10 man allies next round

[Cheese]

Alot of talk about people wanting 10 man allies next round well what do people think yes or no?

 

[Iamsmart]

10, will make 3 good alliances, maybe even 4-5, = 3+ alliances= round isnt over in a week, lot of competition at the top=good.

 

[Signer]

From another thread but probably better off here

I do fully agree with 10 man alliances - for many reasons.

- Alliances of 20 super-active players are TOO difficult to breakdown nowadays, which has been shown these last 2 rounds. Reducing this to 10 may mean we still get these super-active alliances, but 10 player alliances are, in my opinion, easier to breakdown.

- Continuing from the first point, nowadays we struggle to get even 2 alliances capable of going for the win. 10 man alliances would increase competition, help with alliances working together to take down an alliance. I think we would get a guaranteed 3-4 allies going for the win. 20 man alliances worked in the past because we had more, more active players. We don't nowadays.

People have been saying that 10 man alliances would mean people would have to be more active to compensate for lack of coverage during the day. The change may make people play more actively, but I believe the majority of players wouldn't change.

And anyway, is the lack of coverage a bad thing? I don't believe it is. I hate the degree of invulnerability around the top alliances nowadays, and maybe this change would teach people to once again think 'Hey, it is actually alright to die'. And who knows, maybe we can bring some fun back in to this game, something that has been severely lacking in recent times.

 

[Changer]

You also need to consider the effect on the rest of the playerbase. The majority of people do not play for the win atm. Would 10 man alliances make playing in an alliance at a lower level alot harder?

 

[Dimitar]

This will surely mean at least 20 full and a few more full-ish alliances, so yeah defending in the lower allies will be tougher, but attacking will be easier.

We might witness wars between the small alliances like we used to. I think it will just make the game more interesting, for everyone.

 

[willymchilybily]

i am sooooo against this which is odd as a solo. previously it lasted 1 round last time because it was major burn out. if you do it have fun, i dont see it lasting any longer than it did before. and i think it would be very detremental to new players, and inactives they will think you can only play the game if stupidly active. just my opinion. and its damn frustrating.

 

[Dark_Angel]

10, will make 3 good alliances, maybe even 4-5, = 3+ alliances= round isnt over in a week, lot of competition at the top=good.

QFT

+ Signer QFT

-

You also need to consider the effect on the rest of the playerbase. The majority of people do not play for the win atm. Would 10 man alliances make playing in an alliance at a lower level alot harder?

Can't see why. More "big" alliances fighting amongst themselves ultimately means less bashing of smaller alliances?

 

[Ram]

Used to use 15 member alliances not long back, I forget why it was changed back to 20 but there must be a good reason.

 

[tobapopalos]

You also need to consider the effect on the rest of the playerbase. The majority of people do not play for the win atm. Would 10 man alliances make playing in an alliance at a lower level alot harder?

Can't see why. More "big" alliances fighting amongst themselves ultimately means less bashing of smaller alliances?

Ignorance at its very best. Do you really think FTW alliances are just going to leave the lower ranked alliances alone? Are you as naive as that?

And Ram, it was changed to 15 man alliances for 1 round ( round 28 ) and then changed back the very next round because it just didn't work.

Willy sums it up pretty well. The burnout is horrific with smaller alliances. For lower ranked alliances it will be even worse, since there aren't going to be many active players there, leaving most of the burden for one or two people.

 

[Changer]

For lower ranked alliances it will be even worse, since there aren't going to be many active players there, leaving most of the burden for one or two people.

Doubt many low ranks will bother. Will be much easier to just be solo for them. But other than that agree with what you said.

im not against the change to help stop stagnant rounds, but you do also have to think of the bigger picture.

 

[Dark_Angel]

You also need to consider the effect on the rest of the playerbase. The majority of people do not play for the win atm. Would 10 man alliances make playing in an alliance at a lower level alot harder?

