Voluntary FTW alliance member cap

[Dark_Angel]

Given ftw play is pretty much dead in any case - Would it be worth trying to get agreement that FTW alliances will carry no more than 10 men?

A ftw alliance this round, consisting of 10 FTW players - Would still have very likely beat a 20-man FTF alliance.

We've been creeping toward a single FTW alliance round for some time now - This round there has effectively been 1 FTW alliance, given the next best thing disbanded shortly after round start?

This suggestion may do bugger all to give the game another round or two of decent play but at the very least it should create a decent FTW playing field amongst the very few 'hardcore' players we have left.

 

[Twigley]

Your grasp on this round was pretty terrible then, DA.
As it is pretty much all the time.
The one that disbanded were miles ahead and could get 18/19/20 people online to defend at 6am in the morning.

I don't think FTW is as dead as it was years ago.
This round we had 2 alliances who were pretty equal and either could have won.
We've had that for rounds upon rounds upon rounds upon rounds.

Maybe ask someone what happened in a round before you take to the forums.

Edit: I do like the idea of 10 people trying to win the round though.

 

[Koeniej]

I wouldnt mind this at all! Good suggestion, but its gonna be hard to draw a line between FTW and FTF alliances. And what if a FTF alliance becomes more and more active, when should they kick half their line-up? Still if there is a way to make this work i would like it very much! Not that im planning to play FTW anytime soon though.

 

[Dax]

I agree - I think the time to implement this idea would have been about 3 years ago (when there were 3-4 relatively competitive alliances every round still), and maybe we could have slowed the inevitable descent into death.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Your grasp on this round was pretty terrible then, DA.
As it is pretty much all the time.
The one that disbanded were miles ahead and could get 18/19/20 people online to defend at 6am in the morning.

I don't think FTW is as dead as it was years ago.
This round we had 2 alliances who were pretty equal and either could have won.
We've had that for rounds upon rounds upon rounds upon rounds.

Maybe ask someone what happened in a round before you take to the forums.

Edit: I do like the idea of 10 people trying to win the round though.

Don't quite know where your hostility toward me is coming from - I placed a question mark at the end of my statement re: what happened this round clearly indicating I wasn't here and therefore didn't know. A million apologies.

Regardless this thread wasn't created to dispute whether this round was a one horse race - I'm saying for a while now it pretty much has been and that we could potentially help stop that by having voluntary member caps in place - So that those who do still put in the effort can end the round with a sense of achievement. Rather than the current state of affairs, whereby we have at most 2 FTW alliances - Nowhere near enough to create a decent level of competitiveness, nor enough to be able to attribute any significant amount of merit to those who manage to finish rank 1.

I wouldnt mind this at all! Good suggestion, but its gonna be hard to draw a line between FTW and FTF alliances. And what if a FTF alliance becomes more and more active, when should they kick half their line-up? Still if there is a way to make this work i would like it very much! Not that im planning to play FTW anytime soon though.

Thanks for your comments You bring up some good points. I think more than anything else we'd have to rely on the leadership involved to make the right calls and do the "honorable" thing. Most leaders know from the start whether they're going to be FTW or not. I really do doubt a truly FTF alliance could beat 10 active and dedicated FTW players - But tbh that in itself would be more amusing than what we have at present.

 

[Twigley]

Blah Blah

There was as much competitiveness for rank 1 this round as most rounds for years and years. We just have less feeder alliances these days so it doesn't look as much of an achievement

Rounds 4,5,6,7,8,9,11,17,19,21,22,26,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46 all had just 2 FTW alliances. Just FYI.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Blah Blah

There was as much competitiveness for rank 1 this round as most rounds for years and years. We just have less feeder alliances these days so it doesn't look as much of an achievement

Rounds 4,5,6,7,8,9,11,17,19,21,22,26,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46 all had just 2 FTW alliances. Just FYI.

Regardless this thread wasn't created to dispute whether this round was a one horse race

L2read.

 

[Twigley]

What are you even talking about?
Im replying to your nonsensical posting of;

Rather than the current state of affairs, whereby we have at most 2 FTW alliances - Nowhere near enough to create a decent level of competitiveness, nor enough to be able to attribute any significant amount of merit to those who manage to finish rank 1.

Learn to keep up.

