10 man allies next round

[Twigley]

The previos drop to 15 was never enough to spark more alliances being made.
It needs more of a drop. Although from what I remember of round 28...
There will still only 3 allies at the top.
Rank 1 was taken out twice and the allies below all joined in.
I seem to remember the start being very exciting and people believed rank 1 could be taken out.
However cos there was only 3 ftw allies, as soon as 2 where taken out and the rank 4-6 allies found they'd have to take out new rank 1 alone as the others had no time to rebuild, they didn't bother.

I know people would be more likelyd to create a ftw ally if they only had to find 9 players.
Even with (and I'm not being big headed) all my contacts over the rounds I've led, I've struggled to find people. But say you have 2 or 3 people talking on msn about coming back to play bush but can't find an ally then they only need to find a few others and they are away.

For me this is a yes and I'd predict 5-7 ftw quality allies and 3-4 allies off the pace then the usual field of allies

 

[TaO]

Its not about the size of alliance, its about activity and motivation an alliance has..

Steve_God, according to proportions 2 people against 10 and 1 person against 5 should do the exact same thing - So your point is invalid.

Say one person in your mid-rank alliance starts to get bigger than the rest. He's at 2bil score, while the rest of you are around 1.2, 1.3billion. He gets inc from someone at 6bil, and there are only two of you online. You're ignoring sizes, which is something that doesn't change because alliance sizes did.

This happens now aswell..
It's not about how many people are in an alliance, its about activity, motivation etc..

 

[Souls]

Its not about the size of alliance, its about activity and motivation an alliance has..

Steve_God, according to proportions 2 people against 10 and 1 person against 5 should do the exact same thing - So your point is invalid.

Say one person in your mid-rank alliance starts to get bigger than the rest. He's at 2bil score, while the rest of you are around 1.2, 1.3billion. He gets inc from someone at 6bil, and there are only two of you online. You're ignoring sizes, which is something that doesn't change because alliance sizes did.

This happens now aswell..
It's not about how many people are in an alliance, its about activity, motivation etc..

And 3 people attacking an alliance at their 30%s are going to be unstoppable, because 10 people can't cover all that incoming, given that they're all online. You're only going to have the alliances that want to win, because nobody else will want to put up with that.

 

[Iamsmart]

However if there were 6 people, as would be the case if they were 20 man alliances, they could cover it?

And small alliances already deal with that kind of stuff - They are still around, every round.

 

[Ram]

Twigley, even I could get 19 other ftw players and I wouldn't be able to lead for sh*te.

 

[Iamsmart]

I personally couldn't, which is probably why I've never bothered to try and lead

 

[Twigley]

I think people need to learn the difference between ftw players and players which have the quality to win. I wouldn't class 80 percent of the top 5 allies as ftw. Just because they say they are ftw does not make them ftw, imo.

 

[CFalcon]

I think people need to learn the difference between ftw players and players which have the quality to win. I wouldn't class 80 percent of the top 5 allies as ftw. Just because they say they are ftw does not make them ftw, imo.

Indeed. There are still a good 60-70 people around with the neccesary knowledge and experience. But generally rounds are decided by less than 20 of those players, the ones who are really going for it that particular round.

 

[Steve_God]

I think people need to learn the difference between ftw players and players which have the quality to win. I wouldn't class 80 percent of the top 5 allies as ftw. Just because they say they are ftw does not make them ftw, imo.

Indeed. There are still a good 60-70 people around with the neccesary knowledge and experience. But generally rounds are decided by less than 20 of those players, the ones who are really going for it that particular round.

'tis VERY true, over the years I've come across many MANY players, all who know how to attack successfully with their preferred routes / how to flak for land / how to defend successfully / etc... but most of them (myself included) can't devote the hours round after round to play 'properly' FTW again and again.

Steve_God, according to proportions 2 people against 10 and 1 person against 5 should do the exact same thing - So your point is invalid.

My point is very valid in practice... it's also the reason Azzer's viewpoint is the same as mine

 

[Iamsmart]

Well then both your and Azzer's viewpoint is wrong (maybe not overall, but in this paticular case).

