10-Man Alliances

[redlion]

I'm curious what other players would think of the alliance limit shrinking to 10 IDs.

With the shrinking of the player base, it seems logical that the alliances should shrink as well. I didn't play at the time, but weren't alliances once twice as large as they currently are? Well, it seemed to me a logical progression.

Anyone care to agree or disagree?

Postscript: inb4 azzer-hate and all. I'm in a very wishful thinking mode. Keep to the topic please, and not problems with the implementation of the idea.

[[Ninja-7]]

I think you'd probably find the less committed/intensive efforts struggle most with a change to this. As it is it's hard enough to get 20 people refreshing for at least 1/2 hours a day. lessen that to 10 and you have a LOT of down-time. They could quite easily be tortured into extinction by a few higher solos. So it's a no from me, but I think this debate has been done a few times - with fairly decent arguments from both sides!

[Spiky Spoon]

I don't think there was ever 40 man alliances. We tried 15 briefly but that soon changed back to 20. And 10 man, it could make a difference but it'll never get done!

[Macky21]

Nothing will change until Twigley becomes the owner.

All hail Twigley!

[Garrett2]

Originally Posted by Spiky Spoon

I don't think there was ever 40 man alliances. We tried 15 briefly but that soon changed back to 20. And 10 man, it could make a difference but it'll never get done!

Incorrect. If you went public you could have more than 20 in age 2 iirc. If I'm not remembering correctly - at the very least you had anaps and could defend each other. So still 40.

Yes we went to 15 and then quickly back to 20. As seb pointed out this has been talked about and it's a bad idea. Making smaller allies doesn't bolster a dead game.

But rather than just saying no - if you want smaller allies, then ticks would need to be 30 mins to an hour long.

[tobapopalos]

Garrett makes a good point.

I've always been opposed to both smaller alliances and shorter ticks because it just widens the gap between the active and the inactive which, in my opinion, would kill the game off even quicker. The game relies on the inactive casuals just as much as the actives.

Smaller alliances *might* make the game very slightly more competitive at the top but it would make the game so much harder for the average alliances (not that we have many of them anymore). They'd have worse activity coverage and would just get annihilated so easily by both the alliances above them and, as Ninja-7 points out, solo triangles/groups.

Having said that, I don't think any change can make any real difference at this point. We passed the event horizon about 15 rounds ago.

[Twigley]

Originally Posted by Macky21

All hail Twigley!

[marvin]

Originally Posted by Macky21

Nothing will change until Twigley becomes the owner.

With his new job he'll be able to afford in no time!

[Spiky Spoon]

Now is twigley actually buying the game or is this just an ongoing joke that keeps popping up? I can't decide if it's real or not. Lol

[webvictim]

I actually feel like 10-man alliances might make it a lot more interesting. The 3 alliance system that currently seems to dominate the top of the tree could well turn into a more spread out 5 or 6 alliance system. It might be hard to get enough of a cross-section of activity and it might force players to split but I'll bet it'd be easier to get 10/10 dedicated people sending on attacks.

[Garrett2]

Originally Posted by Spiky Spoon

Now is twigley actually buying the game or is this just an ongoing joke that keeps popping up? I can't decide if it's real or not. Lol

it's real.

[Franny]

Instead of having it implemented how about next round the guys who are going to be playing actively and contactable cap their alliances at 10?

[redlion]

webvictim has the analysis right (to my thinking).

Franny is in even more wishful thinking mode than I am. Anyone remember Max asking for no FTW alliances? Look where that got us. No, this would have to be implemented and not some informal agreement.

The reason I bring this up, and consequently the reason I think it could work, is for the very simple reason that something similar works for planetarion (you know, the guys who take up the other 90% of the IRC server).

I recently signed up for their last round and they've got a nifty concept that adds geography to the game: galaxies. They're like alliances in that they decrease ETA to send, but they're unlike alliances in that all the IDs in a galaxy don't necessarily need to be allied, or the same alliance. But more than the geographic bit, they've also got these short rounds that run between the main rounds, usually called a winter round or Xmas round, and as far as I've read back, they seem to mess with the rules a little each time to keep things interesting.

For instance, the current winter round is played on 15 minute ticks, with "buddy packs" where you can sort of influence the geographic distribution of your IDs (normally random) into a quasi allied galaxy. This (to me) makes the game appear very similar to bushtarion.

Anyway, this is a big tangent/run-on idea that isn't going anywhere. I was just curious to see if I'd get the same "game is dead. long live the game" speech I always get when I post here.

Cheers if you gave it some thought.

[Garrett2]

Originally Posted by redlion

webvictim has the analysis right (to my thinking).

no. webvictim's analysis agrees with what you want and not the reality.

the reality is that there are so few players, just to remain rank 3 you have to be largely contactable.

now you spread 60 peeps across 6 alliances instead of 3 alliances and you have even more pranking going on and even less sleep because there are more groups attacking you and less to defend with whether you have a good position or a land farm position.

the whole idea is wishful thinking at it's worst. history, logic, and experience supports my position. wanting something to happen so bad because this dead horse hasn't been beaten enough is what makes this idea and others continue to be brought up.

now you want people to not account share/use phone #'s - then we might be on to something. planetarion's ticks are an hour long. which again goes to my saying of in order to shrink - you have to extend ticks.

best idea? stop logging in. let the game close. because no idea is going to make this place good, let alone great again. it has 0 support.

wish upon stars all you want. just keep those wishes to yourselves. remember, wishes can't come true if you tell someone!

edit: if you want to be and have everyone else insanely active, then by all means push this. that might be your intent. so if it is, then definitely push forward. i just see it as a last ditch effort to make sure every last person is completely burnt on this game.

[Gazzy]

I like the idea of extending ticks to lower the activity requirements. My fear would be making the game boringly slow, something it's already on the edge off.

I would be curious to try something like 10 man alliances and 15min ticks. To mix it up if nothing else.