 

[Koeniej]

lol you guys! I dont think DA wanted to offend anyone with his post and the part about this round (how wrong he may be) is completely irrelevant to the purpose of his post! My guess is he was just trying to say that 4/5 competing alliances is way more awesome then 1/2! Dont think anyone will argue abou that!

 

[Dark_Angel]

lol you guys! I dont think DA wanted to offend anyone with his post and the part about this round (how wrong he may be) is completely irrelevant to the purpose of his post! My guess is he was just trying to say that 4/5 competing alliances is way more awesome then 1/2! Dont think anyone will argue abou that!

Spot on

 

[Amanala]

lol you guys! I dont think DA wanted to offend anyone with his post and the part about this round (how wrong he may be) is completely irrelevant to the purpose of his post! My guess is he was just trying to say that 4/5 competing alliances is way more awesome then 1/2! Dont think anyone will argue abou that!

What a ridiculous, and offensive suggestion. You and DA are obviously both very stupid people.

EDIT: Oh I read the post, seems a reasonable idea.

 

[edd]

I agree - I think the time to implement this idea would have been about 3 years ago (when there were 3-4 relatively competitive alliances every round still), and maybe we could have slowed the inevitable descent into death.

It's not something that you can simply implement. It's something that you choose for yourself and shouldn't have anything to do with how everybody else plays. If you want to check that Martin and Twigley (just examples) are gonna do it too so that you don't get destroyed then go ahead, but it's a shame that the answer would determine most people's decision.

 

[Dax]

Of course it's something you can simply implement - It's an form of written contract that the high-tier players would agree to in the interests of game preservation. Not that the fine details matter now, but things are only as simple as you allow them to be.

 

[Alcibiades]

A contract? Enforced by whom? The UN? Come on, this has to be voluntary, and no one takes anything on so seriously that they'll abide by the rules, especially not this playerbase. It's a nice optimistic idea, but just never, ever, really going to happen. The real "FTW" players, would never go for it.

 

[Dax]

The point I mostly made an effort to make is that it is worthless conversing about now, as it's far beyond a point whereby the decline could be managed.

 

[Dark_Angel]

A contract? Enforced by whom? The UN? Come on, this has to be voluntary, and no one takes anything on so seriously that they'll abide by the rules, especially not this playerbase. It's a nice optimistic idea, but just never, ever, really going to happen. The real "FTW" players, would never go for it.

Aye this was always a long shot.

I was hoping, as I think Twigley was trying to suggest, that there'd be some real honor/internet points in it for 10 guys who were able to win the round with just the 10 of them.

Given we only ever have to find 2 FTW leaders - Getting their agreement to aim for that goal shouldn't be overly difficult?

Challenge accepted, anyone?

 

[Alcibiades]

I guess it's more possible now, that there literally are maybe two dozen people who would want to/are capable of playing FTW.

But you can't make it enforceable as you've said, it does have to be an "honour" thing, and who's to say they won't have solos help? I appreciate the idea, but it is, as you say, a "long shot"

 

[No-Dachi]

this would also require the teams to promise to not "resist" as that would utterly suck as a 10 man team.

 

[Garrett2]

sadly, with rampant multis, it probably won't happen. would need some sort of admin type. then again an admin type would be able to make the change.

 

[willymchilybily]

im not really one for smaller alliances as a rule. but it is a nice idea to have some smaller alliances playing ftw. but i agree with garett. when there are so many who willingly multi, and "cheat".

what possible chance is there that even if 2 alliances of 20 decided to split into 4 alliances of 10 and go all vs all. that the ftf alliances wouldnt come in and dominate. they would call them selves ftf. and all it means is they dont try to win the round or care. but should the opportunity arise, most ftf alliances step it up a gear...

it would be a massive achievement though. as the burn out would be hard core. would be pretty epic to the alliance that achieved it. as the bashing bottom feeding would be much harder, attacking with 10 people an alliance that holds 20, and thats assuming you have all ten on would make gaining land a real mission. might almost force in fighting between the 4 ten man alliances, just because they are potentially easier targets.. would be amazing if anyone went and won the round, id certainly give a tip of the hat. but realistically as nice as it would be i cant see enough people being inclined to play in that way. too little effort and honour and integrity in the remaining playerbase has meant too little trust. and the effort required just to hold together a ten man alliance even if everyone only had ten members, is still more than the playerbase is willing to put in for the vast majority.