 

[atsanjose]

no iamsmart you're the one who's wrong
its the rule of big numbers
maths is only the half of the story, psychology the rest.

 

[Iamsmart]

its the law of large numbers, and that also agrees with me.

 

[atsanjose]

...That doesn't make sense.

There are half the members in your allliance.

Therefore half as many will send.

And the smaller alliances have half as many members

Seems balanced to me?

not according to what you say here

 

[Iamsmart]

The law of large numbers says that, in the long run, it will average out. Sometimes they'll send more, sometimes they'll have more online, sometimes they'll send less, sometimes they'll have less online, I'm hardly seeing the relevance.

 

[Twigley]

Proportinally ofcourse its the same.
But as atsan says,psychologicaly the difference occurs.

I've seen so many wars lost and I've lost wars just due to the lots of red linew syndrome.
Seeing lots of red on the inc page, having to scroll down for ages is a nightmare to defend against and I'd say only a handful off people at most in the entire hsitory of the game can handle that.

Half it and it might be just as deadly but wouldn't look as bad.
Having to do half the mob notes, bark orders for half of the ids, call half the people online and then knowing the fact that even after a few waves of it, there are 5 or 6 other top allies who you can use afterwards to get back up if you lose the war is psycologically huge.

 

[Iamsmart]

Because that was completely relevant to what we're discussing

 

[Twigley]

No it wasn't.

You're talking about half as many people sending at you but you having half as people defending.
I'm then taking that one stage further and showing the effects that has and how it would differ to now and that the you cannot account for the psychololigcal effect of seeing more inc on a page.

I don't see how that is irrelevant in any way and infact goes into your point with a wider idea of the issue.

 

[Dark_Angel]

I pretty much agree with what Twigley is saying.

And tbh I'm of the opinion that the positive benefits this would have on "ftw" gameplay outweighs the negative impact on "ftf" gameplay (I can't imagine things being drastically worse for lower alliances, tbh) From a business perspective these "ftw" players should surely be the game's priority? I'm not saying disregard everyone else, but people who want more fluctuation in the alliance rankings are loyal, paying customers who return round after round to buy blue-prints, pre-book IDs etc. Yes I'm aware gamecash is the game's biggest source of income (iirc). But what of the huge number of players who don't buy gamecash because they've quite simply no need. Players in alliances outside rank 1 are generally sitting on masses of seeds, worth umpteen times the amount of game cash available - They don't plant because doing so will put them in range of rank 1, and they'll be raped back down. (If there was a constant battle for rank 1 most top 100 allied players would be growing on a daily basis to fund wars, and would be much more likely to need game cash)

As has been pointed out the issue of a stale round (alliance rankings wise) can be tackled with other game-mechanics - but nobody has come up with something solid and coding such a change would no doubt take a great deal of time.
-

I think 10-12 men alliances should be at least be given a chance.

 

[willymchilybily]

general babble

I said i wouldnt post again but felt compelled now the subject of psychology and redline syndrome has been mentioned. twigley is indeed right.

if there are 4* the incoming to people on line on average for an allie being bashed. then with 4 of you online thats 4 people sending to 4-5targets and organising. that means if done right they could drive off alot of the incoming.

if that was halfed due to alliance sizes being halfed. suddenly redline syndrome makes some people bottle it. Have you never seen some one 'mysteriously' go offline the second incoming came in.

imagine if only 2 people on with low moral due to a previous bashing. one out attacking and cant do jack. and the other bottles it. there is no longer that psychological sense of duty, as if there were a group of you cheering you on, shouting battlestations and orders. more online even if its the same amount relatively relieves alot of the burden and psychological stress of one man feeling he has to deal with 5-6 incomings.

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.

even you iamsmart must see the psychology and game mechanics are more favourable for having larger alliances for defensive purposes. for reasons mentioned above..ergo smaller alliance WILL have a knock on affect for defence and its not simply going to be exactly the same but just on a smaller scale.

 

[Iamsmart]

i didnt read any of your post except for the "even you iamsmart must see"

All I have to say is: **** you.

Also:

"World: Time gone: 25.27 days. Time left: 50.74 days. "

**** that too.