Cap on "veteran" players per alliance

[Twigley]

I always play with noobs anyway.
/me looks at cheese.

But seriously, i dont really like the idea for reasons mentioned by others and out of personal self interest. Playing with incompetence infuriates me *but* i have been known to recruit 5/6 "unknowns" into my alliances and a fair few of them turned out to be the best members of the ally so who knows.

Sometimes the willingness of newer players make them the best.
You just need a leader to get the best out of em.
We don't have many active leaders left ;_;

 

[Alcibiades]

We don't have many active leaders left ;_;

As evidenced by the "Alliance Mashup". I see no volunteer leaders, and 2 people who say they might if they have to. That doesn't bode well for the Mashup, nor the future of the game.

 

[Changer]

Time left: 40.78 days.

Lets give it time. Although if someone does decide to go recruiting away from this then the whole idea will fall through completely.

 

[Cheese]

Possible cons:
People wouldn't like not being able to play with friends (Though a limit of say, 10, is fairly lax and would allow most close-knit groups to maintain their close-knitty-ness)

Benefits:
Everyone would suffer from having less reliable members, contrary to the current system whereby you can literally have an alliance of 20 people contactable 24/7, thus making the alliance pretty much invunerable.

Both of these would lose the real ftw players. Lack of reliable members is demoralising which makes people not want to play, same goes with the friends. Why would you want to play with people other than your friends. If you just have 10 friends, gg.

¬_¬

If you're saying you join an alliance with friends each round and 20 of those are people you know extremely well and could not possibly go a round without playing with them. I think you're lying

TBA was my most socially active round, I was in S_G and knew a lot of the guys there, but I still didn't know all 20 people in the alliance.

This suggestion would require people who play with their friends round after round to limit themselves to playing with 10-12 people they're close with (Which as I said in my last post wouldn't be a problem for most groups, look at Omgpop - They've disbanded twice, proving those who stayed together were the "core" group of friends).

In exchange they may actually have something to do a week after the round starts, other than counting funds. (I.e competition) The phrase "greater good" springs to mind.

Leave OMGPOP out of this!
OMGPOP just "disbanded" once..
The core 5 of OMGPOP are still in OMGPOP, those that started Resilience was the inactive uncontactable children, like JJ, Mateen, Eden etc..

Then ontopic..
If you decide to "lead" a round like i did 2 rounds ago.. *GC*
I actually recruited alot of people i knew, but never played with before.. and most of those people i actually started to know/like/respect during that round..

If you can't pick a team yourself, then why would you bother to lead an alliance?
If you can't pick a team yourself, you will just give the final blow to any core FTW player of this game.

This is a "stupid" idea.

Get real you never did any leading in the GC round

 

[Twigley]

Time left: 40.78 days.

Lets give it time. Although if someone does decide to go recruiting away from this then the whole idea will fall through completely.

And here is the post i was waiting for.
Anybody who recruits FTW outside of this idea from Martin is gonna be seen to of "ruined" some kind of new idea.
Basically it's forced people to either sign up or spoil the suggestion.
Now if you want to play FTW with people you pick yourself as per the past 35 rounds, you are "destroying the game".

Are we meant to be encouraging or discouraging people leading alliances?
Im not going to be part of the alliance mash up because i havn't seen a single decent leader put their name forward and i dont like the premise for it but i also want to play FTW, wtf do i do?

 

[tobapopalos]

Time left: 40.78 days.

Lets give it time. Although if someone does decide to go recruiting away from this then the whole idea will fall through completely.

And here is the post i was waiting for.
Anybody who recruits FTW outside of this idea from Martin is gonna be seen to of "ruined" some kind of new idea.
Basically it's forced people to either sign up or spoil the suggestion.
Now if you want to play FTW with people you pick yourself as per the past 35 rounds, you are "destroying the game".

Are we meant to be encouraging or discouraging people leading alliances?
Im not going to be part of the alliance mash up because i havn't seen a single decent leader put their name forward and i dont like the premise for it but i also want to play FTW, wtf do i do?

You'll do what we all know you're going to do and lead a "secret" alliance, since you "don't like people knowing who is in your alliance".

Why don't you just join in and have some fun? Admittedly, it has that horrid disadvantage of actually being fair, and God knows we don't want that.

 

[Alcibiades]

wtf do i do?

Go away and let someone else win for once

 

[Twigley]

People not knowing who is in my alliance is a personal preference when leading an ally.
It's easier to get information from people when they dont know who they are talking to.
I also like the psycoligcal effect of not knowing your 'enemy' it has and how information is never leaked.
And it's the only way i lead. Get over it. Stop bringing it up.

- Anyway -

I was pretty gobsmacked when i was being told i should lead an alliance for this or it's 'unfair' or that if i lead an alliance 'this will never work'.
Way to make someone look bad and heap a load of pressure on them.

On the subject of "fair" because all the alliances are "equal", i can only assume that you think i always get the best players. Iif you look at my past alliances you will see on paper they don't *all* have the "elite" members and usually we are the 'underdogs'. So to say that i wouldn't do this just because if i made my own alliance it'd be less 'fair' is a stupid arguement.

