Alliance Size

[Twigley]

First of all.
I know that alliance sizes have been a topical debate in the past and normally the poster gets flamed to hell.
However.
For me to play again i must now suggest changes as much as possible.

Ok here is the suggestion.

Change the alliance size to one that is smaller..

*

Here is my reasoning for the change:

Currently there are only 2/3 allies that battle for the top due to the decreasing and current small playerbase.
I predict that if we lower alliance sizes, there will be more competition for the top.
But so what about the top?
Who cares?
Here is why:

* More top competition, more action, more reason to play, less politics - more about just playing.
* I beleive that it will BRING BACK players. Atm i know oldies that try to get an alliance together, and have like 5/6 other people who have quit playing that would join with them, but then they find that half of the game has already been recruited and there is no reason for them to come back and play if they dont have a team.
* Not only will it effect the top in terms of competition, but i also predict that the alliances below would see alot more action in terms of warring etc. All i see atm is a very stagnent middle to bottom area. Not much happening apart from the odd "we declare on you and send a few mobs, resulting in us getting bored and stopping".

But how much to limit it to?

*

I think that an appropiate level would be 10 private, 12 public.

That would basically nearly cut alliances in half and make atleast 2 times as many alliance in the game.

I also think that it would give a player a bigger sense of identity to that alliance as you would be more of a snug "group".

*

Ok, so cons to this?

Only one that i can think of is one person at the top thinking ... "Ok im gonna get 20 players and just have two wings.
I sure know as hell that doing that decreases your ability to play hugely.
Here is what i mean.
You distribute your skill SO much that i dont think you would get people doing this, and if they did - you would get 3/4 other allies at the top bashing the living daylights out of them.


Edit:

Twigley says:
i think everyone looks too much on game mechanic changes
Twigley says:
when alot of it is down to no flare
Twigley says:
Due to not alot of competition
Nick says:
true
Twigley says:
Imo




No flames please kk thanks - if you have nothing contructive to say then dont say it.

[Franny]

/me looks at Azzer.

I Like ! :D

[Saints]

i like ur reasons alot :D

/me gives thumbs up :D

[Polo]

I partially agree, smaller allies would be better. However, I think there should be no limit. Couple this with Alliance-Anti-Rape (which would be based on total alliance incoming and total alliance value) and you can play with a group whatever size you want with no drawbacks.

[Rosa]

I really like this idea, the current alliances have too many people and well it does take a lot of skill away from the game.

The only objection to your suggestion I would have is that I would like to see private - 13 people and public - 15 :P I like smaller alliances but not TOO small.

[Lukey]

I really like this very good ideo, if this happens ill be very happy.

Maybe 12 priv and 14 public would be nice.

[Mysterious]

I love this idea. It provides a much more tight group, and that imo, that would be great. People will have a lot more laughs, and there is less of a tendency to get a person that doesn't get on very well with someone else, causing intra-alliance strife. I think it'll lead to a much more amenable atmosphere within to play, and I think it is a change that may entice a lot of the old players back, as they may be persuaded to play by people that they like to play with. This will most probably be due to these players coming from a certain "group" in the past.

Big thumbs up.

[DarkSider]

I've been in favour of smaller alliances for a while now. Your suggested numbers 10/12 are too small and i'm sure Azz would never jump to such a dramatical change in 1 round, maybe something around 15 members as it used to be a few rounds back.

My reasons would be a bit diferent. With 18/20 defence is too strong and it's too hard to organize and manage an attack. Defence has it easyer as they can use their numbers to mass fake/real defend and leave it to attackers to spy all id's and try to make the calls. Together with injury makes it quite hard to battle 1:1 later in round against an alliance of similar strenght so everybody tryes to win by numbers and politics.

The downside i see from this it's the possibility for less active alliances to get more incoming, but i would imagine this will be somehow proportional with the extra incoming their attackers will get aswell. But in the end, everybody has fun from this game from attacks. Either done to you or by you, or both, attacks must happen and probably the more incentive to attack, the better for everybody as there will be a more dynamic game.

