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

No an insult but just snowflakes however based on the replies it looks everyone is assuming that small alliances have 4k teams when in reality is mostly for new players smh

Indeed. But in the bigger alliance you got to choose what you attack. It is more difficult for me and requires a lot of luck and skills to kill the same 4300+ at least 3 times. War is war, battle is battle, there is no such thing there is less effort in a smaller alliance. On contraire, I would say.

2 Likes

Your ORIGINAL thing talked about recruiting…and that “effort” is another weak argument.
There are lots of 30-players-alliances never ever thinking about coordinating. I’ve been in such an alliance once. They hit, when they want or even don’t hit at all…
And tbh - as I am the “war coordinator” of our alliance: to put 1,2 messages into the featured message is not THAT effort at all - would be less if the crappy user interface for that featured message would be better…

Another thing, you didn’t pay attention to: The number of people in an alliance has nothing to do with the number of people in this alliance participating in war. We are 27 people and at the moment 17-18 are participating, because some are in holiday, some have a new job, some have other real life issues they didn’t talk about…(and yes, matchmaking is worse now, but why should we get less loot for worse matchmaking???)…

Edit
Tbh: I just can’t stand to cut something that doesn’t hurt anyone. I can’t see why it hurts a higher alliance, if smaller alliances would get the same. That’s some enviousness I can’t understand - if you think, it’s no effort, you’re free to build your own small alliance. If you think you’re better off in a larger one, be it.

1 Like

Hi Kids,

Pay attention - this is how communism was born.

This is the only real valid argument for small alliances. It could indeed be more difficult to kill a strong team over and over. Unfortunately since matchmaking works poorly at lower member count, it’s unlikely to be a fair matchup in the first place.

Really? Please quote me where I talked about recruitment. My only comments have been about AW loot.

Sure there are. No offense, buts that’s pretty poor coordination and will usually lose to a more coordinated alliance.

I specifically said members opted in for war. If loot was better based on participation (even better based on war score) there would actually be an incentive for more members to opt in and contribute. In turn, this would result in better matchmaking. Also, this is how everything else works - notice that as less members contribute you end up fighting worse titans and getting worse loot?

Of course this would also result in alliances with mixed interest in war to split up, but I think that’s a good thing. Alliance wars are the best feature SG added. Not because they’re fun, but because they’re good for the longevity of the game as it gave a good reason to need more than a couple strong heroes.

Do you also support participation trophies in sports? Personally I think competition is great and top performers should be rewarded. In this case it’s even worse because the loot is random.

What is this “co-ordination”? :confused: We just come online and attack whatever team looks roughly beatable (trying to leave the weakest enemies for lower level members for efficiency’s sake). Usually works. Sometimes doesn’t.

I hate to think what would happen if one of the leaders started trying to get us to use the same coloured tanks or some such horse deposit. They’re mostly just grateful that we show up to use our flags.

2 Likes

And here we go… The weaker alliance has a nightmarish war. If this alliance win, why shouldn’t deserve a very good loot? And what the loot has to do with you and your life, after all? Envy much? If is so easy for a small alliance everything, then go and build one and leave us be.

You’re right. Why bother with proper matchmaking. Just match up alliances randomly, why bother trying to avoid ‘nightmarish matchups’.

Btw you’re in a topic titled ‘should small alliances be disbanded’. I understand you’re all emotional about this, but what I’m proposing is nowhere near that so you can calm down.

Oh, but I am. You’re the one very agitated I see. And you still didn’t answer my question. Angel’s question. What has to do the loot with you and your life? Jesus…

I’m sorry, I’ve mistaken you for the OP, my fault :frowning:

Opt in to war and you get better loot for the whole alliance, even if those who are opted in only use 1 flag, because they don’t really want to participate? That would be the other extreme then.

Top performers should be rewarded: why is some alliance a “top performer” when more people are opted in for war? I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. People partially opted in get weaker loot from the chest, because the loot is based on participation levels, so this thing already exists - not based on the whole alliance - why should the whole alliance be punished for people opting out because they have their reasons? Be it personal reasons in real life, be it not liking war at all, be it not having a good roster…?

