Smaller alliance sizes

[Antinoobkiller]

I have said this before and gonna say it again. Its what I think.OK

I think the current 20man alliances are too big. Make it 13man alliances instead.

Its obviously only one alliance that stands above all other alliances and that tells me there is lack of competion for them. So make alliances smaller so there would be more competion for everybody. I dont like that one alliance can grow away this fast from the others cause of lack of competion for them.

I agree they deserve to be in the first rank but its only or mostly because they have 19 very active players. The next alliances have only about 7-14 active players that can come online when needed.

SO cut the size on Alliance members then it would be more action through out the entire round and more comeption.

 

[Tombi]

Why not get rid of all alliances so you can win the game with your 'tactic' and 'embezza' mode?

 

[f0xx]

This suggestion is just IMBA.

 

[LAFiN]

There have been quite a few rounds where alliance sizes have been smaller/larger. I think we all agreed a few rounds ago that 20 was a pretty fair alliance size. Personally, I'd like to see the Fairness Calculator come into effect before adjusting the alliance size.

 

[Scorpio]

I disagree, it cuts down the social aspect of the game which is very important + there will be less room for newcomers in an FTW alliance when alliance sizes are smaller = less experience passed on to new players because ppl will think twice who to recruit...

+ the number 13 BRINGS MISFORTUNE!

 

[harriergirl]

I believe after experimenting with this a bit over the years, we've all come to realise that smaller alliances also increase the need for activity, which in this game is already nearly overwhelming.

 

[Alcibiades]

I believe after experimenting with this a bit over the years, we've all come to realise that smaller alliances also increase the need for activity, which in this game is already nearly overwhelming.

Absolutely since you have *less* nightcover/daycover etc you need the fewer number of people online to be increasingly active. Smaller alliance sizes do not, currently, seem to be the solution we want.

As someone else said, i'd like to see the fairness calc get introduced first; then we can take a look at how further to alter the gameplay.

 

[Maxi]

I believe after experimenting with this a bit over the years, we've all come to realise that smaller alliances also increase the need for activity, which in this game is already nearly overwhelming.

Exactly. 20 seems a very good number, as time taught us over the rounds. Also, if you drastically reduce alliance sizes, solo's would get the upper hand once again- which Imo should be avoided. Keep/make bush primarily an alliance game- beneficial for business too; social interaction = people tend to stick around longer.

 

[Steve_God]

Yup. When it was 15, the allies felt too small to me

 

[Ogluk]

last time it was 15, round 28, damn the activity was high and lets just say the attacking tactics used by the winning alliance were rather lazy (bash bash bash xD) stick with 20 makes it alot easier on the players activity wise, which is needed!!!

 

[willymchilybily]

concur with all other posts

20 man is good for the points mentioned

• requires less activity = less burn out
• more social
• allows new comers to join an allaince that has some experienced members, ability to expand community and teach the newbies
• solo is less desirable and more focus is put on the community

in addition i',m pretty sure i remember playing a round not so long ago with 20man alliances and the rank 1 got overthrown by a resistance then the nex rank 1 also did. I think they just had more early activity and preplanned better. clearly went ftw. not related to allainces size.

final point. with 20man allainces its easier to get some good resistance because there is more chance that of there being more members in each alliance online to attack, because of the larger choice of time zones and etc.

 

[tobapopalos]

final point. with 20man allainces its easier to get some good resistance because there is more chance that of there being more members in each alliance online to attack, because of the larger choice of time zones and etc.

I disagree. Fewer alliance members = fewer possible defenders = easier resistance. Just look at round 28.

 

[timtadams]

final point. with 20man allainces its easier to get some good resistance because there is more chance that of there being more members in each alliance online to attack, because of the larger choice of time zones and etc.

I disagree. Fewer alliance members = fewer possible defenders = easier resistance. Just look at round 28.

very good point. I wouldve said make it 25! But leave it 20 for sure

 

[Nitrous]

final point. with 20man allainces its easier to get some good resistance because there is more chance that of there being more members in each alliance online to attack, because of the larger choice of time zones and etc.

I disagree. Fewer alliance members = fewer possible defenders = easier resistance. Just look at round 28.

Round 28 (I think thats the Toxo one iirc), the resistance didnt take us down due to your pointed out logic. They took us down with a spy, fair play to them. But Im just saying that the logic of an easier resistance doesn't exactly work. I believe its all relative.

PS - IIRC, the resistance had 3/4 alliances - just like any other round which means 3x15 players against 1x15 players. Whereas most other rounds have had 3x20 players against 1x20 players.

 

[tobapopalos]

final point. with 20man allainces its easier to get some good resistance because there is more chance that of there being more members in each alliance online to attack, because of the larger choice of time zones and etc.

I disagree. Fewer alliance members = fewer possible defenders = easier resistance. Just look at round 28.

Round 28 (I think thats the Toxo one iirc), the resistance didnt take us down due to your pointed out logic. They took us down with a spy, fair play to them. But Im just saying that the logic of an easier resistance doesn't exactly work. I believe its all relative.

PS - IIRC, the resistance had 3/4 alliances - just like any other round which means 3x15 players against 1x15 players. Whereas most other rounds have had 3x20 players against 1x20 players.

True, but with less people it means they all have to do a bit extra work and they get worn out quicker. The example I posted was just one of many why smaller alliances mean easier resistances.

 

[DarkSider]

I've supported smaller alliance sizes for a good while now, for same reason as toby posted - with smaller sizes it's very hard for a big alliance to hold it's spot safe, the defensive power is smaller and there is much more action in the game. However i also agree that at this stage players really need to prevent getting killed themselfs or other members of their alliance. Getting a few players attacked while offline and without receiving enough defence will make you fight a loosing battle before your members even knew a war started. You'd think you need to win many small battles to win the war, but it's enough one good wave at the perfect time and it's all over.
So i support smaller alliances but i think another change is needed to go with it, a change to make getting attacked less catastrophic. I can't think of anything else but a healthy insurance or something else with the same flavour to make sleeping with a phone under your pillow not a requirement to be recruited by a good alliance.