[Maxi]

I like it. Reminds me of an old suggestion (from DS I think - can't find it on search/old forums) about having different alliance sizes. Tiny alliance (bit solo & pnap like), middle-sized(12-14) and big(18-20) like we have now, with related bonuses and Alliance AR related to the alliance's value that Polo mentioned above. Psolo might have to be tweaked a little then obviously, as it'd make them too strong.

But in the end, everybody has fun from this game from attacks. Either done to you or by you, or both, attacks must happen and probably the more incentive to attack, the better for everybody as there will be a more dynamic game.

QFT! :P

[f0xx]

I like the idea of it. 10 is too low tho. I would suggest somewhere around 15 members perhaps.



* More top competitionp, more action, more reason to play, less politics - more about just playing.

Thats wrong btw, more top competition = more politics, which is a good thing because it gives higher chance to new underestimated players/leaders to shine.

[cervantes]

I remember the time 8 rounds or so back when we had 15 members/alliance. And we saw 3 to 4 pages of alliances on the alliance overview. Then the increased alliance size was introduced, and the alliance count went down by almost 50% from one round to another. Ever since this increased member count was introduced, the alliance count seems to drop and people are leaving. Maybe a coincidence, maybe not, but I am sure that by making the allies smaller there will be more fighting for the top again, simply because the player base has to spread out a bit more. Eventually there will be only 2 alliances be left fighting at the top if nothing is done, so I am strongly in favor of this suggestion. However, I agree that 10 members might be too few, since you will have a hard time to organize a decent alliance attack unless you get EVERYONE online. I would go with 15 first, and see how it goes.
I would also remove the extra members bonus for public alliances. It was much more fun when all allies were pivate, one had to keep updated intel lists rather than going to alliance overview and just pick the targets.

[willymchilybily]

i like the idea.

but now I have to think

what routes do i think an alliance can go without.
and what timezones do you want. i think it will mix things up nicely and bring more competition.

also i agree. implimentation should come in a round or two. not too soon. due to the already extensive list of changes.

[Cyrus]

ive wanted this since forever, 10 is perfect allows more holes in defence but sitll gives you good cover.

bring back 10 man alliances!

[Melnibone]

No its only perfect for the 1337 top ranks simply put

What 10 man alliances would allow is (in a competitive format) say maybe 4 euros 3 aussies and 3 yanks (to provide nightcover for each other) this would mean that your ally would have a maximum of 3-4 people online most hours, with the current trend of alllies ganging up 3-4 to 1 on each other this would mean that no ally could take and hold the top spot

As someone who has taken part in a 10 man alliance version of bush (for 2 weeks inbetween rounds with over 600 active accounts) and was the leader of the winning alliance i can assure you it sucks, it recquires insane activity on all members (much more so than the current setup of 20) every time you have more than 3-4 incs of similar size people need to be woken more which causes more burnout more quitting and thered be even more allies going to sleep for a week

The only person this helps is solos who wish to bypass an alliances defense easier newsflash for you people a top alliance is not meant to be easy to land on heres a great suggestion go get a pair of balls learn how to play the game then maybe just maybe you'll be able to land on a top ally

STOP WANTING THIS GAME TO BECOME SO FRICKIN EASY AND EVERYTHING LAID OUT FOR YOU TO WIN WTHOUT DOING ANYTHING I DONT CARE IF I GET ANOTHER BAN ON THE FORUM YOUR ALL PUSSIES

[Twigley]

Melnibone you say that it would be harder to maintain a 10 man alliance and then say the suggestion is trying to make it alot more easy.

Interesting.
Also - constructive criticism is always appreicated but personal insults are childish and not needed.
If you dont like it, say why you dont - dont insult us all please.

Thanks.

[Melnibone]

I am allowed to get frustrated the same as everyone else as i explained fully i have participated in a 10 man alliance experiment and i explained what it will lead too, most if not all who played that experiment allied will agree that to have 10 man alliances is idiotic for the reasons described

You couldnt handle 40-50 attacking 20 without quitting in a strop you think there being only ten of you will make that better?? but oh yeah youve quit definately for good not coming back so yeah we trust you to have the best interests of the game at heart

[CFalcon]

I agree that smaller alliances would definately increase interest and competition at the top. However, Melnibone does have a point, that making alliances smaller will make it harder, possibly impossible, for the less active alliances. This change would be *great*, I mean *really great*, for the game, but it would have to come along with some system to allow small alliances to stay in it, whether that be alliance AR or another system. And if that were to happen then 10-12 would be perfectly reasonable numbers.

