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

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:

  1. Main and alt account and an old friend of mine, trained by me, personally. I wouldn’t accept in my alliance a member, except he is very skilled, TP 4200+ and at least 10 maxed legendaries. Should be very active also. First second the titan spawns should be there. I’m into this game to extremes.

Very smart so taking an advantage over the inactive alliances has fast tracked the game for you. But wouldn’t it be faster to hit bigger titans and wars for the increased loot mat opportunities

Not for me. I play to entertain myself. The competitive stress and monetary outlay to strive to reach the top spots is not entertaining to me.

Recruiting would not be made easier by forcing players to be in a large alliance if they don’t want to. They would simply just not join any. Being in an alliance is like

  1. being part of a company or organization with one goal, to reach the top
  2. hanging out with a bunch of close friends (for some a small bunch)

I overwhelmingly prefer 2, and being lucky enough to find that alliance has certainly extended my interest in this game. Many search a long time to find that.

7 Likes

Thats just if thats the case from my understanding to get your gloves shields etc big items theres a higher probability to do that at higher levels or is that not the case

On contraire. Did you see my warchest loot? And I got a sturdy shield as war loot. Who opens 2 warchests in 5 weeks like me? Now, speaking of titans… I got better resources at 3* and 4* titans, than bigger titans. And most times a rare AM. At every 2 weeks we defeat the rare blue Unicorn. I already posted at another thread; I got the telescope at last one. Few days ago…

Yea i guess its different in my case ive been in the same alliance for a really long time visiting a few others here and there but…My point was why play a competition based game and not be competitive might as well play a solo game to waste time. But i guess to each his own kinda why I started the thread great opinions so far im not totally bias so nice to see pros and cons

Dang well maybe i better rethink my options lol

I can see the advantages of solo, small and larger alliances. I can’t see why SG allows dead alliances (members inactive for 6+ months).

1 Like

Well take advantage of the option like scarecrow and win wars against the dead ones lol

I don’t see any harm in having many small, active alliances. There have been good reasons cited above for why some prefer to be in small alliances.

Clearing out dead alliances? Sure, there’s a benefit there.
Auto-demoting an inactive alliance leader? I could get behind that.
But disbanding a small, active alliance just because it’s small? That’d be like a bar only allowing in parties of 12 or more…

7 Likes

Interesting option there now hoping SG doesn’t get wind of dead alliance war advantage and change it before i consider the strategy lol

You misunderstood. What dead ones? Ghost alliances don’t even participate at wars.

Cookie Settings