Smaller alliance size

[timtadams]

Yeah, i know alliance size has been the subject of suggestions and debate before, yet i am opening the topic up for discussion again.

I suggest a maximum alliance size of 10 players.

Currently there are 2 FTW alliances, and it has been pointed out in the Asph Disband thread it is a pretty boring round. Half of Asph couldnt be bothered/werent FTW and so they were never gonna make it (maybe)

Point being, we need more FTW alliances. Now obviously if we half the alliance size, we double the number of alliances.

Now, a lot of people would oppose this as it is too hard to defend against decent incoming. Now incoming would probably proportionally smaller, unless alliances were working together. So it wouldnt be the end of the world. Maybe it wont be harder at all.

But i think its the only way to bring back some sustainable competition. It looks like GC have already won the round, as there are not enough comparable alliances that would be able to stage any sort of resistance. If alliances were smaller, i think competition would be more equal and sustained.

Also, maybe more people wont take the game too seriously (as they dont expect themselves to defend everything, MAYBE), forcing tremendous activity on themselves.

I know I havnt provided the most comprehensive or strong argument for the idea and that most of this is speculation, but i wanna know what the rest of you guys think.

 

[Lupus]

This would not fix the problem, i think larger alliances are better but due to lack of players this is not possible. So ADVERTISE c'mon azzer break a few eggs get some fresh blood into the game for christ sake!

 

[tobapopalos]

No chance. Tried once, didn't work, went back to 20 members.

 

[Polo]

I'm starting to think DS is right. Everyone solo.

 

[timtadams]

I'm starting to think DS is right. Everyone solo.

You know, i would love this to be done at least one round...
actually, im still hanging for another mini-round of 5min tick

 

[Twigley]

I'm starting to think DS is right. Everyone solo.

It would be kinda cool.
However i still think smaller allies of 5-10.

I also think the only reason youd change sizes now is cos of the dwindling player base.
If you get more people in, AGAIN, no game mechanics change.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

Honestly I wouldn't play if it were all solo, at least not with any level of give-a-shittery.

 

[Davis]

Also, maybe more people wont take the game too seriously (as they dont expect themselves to defend everything, MAYBE), forcing tremendous activity on themselves.

so somehow having less possible defenders makes it so you can play less active? tbh an ally with 10 members needs those 5 members on all the time in order to defend any attacks, and an ally of 20 if one or two people cant be online, there are still 18 other people that can pick up the slack

 

[timtadams]

Also, maybe more people wont take the game too seriously (as they dont expect themselves to defend everything, MAYBE), forcing tremendous activity on themselves.

so somehow having less possible defenders makes it so you can play less active? tbh an ally with 10 members needs those 5 members on all the time in order to defend any attacks, and an ally of 20 if one or two people cant be online, there are still 18 other people that can pick up the slack

Well, smaller alliances would probably mean smaller incoming.

But if there were only a few people online to defend at any one time, maybe they wont expect themselves to have to defend EVERYTHING. So they wont put in the same level of effort/dedication/activity. It really depends on the attitudes of the players, and how the round would progress as too how active people want to be.

And it probably would be the case were people would be crazy enough to try and be active for stupid number of hours a day. I was just sorta thinking out load there.

If you dont know what i mean, sorry.

[edit]That doesnt mean i still support 10 player alliances, i was just answering your post

 

[CrimsonFury88]

Also, maybe more people wont take the game too seriously (as they dont expect themselves to defend everything, MAYBE), forcing tremendous activity on themselves.

so somehow having less possible defenders makes it so you can play less active? tbh an ally with 10 members needs those 5 members on all the time in order to defend any attacks, and an ally of 20 if one or two people cant be online, there are still 18 other people that can pick up the slack

Well, smaller alliances would probably mean smaller incoming.

But if there were only a few people online to defend at any one time, maybe they wont expect themselves to have to defend EVERYTHING. So they wont put in the same level of effort/dedication/activity. It really depends on the attitudes of the players, and how the round would progress as too how active people want to be.

And it probably would be the case were people would be crazy enough to try and be active for stupid number of hours a day. I was just sorta thinking out load there.

If you dont know what i mean, sorry.

[edit]That doesnt mean i still support 10 player alliances, i was just answering your post

I disagree with the smaller incoming point. As the other guys have said, if you have a smaller alliance, you're counting on 5 players to be ultra-active. So although you have less aggressors from another alliance, you have less to defend with.

IMHO, this would promote unofficial "NAPs" and "Wings".

 

[moorer]

I'm starting to think DS is right. Everyone solo.

I believe Azzer has always maintained this was principally meant to be an alliance game, be interesting to know, in view of the dwindling playerbase, whether he still holds that view.

Certainly an all solo round could be worth a try even if on a 2 week round trial basis.

Although it would favour the active players from the point of view of a portal place it might address some peoples issues (such as massing / bashing or activity levels gripes).

 

[Davs]

I'm starting to think DS is right. Everyone solo.

I believe Azzer has always maintained this was principally meant to be an alliance game, be interesting to know, in view of the dwindling playerbase, whether he still holds that view.