[Melnibone]

thats a totally different suggestion CF and not necessarily a bad one in theory, the problem is we cant get AR working 100% properly for solos after god knows how many rounds does anyone really think it could be implemented in an understandable fair way for alliances? may just be me being cynical but i honestly dont think so therefore the suggestion would fail

[Twigley]

Again - there is no need to flame, nobody else who disagrees with this has flames (Including on IRC).

I quit for a different reason than you have stated and that is off topic.
With changes i would ofc come and play hence why i am suggesting them.
But thanks for your concern.

You are looking at this in a wrong way, in my opinion.

This suggestion is not only about top, but it is about below.
I have also played in smaller man pw's.

Pro's

* More alliances - more action from top to bottom.
* LESS burnout.
- You say that because 10 men cannot handle more incs as easy? As we know, it isnt easy to organise more than 2 alliances against 1.
* More tactical.

* This change doesnt just effect the top.
LOOK at what it is like at this moment from the 4th alliance downwards.
There are NO big wars going on as i have said.
People just play the round out now ...
That's BORING.
* This will bring more wars, more fun.

* It's easier to cover 10 people than 2.

Atm you have 20 v 40.
Now have 10 v 20.
Or 12 v 24.
Or 14 v 28 etc.

Or if 3 alliances attack 1 - 10 v 30

It's the same ratio as before, but i sure as hell knows its easier to organise when less members have incs.


Cons

Ill let you fill this out, if you can refrain from flaming again.


EDIT: Read CF's suggestion, which was also talked about previously i think with polo? Constructive criticism FTW!

[Melnibone]

no i think in a pw you'll find a maximum of 50 players so not a fair comparison

no i dont think your suggesting this to make the game better for all just for you

no it isnt hard to organise more than 2 allies its hard to organise player no's not amount of allies there will still be as many bashing just less able to defend

there were big wars till you deleted and your ally hit sleep you guys were just losing or werent you under attack from 2 allies and mass solos for 2 weeks????

and 12 v 24 or 20 v 40 doesnt change any of the dynamics all it does is allow the 1337 top players to win while the lower alliances get even more raped than now as any reduction in no's on both sides will only favour activity and experience

none of the above are flames they are all facts or informed opinions your idea has no merit CF's idea does in theory but not in practise

[CFalcon]

I have to say I think you've become too used to play at the top Twigley. I've spent a few rounds recently floating around the lower alliances, and even with 20 members there are large chunks of the day where there are only 1-2, maybe 0 members online. In that situation, a strong attack from a single solo will get through no problem, and if a couple of solos persistently do this, a small alliance will fall apart. That doesn't even involve another alliance declaring war, let alone 2 alliances ganging up.

Yes in wars the ratios will stay the same, but I believe that low activity alliances won't even be able to fight off randoms with 10 members. You'll see an increase in alliance play from rank 300 to 1, and a massive decrease in alliance play from rank 300 to the bottom.

And Melni, a well thought out, private world tested alliance AR I think is perfectly achievable. Just as long as it isn't implemented in the same way as injury. Also, when I say AR, I mean an AR that will do the job the current AR is supposed to, ie level the battle rather than wtfpwn the attacker.

