You also need to consider the effect on the rest of the playerbase. The majority of people do not play for the win atm. Would 10 man alliances make playing in an alliance at a lower level alot harder?
Can't see why. More "big" alliances fighting amongst themselves ultimately means less bashing of smaller alliances?
Ignorance at its very best. Do you really think FTW alliances are just going to leave the lower ranked alliances alone? Are you as naive as that?
And Ram, it was changed to 15 man alliances for 1 round ( round 28 ) and then changed back the very next round because it just didn't work.
Willy sums it up pretty well. The burnout is horrific with smaller alliances. For lower ranked alliances it will be even worse, since there aren't going to be many active players there, leaving most of the burden for one or two people.
I'm not being ignorant. More fights between the top 5 generally means less time for fighting the lower ranks. I made no attempt to claim the attacks would cease altogether, that
would be naive. Don't put words in my mouth.
If there is constant warring between ranks 1-5, that'll mean leaders/officers have to consider being countered by an enemy if they're all out massing some poor sods down at rank 9. That'll be a
real concern. Effort might be far better placed killing off an actual competitor.
as a member of discworld for a few round let me tell you how it works before you deniy your ability to be naive. the top alliances dont fight eachother until they absoloutly have to.
they gang rape lower alliances. and hit them mercilessly. and if one alliance looks to be overtaking another etc or there is someone well ahead. the small alliances ranks 2-4 decide, we need to land up all worktogether 'viva la resistance'.
the outcome is they dont hit eachother and they hit only lower ranked alliances. causing the top to starve through lack of targets, any attack from the top is countered so the reistance can gain a decent size to be able to take down rank one. i DO NOT deniy the potential for fighting between top 4 ranks. but i do say any resistance always forces those in ranks 2-4 to rape and pillage the smaller allies.
this happens anyway, but when you make it 3-4 alliances resisting (30-40players) the few lower alliances are still facing the same odds as if it were 2 alliances resisting (20+20 = 40) except its not 40 vs 20 inacives its 40 vs 10 inactives.
It may cause more fighting at the top. but the knock on bashing at the lower levels is horrifc. I dont just think azzer changed it back after 1 round because it was a kink in the system. I think he probably lost a significant amount of player base that round.
NO other changes have been so detrimental to the game that they were undone the following round.....But if you're so new to this game or too ignorant to remeber that fateful round. Go ahead bring it on. and see how horribly shitty it is playing in a 10man alliance. be my guest as ill be solo for that round no matter what. and it will make it much easier to get high ranked. So be my guest. then finally people will stop suggesting this god damn awful idea.
no offence cheese for the suggestion. when it was originally suggested before it was met with open arms because it does have points which you think... well that makes sense more allainces more infighting. better for all. it simply isnt the case.
May i suggest a public private world in which everyone can test this 10man allaince idea out and see just how bad it is. so it isnt suggested for another few rounds. a 200 slot private world. allies and solos allowed alike. Then hopefully more people will have viewpoints on the matter based on experience, not theoretical hypothesis
