Options

Should Alliance size be reduced from 30 members currently to 21?

dr_nish777dr_nish777 Member Posts: 313 ★★
in Suggestions and Requests
Alliance size be reduced from 30 members currently to 21 (1 leader +20 members)
I believe this have few benifits..
Firstly it would be easier to coordinate between fewer members and hence cooperation and bonding between members will increase.
Secondly war and aq will be shorter as each bg will have 7 members..
It will also cause the number of alliances to increase which will result in better matchmaking.
What are your inputs?? Please share...

Comments

  • ChampioncriticChampioncritic Member Posts: 3,347 ★★★★
    How is decreasing the number of members gonna make AW/AQ shorter? Assuming the map size for both remains the same, I say it becomes downright impossible to explore AQ/AW if Number of members is reduced.
  • M1k0rinM1k0rin Member Posts: 605 ★★
    No. If you want you can make alliance who play 2bgs for aq n aw.
  • dr_nish777dr_nish777 Member Posts: 313 ★★
    Championcritic said:

    How is decreasing the number of members gonna make AW/AQ shorter? Assuming the map size for both remains the same, I say it becomes downright impossible to explore AQ/AW if Number of members is reduced.

    In alliance war the opponent will also be having same number members on defense as yours
    7 people will place 35 defenders only
  • dr_nish777dr_nish777 Member Posts: 313 ★★
    M1k0rin said:

    No. If you want you can make alliance who play 2bgs for aq n aw.

    After this change even those alliances which have 20 members right now would be able to compete with rest of the alliances in season.
  • GinjabredMonstaGinjabredMonsta Member, Guardian Posts: 6,492 Guardian
    Then what would happen to the other 9 and how would alliance leaders choose? I don't think this would make things easier as you would like. It would cause the rewards to probably decrease in both areas.
  • dr_nish777dr_nish777 Member Posts: 313 ★★
    GinjabredMonsta said:

    Then what would happen to the other 9 and how would alliance leaders choose? I don't think this would make things easier as you would like. It would cause the rewards to probably decrease in both areas.

    Yes with the increase in number of alliances, rewards may decrease as the competition will increase for a given tier unless tier size is increased.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Saransh245Saransh245 Member Posts: 152 ★
    Game will have to be completely revamped for this to happen. Current maps are designed keeping 10members each bg in mind. + Reducing the amount of members will increase the number of alliances further increasing the competition for same rewards. Summoner advancement+ 3day alliance event milestones will hav to be adjusted. That's just too much work for designers and developers that can be easily avoided, since game is fine with 30 members per alliance. There could be further adversities that I'm unable to mention now.
  • Archdemon_Archdemon_ Member Posts: 669 ★★
    If you have even half decent officers, and more than 1 officer per bg (2 per BG is plenty whit maybe an extra one or 2 across the alliance for holiday cover etc) and each officer does their role, then you're only looking after 10 people in each group anyway, then all the leader should be looking after 6 (or a few more) officers.

    This is how I've run alliance in the past and how I currently work as an officer.
    Anyone's inability to run an alliance properly shouldn't be the basis of a re-work of the game.

    Reduction in size of alliances would require a complete re-work of the AQ and AW maps to accommodate the changes and still make completion possible. I'd argue Kabam have bigger fish to fry right now sorting out all the bugs with existing content and feeding out compensation etc rather than having to go back and rehash a system that, for the most part, works well.
  • dr_nish777dr_nish777 Member Posts: 313 ★★
    Archdemon_ said:

    If you have even half decent officers, and more than 1 officer per bg (2 per BG is plenty whit maybe an extra one or 2 across the alliance for holiday cover etc) and each officer does their role, then you're only looking after 10 people in each group anyway, then all the leader should be looking after 6 (or a few more) officers.

    This is how I've run alliance in the past and how I currently work as an officer.
    Anyone's inability to run an alliance properly shouldn't be the basis of a re-work of the game.

    Reduction in size of alliances would require a complete re-work of the AQ and AW maps to accommodate the changes and still make completion possible. I'd argue Kabam have bigger fish to fry right now sorting out all the bugs with existing content and feeding out compensation etc rather than having to go back and rehash a system that, for the most part, works well.

    Yes sir i agree that its practically unrealistic but is there a theoretical aspect which you would like to add?
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
Sign In or Register to comment.