Can't see why. More "big" alliances fighting amongst themselves ultimately means less bashing of smaller alliances?

Ignorance at its very best. Do you really think FTW alliances are just going to leave the lower ranked alliances alone? Are you as naive as that?

And Ram, it was changed to 15 man alliances for 1 round ( round 28 ) and then changed back the very next round because it just didn't work.

Willy sums it up pretty well. The burnout is horrific with smaller alliances. For lower ranked alliances it will be even worse, since there aren't going to be many active players there, leaving most of the burden for one or two people.

I'm not being ignorant. More fights between the top 5 generally means less time for fighting the lower ranks. I made no attempt to claim the attacks would cease altogether, that would be naive. Don't put words in my mouth.

If there is constant warring between ranks 1-5, that'll mean leaders/officers have to consider being countered by an enemy if they're all out massing some poor sods down at rank 9. That'll be a real concern. Effort might be far better placed killing off an actual competitor.

 

[willymchilybily]

You also need to consider the effect on the rest of the playerbase. The majority of people do not play for the win atm. Would 10 man alliances make playing in an alliance at a lower level alot harder?

Can't see why. More "big" alliances fighting amongst themselves ultimately means less bashing of smaller alliances?

Ignorance at its very best. Do you really think FTW alliances are just going to leave the lower ranked alliances alone? Are you as naive as that?

And Ram, it was changed to 15 man alliances for 1 round ( round 28 ) and then changed back the very next round because it just didn't work.

Willy sums it up pretty well. The burnout is horrific with smaller alliances. For lower ranked alliances it will be even worse, since there aren't going to be many active players there, leaving most of the burden for one or two people.

I'm not being ignorant. More fights between the top 5 generally means less time for fighting the lower ranks. I made no attempt to claim the attacks would cease altogether, that would be naive. Don't put words in my mouth.

If there is constant warring between ranks 1-5, that'll mean leaders/officers have to consider being countered by an enemy if they're all out massing some poor sods down at rank 9. That'll be a real concern. Effort might be far better placed killing off an actual competitor.

as a member of discworld for a few round let me tell you how it works before you deniy your ability to be naive. the top alliances dont fight eachother until they absoloutly have to.

they gang rape lower alliances. and hit them mercilessly. and if one alliance looks to be overtaking another etc or there is someone well ahead. the small alliances ranks 2-4 decide, we need to land up all worktogether 'viva la resistance'.

the outcome is they dont hit eachother and they hit only lower ranked alliances. causing the top to starve through lack of targets, any attack from the top is countered so the reistance can gain a decent size to be able to take down rank one. i DO NOT deniy the potential for fighting between top 4 ranks. but i do say any resistance always forces those in ranks 2-4 to rape and pillage the smaller allies.

this happens anyway, but when you make it 3-4 alliances resisting (30-40players) the few lower alliances are still facing the same odds as if it were 2 alliances resisting (20+20 = 40) except its not 40 vs 20 inacives its 40 vs 10 inactives.

It may cause more fighting at the top. but the knock on bashing at the lower levels is horrifc. I dont just think azzer changed it back after 1 round because it was a kink in the system. I think he probably lost a significant amount of player base that round.

NO other changes have been so detrimental to the game that they were undone the following round.....But if you're so new to this game or too ignorant to remeber that fateful round. Go ahead bring it on. and see how horribly shitty it is playing in a 10man alliance. be my guest as ill be solo for that round no matter what. and it will make it much easier to get high ranked. So be my guest. then finally people will stop suggesting this god damn awful idea.

no offence cheese for the suggestion. when it was originally suggested before it was met with open arms because it does have points which you think... well that makes sense more allainces more infighting. better for all. it simply isnt the case. May i suggest a public private world in which everyone can test this 10man allaince idea out and see just how bad it is. so it isnt suggested for another few rounds. a 200 slot private world. allies and solos allowed alike. Then hopefully more people will have viewpoints on the matter based on experience, not theoretical hypothesis

 

[Iamsmart]

I'll ignore that doomsday post who thinks he can accurately predict a round and say:

Azzer, PLEASE do this. The game needs to bring back competition - There hasn't been any for the past ~3 rounds at the top!

