10 man allies next round

[willymchilybily]

0-o

 

[willymchilybily]

if there are 5 people defending 20 people that allows people to combine thier routes to allow each person to real an incoming and hurt it as they can pick routes they naturally beat. (rpg defends robo, pom defends sa,) and you can combine the defence to make it deter attackers (3 incomings defenders 1 of which is a route that hurts me OH NOOO!!), and pick routes your route is good against to real, fake the rest, and combine routes to take down routes you cant take alone

if you're the only one on against 4 people (same odds 4:1) you have less option of routes that can be countered, and the defence is less intimidating. 1 person defending may be lucky to scare off 1 incoming 4 people defending can scare off 6 incomings or more. and actually kill probably 3 of them. not do a half assed job defending one of them

 

[Alcibiades]

I do not think 10 man allies should be introduced for the reasons stated above by the sensible people.

It would mean too much stress for all allies involved, from rank 1 all the way down to the lowest allies.

Proportionally speaking you'll have a smaller amount of inc as a lower ranked ally, but it's equally unstoppable in terms of actual unit stopping power. So i don't see how lowering the number of players in FTW allies will reduce incoming and make the game more palatable and fun for the smaller allies.

Lowering the number of allied players further makes nightcover a practical impossibility for many alliances which does not increase the fun factor, but in fact would decrease it due to repetitive dying/landraping. I don't see how this improves the game for anyone, be it rank 1 to the very last ranked player.

Yes, I would support some mechanic that makes the ftw players have a harder time winning, but not at the expense of raping the lower allies into oblivion and making the game even more painful and irritating than it already is.

This was tried and abandoned before for the same reasons it is being tried (and will be abandoned) this time. Think outside the box guys, this was tried and did not pass the test.

Smaller allies does not equate to a more warring playerbase, or a more even playerbase at all. It makes the lower allies even bigger landfarms, and won't significantly affect the manner in which rank 1 takes the lead, especially given the lack of competitive spreading from the top ranked players.

Martin's Idea is the closest thing i've heard for awhile as to reducing the one ally wins recently.

Sorry to put the kibosh on your 10 man ally idea, but I really don't think it's worth, nor is it even worth trying again. Put your brains to something else in the meantime.

 

[Iamsmart]

Willy, your face is a fallacy.

NN.

 

[timtadams]

core point of why smaller alliance make defence far harder than you're stating

inshort 5 people fighting 20incomings is easier than 1 man fighting 4 because those 5 men first of all are more likely to have enough route varieties to counter effectively certain incomings. That one man can only successfully counter maybe 1 or 2 of the incomings (and probably only able to real one of them due to size of inc.). so the other inc have no deterents even if faked. and one extra defender rarely puts some one off. Then on top the psychology of having to do it alone, being all alone and frustrated no one is online, feeling you're a the only one who does anything in you're alliance (probably cos of everyone being in a different timezone) its so crushing and catastrpohic for an alliance & alliance moral.

Thus resistances are easier...?

 

[willymchilybily]

core point of why smaller alliance make defence far harder than you're stating

inshort 5 people fighting 20incomings is easier than 1 man fighting 4 because those 5 men first of all are more likely to have enough route varieties to counter effectively certain incomings. That one man can only successfully counter maybe 1 or 2 of the incomings (and probably only able to real one of them due to size of inc.). so the other inc have no deterents even if faked. and one extra defender rarely puts some one off. Then on top the psychology of having to do it alone, being all alone and frustrated no one is online, feeling you're a the only one who does anything in you're alliance (probably cos of everyone being in a different timezone) its so crushing and catastrpohic for an alliance & alliance moral.

Thus resistances are easier...?

not wrong in the sens it should be in theory. but kinda missed the point that the knock on affect of said suggestion downstream will make it more difficult for lower ranked alliances than just them simply having the same fights at a smaller range.