[willymchilybily]

agree with Melnibone and cf cons still to some degree:

you have less players on at one time. it has a larger affect on what timezones you choose. as you will still have the same attack ranges as present. hence you could still need the same amount of people to defend you.

so atm for example:

18 man allaince. most sent out attacking. not to many men home. one big incoming. on one of the top memebers requires 3-5 players to cover it because of the size difference.

that means you need 3-5 players on from each timezone, you desire to cover. which means... attack range and alliance size are the ratios needed to be considered. not respective sizes of allainces.(untill you look at waving. im just looking at 1 vs a small allaince, the low rankings. where your changes aim to help)

for the current attack range you will have too few allies online. most likely.

the amount in an allaince being decided by the amount of players ingame, will throw off any balance between the attack range, and the numbers in an allaince. hence to some degree. the ratios may be the same. but it will be harder to defend. so burnout/fatigue/stress could still theoretically in my mind occur.

though if you can provide a valid reason why it wont that is better than my reasoning then please do, because atm either i dont get the whole picture or i have to agree a little with Melnibone, and i think CF worded it better

just trying to convey the consideration for attack range and allaince size being necessary too

[Twigley]

Thanks for your criticism Melnibone but i disagree with all of your points as already stated.

CFalcon.
Too used to play at the top?

I think you will find i took about 8 rounds in smaller alliances and only these last 2 rounds i have played at the top.
I do actually know what it is like to play at the bottom.

Let's see what the person who matters thinks, if he disagrees then fair enough.
This is only a suggestion, or can we not make suggestions anymore unless it suits certain people?

And before you say "You only suggested this to suit yourself" - No infact i was discussing this with a few people before i put it up

[Melnibone]

To disagree is fine i would expect nothing less as its your suggestion but as i stated my opinion comes from experience of a situation exactly like the one you were proposing therefore some form of explanation as to why you disagree is needed or else your opinions dont hold much weight

And yes your right only one persons opinion REALLY counts but i think Azzer will have enough of a self preservation instinct to protect his income to rubbish this no matter how many cosy little chats take place in person :lol:

[rawr]

I like the idea of smaller alliances. I think it would make playing at the top more competitve, as of now, you have 60 people in the top 3 alliances. If the allaince size was to half or whatever, you would have double the competition. Those 60 decent players at the top, will now have to fight twice as hard,as there is double the competition, to get into the top 3, be that public or private.

[Nonny]

Hmmm, difficult. I understand both points of view.

I'm not sure I can add much but given my current condition I'll lob it in and let ithers pick it apart. :D

From a selfish point of view smaller alliances would be great. My work and home life patterns mean that I am on for 10 - 20 minutes then off for nearly an hour. In other words, time to analyse, send fake attacks etc is severely limited. Fpr the most part if I'm t attack honourable I try to find a target offline and hope it stays that way and he gets no defence. This is of course just me and no reflection on the playerbase.

At the end of the day what is agme for us is an income for Azzer. If he believes it will increases spending over the long term he will favour it, if it doesn't he won't. All as it should be.

I think Melni is right that the demands on those who would be king, i.e. playing to win, would increase significantly. Interrupted sleep, greater demands on time etc.

However, that's the top, playing to win. Below them...? My ally experience is admittedly non-existent but as the pressure is always towards the top and they will bear the brunt of any added stresses, the greater number of alliances will theoretically mean more fighting and fun below.

I accept, even as a dedicated solo, that the vulnerabilities of small alliances will be exposed further. I've always said that the hardest time is not had by solo's but by small alliance members.

In conclusion:

1) It's always said that winning is hard-earned and hard-fought. To be honest, as a solo who's constantly reading that I have no right to win without being in an alliance... If you can't meet the alliance requirements to win, don't try. Join the rest of us in bush world and try playing for just the fun or alternative goals. Therefore the argument that it will take more commitment to win doesn't cut it. If you aren't prepared or able to put it in someone else will. Move over old-timer.

2) Re: CFalcon, I agree. Balance across the board would have to be considered otherwise small inactive alliances will be too vulnerable and the game will degenerate into a few hyper-active alliances plus a multitude of solos. this effectively kills the suggestion on it's own merits in my eyes. It needs to come with more. Possibly incorporate F0xx's suggestion of Psolo's not being allowed Pnaps for balance in a smaller alliance number world, but I'm not convinced it would be enough. Small less active alliances are already targetted by larger alliances and solo's. Much as it pains me to say it, in a smaller maximum alliance bush world, Psolo's without change would be over-powered compared to the bulk of the alliance player base.