 

[tobapopalos]

I'll ignore that doomsday post who thinks he can accurately predict a round and say:

Azzer, PLEASE do this. The game needs to bring back competition - There hasn't been any for the past ~3 rounds at the top!

I agree, the game does need more competition. But that does not mean we should panic and bring in new game mechanics which could do more harm than good.

If 10 man alliances are implemented I firmly predict there will be far less allied players than we have now.

 

[willymchilybily]

i just looked at my past history 15man alliances in round 28 i was in Apocryphal, rank 3 alliance even got on the top 10 bounty hunters-list

and i still remeber it being horrible.
http://www.bushtarion.com/portal/portal_past_rankings.php?ShowRound=28

following round round 29.
i didnt even play for 90% of it. i remeber almost giving up and quitting. i had an id and never got past 5 acres until i finally decided hell i like bushtarion enough to give it another shot and i joined DW reminiscing about round 26 DW glory days...just about made me come back.
http://www.bushtarion.com/portal/portal_profile_view.php?Nick=willymchilybily

So i stand by my second post. test it out :

a privateworld 5 NT credits to the alliance that wins, to get some competition. and let people see just how bad it was

 

[Iamsmart]

Private world won't work for testing it out. Has to be a W1 round.

And toby - That's your opinion. I don't think it will do more harm than good and I think the majority of people (so far) agree with me.

I think that, in the long run, it won't lessen the number of allied players that we have.

Edit: You will definitely notice the difference - But I think in a good way (once you get used to it). (By the way, I think 12 is better than 10!)

 

[tobapopalos]

I am well aware that it is an opinion. That's why I didn't present it as pure fact.

Plenty of people thought it was a good idea the first time (I might even have been one of them). But speaking from experience this time I know what it is like, whereas most people seem to have forgotten. It was hellish. And that was with 15 man alliances, not 10.

By the way, Azzer already said on IRC that he didn't like the idea of 10 man alliances so this discussion might be a waste of time anyway.

 

[willymchilybily]

i am smart, i think a private world with the right incentive to generate competition would be worth while. because time and time again people suggest this. and nothing me or toby can say can prove it to you but experiencing it for yourself. and even if you get a fraction of a taste of a 15man alliance round for only 2 weeks. I think that would be enough to lay the suggestion to rest.

also i get to say "i told you so!" without having to endure a full round of people whining on he forums even more than usual.

anyway knowing that azzer will take some convincing on the matter has put my mind at ease enough not to need to post on this thread again.

 

[Iamsmart]

No it wouldn't wily, it wouldn't have the FULL playerbase in it therefore its not a good enough representatin of what W1 would be like.

And toby - If the majority of the playerbase wants 10 member alliances and thinks it would be best, I should hope just because he doesn't like it he wouldn't say no - Just like he did with H/F.

 

[CFalcon]

I would support a move to 15 man alliances, to at least guaruntee two fully ftw alliances each round. But I think less than that starts to hurt the small guys far far more than it'll effect the big guys. I find it hard enough to stay interested in a 20 man group when playing inactive, a 10 man group I don't think I'd even bother with.

And no, a private world test will not work. There are never anywhere near enough people playing committedly in tournies/pws for it to be a useful pointer in how world 1 will go. Might be fun, but in no way relevant.

It pains me to say this, but with the current state of the playerbase the only way I can see competition at the top being kept alive is something that affects the top and doesn't affect the bottom. The difference between the very top and the rest has become so large that there is no longer a universal change that can have a large enough influence on one group without significantly hurting the other group. At least as far as I can see.

A slightly more targetted and specific change eg. no alliance defence boost for rank 1 is more what is needed.