Let's change motivation for Creating/joining alliances

The reason why I wanna place this idea is too many half-empty alliances what still looking for members. Group of 5 people will create new alliance instead of looking for alliance where is enough place for them. Then they post their recruit order on social networks and asking pleayes to join then even though there are already alliances with 13 empty slots. My view is they doing it becasue create an alliance is too cheap. Really too cheap. You can change your name for 500, gems summoan cost 150-300… but one of the cheapest thing in store is create your alliance. Everybody have 50 gems. May be I asking for unusual thing, but please raise price for creating alliances. I recomending minimum 500 gems. Or do 2 types of allainces. Training alliance for 500 gems with limit 10 players and full alliance for 1000-1500 gems.
This can raise quality of alliances.

Place your view!!!

I agree that there are many alliances that are not full as well as there are many dead alliances that should be removed. But the motivation to found my own alliance one day was to follow my own rules and to have influence on the members of my alliance.
If you are joining -even with a little bunch of friends- you still join as a normal, small member with no influence on anything.
Raising the costs is the wrong way from my point of view.
If an alliance got problems to find members, they have to think about why they are not attractive for the potential members or do no proper recruiting. Everyone should be able to found their own even if they stay alone forever…

2 Likes

I agree that we have to do something with dead and redundant alliances. There are also way to many alliances where the leader has left or no longer plays. In my opinion if a leader goes or no longer plays for say 40 days the system should prompt closure or ask for an alternative leader. But I don’t think increasing the price of creating a new alliance would realistically manage numbers.

2 Likes

I know a game were an absent leader can be kicked by alliance members after x-days. Votes can only be made by members joint more than x-days. Then another one (longest active member) becomes new leader.
That’s also a solution…not best but it is a way…

I would say something is better than nothing. When my grandson started this game he joined an alliance based on their name nothing else. He is only 8. When I looked at his alliance which had 26 members, there was only five still playing. The leader, co-leader and elders had been inactive for over 150 days …

Thank you for discussion. Increased price should only demotivate people who are not really decided leading an alliance. We also can increase level where you can create an alliance. Let say only level 20 and higher can create his own aliance. I looking for some way how do decrease number fo empty alliances.

Solving problem with inactive leader can be difficult.

First way how to change it: In my another game what I playing they did Leader and Deputy. Leader must set up some deputy. If leader will leave an alliance Deputy will be set up as a leader. In this game if leader is inactive longer then 30 days. He will loose leader level and Deputy will be new leader. Problem can be if both are inactive.

Second model: Voting. If leader is inactive more then 30 days. players will vote new leader. Candidates must be active in last 30 days. Voting will be closed after 24 hours.

Third model. After 30 days Co-leader will have chance demote leader and replace him. Former leader will have chance take back leadreship if he will be back online.

1 Like

Cookie Settings