1 Like

I fully agree which is why I think alliances would split up in order to either be fully committed to wars or not care about wars. Right now there’s still alliances with mixed interest and people opting in and out which results in worse matchmaking.

My goal wasn’t to punish alliances for having a couple people opt out occasionally for personal reasons. Hence why I asked the question of what a reasonable requirement would be in terms of opted in members… I don’t know the answer, but pretty sure 2 is not enough…

Sorry, no Jesus in my life. This question is asked frequently on this forum. “Why reduce loot for anyone, everyone should get the best loot all the time!” Just see the raid tournament threads for a million examples. It’s not worth answering anymore.

30 person Wars are supposed to be fun — but they aren’t the most streamlined way to fill chests / get loot

Same with big Titans …

Think of it like dating sites —

If I want the full range of experiences — good through bad — match, okcupid…

If I want the highest chance at loot … aff or whatever replaced backpage (p2w)

Somewhere in the middle - Tinder

Oh, this thread is so silly and has gone in a million different directions. Everything from small alliances can’t fill war chests vs. small alliances can fill war chests too easily, too many casuals vs. not enough options for casuals, loot should be equal for everyone, forced membership is communism, whether or not someone has accepted Jesus as their personal savior…

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

Every day, I look at the world around me, the ridiculousness of it all. And people call me the ridiculous one. :crazy_face:

I said it already, I’ll say it again. Just let individual players do whatever the hell they want, and mind your own ■■■■ business. As long as what they’re doing isn’t illegal, immoral (subjective?), infringing on your own personal rights, unfairly taking advantage of others, etc., you shouldn’t let it bother you.

I don’t like the fact that some players in this game spend 1000 just to pull heroes I'll never get while there are starving children in third world countries! But hey... ultimately that's really none of my @#%ing business, is it? It’s not my money being spent (unless they’re using my tax dollars, but that’s a totally different off-topic subject…)

Back on topic: I just don’t understand the whole
Ermagawd, this alliance only has 3 members! Disband them now and force them to join mine instead!

Really???

Why? For your own personal ego boost? To fill your alliance roster with unwilling participants just so that you can proudly proclaim “we have 30 members! hurrah! hurrah! we’re the greatest! even though half of them are only here because we threatened to kill their families if they didn’t join us!” Resistance is futile! Assimilate or die!

I just don’t understand. Clearly I am missing something.

(feel free to insert your own custom tailored “you’re missing [X]” jokes here)

… and on that note… I think I’ve ranted enough here in my typical TGWish fashion that many have come to expect from me… I bid you all a good night. :smile:

May all of your loots, boards, and hero pulls be better than mine :wink:

7 Likes

I know, right?

Everyone knows Wu Kong is the only true savior …

Bull. My alt is lvl 25. I can routinely reset the board 2-3x using my bench of 3* and a couple 4*. The other player in wars with me can clear the lower team once…maybe twice.

How? Depth and using the right heroes for the task at hand. I have way more than 6 teams of leveled classic 3* so I have options when attacking.

As for matchmaking it seems spot on for the 2v2 that I’m doing right now. One about my level and one about the other players level.

I’d suggest forming your own mini-alliance before making more comments about it.

No!!!

I started as a one person alliance and over I year later my alliance is full!!! :smiley:

1 Like

Thank you for this post. I am clean up crew as well and feel useless alot of the time. Just as useless with Titans (Unicorns) especially!

1 Like

@zephyr1 isnt there a similar thread to this one goin?
Maybe merge the 2 under a better title?

Too Many New Alliances. Hurting Recruiting

1 Like

They’re definitely thematically similar, although this thread seems to have died for the last few weeks.

Rather than merge them, I’m just going to close this one, and direct new discussion to the new thread: Too Many New Alliances. Hurting Recruiting

Thanks! :heart_decoration:

Cookie Settings