Should small alliances be disbanded and be required to maintain a min number of players!

Just wondering with the growing number of players and alliances should SG consider a min Requirement to keep an alliance open. Ex: 5 players or Less in 30 Day. Alliance recruiting has been increasingly tough these days and there are thousands of alliances sitting with 1,2,3 players should they be disbanded to respike player interest and maybe rejoin active alliances. Let me know what your thoughts on this are!

4 Likes

remind me about my first post, and we have sort of a master thread about this topic already

@zephyr1

6 Likes

I disagree

I am in a small alliance now by choice, with a few other like minded players, after having spent a long time in larger alliances. We just chill out and play however we wish, when we want.

Don’t tell me how I should or should not play just because it suits your concept of the game. Live and let live my friend

31 Likes

Wasn’t trying to tell you what to do or not do! I just think the whole point in even wasting hours on end playing this game was to advance and be competitive and strive to reach the top spots in the world. If i wanted to play a game that didn’t matter id download solitaire to waste my free time lol but its all good thats why I started this thread everyone is entitled to there opinion thanks for commenting

2 Likes

I agree, i am in a small alliance by choice

1 Like

Yeah, I used to feel that way, in terms of trying to be number one or whatever, but I’ve reduced back to spending time and enjoying it. Having been number 1 in my country and visited the top 100 numerous times I’m not driven that way any more.

So it’s just for fun for me

2 Likes

@zenithciiz thanks for the heads up!

I’m going to leave this separate for now, since it’s a little different than the thread suggesting automatically removing alliances with an inactive leader.

But you’re absolutely right that the OP of each thread have similar reasoning for their posts, despite the difference in suggested solutions:

Your post that you mentioned was more similar to @Sorsha’s, which made it a more natural fit for merging.

2 Likes

I think everyone should have a choice in which alliance to participate. And in time everyone can decide if the small alliance don’t work for them and search for something bigger.

3 Likes

They wouldn’t bother because they get to steal 30 gems from us or whatever it is to make an alliance

2 Likes

I dont think small alliances should get the same war loot for zero effort.

You think it’s zero effort to run a small alliance and win wars? Why?

3 Likes

Frankly I think this is a pretty bad idea.

Firstly there are gem costs associated with starting an alliance and it would be very bad form for SG to go round shutting down small alliances of active players given that they’ve paid gems to start the alliance.

Secondly given that there is already better incentives to join a bigger alliance (namely better loot from bigger Titans, and for the record you are better off with hitting bigger Titans over the long run than opening war chests more frequently) then players who’ve joined smaller alliances (or even paid the gems to start one) will have done so for specific reasons such as wanting to play at their own pace, or taking a break for awhile and are just playing occasionally/more casually.

Thirdly those players who do just want to play things more casually or at their own pace will not necessarily be what bigger alliances want in the long run. It will inevitably lead to clashes between active alliance members who want everyone to hit the Titan regularly to get to bigger Titans and those casual players that might just want to play a couple times a week who would have been happy in an alliance of their own but have under these proposals been forced to join the bigger alliance.

Finally as touched on by others and a bit already in this post many people have different reasons for playing and are looking to get different things out of their alliance. Recruiting has never been easy but if you are coming from a position of putting “get 30 active players” over “finding players who’d be happy in our alliance setup” makes your job harder. It is better to have fewer players who share your objectives and are happy in your alliance (especially as that happiness often means they are more likely to help out with recruitment as well) than to have a greater number of dissatisfied players that slowly trickle away over time.

As such it is better to think about what it is your alliance has to offer prospective players and what kind of players you are looking for rather than hope to fill up your alliance with people that don’t really want to be there.

If people are happy playing in smaller alliances let them be.

What has always baffled me though is smaller and medium sized alliances that want to get bigger who find another alliance with the same objectives, style and feel as them but then get cold feet and any thought of a merger either down to the politics of who will lead/people reluctant to be the ones to move/general anxieties etc. You’ll need to ask someone else for how best to handle getting a merger over the line as I’ve torn more hair out over such situations than had success.

12 Likes

I was simply suggesting a min requirement to be an alliance we have small one set up as a retirement alliance for people busy in personal life or with health issues etc. There are still alot of large based “Free Play” alliances out there with no requirements. I love playing the game and it gets to be to much at times to stay in an active alliance. Thats why my simple suggestion of having a min number of players whether active or inactive to maintain an alliance status.

My eyes were playing tricks on my brain and I thought I read “Should small giant be disbanded…” and I was like WHAT!

1 Like

I can see your point on spending the gems so maybe a suggestion not to disband old alliances but maybe put a warning in purchase of a new one to have x amount of members in x amount of time that way possible cost loss is known

  1. I remake my alliance at every 2 and a half weeks, after I open the warchest. Because I don’t lose at war, obviously :sunglasses:

Finding loophole advantages love it lol never thought about that but are chest still equal at that level

I must admit, the first 3 wars are easy, but after increasing our warscore, becomes harder. At the current war I faced 2 opponents with almost 4300 TP. Still, they didn’t attack and just gave up, because we wiped them out with our attacks. I didn’t lose a war this year and likely I will never lose again: Alliance Wars -->> Share your teams, strategy & discuss

How many players are on your team or is it a solo multiple account alliance

With that strategy you’ll never hit the “5 people in 30 days” border, so it won’t bother you, lol :smiley:

Cookie Settings