Max 20 members per alliance!

I have noticed that many alliances have a hard time being at full capacity these days.
Recruitment chats are full of alliance leaders trying to lure new members…it’s sometimes painful to watch, and it can be very discouraging for most alliances.

Actually only the very top alliances (CP/7DD…) can afford the luxury to run a “waitlist”

Now, what if we reduced the max number of players in an alliance to say, 25 ? Or even 20 ?
Think about it…many players would start looking for a new home, thus reversing the balance of power between demand and offer.

Also (and more importantly) it would make it easier to create new alliances that could challenge the same old institutions. Under present circumstances, it’s virtually impossible to find 30 accounts of this quality. As a result, strong alliances are only getting stronger, and smaller alliances are dying.

Implementing this new feature would definitely shake up the alliance landscape and bring some freshness to the leaderboard and the game in general. Don’t we all want that ?

and what to do to alliances that have 30 people now? kick them? which 10 of 30?

why create new alliances? isnt it better to join to existing one? merge if have problems finding people? and etc? if your alliance have lets say 20 ppl and u have very hard time finding rest 10, why not send scouts to other allies (but not make ads - like join spam message to join your aly and leave, but search for half dead alies with 10 ppl or less join them talk with ppl if they would like to join your “active” ally and if they agree to merge take them with you and only when they agree tell where to join, if they dont agree and want to be half-dead so let them be, that’s their choise)

3 Likes

For what it’s worth, we’ve run a waitlist for a long time as a Top 1000 alliance.

5 Likes

I know it could be tricky for alliances that are already full but if announced very early, the leaders could anticipate this change

Hmmm… What about no? :slightly_smiling_face:

5 Likes

This is exactly what we have done…in our old alliance the leader was very hard to everybody and sometimes also disgusting to certain members…so 4 of us left and created a new one…10 of the old followed and now we are full because 2 of us jumped into half dead alliances and talked to them sincerely…some of them kicked us immediately but sooner or later you have a full alliance…

come on guys let’s be open minded ! So many people are complaining how this game has become boring and this idea would really shake things up !

(plus the development effort on SG side is close to zero)

this would benefit only you i think… i gave u some solutions, lower your pride and go search for ppl in same chats as others do…
lets say im a leader of an ally that have 30 ppl… even if SG would consider your dum idea to make 20ppl/aly who i should kick and why with bulletproof arguments? answer me this question and i will vote “for”

1 Like

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I am in an alliance that has recently fallen to 19 members, including a few who have left temporarily to better address the current problems. I don’t think it would be very fair to everyone else who has also made the game a backseat in interest of supporting others during this global situation to suddenly come back and learn they cannot rejoin their old team since the cap of people was changed.

On the other hand alliance numbers are also difficult to fill and likewise recruiting is made more difficult by the number of alliances existing today. However this is the downside of the game gaining popularity and if numbers continue to increase lowering the amount of members in alliances may have the negative effect of making recruiting more difficult.

Between these three arguments I believe that reducing numbers in the current alliances is not necessarily a good idea, instead I think SG resources would be better spent in developing new content, to support those who have left temporarily to battle health problems and give them something to look forward to. As well as to enforce the idea that alliances of more people contributes to the social aspect of the game.

Current Titans are balanced to be affordable by a full alliance. If all alliances got reduced at once, 10+* titans will become too strong for any alliance. It will require rebalancing all those.

Yes, many alliances (my included) looks for new players. But forcefully throwing away people from current alliances doesn’t seem a solution. I think that migration between the alliances is a natural process and eventually each or most of alliances will get what they want.

4 Likes

I don’t have any mixed feelings about this - I firmly vote no.

My alliance only has 14 members, and I’m totally fine with that. I like it that way.

The alliances with 30 members should be allowed to have 30 members. The alliances with 1 member should be allowed to have 1 member.

Obviously no my alliance can’t take down high level titans. Again… I’m fine with that. Can’t imagine anyone trying to take down 14* titans with only 20 members? Lulz, lots of luck! :+1:

Outside of titans, my alliance is neither at an advantage nor a disadvantage in our total membership number. If we do wars, the matchmaking matches us up against an alliance with similar membership numbers. The other stuff - only thing I can think of is total trophy count, and that doesn’t matter for squat.

Only real benefits to being in a BIG full alliance is higher level titans and more communication. But both of those can be double edged swords.

If you struggle to keep 20 people in your alliance? Maybe you’re only meant to have 20 people in your alliance. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’ll take quality over quantity any day.

8 Likes

We have different experiences. For a long time we only had about 15 members. That has changed a lot in the last few days. Now we are almost fully occupied. Without active recruitment! Because of this and because of the kick problem, I am far from a reduction.

“OK guys. We have a budget cut. 10 of you must be fired within a month. Let’s vote who’ll be kicked out.”
Excellent perspective. All alliance leaders that faces the choice will be happy with this responsibility. :sunglasses:

2 Likes

As a business consultancy for alliances! “You have to fire someone to be successful!” :rofl:

How do you get on a waitlist :slight_smile:

To be very honest, the biggest problem with the alliance part of the game is the huge number of dead/redundant alliances.
Not sure why the system can’t interrogate itself for this, flag them up, send a system generated message to the leader email address and if no reply within 14 days close them down

2 Likes

Why does it trouble someone? If you are an active player there are more than enough active alliances of any level with open slots. Inactive alliances don’t affect active players. In the worst case an active alliance is matched in AW agains an inactive one. Well, it might be boring but it is an easy win.

With such ideas, not big surprise you struggle to find new recruits.

Besides, not all people want a competitive gameplay, some just want a chilling place. I have always thought that 30 members id a good number. If something works, leave it as it is.

Changing the number of members of an alliance is far too far away from being a problem.

Now, let’s put and example: your idea is approved. Let’s put a random example of top family alliances: Aggressive and Aggressive II. Each with 30 members. Do you get, or is it not quite obvious enough that they will just merge and create “Aggressive III”? Do I need to explain it in more detail? I don’t find the “power balance” you suggest.

I know I’m fat but, c’mon… I’m not “guys” yet… :\

Cookie Settings