6-Tribes per Alliance Proposal

Open Sanzo opened this discussion on

Boats -

Shuus suggestion was suggested by me ages back think what was said was that if peeps dont like each other or if u get some that aren't too active, it would defeat the purpose or something in that regard.

Shuu -

well i mean by shuffle is shuffle players not tribes, and yes there will be + - as the current system most likely will be 1-2 active alliance fighting for no 1, some people will complain that this that alliance bash other alliance, by shuffling means you get your players base on luck? lol and veteran can teach minor/new players how to play better to improve and grow as an alliance.

i dont mind either way, as the current set up if nothing change , probably #27(most active & veteran) will dominate the age for at least 2-3 ages (untill they get bored dominating [:p])

Boats -

If you shuffle players, you will shuffle tribes [;)]

Silencio Reborn -

If the winning alliance came from the game dominion, then it makes sense that they would dominate this game. That game had an undead race with really inefficient and expensive units that were immortal and gained troops on attacks. Despite its terrible inefficiency and high prices it dominated the game for a long time. Anyone who played that game knows that an efficient and cheap race with immortal units (Like HE) is going to dominate every other race, with the exception of something else overpowered like ravens in the beginning.

I thought about making a guide or suggestions to help people figure out what races were best/overpowered based on the cost and efficiency of their units, but this game has more factors that I am still trying to learn and figure out. For example races with cheap spies and big population (like brittonian) are better than I originally thought because I didn't know that spies could make you so much gold in this game. Races like dwarf don't have as big of an economy as I thought, because they are weak to spies and they don't get the thieving economy that other races get. Also they appear to be one of the easiest races to destroy outside of war. I remember dying outside of war from thieves as a top 10 land playing dwarf a few years ago and that was after I barely defended myself against the suicidal dragons that were devastating every other race in the game.

I think that 8 people is still fair. Due to certain factors like war and research pumping, a smaller alliance may even have certain advantages depending on play-styles and other factors. The biggest problem I see is overpowered races/strategies that players from a more balanced and unforgiving game (like dominion) can see much better. That alliance obviously has a target on its back and if they defeat the entire playerbase using only 8 players then they deserve the win. Congratulations on the win 27.

Nandu -

There are zero advantages to being in a small alliance

Ed -

What about keeping the alliance size - but make the maximum amount of reserved spots 6?

This way, each alliance would get 2 randoms / age (in theory), giving new people and people without a group a way to get into and learn the game.

Tukk -

What if 1 or 2 alliances are the only alliances to get a random tribe giving them a +1 for the age over other alliances of 6. Assuming these ppl that randomly merge into a alliance of 6 are looking to be more active and help the alliance out.

Not sure but lot's to debate...
Page 1 2 3 4