Striking a balance between those able and willing to put in a lot of time to bush; and those unable or unwilling but wanting to compete, (buying their Punits to do so), is an extremely tricky business. Good luck finding the solution to suit all. ;)

[CFalcon]

CFalcon.
Too used to play at the top?

I think you will find i took about 8 rounds in smaller alliances and only these last 2 rounds i have played at the top.
I do actually know what it is like to play at the bottom.

Then I take that accusation back :)

But you still haven't addressed my point. Why would anyone choose to be in a small alliance where the most they can expect is 1-2 defenders, when they can get the same from a couple of PNaps and the benefits of pure solo??

Small alliances are a dying breed as it is at the moment, don't deny it, there are only 20 alliances (I was stunned when I checked this) meaning a maximum of 364 allied players, and I seriously doubt there are actually more than 250 in alliances. It used to take a long time searching to find a solo, now this applies to allied players instead.

And that's with *20* members.

If this number were reduced (without other changes), I'd put good money on the number of alliances falling below 15 in the space of a round (that's even considering that change in alliance size should mean more alliances).

I've said it repeatedly on these forums, alliance play needs to be saved, and it needs to be saved FAST. The more I look at polo's suggestion, the more I like it.


I'm still in favour of fewer member alliances for the reasons given above, but there must, there MUST be something done to rescue lower rank alliances.

[BlackWolf]

Melnibone & polo FTW!
Rest of you whom agrees with this stupidest idea ever, get some brains... and if you think you have some then FFS use those before you open your mouth.

[Enrico]

The only way such a small ally would be feasible would be if all allied players where allowed to "park" members of their units at other ally-members companies. (I.e. like you today can send to HQ).

That would either mean an increase in mobs, or that some way to differentiate between Expeditionary Forces and Garrisons when sending defense, was implemented.

Naturally you could still just garrison fakes.

That way, the need for activity would not increase in the same way.

[DR4545]

Here's why I don't like the idea of such a drastic reduction. Nothing to do with game balance.

BORRRRINGGG.

So some schmuck Aussie is the only one in his ally ... that sure makes for a peppy IRC room.

If I couldn't socialize with ally members on IRC, I'd quit being active plain and simple. Without ally tactics (planned defense/attacks) this game is boring as crap. Bounties gone, no fun from killing (yes we could have 10% bounty again and the game would be more interesting.)

So say there's like 2 US guys, one Aussie, 7 Euros. Sucks for the US and Aussies, odds are they'll only have an hour or two of actually socializing then back to solo mode text-if-inc duty. I'd rather be solo than be online, alone, expected to text people.

[vlad]

As twigley brought this up with the response to an ever pressing current question, all i can see is flaw.

You say people look to much into game mechanics? Thats why they are there .. you cannot make a car better without its mechanics, you cannot change most things for the "better" without involcing its own mechanics in some form or another. Thats why us old people, use them, and suggest from them along with experience. As we tend to have a good idea what we are talking about.

To be frank, 10 man alliances are a **** idea. I hate to be rude, but they are. 15 Man is about a good size, it worked before, and it will work again, atleast that can create another 2 alliance from members.

This also works on the defending and attacking front that DS mentioned. Now, i also posted my comments and suggestions into another thread, so no need to repeat, but i dont see 10men working for alliance, but for pushing solos, Especialy solo groups. With 10 people, 2 solos can realy shaft an alliance .. they can hit every member .. stealth mobs all over the place, and realy mess it up, to much power to a solo. It cannot work, that being one big reason .. any others?

[No-Dachi]

I cannot believe reducing the ally size to 10 players is even suggested.

[f0xx]

I cannot believe reducing the ally size to 10 players is even suggested.

Ditto.

[Twigley]

if you have nothing contructive to say then dont say it.
EDIT: Read CF's suggestion, which was also talked about previously i think with polo? Constructive criticism FTW!

I said that limit as a ballpark figure to get suggestions coming.
Then it seems 15 was more of a universal approval.

I know you think you are high and mighty f0xx, but please - in whole i am suggesting a smaller amount of people in an alliance because atm there is naff all going on in the game.
It's boring.
Too much politics.

