Davis said:Old Style Dodgeball, Azzer picks so many leaders, and they whoever wants to sign up gets on the list
Then (either alphabetically, Rock P S, or Azzer Picks) the leaders get to pick one person at a time, that way there isn't one team that is ungodly and then some aren't keeps things away from having inactives and also keeps it better set
5-10 man Allies
no AR no leaving/joining new ally
med starting cash
low low devs
5bc Prize Winning Ally
Matt said:Top ally start round 30 with more staff ie Gards, Harvs n wheelies...
give them a little head start over everyone else
Davis said:Old Style Dodgeball, Azzer picks so many leaders, and they whoever wants to sign up gets on the list
Then (either alphabetically, Rock P S, or Azzer Picks) the leaders get to pick one person at a time, that way there isn't one team that is ungodly and then some aren't keeps things away from having inactives and also keeps it better set
5-10 man Allies
no AR no leaving/joining new ally
med starting cash
low low devs
5bc Prize Winning Ally
Illumination said:I like that also, but then people that dont use the forum would need to be randomly allocated an alliance.
Illumination said:If you want new players, they need to feel part of a community. 50 is too many people to build that sense of community within an alliance. The will to defend, the accountability, organized attacks...all the "community" attributes go out the window when an alliance becomes too large. If you want to get new people in, they have to have a chance of playing with "Good, fun" players whose enthusiasm for the game grows onto the noob. They wont enjoy joining an alliance that is going to be bashed by elite players all round. On the other hand, if you tell the old time players that they cant play with who they want to, they will quit. This is why I suggest like a quarter of the alliance spots be allocated to random assignments- so people can get in with an active crowd and come to love the game and people the way that so many of us do...which is why we are still here.
moorer said:Illumination said:If you want new players, they need to feel part of a community. 50 is too many people to build that sense of community within an alliance. The will to defend, the accountability, organized attacks...all the "community" attributes go out the window when an alliance becomes too large. If you want to get new people in, they have to have a chance of playing with "Good, fun" players whose enthusiasm for the game grows onto the noob. They wont enjoy joining an alliance that is going to be bashed by elite players all round. On the other hand, if you tell the old time players that they cant play with who they want to, they will quit. This is why I suggest like a quarter of the alliance spots be allocated to random assignments- so people can get in with an active crowd and come to love the game and people the way that so many of us do...which is why we are still here.
Something needs to be done to prevent the ongoing farce of the same active players grouping together in their cozy alliances round after round. New players need a chance to play alongside seasoned players to learn the ropes. 20-30 man alliances with at least 75% random recruits will, at least, spread the experience around a bit.
BlackWolf said:Yet Twigley this is about fun round. If you as leader are so much for winning ever round then I suggest that winners will not portal to anything and as such no awards given to winners no BCs nothing. So round would be only about fun and not about winning.
It is so boring how some people see this game as winning only and fun rounds cant co-exist with that idea.
DarkSider said:1 man public ally
capture the flag
no attacking restriction on flag holder
5 minute ticks
low cost & time for devs (10% or a bit more) depending of how much the world will run for
no sleep mode
no ar mod
normal tech
Winner takes all (to avoid long term coalitions) (special unit for age 5 sounds fun)