10-Man Alliances

[Gazzy]

-2 on defense would just make it too hard to attack alliances with anything but a full wave or train ... which already has a detrimental effect on the game.

The problem is that 10 min ticks and 20 man alliances works really well. And theirs a simple answer, get more players (not actually so simple).

Anything else is like trying to justify eating soup with a knife. It works, but its a butchers job.

 

[Spiky Spoon]

What type of soup?

 

[Gazzy]

Noodle.

 

[flameharvester]

Why not go 5 min ticks to make it more exciting and give say +50% insurance if your offline. A lot of great games give extra defence or their equivalant of insurance, if your offline. Could be fun

 

[Gazzy]

People would just log off at attacking for 3.

And 5 min ticks would make the game too fast. It's for in a private world for 1-2 days, but not for a 3 month round.

 

[Max]

10 man alliances would be interesting but also would make it even harder for the little guys. I still prefer Polo's epic injury/insurance suggestion

 

[redlion]

Increasing the tick length to 15 min might not be bad. I don't like the def. eta -2 idea, but I like the idea of giving -1 defending ETA to p-naps.

As to making the ticks shorter and having offline insurance, it needn't be as broken as you suggest gazzy. Have the insurance only kick in if you've been offline since the hostile mob was ETA 4. Some sort of time offline limit or something, to prevent logging off at the last minute.

Cool ideas all around though.

 

[Max]

I think that 10 man alliances would also make the activity demands on alliances quite high (unless they didn't care about dying with nobody online of course), which would only favour the choice of solo play again, so if it were to take place I do wonder if more people would just end up playing solo anyway and we'd have the same number of alliances as before?

 

[dave]

i dont like the 15 minute tick idea or the -2 def idea, the -2 would just make alliance play ridiculous,

but 10 man alliances would make it a more competitive round again, this round we only have 5 20/20 allies, 10 man allies would make it 10 10/10 allies plus we have an 8/20 and 9/20 atm, that would be 12 potential competitive alliances instead of 5

 

[Yeadon]

1 simple change to an 18 man alliance to kick things off with would be a start. It sounds minimal and almost as if it would not make a difference, but it would reduce the chances of defense slightly at the same time as freeing up maybe 20 people or so - Which would effectively be another alliance.

I think rather than making drastic changes with immediate effect, it would be better to be gradual to allow for the transition. You could knock it down to 17 the following round if it didn't have the world beating impact you expected.

Also - Maybe have a few more bots in the game to give the player base a bit more of a bulkier feel.

 

[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]

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

 

[[Ninja-7]]

Skynet!!

 

[Yeadon]

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]

Better bots

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]

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.