10-Man Alliances

[webvictim]

The existing bots are certainly getting farmed to hell. Landing on any bot during flak wars was more or less total luck. I guess the ticker code must bring them in proportionally compared to the number of players in the game but that could do with being revisited, given the tiny size of the current player base.

18-man alliances might be interesting. If it were to be made 17-man instead, the offcuts from the current 20-man alliances would essentially make another full alliance themselves. Might displace the existing 2v1s for the top a bit.

[Dax]

Originally Posted by webvictim

The existing bots are certainly getting farmed to hell. Landing on any bot during flak wars was more or less total luck. I guess the ticker code must bring them in proportionally compared to the number of players in the game but that could do with being revisited, given the tiny size of the current player base.

18-man alliances might be interesting. If it were to be made 17-man instead, the offcuts from the current 20-man alliances would essentially make another full alliance themselves. Might displace the existing 2v1s for the top a bit.

I thought Dave came up with a cracking idea in total honesty.

More bots is something that is needed to at least give the lower alliances something to target, and spread the mobs being sent at the relatively few around this round.

It won't happen, but it would have been nice I suppose.

[Elevnos]

Better bots :p

[[Ninja-7]]

Skynet!!

[Yeadon]

Originally Posted by webvictim

The existing bots are certainly getting farmed to hell. Landing on any bot during flak wars was more or less total luck. I guess the ticker code must bring them in proportionally compared to the number of players in the game but that could do with being revisited, given the tiny size of the current player base.

18-man alliances might be interesting. If it were to be made 17-man instead, the offcuts from the current 20-man alliances would essentially make another full alliance themselves. Might displace the existing 2v1s for the top a bit.

I managed to pretty much flak most Bots this round successfully. I do however, put that purely down to having the smallest man organ of Round 52 - Thus causing my enemies to roll around on the floor laughing at me, whilst allowing me to slowly pass through and collect my 200 acres.


On a serious note though, 17 man alliances could potentially create a further alliance fighting for the top. This would make it maybe more an initial (at least) 4-horse race. If the bots are automatic - Just turn up the multiplier on them maybe 10 - 15% just to increase the targets.

[dave]

it reduces the amount of asses you have to cover also, the less people to defend you thing is a crock, if we want a more competitve game with this player base we need 10 man allies, ive done the basic numbers already

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Elevnos

Better bots :p

Would it be possible to make various difficulty's of bots?

10 man allys/triple the amount of bots/various "skilled" bots

bushtarion=so much better

[Yeadon]

I would be willing to give anything a shot. I prefer to be up against the odds rather than have things my own way - Where is the fun in ease?

Would I be wrong in thinking this would be falling on deaf ears anyway? How hard would it be for Azzer to come back to make the '17 man alliance' change for round 53?

[d00ner]

Originally Posted by Yeadon

I would be willing to give anything a shot. I prefer to be up against the odds rather than have things my own way - Where is the fun in ease?

Would I be wrong in thinking this would be falling on deaf ears anyway? How hard would it be for Azzer to come back to make the '17 man alliance' change for round 53?

Give us an inch, we would take a mile. If he came back and changed it, everyone would expect him to sort the rest too. Its a lot more effort than it seems, and he has 0 effort left for this game.

[Iamsmart]

The number of competitive alliances is determined by the number of leaders/competitive groups that want to make an alliance on that particular round. Lowering alliance size slightly won't change that. Lowering it drastically has it's own set of problems.

[No-Dachi]

I agree with Iamsmart, and I have always fought for allies to be bigger instead of smaller. However.. the last few rounds it seems that most players in a competitive ally simply doesn't have the drive they used to have. People don't care on the same level anymore. I guess this can be seen as a good thing; we've grown up, and have more important things to tend to than a game. However, if the goal is to keep the competitive scene as "hardcore" as it has been, then I might be inclined to agree to a change. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure this shift in attitude is a bad thing. If the non-sleepers get their victory in 10 days, every other ally can have their game beneath them - everyone wins!

[tobapopalos]

I agree with Iamsmart and No-Dachi. I don't think making alliances slightly smaller will improve anything at all, and making them much smaller will actually make things worse.

Bringing more bots into the game doesn't make any sense. They already pretty much outnumber the amount of actual players. What do you think will improve if we have more bots?

[No-Dachi]

Honestly, if Azzer brought in 2000 bots. And improved/varied their play style a bit more I could see it having an effect. If they were banned from hitting players below say rank 50, everyone would have a ton of targets, and the issue about waking up to a zeroed account would be lessened a great deal. But increasing the bots by anohter 10 accounts wouldn't change a thing.

[tobapopalos]

People would have a ton of targets but they'd all be bots, and where's the fun in that? We'd still have the same number of actual players. I just can't see how that makes things better.

[Stargazer]

ton of targets=ton of fun

I dont care if they are bots or real people personally-not much difference between the two anyway...both send annoying messages!