I wonder what the thought process is on how SGG chose 30 as the number?
Social dynamics and team management get more hectic the larger the group of people.
Unless SGG could communicate their logic why 30 is the optimum number for the best gaming experience… I have a feeling this part of the game is what is causing a lot of issues with alliance health.
I have a gut feeling that if SGG paid attention to social dynamic issues within the context of group gaming… their numbers would improve in ways they didn’t expect.
This is a very interesting topic. My suspicion is that the original decision was not based on a great deal of thought or research, but I may be doing SG a disservice there. I guess we’ll never know.
It would be very hard for them to make alliances smaller. If they forced alliances to split, that would NOT go down well with anybody.
The more people they can squeeze in to an alliance the better. I’m sure many of you whom are “influenced” by an alliance mate when it comes from spending. Oh this pack is really worth it a hundred dollar with so many accession mat and ka-ching you found yourself buying that pack. Spenders influence others to spend pt at least that “social pressure” that we impose to ourselves. If SGG have their way they would make a 100 member alliance.
While I don’t know the direct answer to OP concern I do have relevant information to share:
I am a pretty serious gamer and have already played a large number of games. 30 is the smallest alliance number I have ever seen. All these games had either this size or larger, including games with an alliance size close to 100.
I imagine in initial development 30 was a good size for alliances as there was not a lot of alliance-oriented content. Originally there was titans and (possibly) wars. Now there is new alliance-oriented content that is straining the cohesiveness of a 30-player alliance. Likely the lack of thought or research was on the effect all this extra content would have, especially on competitive alliances. One also wonders what effect the loss of alliance association in W3K will have.
In real life people tend to be part of different “alliances” for different aspects of their life. We have a work “alliance”, a family “alliance” a sport fan “alliance”, a club “alliance” and so on. There is often very little overlap between them.
I suspect it was something as boring as a technical limitation and not a grand scheme to make their game perfect. But 30 makes the Alliance war battles manageable. Much more and they’d look like Wo3K.
The recent War of 3 Kingdoms beta scenario = crashes gives some idea about why the alliance - size may have been capped at maximum 30 numbers… years back when the game started…
System can manage the load
Various alliance play can be managed - Titans, wars and now alliance quest.
Number of people that can come together / collaborate for a duration / period of time…
What is a normal crowd & not too many… even though the saying goes as “3 is a crowd”
I am looking at practical logistics / math / system requirements & NOT the emotional aspects… which are too diverse / complicated and have not much impact to the number 30 !
About OP suggesting 15 to 25 numbers being better is also inaccurate…
Firstly, 25 is very close to 30 number.
&
We all have played enough to know that, even 15 numbers collaborating & surviving together can also be a struggle…
The “similar blockbuster” game before EP was launched was 30/30. Zynga bought that game in its heyday to bankroll other acquisitions down the line.
Zynga bought EP after buying this similar game.
No idea why that was 30/30 too.
The smallest game group for me is currently 15/15, which made sense for that game. Cosy, select and minimal group admin. Why 15? Maybe 50% of 30. No idea really.
My biggest is 50/50. I found that size alienating to an extent cos trying to remember who’s who in a 50/50 group can be daunting.
Game buddy once played in a 100/100 group. It was fun to be in a huge group but it was a nightmare to administer, even with a few layers of leadership:
Team Leader
Section Chief
Committee member
Leader
Along these lines
To me, there’s no optimal group size. If the players within a group get on well, then that’s a winner.
Group size matter more for admin, I think.
The more players there are in a group, the greater the probability of dissension with respect to personal and group goals. More effort needed to manage larger groups.
Inaccurate according to what data or research. That’s your limited opinion.
My opinion:
I joined an alliance that will cap out at 24 people max… and it’s great.
I see alliance leaders put in a lot of time and work… getting stressed out… and so many alliances struggle with membership and war flag usage,
Data:
Smaller alliances would increase social dynamics and improve gameplay. There’s a ton of research out there on group size impact on performance and culture. Go google it … like i did.
Discussion groups get increasingly unmanageable as they increase in size. Alliances, perhaps for good reason, don’t have mechanics for private conversations. Whenever you speak, you speak to everyone.
The original post had no opinion. I raised a question and hypothesis.
You on the other hand stated I am inaccurate (which makes NO sense since you are making judgments based on opinion… and I made no judgements to even call “inaccurate”.)
I see a lot of people managing full alliances… and it’s a lot of work and time and effort. Maybe too much for a mobile game.
I already have more than 150 social connections … I have way too many social connections IRL… it gets more hectic developing good connections in games on top of real life.
read closer below…