It's almost a comical suggestion that we have to make a thread so that 3-4 FTW alliances can be made.
If there are not 3/4 FTW leaders who can craft a FTW alliance anymore then the rounds are always gonna be messed up anyway.
I mean are there not 3/4 FTW leaders anymore but we have the players for FTW alliances?
Cos it seems to me the leaders all got bored of getting **** from people who have never led before.

In the past rounds we have had the leaders to lead. You've had the blackwolf allies, the angela allies, the martin allies, the sordes allies, the twigley allies, the iof allies, the podunk allies.
Who we got now?

I see the players scattered around now but with nobody to lead them.
People need to step up and start making cores again.
Only thing i worry is that leadership takes some effort and the two previous alliances i was in before this round had leaders that put a bare minimun amount of effort in and relied on the experienced members to do it themselves.

Leaders are getting too lazy.
Who is gonna lead these "FTW" allies?

Give me 20 minutes and i could give you 100 players that can play in proper FTW alliances with the right leader.
Give me 20 hours and i couldnt pick 5 people to get that FTW mentality out of them or organise them properly.

 

[Cheese]

Time left: 40.78 days.

Lets give it time. Although if someone does decide to go recruiting away from this then the whole idea will fall through completely.

And here is the post i was waiting for.
Anybody who recruits FTW outside of this idea from Martin is gonna be seen to of "ruined" some kind of new idea.
Basically it's forced people to either sign up or spoil the suggestion.
Now if you want to play FTW with people you pick yourself as per the past 35 rounds, you are "destroying the game".

Are we meant to be encouraging or discouraging people leading alliances?
Im not going to be part of the alliance mash up because i havn't seen a single decent leader put their name forward and i dont like the premise for it but i also want to play FTW, wtf do i do?

You'll do what we all know you're going to do and lead a "secret" alliance, since you "don't like people knowing who is in your alliance".

Why don't you just join in and have some fun? Admittedly, it has that horrid disadvantage of actually being fair, and God knows we don't want that.

I understand where twigley is coming from totally. Likewise I see your point of view toby.

But answer me one question? Why do you play this game? Is it because you enjoy it? Is that not why you play any game not just bushtarion? Because that's why I play, take the enjoyment away and I see no point in playing the game.

I think Martins idea is a bit like communism; works well on paper but never seems to work when actually implimented. I for one could not stand being led by several people nor could I put up with being in the same alliance as several people, I really don't get along with them and have no desire to either. So what am I to do if I sign up for Martins idea and end up being led by someone I believe to be a moron and playing alongside people I have a dislike for? This is a game, I play the game for my own enjoyment, not to please others... I won't get the enjoyment out of the game I desire if I am forced into an alliance with a handful of people I don't get along with, and I know alot of people will agree with me on this. Correct me if I'm wrong toby, but I'm sure there are a few people who you really wouldn't like to be allied with or led by.

Now as Twigley said, I personally don't want to join in with these pick'n'mix alliaces next round but likewise I don't want to be classed as ruining the game for not joining in with the suggestion so what do I do?

Please note this is merely my opinion on the matter and not me saying that I am going to form or participate in a secret alliance instead I'm either not going to play or play purely solo and chuckle to myself as this brilliant idea collapses one week into the round.
Will probably be an interesting round to spectate but not to participate in, but hey prove me wrong.

 

[Alcibiades]

Well, instead of predicting doom and gloom, you could always give it a shot, and see if it works. Wouldn't that be better than simply sitting here with the status quo watching paint dry on yet another boring round?

I don't think people would be overly critical if you gave it a shot, and tried it out, instead of simply abstaining from the whole idea simply because you suspect (rightly or wrongly) that it isn't going to work. Seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do.

 

[tobapopalos]

snippety snip

You give me 100 players who can play in proper FTW alliances and I'll call you the messiah, since you'll be achieving miracles. As it stands we can just about fill two alliances with active, contactable and competent players, and I'm not convinced a lot of those are actually competent. All the lower alliances are generally less active and committed. On their day they might be just as good as the FTW players, but you won't get them all playing FTW at the same time.

There's no point trying to make a FTW alliance when all you've got to work with are semi-active players. Ask Silence what happened when he tried to recruit last round. The point of Martin's suggestion is to mix up the hardcore FTW players with the less active ones, making an extra FTW alliance and levelling up the playing field.

What I actually meant when I said it's fair is that all the alliances involved will know who is in each of the other alliances. Spying should be non-existant. There won't be any uber line-ups, since all players involved should be spread around fairly evenly. It will generally be much more interesting. And the best way to make it work is to have as many top players involved as we can.

I don't think you always have the best players. Quite the contrary. But if you go and make your alliance, of course it makes it less fair. It also makes it less interesting. To suggest anything other than that is stupid. We'll have a list of players to choose from and we'll have to make do with what we have. You can choose anyone who hasn't put their name down.

