6-Tribes per Alliance Proposal

Open Archived 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...

Nandu -

Never hurts to resurrect this thread. See title.

Even 7 tribes would be a step in the right direction...

Tukk -

We just need more tribes willing to stick it out in a alliance. Great perks when your in a full alliance.

I can only speak for my alliance but we try to do our best to complement all our players. Is it easy? Hell no! Is it a lot of work when you have multi timezones within one alliance, yes.

Struggles with full alliances;

1. Timezones
2. Communication
3. Disliking who you play with
4. Alliances game style

I can tell you we (#31) just like to compete. If that means #1 alliance for the age so be it, if it also meant top 5 than that's okay too. Alliances should focus on relationships with players and communication. I am sure some of my fellow conrads would say communication could always be better but some things need to be a work in progress [:p]

I do not like downsizing [:(].

Noodle -

Upsizing is key [heart]

Markamus -

There are roughly 50 people in the WORLD that still play orkfia and every time this idea is raised it is almost always people in full alliances saying “Nothing needs to be changed, just get more people” (It isn't always, but for the most part)

If it was a simple matter of just having more players appear then this wouldn't be an issue, we would have a player base that supports having 8 man alliances. At the moment we don't, and to be honest I don't think it is likely that it will get to a point where there is a range of 8 player alliances again. I've already argued the reasons why it would be a good idea to drop to 5-6 per alliance; try to space out some of the good/experienced players,, make wars more competitive, make balance changes easier, make it so that small alliances are more viable, make people have to think more about racial synergies/general tactics. I mean, it may even actually make it more likely that new players hang around since they don't need to bring 5-7 people with them to play the full game.

I just don't understand what the argument against it is other than “we already have 8 people and like winning in the current set up”

Noodle -

You will see the cries of cooping soo much more, but it it what it is

Boats -

Reason is more alliances. So yes, we would but at the same time does the game suck with no real competition? I mean look at it right now 31 on top and reason is the 3 drags. So that lets us kbow the level of active competition. I would guarantee if most od the guys I played previously with would be active, to include myself they wouldnt be on top. I mean no disrespect to whomever is in 31 but I just stating the truth.

Kairon -

Regardless of how 31 played the age they are on top because no one really challenged them.. I do have to say 125 and 40 stepped up with their activity and that was fantastic I hope it keeps up.

On the topic of lowering members per alliance, It's a make or break decision. It's either going to kill the game entirely or it's going to be better.. I personally would be very happy with 6-8 active alliances constantly fighting for that top spot.. the only thing I think could bring on the activity and whatnot is some sort of reward for the top tribe/alliance of the age..

Also.. why aren't the experienced and older players trying to get into contact with old friends trying to bring them back?

Tukk -

@boats ofc you be better we welcome new players and teach them. Wish more of you did this... Give us a few more ages together to learn and it won't matter who you have for competition [evilgrin]. Btw boats we we're vs 5 dragons in 125 and 3 in 40 vs our 2 dragons and we managed to be on top. Not by luck but by out lasting and out playing. The age was anyones in the first 2 weeks like always.

I will say this one last comment @boats. Not only do we have teach the game to newbies, but we unlike most top alliances allow our players to casual play especially when they have rl shit going on like a couple do right now for us. So yes ofc boats you and a full alliance of “oldies” would win over us, but maybe take that attitude and help promote and teach the game instead of coming on the fourms to say the #1 alliance this age doesn't deserve it [8)].

Tukk -

I would guarantee if most od the guys I played previously with would be active, to include myself they wouldnt be on top.

This is the level of activity we all want [evilgrin]

Full -

Ă€men [:|]

Sanzo -

As Kairon has stated, this drastic change would be a make-or-break type change.
There are two scenarios that I fear:
1. Now full alliances of eight will kick out two people who will then eventually quit.
2. Alliances will have less empty slots so there will be less of a reachout to attract new/returning players.

Personally I am very much against this idea, but I no longer wish to put my thumb on the scale.
We will have another poll in the upcoming days to determine what shall be done.
Page 1 2 3 4