| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
twilights 
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915 |
 Topic: reduce size of alliance membership?
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 14:47 |
|
what do others think of reducing the size of allowable alliance membership size? my thought is that it would increase interaction of players, add alot of new dimension to the game, and get rid of alot of inactive accounts that alliances hold on for land claims. it might make the game more interesting and promote more active game playing....your thoughts?
|
 |
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005 |
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 15:46 |
It would only mean the Crows increasing the number of wings they have.
Regarding increased player interaction, for us it would reduce it drastically as there would be less players in each alliance to interact with.
Whilst I understand that there are some alliances with a fair proportion of inactive members, for various reasons. This is not the case for all alliances and I doubt it is even the case for the majority, so I do not see that it is worth weakening all other alliances, just to force those that do this to stop.
In fact I would actually think that it might be worth allowing a increase in alliance membership, in the crows we are often having to transfer members alt accounts into other wings, just to make room for new members.
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 |
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 16:24 |
|
If you made the alliances any larger, it might create a class of a few huge alliances that are undefeatable in tournaments. More so than that exists already, at any rate.
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118 |
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 16:31 |
Reducing alliance size would have these effects, AFAICT:
- Make trusted alliances more secure and less leaky;
- Break up the solidly-constructed and nearly-full alliances like H?;
- Increase inter-alliance politics and sympathetic action;
- Encourage the use of out-of-game organising resources; hidden super-structures will emerge;
- Discourage players being comfortable idlers;
- Decrease the likelihood of safe haven;
- Make alliance 'big picture' structure less comprehensible;
- Devolve responsibility to small groups of players;
- Reduce the target size of a war declaration;
- Reduce an alliance's coverage for tournaments, so that it does not have the critical mass to succeed.
There's more, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 |
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 17:17 |
|
I agree with albatross. I think the current alliance sizes work effectively for Illyriad. Reducing the size would really change how wars and tournaments work.
I've commanded the largest alliance in a different game (the biggest on the server, in fact). It was much larger than 100, and it was a complete bureaucratic nightmare. In environments with huge or unlimited alliance sizes, you tend to get a "Winner Take All" situation where the biggest alliances are super-powerful, and nobody even tries to join anything else.
The present size seems to work really well. I see it as a strength of Illyriad.
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 |
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 17:22 |
|
I think this thread belongs in Suggestions, not Strategies. It has no bearing on current game play at all.
|
|
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768 |
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 19:18 |
|
I know it has bearing on current game play, just like in all other games.
I'm in favor of lowering alliance memberships and also in favor of reducing the # of confeds and naps. This would deter some of the alliances\confeds from spamming all the new players with invites and it would make the game more enjoyable since these large alliances/confeds policies would have little affect on all around game play.
Edited by Epidemic - 26 Mar 2013 at 19:19
|
|
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 523 |
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 19:24 |
|
Just because you are allowed 100 members in an alliance does not mean you have to aim for 100 members *prods her member cap*
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944 |
Posted: 26 Mar 2013 at 22:01 |
Sounds like a horrible idea. I would suggest the exact opposite and ask to increase alliance membership.
@epi, actually it would increase the spam of invites. The largest alliances don't spam invites people ask to join them, its the small alliances that spam invites. Also its those large policies that made the server as peaceful as it has been. IE don't attack noobs, respect 10 sq ect.
@twilights, it would decrease interaction among players. Atm i can talk to 100 ppl at once, now you want to have half my friends go off somewhere else? It isn't a new dimension to the game your just changing one thats already there. Inactive accounts get deleted, making alliances smaller won't change the number of inactive accounts. And the game wouldn't be more interesting, it would just become more annoying to keep track of things. Instead of 5 alliances you would end up with 10 alliances all confed.
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 |
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 01:34 |
|
hmmm. which of Albatross's consequences were bad...?
|
|
Tweet
reduce size of alliance membership?