6-Tribes per Alliance Proposal

Open Sanzo opened this discussion on

Sanzo -

Dear players,

Due to the current playerbase, the development team is mulling over a switch from 8-tribes to 6-tribes per alliance.
As we can see this age, there is only one alliance with 8 players, three alliances with 7, and the rest less than that.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

Also feel free to vote anonymously in the poll:

Gits -

Should give us 6 to 7 good allies vying for first and making it more fun.

Bongo -

good idea .., but it seems like people like playing smaller alliances at different times over the course of the year... summertime here..i dont like big alliance headaches... when day is done its time to sit and play a little...

Virchue -

I like 6 per alliance but tm/raze damage should get buffed slightly if that’s the case.

Bongo does make a good point. Time of year isn’t the beat for playing for most people currently, hence the multitude of slackers. From what it looked this winter still had some decent competition at 8 per alliance.

Gits -

If we go to 6 man. A lot of things would chane ops damage etc to compensate for the change.

Hal -

increase dmg also outside of war? too easy to war block with few alliances

Sanzo -

Yes, of course damage would be modified to accommodate smaller alliances

Rudy -

Not one for this change.

Gives 6 vets the ability to just walk away with this game.

I have 2 new players setup to try this game in the fall. With 6 player alliances there's no way we can make room to train new players. Some of us still actively recruit and help tribes learn this game.

To many reasons to me why 6 tribe alliances truly shouldn't be introduced. If anything we should be forcing small alliances to merge into bigger alliances. Currently the game could have 7 full alliances of 8.

Peanut -

the change will be quite sad in my opinion and does not solve any issues with player base a minimum of players per alliance should be introduced so small alliances have to become competitive.

just consider everything here going to 6 does not solve the playerbase issue it will merely make much worse as alliances who are competing now will now be forced to kick 1 or 2 members who more than likely will quit being unable to play with friends

this was an issue years ago from 12 to 8 the playerbase wilted

once 6 doesn't work then what

NO to this idea will not fix anything

Noodle -

Totally not for this, this wont fix the issues itll make them worse, and shrink the player base

Noodle -

Why make us suffer by removing alliance members?
Why not do the opposite, remove alliances smaller then 4, DONT penalize the alliances who are 6-8.
And as a bonus, guess what the multi accounts and cross logging and shit like that will be easyier to track and deal with the Rule breakers.
Just my opion, but this is going to hurt the game more then help.

h3 -

Yeah 6 man allies would be good

Full -

Best is 1 mans alli best 1 wil win [:D]

Gits -

The 6 man allies was taking into consideration due to the membership snd competitiveness of other allies.

By reducing alli count as well as maybe implementing a minimum count of tribes per ally it would solve alot of issues indeed.

When understand some people don't want to leave their friends, yet if those friends aren't active maybe they can play in a smaller ally until they can and those who are to fight for dominance. Competition is clearly lacking as its seen in this age. I am not saying This is the only problem, it's just one of many admins are trying to tackle.

Bongo -

Shuffle the players like a deck of fresh hands every age.. make each alliance 6. If that's to weird..rank players and distribute by ranking

PheNom -

Altho i like the idea of shuffling players.
Some players dislikes eachother, and that will cause a malfunction for that alli.

It might be a success to make 6 man alli. But imo we cant rule it out and I do think we need to give it a fair chance.

Ofcourse other implements must be made.

But plz try not to put on that negative hat.

Bongo -

Maybe if we get guys together that don't like each other they will patch the differences up so we don't get the hate in forums..tho it seems less this age

Bongo -

Also gits..the competition is lacking this age due to the bigger alliance people have to pump science.. before you just warred for it..

Gits -

Think you are confusing competition, with in-game acts.

Noodle -

I dunno this happened before and we lost alot of players. The alliances like mine for instance is very active. I understand the reasoning to an extent but I'd force the smaller allies to become bigger. Not reduce the large to smaller. But I was a vote for 8 as alot in my alliance but it seems like minds are made up. Hopefully orc doesn't die but I'm unsure if I'll continue.
I'll still hope for my double ds to return[heart]

Scarlet -

I'm against the change personally. 7 is a prime number. Way better. [evilgrin]

Kairon -

I’m cool either way as long as there’s still warring [evilgrin]

Sanzo -

It is of this player’s personal opinion to keep alliance size at 8. I wholeheartedly agree with what Noodle so eloquently stated, that reducing alliance size could cause the game to shrink proportionately, as it had last time.
Although it is difficult to say whether reduction in alliance size causes playerbase to drop or vice versa.

Most importantly though I think it is our obligation that if we really enjoy this game, we should not be embarrassed about our nerdy hobby and try to recruit friends and acquaintances to join [:D][heart]
Any suggestions to facilitate recruitment/referrals would be greatly appreciated

Gits -

Reality is that back then we had an average of 50 to 65 total tribes. With 2 top allies and the rest mediocre.

We have since kept the same average tribes in play. Reason? Due to us older vets playing this game we have liked since most of us have been youngsters.

Although, I do believe in facts when making assumptions. So fact is we have stayed steady for 3 years. Fact two is that we have indeed created more competition since 2015. With 11, 24, 40, 17 and 125. This ain't even including 23 or 19. If we go down to 6 man allies those allies would lose 1 to 2 people on average to have the ability to create another alliance. I truly think we could make 7 or 8 good alliances. Plus we got good players scattered about. While some players love to play the solo game, this game wasn't meant for that from the get go but as a team environment. We went off course and reason we did is because some players wanted to be #1 in land and not go to war and maybe die.

Yet look at this age now? How fun is it? Attackers and TMs are all in growth mode for the most part. Hardly any wars and for those few wars there has been surrenders. Maybe for some that is fun but not for me. This is a war game and we need to treat it as such, if not then we need to go play SIM city. We cannot be selfish as we players are what make this game. We can't be stagnant and expect results. You asked for change then embrace it.

It's a reason I agreed with Phenom's idea of having a minimum player count in allies 3 to 4 as well to the addition of 6 man allies. Nothing less.

Then again this aint Just about me it's about all of us. Because fact is that it's 50 to 60 of us playing still. Yes you might lose some friends to another ally. Yet the outcome is more positive than negative as was shown in 2015 with the change and now than before. Imagine If we had stayed at 12 tribes per ally.

2015 Poll

Yes - 8 tribes per alliance and 150% damage added 17 43.6 %
Yes - 6 tribes per alliance and 200% damage added 8 20.5 %
No - keep it as it is with 12 players in an alliance 14 35.9

Kairon -

I personally think a Clean up of all afk tribes In the smaller alliances needs to be done to see how many active players we actually have left because I would assume it’s around 36 -45 active players...

As for the alliance size... why not try 2 big alliances for an age or two of constant warring and retaliations? Could be fun [;)][evilgrin]

Gits -

At one point in time back when we made the choice to go to 8. I had an idea just like bulby. Which was to make random allies but the bad part would be as he mentioned you might get stuck with someone you dont like or that you get an inactive tribe or semi inactive.

I also had an idea of a solo age. Just one age every 4 ages or something. Everyone solo to break the monogamy of the game.
Page 1 2 3 4