And a 1 man alliance makes you always no.1 by the lowest cost lol.
Only one question: WHY?
Iâd love to hear some valid arguments. Nothing with âcompetitionâ or other weak factors that always depend on the playstyle and the player (or your personal disliking).
Actually there is a minimum requirements for participation in wars. I donât know if something changed with the last updates, but in the beginning of this year I pressed war tab before to bring my alt into alliance. Then a message popped up and said the alliance should have at least 3500 score for participating in wars. OK, after finishing few titans, one can reach that score, but still⌠I think the devs introduced this minimum requirement such that an alliance to have 2 members at least for the wars. And I donât see where the problem is. I know personally 2 alliances wich are husband and wife. They play when they can and how they can. Nobody slaps their wrist because they missed one flag at titan or war. They play only for fun and only they have time for this. Not everyone has our free time. And I donât see why someone could have issues with this, with small alliances. They represent no harm. And obviously, they would be kicked out from a bigger and active alliance.
1 Like
I wonât flag your comment, but somebody will 
Everyone here knows is wrong, but no need for insults.
I donât see that the case has been made anywhere, to explain what these small and/or dormant alliances are taking away from larger, more active ones, simply by existing 
As far as I understand: active players 
but if someoneâs not good enough at recruiting, that problem wouldnât be solved with disbanding small alliances, heheâŚ
Really? Please explain. All alliances get 5 points for a win and 1 for a loss. Tell me why it would take longer for a 2 person alliance to fill their war chest.
As per my original comment, what I would like to see changed is war loot. A 2 person alliance currently gets the same war loot as a 30 person alliance for almost no effort. Also, matchmaking is extremely broken for alliances with less than ~27 members, this has been proven over and over in the matchmaking thread.
I would actually like to see war loot scale based on war score, but if I suggest that people will be upset about weaker alliances not getting the same loot or find a way to rant about p2w.
I guess he meant harder instead longerâŚ
Really? No effort? Please enlighten usâŚ
1 Like
Thatâs what she said.
1 Like
Hahahaha, I didnât think of this
Coordination requires effort. Coordinating targets with 29 others is harder than coordinating with 1 other person.
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 recruitingâŚand that âeffortâ is another weak argument.
There are lots of 30-players-alliances never ever thinking about coordinating. Iâve been in such an alliance once. They hit, when they want or even donât hit at allâŚ
And tbh - as I am the âwar coordinatorâ 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 betterâŚ
Another thing, you didnât 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 didnât talk aboutâŚ(and yes, matchmaking is worse now, but why should we get less loot for worse matchmaking???)âŚ
Edit
Tbh: I just canât stand to cut something that doesnât hurt anyone. I canât see why it hurts a higher alliance, if smaller alliances would get the same. Thatâs some enviousness I canât understand - if you think, itâs no effort, youâre free to build your own small alliance. If you think youâre 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, itâs 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 thatâs 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 thatâs a good thing. Alliance wars are the best feature SG added. Not because theyâre fun, but because theyâre 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 itâs even worse because the loot is random.
What is this âco-ordinationâ? We just come online and attack whatever team looks roughly beatable (trying to leave the weakest enemies for lower level members for efficiencyâs sake). Usually works. Sometimes doesnât.
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. Theyâre 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 shouldnât 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.
Youâre right. Why bother with proper matchmaking. Just match up alliances randomly, why bother trying to avoid ânightmarish matchupsâ.
Btw youâre in a topic titled âshould small alliances be disbandedâ. I understand youâre all emotional about this, but what Iâm proposing is nowhere near that so you can calm down.