Alliance Rankings

[Dark_Angel]

I don't know if I'm the only person who gets a bit irritated by this, but the alliance rankings is a bit of an eye-sore.

Is there any chance we can force alliances to disband if they have <2 members for a period of more than X amount of hours? (Or a similar mechanism that prevents mock alliances?)

The number of idiots creating alliances for the sake of it seems to be on the up.

Just a thought.

 

[CrimsonFury88]

I don't know if I'm the only person who gets a bit irritated by this, but the alliance rankings is a bit of an eye-sore.

Is there any chance we can force alliances to disband if they have <2 members for a period of more than X amount of hours? (Or a similar mechanism that prevents mock alliances?)

The number of idiots creating alliances for the sake of it seems to be on the up.

Just a thought.

"Mock" Alliances? The current "AAA. Im winning" thing, is a bit stupid.. But I'm sure they'll disband soon anyway.

Beyond that, it just seems a bit harsh really.

An alliance of two may still have more score than an alliance of 20.

Should they be denied a place in the portal purely because they have 18 less members?

 

[tobapopalos]

Or we could just go back to only being able to see alliances with 5 members or more.

I agree, it is ridiculous having 1 man alliances on the rankings page.

 

[CrimsonFury88]

Or we could just go back to only being able to see alliances with 5 members or more.

I agree, it is ridiculous having 1 man alliances on the rankings page.

That's a more viable option.

 

[Ogluk]

Or we could just go back to only being able to see alliances with 5 members or more.

I agree, it is ridiculous having 1 man alliances on the rankings page.

especially as only alliances of 5 or more members can get onto portal
as proven last round with only 12 allies portalling due to enzzo and Darksider's 1 man allies
FIX THIS!!!

 

[CrimsonFury88]

Or we could just go back to only being able to see alliances with 5 members or more.

I agree, it is ridiculous having 1 man alliances on the rankings page.

especially as only alliances of 5 or more members can get onto portal
as proven last round with only 12 allies portalling due to enzzo and Darksider's 1 man allies
FIX THIS!!!

Ahhh. My prolonged absence has lead me to forget about the "5 mems for portal" rule.

Bleh.

Alliances with less than 5 members should have Hamsters sent to them.

 

[TehPantz]

You guys are all ridiculous . I am sure that some of these allies are newbies who are trying to feel their way through this game. They want to play in an ally and have thoughts of leading, but may not have an idea of how to get people to join. It would be counter intuitive to crush new people's endeavors when we are trying to attract a player base. I agree that a few allies are created just for giggles at the pre-round, but it would be very stupid to assume which one is real or not.

 

[ollie|]

has nobody thought, if alliances with less than 5 members dont show up, how can you ever join an alliance?

you couldnt go onto their page to request membership, so you would be eliminating alliances altogether =P (with the current system)

 

[atsanjose]

has nobody thought, if alliances with less than 5 members dont show up, how can you ever join an alliance?

you couldnt go onto their page to request membership, so you would be eliminating alliances altogether =P (with the current system)

win

 

[tobapopalos]

How many one-man noob alliances do you think ever get over 5 members with the current system? Consider that we finished last round with only 12 alliances over 5 members. New alliances can use forums to recruit anyway. And tbh why would one lone person want to start an alliance unless he has a few people willing to join already? He would be better off just joining an alliance.

 

[TehPantz]

im just saying we should give people the benefit of the doubt before we blindly accuse them of being extremely daft and giving them the boot.

 

[Dark_Angel]

im just saying we should give people the benefit of the doubt before we blindly accuse them of being extremely daft and giving them the boot.

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind, I'm simply saying that if an alliance has less than 2 members for an extended period of time (24+ hours) that that isn't an alliance, its one guy screwing around.

I'd also put it to you that brand new players shouldn't be overwhelming themselves with trying to lead an alliance, and that the game should point them in the direction of being a member and learning the basics before-hand.

 

[TehPantz]

im just saying we should give people the benefit of the doubt before we blindly accuse them of being extremely daft and giving them the boot.

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind, I'm simply saying that if an alliance has less than 2 members for an extended period of time (24+ hours) that that isn't an alliance, its one guy screwing around.

I'd also put it to you that brand new players shouldn't be overwhelming themselves with trying to lead an alliance, and that the game should point them in the direction of being a member and learning the basics before-hand.

i agree they would be biting off more than they could chew, but who are we to say what they should do or not do? Is it up to you to decide whats fun for people now? Maybe they want to jump right into the mix.

 

[Alcibiades]

Quite honestly it doesn't really irritate me at all. I find it sad, but not annoying.

 

[pinpower]

Quite honestly it doesn't really irritate me at all. I find it sad, but not annoying.

Agreed i think. And as someone pointed out it makes the current recruitment process possible.

Edit: It was the Darling Miss Ollie () who cleverly realised this...thought i'd give him a mention.

 

[timtadams]

I don't know if I'm the only person who gets a bit irritated by this, but the alliance rankings is a bit of an eye-sore.

Is there any chance we can force alliances to disband if they have <2 members for a period of more than X amount of hours? (Or a similar mechanism that prevents mock alliances?)

The number of idiots creating alliances for the sake of it seems to be on the up.

Just a thought.

Oh come on, as soon as the round starts they all get pushed to the bottom. Anyway, as far as im concerned, they should be able to make their own alliances if they want

I am certainly against automatic disbandment.

 

[Davs]

Tbh, there's nothing wrong with alliances with fewer than 5 members. The only sad thing about the whole issue is that it acts as a painful reminder to everyone of how small the active playwerbase is now, as it seems difficult to get more than 10 alliances with more than 5 members.
My vote goes to "Leave them be"

 

[Elevnos]

What about (I don't know if it's in there already because I haven't done it) if it was mentioned in the tutorial that if they need any help or want to make the game more interesting they should join an alliance.
Also all these players are only making alliances because all the ones with more than 8 or 9 members will only accept experienced players. Maybe if the bigger alliances welcomed the idea of taking on newbies and teaching them how to play properly we wouldn't have this happening.

 

[Davs]

/me points to the training alliances

admittedly this round I think they're already full, but there's nothing to stop more experienced players from setting up new ones