So in the interests of science, of course I want you to join in. You don't have to lead. In fact I don't think anyone suggested that you lead. But the more decent players we have, the more likely it turns out to be a success. And along the way we can all have some fun. You don't have to play ZOMGFTW every round, you know.


And Cheese: Yes, there are plenty of players I wouldn't want to play with. There are plenty of players I despise. In fact, I probably hate more players by myself than the rest of the playerbase do altogether. And yet I'm still a big supporter of the alliance mash-up, and I'm going into it with great enthusiasm. If we can all put that aside, why can't Twigley?

 

[Dark_Angel]

Why do people keep trying to kill the game by not letting people play with their friends?

there is rarely a scenerio in which 20 "close" friends join the same FTW alliance. Generally its a group of 5-8 close friends who play with each other time and time again - (i.e JJ, Mateen, Eden, Marvin) - The rest of the alliance being made up of 5-10 people they aren't "good" friends with but who they think will help secure their win.

I don't think that's true. Maybe it's because you don't have any friends so don't get invited into allies which are just made up of friends.

Seriously though, the last 3 allies I played in were...*checks ID history*...War? Huh?, RRR and GC. War? Huh? and the second RRR consisted of 18 of either Martin's or my mates. Those 2 rounds were 2 of the best I've ever played. GC, on the other hand, consisted of only about 3 people I'd consider mates and it wasn't a very fun round for me.

If I'm going to be spending a good chunk of time every single day for 3 months playing a game, I want it to be with people I consider friends, not some random newbies who I'm sure will just piss me off.

As I said, people would have to *BEAR* playing with 12 close mates, rather than 20. In return they'd have a more enjoyable round, not a bad trade off imo.

If others feel this is an unacceptable trade, fair enough :/

As mentioned in my OP, this thread isn't supposed to be a "solution", its supposed to prompt more suggestions to get more "good" FTW alliances going. I could well be wrong, but I believe this is impossible if all the best players in any one round are always in the same alliance/two alliances. They need to spread about more. And they arent going to do that willingly, tbh.

Who we got now?

I see the players scattered around now but with nobody to lead them.
People need to step up and start making cores again.
Only thing i worry is that leadership takes some effort and the two previous alliances i was in before this round had leaders that put a bare minimun amount of effort in and relied on the experienced members to do it themselves.

Leaders are getting too lazy.
Who is gonna lead these "FTW" allies?

True, tbh.

 

[Cheese]

Well, instead of predicting doom and gloom, you could always give it a shot, and see if it works. Wouldn't that be better than simply sitting here with the status quo watching paint dry on yet another boring round?

I don't think people would be overly critical if you gave it a shot, and tried it out, instead of simply abstaining from the whole idea simply because you suspect (rightly or wrongly) that it isn't going to work. Seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do.

I think you kinda only took a few things out of my post and not my reason for not wanting to participate. Yes I believe it will fail but that isn't what's stopping me from joining in.
It's the fact I play this game for my own personal enjoyment and if I'm allied to people I don't like I aint getting that enjoyment and therefore will have no motivation to play.


Toby I'll be honest with you because I'm selfish I don't play this game to please anyone but myself.

 

[TaO]

Possible cons:
People wouldn't like not being able to play with friends (Though a limit of say, 10, is fairly lax and would allow most close-knit groups to maintain their close-knitty-ness)

Benefits:
Everyone would suffer from having less reliable members, contrary to the current system whereby you can literally have an alliance of 20 people contactable 24/7, thus making the alliance pretty much invunerable.

Both of these would lose the real ftw players. Lack of reliable members is demoralising which makes people not want to play, same goes with the friends. Why would you want to play with people other than your friends. If you just have 10 friends, gg.

¬_¬

If you're saying you join an alliance with friends each round and 20 of those are people you know extremely well and could not possibly go a round without playing with them. I think you're lying

TBA was my most socially active round, I was in S_G and knew a lot of the guys there, but I still didn't know all 20 people in the alliance.

This suggestion would require people who play with their friends round after round to limit themselves to playing with 10-12 people they're close with (Which as I said in my last post wouldn't be a problem for most groups, look at Omgpop - They've disbanded twice, proving those who stayed together were the "core" group of friends).

In exchange they may actually have something to do a week after the round starts, other than counting funds. (I.e competition) The phrase "greater good" springs to mind.

Leave OMGPOP out of this!
OMGPOP just "disbanded" once..
The core 5 of OMGPOP are still in OMGPOP, those that started Resilience was the inactive uncontactable children, like JJ, Mateen, Eden etc..

Then ontopic..
If you decide to "lead" a round like i did 2 rounds ago.. *GC*
I actually recruited alot of people i knew, but never played with before.. and most of those people i actually started to know/like/respect during that round..

If you can't pick a team yourself, then why would you bother to lead an alliance?
If you can't pick a team yourself, you will just give the final blow to any core FTW player of this game.

This is a "stupid" idea.

Get real you never did any leading in the GC round

"lead"
I never said i was leader, i just said i decided to "lead" an alliance