W/e.

[f0xx]

You make no sense...

[vlad]

But twigley, you are trying to remove and bypass things that cannot be bypassed. You are saying we should ignore mechanics, but we cannot. We should ignore politics, but we cannot. These are there for a reason, and need to be acounted for in any serious idea that is put forward, and alot of thought needs to go in these. A general Ballpark for Alliance sizes just isn't good enough, especialy someone as experienced as you. We need figures, good sizes, what you think the flaws are. Not just gestimates to get the ball rolling.

[Chewie]

I am allowed to get frustrated the same as everyone else as i explained fully i have participated in a 10 man alliance experiment and i explained what it will lead too, most if not all who played that experiment allied will agree that to have 10 man alliances is idiotic for the reasons described

You couldnt handle 40-50 attacking 20 without quitting in a strop you think there being only ten of you will make that better?? but oh yeah youve quit definately for good not coming back so yeah we trust you to have the best interests of the game at heart

your allowed to get frustrated at a suggestion about alliance size? Tbh i can see you gaining a stomach ulsar or 2 with all the stress over a suggestion the majority of people tend to like. I also like the idea of making alliances smaller. whats the point of huge alliances. smaller alliances imo would bring a more social element to alliances. stop getting angry for nothing. games are about fun. and currently the game isn't fun hence my 5 minute activity per day as it stands.

[Chewie]

But twigley, you are trying to remove and bypass things that cannot be bypassed. You are saying we should ignore mechanics, but we cannot. We should ignore politics, but we cannot. These are there for a reason, and need to be acounted for in any serious idea that is put forward, and alot of thought needs to go in these. A general Ballpark for Alliance sizes just isn't good enough, especialy someone as experienced as you. We need figures, good sizes, what you think the flaws are. Not just gestimates to get the ball rolling.

mechanics can be changed, they always have and will be. If the game gets stuck in it's current chain of thought nothing constructive will happen, Tbh the most exciting thing about this game is when an alliance pastes a funny banner etc. the idea of a "general ballpark for alliance sizes" is the entire idea. It makes people suggest limits and discuss the pro's and cons of having a certain number of players. 10 imo was a good starting number as it is half the public limit for alliances. Remember as twigley said be contructive. merely repeating things other players have already said is about as constructive as having a washing machine with a second function as a toilet.

[Rama]

Well I will have to say I have played on all kinds of allys since the smallers ones till the top ones. The times i played on the top I must say sometimes 20 people wasnt enough, ofc the top would receive alot more inc that smaller allys but I believe everything its proportional to your rank :P. But with the reduction of people this will make inactive allys to fall easier. Then I will have to say generally allys arent hold by 18-20 people, they are always hold by 10-12(generally less)people as you always have slackers that started late or alwyas suicide or are unlucky on attacks so they dont become vital to the ally, so in another words what I´m trying to say that allys really are of 10-12 people and not 18-20. Ofc 10-12 would be silly, hardly would allow interaction on the game(the main reason why people play allianced), on inactives allys the chance of getting 4 people at the same time will be like 1 in a million, so they would just prefer to go solo. And here its when I get to my point, if of 18-20 members actually 10-12 hold the ally, of an ally of lets say 15 people actually 6-8 will hold the ally, ofc the condition will be the same for everyone but just to think of an ally hold by 6-8 people it will be imposible as the top will change constantly(even more than now) making it even harder to win, I already think its really hard to win, it requires tons of activity and getting on the night, sometimes weeks of no sleeps, so making allys smaller will make people on the top to quit or just play solo. So in conclusion things for smaller and top allys will be more difficult. So if you ask me I wouldnt change the allys size but if you do, I would say to 16-18.

[vlad]

But rama, the harder it is to win, the better the game becomes, especially for the top. Azzer has changed things over the years to slow the run of in the game (Development Mod, stop tech rushing etc). These are to try and not makeit so "easy" to win. And thats the "general" idea mind. I've been in alliances with 80% of good people, the others generaly being land whores, and attracting targets.
15 men alliances has worked in the past, without an issue at all. But i think larger public alliances could also work :D