict click limits? How many should I let in? 50? 70? 150? 200? Both models are in effect now!

[Pigu]

[bailey]

without reading every reply, sorry but i did read most,

i feel that the changes made have been for the benefit of all those are serious, this new one is a little weird but i am willing to support it for the time being, i suppose that if we didnt end up being so dominant then this may not have happened, but then with less to click it will perhaps make it even more difficult to keep averages and get the clicks that we are needing

gl in this but i reckon once the dynasties start to really get going that it could be moved up to 80,

cheers

[Prlek]

I don't like that. We all worked really hard for that average and to get loyal members who do click other links and don't hide theirs and i feel that new rules change that all. Is not fair to our members, who work good too but can't get the highest average to kick them out. It's not fair at all. Limit of 100 members is reasonable one for me and it shoud stay that way.

[MUSHpark]

[Kristiina]

Let me get it right. You really mean that Dynasties should kick members on Sunday? And how's that supposed to be fair to anyone?

If this really happens, I will seriously reconsider if I want to be around anymore.

[turdkey]

I have not been with Yarolds that long and am currently moving between a few teams to get to know what they are like. Reading further up the thread I think it would be harder for people to switch dynasties as the top teams would become a closed shop, both in membership and allies.

I do not envy the Dynasty Emps when they have to cull their teams and make , albeit unintentionally, enemies. Will they all switch or just throw in the towel and leave Yarolds?

It is never a good option to limit a member's choices as this leads to ill will and I think lost memberships.

Why not ban the top four dynasties from being allied with more than two of the number?

I have not been with Yarolds that long and am currently moving between a few teams to get to know what they are like. Reading further up the thread I think it would be harder for people to switch dynasties as the top teams would become a closed shop, both in membership and allies.

I do not envy the Dynasty Emps when they have to cull their teams and make , albeit unintentionally, enemies. Will they all switch or just throw in the towel and leave Yarolds?

It is never a good option to limit a member's choices as this leads to ill will and I think lost memberships.

Why not ban the top four dynasties from being allied with more than two of the number?

[bella]

It's really not about Gamers Alliance. I'm uncomfortable with there being 5 "super" dynasties who only ally with each other (which is the way it seems to be heading again).
I'm sure if people take a step back they will see that ultimately this isn't the best direction for the exchange to take.

Maybe 60 members for each dynasty is too low, I'm not sure. One thing though is that it would lead to the creation of more new dynasties and give more people the opportunity to be leaders. I don't see why there can't be some constructive debate about this moving forward.

This is not a personal attack on any one individual or dynasty. There is definitely room for some discussion and we don't all have to agree.

[Braat]

not good....really....i am against this change, the major arguments are already given in this thread

edit: oh. And I want you to consider: The international mmc alliance is new....very new, became fifth best dyn and got the greatest Dyns as allies.... hey!

[RicketyCat]

I'm very sorry that there are some dynasties that seem unable to create or maintain relationships with allies. Why punish the rest that can?

There are some in the dynasty exchanges that are consistently clicking 450+ links a day. Is this why this will be implemented? Because there are some who are clicking many LINKS on a LINK EXCHANGE site?

The statement that there could be 5 allies to every dynasty for up to 300 members is interesting given that there are currently only 5 dynasties with 60+ members.

Yarold, this is your site and you can set the rules however you want them, however I suggest you listen to the people who use your site on this one. Limiting the number of links available to your users is like asking them to leave - really bad for business.

[Rebecca]

We're not kicking anybody. The admins can personally explain to the 40 that they pick why they did it. It's been a long hard road building our dynasty and our alliances, and so many friends have been made. Top Cat and I made the decision a long time ago that we will not rip apart our dynasty for the sake of numbers, but apparently numbers are more important to you. I have put in so much time here, and this is just petty.

[Itsami]

As far as I can see it, we got 3 dynasties with 60+ members and RMV with almost 100 members.

I'm not in favor of that idea to cut down the number of members, but I'm not against it though. Surely the smaller dynasties have a better chance and the ranking is more "balanced", and this is good for them. But, as already mentioned, it forces many loyal and good members and friends to leave their dynasties (which noone can support).

But if the restiction to 60 members became a rule, then the dynasties over 60 should get adequate time to "downgrade" their numbers. (i.e. a dynasty with 100 members should have a larger period to get to 60 members then an dynasty with 61 members). And adequate doesn't mean just over the night. So it is a bit more moderate for them (nevertheless it is not good for them).
Just to be a bit diplomatic

But I'm not the one to decide, luckily.

[Roman]

[Divan]

Limit of 60 is no good!!! Minimal 120.
Our dinasty have 99 members now! With one peasant...

Divan...

[bella]

Eurul - your dynasty now has 5 allies instead of 4. Your dynasty is a good example of how this can be of benefit.

[funhippie]

I haven't been a member of this site for very long. Less than two weeks. I know nothing of dynasty history here. I do know that I have felt very welcomed by the dynasty I joined as referred to me by a friend in a different dynasty!

I have read every post so far and I see a lot of very upset people. Is this really going to improve anything? Why not start with a gradual change like a 90 person limit and give a month for the larger dynasties to naturally lose those 10 extra and not be able to take on new members. Too much change too quickly will only end horribly. And I am certain with a decrease in overall members and purchased clicks.

[Roman]

[Ferrari]

I agree we have to find a way to help small dynasties, but I disagree with the members limit to 60.
Just4Fun is a family ♥ and you can't expect me to kick family members. Please reconsider.

♥ Ferrari ♥