Thanks for the Alliance Limit - 50

[DeletedUser9073]

Shout out to the person making all these Alliance Limit - 50!!! Its making it very easy for me to walk away from the game and not start another world. I bet I speak for many of us when we see 50 member cap we already know its going to stink. You have to make 3 alliances than see who get founders access plus put up with people following rules than see who ghosts once a new world opens with a larger cap. Dont get me started on time of wonders even with the new rules we all get around it but no just more drama.... I can go on and on but have a great summer guys/gals I look forward to that first good world in September..

49+1

 

[DeletedUser15602]

Honestly I have no idea why they don't just make the alliance cap 100 for every single server.

Alliance caps seem absolutely pointless in the current game state-- people just make sister wings and crown sharing is easy if an alliance is going to win.

The only way alliance caps actually do anything is to make it impossible for anyone other than one alliance to get a crown for whoever's in that alliance at the ending "victory condition" whatever that may be in this scenario.

Until then, it's literally pointless.

 

[DeletedUser7101]

The only way alliance caps actually do anything is to make it impossible for anyone other than one alliance to get a crown for whoever's in that alliance at the ending "victory condition" whatever that may be in this scenario.

I don't know why its not already there ......... .
Once a victory condition is met there should be no crown sharing.then only the alliance cap mean anything.
It didn't happen yet but what if all stronger alliances decide to share and give crown to every1. Current system is easily exploitable.

I think we can plan for "get a crown for every1" world.

 

[DeletedUser723]

To think that an alliance cap of 100 players wouldn't result in a most alliances having a sister/wing/academy is just naive. On a 50 cap, you end up with fewer players per coalition in total than on a 100 cap server. Yes, people could form 3,4,5,+ alliance coalitions but, the cap has nothing to do with that. That is just the result of the play style of those players and for the most part, is still frowned upon by experienced alliances. I prefer smaller alliance caps because coalitions in total, end up being smaller in total players. THAT is what the alliance caps are for.

 

[DeletedUser4951]

Just get rid of alliance caps altogether. En Gamma was way more interesting for it.

 

[DeletedUser4322]

No alliance cap

All of them get crowns but only top 50 with the most BPs against other players outside of the alliance get a special add on or certificate to post.

It rewards the top players, plus it eliminates crown sharing and BP boosting.

 

[DeletedUser7492]

Im down for that i suppose, anything to change the end game, good lord the wonders are bad

 

[Bloodtyrant]

I don't believe in WW at all. Worlds should be set to one year with the alliance with the highest points winning the world. No Pacts Allowed. Either that or make it that WW sharing is not allowed.

As for the alliance Cap, 100 is my prefered number.

 

[DeletedUser4951]

Ideal: Just go back to the original premise. Get rid of wonders, strip alliance caps down. Make the game about creating or being in the best alliance in the world. Being part of an empire. Back in 2010 that very much was the point of the game. There was no end game announced, most people just wanted to either play in a good alliance or to create a good alliance. Most people (the handful left) from back then will vouch that the game was more fun as that. Whoever has the most points and bp at the end wins.

Realistic/Lazy Fix: Change the end game so that its not first to 4. Its either whoever builds all 7 wins instead or who has the most built when the world ends. Nobody can win by just building 4. Instead you build and go to war. Remove crown sharing, you can only get a crown by building 7 and winning outright in a sweep. That way there's at least a war. En Lato was a lot more fun because of this prospect and the high competition that came with it.

 

[Bloodtyrant]

Ideal: Just go back to the original premise. Get rid of wonders, strip alliance caps down. Make the game about creating or being in the best alliance in the world. Being part of an empire. Back in 2010 that very much was the point of the game. There was no end game announced, most people just wanted to either play in a good alliance or to create a good alliance. Most people (the handful left) from back then will vouch that the game was more fun as that. Whoever has the most points and bp at the end wins.

Realistic/Lazy Fix: Change the end game so that its not first to 4. Its either whoever builds all 7 wins instead or who has the most built when the world ends. Nobody can win by just building 4. Instead you build and go to war. Remove crown sharing, you can only get a crown by building 7 and winning outright in a sweep. That way there's at least a war. En Lato was a lot more fun because of this prospect and the high competition that came with it.

I like ideal better, grepo would not go for that. They want worlds to be decided fairly quickly and then have you move onto the next one, as I believe it is probably the beginning of the worlds which generate the most gold the quickest. Realistic/Lazy Fix is a very good compromise.

 

[DeletedUser12130]

Personally it should be world domination. If your rimmed your gone. At some point stop allowing new players last team standing wins. This ends the coalitions sister alliances and forces the cap to be useful. Allow wonders to be built at anytime....