Alliance Town Limit

DeletedUser27863

Alliance Town limit

This is idea to make game more interesting and not end up with 2 major alliances.

Proposal
As things are now, whatever you do on any server, it ends up with two major alliances having control over Fort figths and it become pretty routine. So why wouldn't we set a limit for member towns in alliance- the exact same way the towns are limited to number of players? In my opinion alliances shouldn't be larger than 10-20 towns.

Current Workaround
No Workaround.

Details
It's not much work needed, you would just have to set a limit for member towns.

Abuse Prevention
Well, of course, top ten towns would probably group up in same alliance and then try to dominate it. But since their numbers wouldn't be larger than 10 towns, they would be defeated.

Visual Aids
I don't think any needed.

Summary
Setting town limit in alliances would prevent having just two major forces and i think it would get rid of multis, due to changed tactics.

Administration
Does this idea meet the Ideas Guidelines & Criteria? Yes/No
Does this idea appear on any of the Previously Suggested Ideas List? Yes/No
__________________________________________________
 

DeletedUser34315

Alliance Town limit



Abuse Prevention
Well, of course, top ten towns would probably group up in same alliance and then try to dominate it. But since their numbers wouldn't be larger than 10 towns, they would be defeated.

__________________________________________________ [/I]
You'd just end up with the alliances consolidating into megatowns.
10 towns is not that many- but that's up to 500 players. I don't think an alliance limit would be effective, if one big alliance has to split into two, they will just be allies.
 

delldell56

Well-Known Member
heh, i need to unearth a thread where i fought this idea in length. before you, rice farmer proposed the same, prompting me to stop lurking and join this forum just to reply. i understand the reasons behind this proposal and, without saying it doesn't have its merits and pros, i stand by my opinion that there were more cons than pros back then as there are now.
 

DeletedUser35533

pointless.
alliances can still have an unofficial friendships and every town fits 50 people even the biggest alliance could fit in 7-10 towns.
top ten towns are in the top 10 because they have/had top players .
in 10 vs 10 the quality and level of activity would decide the outcome, so of course top 10 would win.
 

DeletedUser27863

i am not so sure if merging towns would have happen.. i think most people are loyal more to their towns than alliances..
 

DeletedUser34767

I don't see where it will change anything, or is needed.

Currently you have big alliance A vs. big alliance B.

With the change you will have medium alliances A1 + A2 + A3 vs. medium alliances B1 + B2 + B3. The teams will still be the same as before, just grouped slightly differently.
 

DeletedUser35746

I don't see where it will change anything, or is needed.

Currently you have big alliance A vs. big alliance B.

With the change you will have medium alliances A1 + A2 + A3 vs. medium alliances B1 + B2 + B3. The teams will still be the same as before, just grouped slightly differently.
+1
and what is more, you would need to travel to fort to sign in battle
 

DeletedUser27863

well, that was just a brainfart..
mod, thread can be deleted since there is no positive response
 

delldell56

Well-Known Member
don't take it bad, 15kol. your intentions were good and it's not a bad idea. but like "world peace", things like this can only live in utopia for many reasons associated to flawed human behavior.
 

DeletedUser27863

don't take it bad, 15kol. your intentions were good and it's not a bad idea. but like "world peace", things like this can only live in utopia for many reasons associated to flawed human behavior.
i don't take it personally, don't worry :D
 

Absalom Stone

I don't think it is a bad idea, to be honest. Limit it to 5 towns per alliance, the alliance gets benefits from the forts, so it doesn't matter if they have sub-alliances, they do not get benefits, so the logical thing would be for sub-alliances to "do their own thing" and try to get their own forts and fight their own fights.

They may still help each other to some extent, but it's not quite the same.

As far as having to travel to sign in to a fight, boohoo. Maybe that would add to the incentive to stick with your own alliance as an autonomous entity rather than just be a sub-alliance.