*me notes the forum mod who swiftly removed i.a.s.'s abusive post, cheers...but now i look stupid for posting twice,

 

[Lupus]

Its been said before and it will probably be said again there is something wrong with the solo/allied dynamics of the game.

from my experience i've found that solo play is much easier to get high ranks with minimal activity, where as (in general) alliance play is tough and activity required to get a reasonable rank is enough to cause some players to burn out.

so either as tim says make everyone solo (more AR triggering from "solo groups" and other bolshie) or make alliance play more enticing (easier said than done)

personally i'm in favour of increasing alliance size but ofc this is not pratical until (if?) we get more players into the game. I would quite like to see 25 man alliances tried and yes this may make one uber alliance that pwns everyone but they will be out of range quickly.

 

[Steve_God]

Essentially... we need a mechanism to make it harder for the top ally to stay at the top, enabling more Rank 1 rotation, and more competition.
If I'm honest, the -1/-2 bounty mod increase is definately going someway towards that, as it's giving those around the 100 Rank and below, and change to get some a reward for helping towards attacking the top. Whether this is enough, or something more is needed, I'm not quite sure...

 

[Hobbezak]

ffs these kind of suggestions really annoy me greatly.
The top players want more competition for rank 1, and instead of looking at themselves (like Martin did), they look at Azzer.

Why does only Martin realise that the top players themselves can do something about this: Don't try and make unbeatable alliances, but try and balance them better. Do you really need Azzer to change the mechanics? If you want 10 man alliances, get together with the few FTW leaders that are around, and arrange it. Azzer doesn't need to hold your hand for that...

But no, Azzer has to change the mechanics, and preferably make it even harder for the less active alliances to play this game without getting pwnd every night. Somehow this suggestion looks more like a suggestion to create easier landfarms, than one to increase the competition at the top.

Anyway, I think that it won't even change the game for the better for the top, putting even more activity requirements on those that want to win, resulting in faster burn-outs of the top.

And finally, as someone said here before, the difference between solo and allied play will be smaller, resulting solo groups ruling the game probably (and ftf players going solo as well)
Suggestion gets a major thumbs down from me.

 

[Iamsmart]

Hobbezak, you sir just lost a cool point.

Why does your post just make me want to scratch my eyes out and call you an idiot?

 

[Iamsmart]

Did you ever think that its Azzer's job to make his game competitive and fun, not ours? Our job is to actually play the game and enjoy it

Funny how that works.

Quit deleting my posts please, ty.

 

[MattM]

The law of large numbers says that, in the long run, it will average out.

Speaking mathematically- this is not strictly true. The law of large numbers says that if you increase the size of a random sample or experiment, the average of the collated data converges in probability (weak law) and almost surely (strong law) to the expected value of the underlying distribution. What you said there suggests the other way round.

Anyway, aside from my mathematical pedantry; I don't like the idea of 10 man alliances for all the reasons that have been stated against it already in this thread. However, I voted in favour of them on the poll because I am an idiot and selected the wrong option

 

[Iamsmart]

Er, no it isn't?

 

[MattM]

No what isn't?

 

[Iamsmart]

It.

 

[Iamsmart]

It isn't.

Odd, I thought I posted that before.

 

[Alcibiades]

the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

That sounds to me like what mattm said.

 

[Iamsmart]

Which is what I said as well.

 

[MattM]

Suppose it depends upon your interpretation of 'average out' in what you said.

*shrugs*

 

[CLem]

didn't read anything before, but an extreme cut in members can mean that activity & contactability is not everything about the game anymore. There comes to a point where it is not worth it to put in 24/7 to the game and be contactable as you can just get raped by lots of people. There will be more politics and tempory teaming up (note not noobblocking) and crying and moaning = more interesting.

You can say it could put too much stress on the top alliance, yeah if they want to be active for 70 days...but people that burn out can easily take a week or two off, come back, and it is still fair game for all to fight for the number 1 spot again.


There needs to be significant weakening on solo though. Probably no Pnaps allowed.

Support!