Max 20 members per alliance!

Wow. I feel a lot of negativity and even aggressivity after simply putting an idea out there…
My main point is not to make recruiting easier. I’m not an alliance leader myself, I don’t have this problem. If you read my OP til the end, my goal was to make it easier to start new alliances that could end up at the top of the leaderboard. It’s been a while since a younger alliance has been able to make it to top 10. It’s always the same CP,CA,7DD,Aggressive…which I personally find boring.

And there’s the rub. You’re suggesting a solution to a problem, but nobody else agrees it’s a problem. Why should a new alliance be able to make it to the top of a leaderboard? This is an old game, there are alliances that have been around for ages, it makes sense that they’re at the top. There is no compelling reason to want to make it easier for new alliances to soar. Many of us believe that players should be incentivized to join existing alliances rather than create new ones, and you’re pushing for a system that does the opposite.

1 Like

This. So much this. Thank you.


We have people message from our Forum post in #alliance-recruitment to share their LINE ID, and then add them to our group chats until we have a spot for them.

That process has worked well for us, I’d encourage other alliances to use it, so recruiting isn’t a last-minute exercise when a spot opens.


What is boring about it? Have you ever been in the top 10 or even 100?

1 Like

How exactly would this make it easier? Instead of 100 30-member alliances at the top there will be 150 20-member alliances at the top to overcome.

1 Like

I’ve read this entire thread. The entire time all I could think about is which 5 of my family I’d have to kick out. We already lost 5 recently due to this stupid virus (No, they didn’t die but their lives got so busy they couldn’t keep up with the high-level wars, etc).

Would it be our motorcycle riding buddy from Texas that just joined this week? He’s technically the newest although he did move up from our training alliance.

Maybe our weakest players. But that would mean one our co-leaders would also leave as married players come as a package. Actually, 5 would leave as they merged as an alliance. Maybe that’s the answer. Just get rid of the amazing people we merged with months ago who have become family and I can’t imagine them ever leaving.

To make my long-winded point shorter, your solution to the non-existent problem is like cutting off your nose to spite your face (to borrow the saying). It doesn’t solve a problem or make anything better. In fact, just thinking about it makes my stomach hurt. Where’s my ulcer meds…


I think this might actually increase the number of dominant alliances, since for every 2 that drops to 20 it will create 1 more that’s just as strong.

Sorry my friend. People are not cells in Excel. Why 20 members? Lets cut it to 1 person. Then there will be no problem with recruitment at all.

1 Like

Nah. I like my alli mates. All 29 of them.

I am almost certain at this stage that Alliance Recruitment here is probably the best way of getting quality people. Chat is full of weirdos and nut jobs; someone recently started stalking me with impromptu visits, it was strange! I upset them because; they “know my type” apparently!

EDIT: I don’t like the 20 people per alliance idea. How would that work for low ranked free for all alliances?

1 Like

Meh. This wouldn’t solve any problems - “best case” scenario is that higher alliances would just make more affiliated alliances at the same high level. There would be no trickle down effect to lower level alliances like mine at all.

As for suggestions “join other alliances and actively poach their members” this is the worst and most selfish suggestion ever and you should be ashamed for doing this and having it associated with your name. Your alliance is the one that should be closed down and have numbers restricted tbh.

The real solution here is for sg to prevent new members from joining alliances with a leader inactive for more than 2 weeks or a month. When this happens, the system should put up a notice in the alliance banner telling current members that no new members can join until the leader comes back. If they want to stay they can, or they can begin planning a new alliance with an active leader. Dead alliances are the problem, not the arbitrary number cap on members

1 Like

We actually closed down an alliance where the leader went dormant and couldn’t gain control of the leadership. We put this exact message in the alliance banner. I have a baby alt in there and still check in from time to time. I’m still surprised to see players joining/leaving, older players hitting the titans, etc. There’s 0 chat logs and maybe that’s what they like shrug

Regardless, the message doesn’t work like you would expect… lol

1 Like

The message isn’t to deter new members - the system would actually block them from joining. It’s just to inform current members of the situation so they can make an informed decision about staying. Lots of new members in my alliance don’t even know how to inspect other players so they might actually have no idea how to see if a leader is inactive. If active players are content to be sitting in a dead alliance with no hope of growth then power to them, but at least they would know why no one is joining. I think this is a better way to prevent dead alliances from sponging up new recruits than just arbitrarily closing old alliances that are potentially still active just without a leader.

Or of course giving members in an alliance a “choose new leader” vote option when the leader is afk for some amount of time

If I wasn’t so tired right now I could list over 10 reasons why this is an absolutely terrible idea. Super hard no from me.

I think alliances should be expanded. Why not give us 40 or even 60 slots? At that point I move be able to get an the people I care about in one group.

Cookie Settings