Certainly an all solo round could be worth a try even if on a 2 week round trial basis.

Although it would favour the active players from the point of view of a portal place it might address some peoples issues (such as massing / bashing or activity levels gripes).

Only issue with everyone being solo, it would either involve renovating AR so that you weren't guaranteed to to trigger no matter who you attacked, or it would mean scrapping AR completely (which would make things a lot harder for many less active/less experienced players.)

If there's a decent solution then I'm more than willing to test out an all-solo round (as I generally play solo anyway)

 

[Alcibiades]

Also, maybe more people wont take the game too seriously (as they dont expect themselves to defend everything, MAYBE), forcing tremendous activity on themselves.

so somehow having less possible defenders makes it so you can play less active? tbh an ally with 10 members needs those 5 members on all the time in order to defend any attacks, and an ally of 20 if one or two people cant be online, there are still 18 other people that can pick up the slack

Correct. It makes it more intensively activity related for the majority of players. If you have half as many players, you need to prank the same people repeatedly if you're playing ftw. It's brutal on the playerbase. Similar to 5m ticks.

Also, as for a solo round, definitely doesn't have my vote. I wouldn't even bother to sign up for a purely solo round. Playing solo holds absolutely no interest for me.

 

[moorer]

Also, maybe more people wont take the game too seriously (as they dont expect themselves to defend everything, MAYBE), forcing tremendous activity on themselves.

so somehow having less possible defenders makes it so you can play less active? tbh an ally with 10 members needs those 5 members on all the time in order to defend any attacks, and an ally of 20 if one or two people cant be online, there are still 18 other people that can pick up the slack

Correct. It makes it more intensively activity related for the majority of players. If you have half as many players, you need to prank the same people repeatedly if you're playing ftw. It's brutal on the playerbase. Similar to 5m ticks.

Also, as for a solo round, definitely doesn't have my vote. I wouldn't even bother to sign up for a purely solo round. Playing solo holds absolutely no interest for me.

So your happy with the staus quo?

Happy with a game that is losing players steadily, a game where the round is decided sooner and sooner due to lack of competition?

I am sure you can't really be happywith that. Something needs to be tried to refresh the game and attract new players because as it is its slowly but surely dying.

 

[Davs]

Also, maybe more people wont take the game too seriously (as they dont expect themselves to defend everything, MAYBE), forcing tremendous activity on themselves.

so somehow having less possible defenders makes it so you can play less active? tbh an ally with 10 members needs those 5 members on all the time in order to defend any attacks, and an ally of 20 if one or two people cant be online, there are still 18 other people that can pick up the slack

Correct. It makes it more intensively activity related for the majority of players. If you have half as many players, you need to prank the same people repeatedly if you're playing ftw. It's brutal on the playerbase. Similar to 5m ticks.

Also, as for a solo round, definitely doesn't have my vote. I wouldn't even bother to sign up for a purely solo round. Playing solo holds absolutely no interest for me.

So your happy with the staus quo?

Happy with a game that is losing players steadily, a game where the round is decided sooner and sooner due to lack of competition?

I am sure you can't really be happywith that. Something needs to be tried to refresh the game and attract new players because as it is its slowly but surely dying.

He never said anything to suggest that at all. He just said he disapproves of this particular suggestion - which isn't particularly unreasonable.

 

[Alcibiades]

Also, maybe more people wont take the game too seriously (as they dont expect themselves to defend everything, MAYBE), forcing tremendous activity on themselves.

so somehow having less possible defenders makes it so you can play less active? tbh an ally with 10 members needs those 5 members on all the time in order to defend any attacks, and an ally of 20 if one or two people cant be online, there are still 18 other people that can pick up the slack

Correct. It makes it more intensively activity related for the majority of players. If you have half as many players, you need to prank the same people repeatedly if you're playing ftw. It's brutal on the playerbase. Similar to 5m ticks.

Also, as for a solo round, definitely doesn't have my vote. I wouldn't even bother to sign up for a purely solo round. Playing solo holds absolutely no interest for me.

So your happy with the staus quo?

Happy with a game that is losing players steadily, a game where the round is decided sooner and sooner due to lack of competition?

I am sure you can't really be happywith that. Something needs to be tried to refresh the game and attract new players because as it is its slowly but surely dying.

Correct i'm not very happy with the status quo of more and more players leaving; but smaller alliance sizes were tried and rejected, and a solo round would, in my opinion, drive away more players than it could possibly attract. I would not object to a trial version of a purely solo round (but haven't we done this before outside of World 1?) but it is not something for which i have high hopes

I might be wrong, but for everyone who enjoys solo play, i'm sure i could find someone who plays mostly because of their alliance, and friends. Not to mention playing under this current AR system with a whole round full of solos would not be my idea of fun.

The game system (as alliance based) and the game mechanics work well enough, and we've got a decent enough Tutorial, that what this game requires is advertisement, which is not something the current players can really do effectively, except by word of mouth and things like facebook.