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

  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.

Well they still have the option if they installed the game made and alliance opt in on war and dropped the game but never deleted their account

After 2 or 3 missed wars (a mod knows better), the dead alliance is out at wars, automatically.

3 Likes

Ok was wondering ive never been inactive so nice to learn these things but basically the win lose percentage is greater with a three vs three war than 30vs30???

After a player misses two wars in a row, that account is auto-opted-out. If no player in an alliance is opted in to war, then the alliance is excluded from matching.

No. The effect they’re exploiting is that the alliance war score is adjusted up after each win (and down after each loss). After three wins in a row, you’ll be getting matched with tougher alliances, so disbanding and reforming resets your war score back to the default value (that is calculated from your hero and troop strengths).

8 Likes

Thats cool learn something new every day :+1:t2: So there are measures in place for that sort of thing

Ahhh i see so keeping same strong players matched against weaker player for cost of small amount of gems so is there an option to take that advantage away in consideration or should we all follow suit to fast track our game?

I dont think i will ever actually try that im currently level 58 with 4280 war def power and I enjoy the comraddery of my fellow teammates so game goin fast enough after a year and half approx of play

I would totally oppose this. I am in a small friends and family alliance. I like to know the people I’m gaming with IRL. I just don’t have enough nerdy friends to build a big alliance.

Also, I almost didn’t recognize @Kerridoc with the new avatar. Nice!

5 Likes