Is it time for 40 members alliance?

"Just a topic for discussion"
• Is it time for alliance to have 40 members & a additional 4th bg group for aq & aw's?
To make things more interesting & spice up the alliance events.. around aq, bg & aw's.
.
What do you guys think, will it work good or backfire the alliances & make it difficult ?
PS: would love to see a response from KABAM guys on this as well.

Comments

MrSakuragi

Please no. Hard enough to recruit for 30.

DarkEternity

I’m sorry, wha??

Furrymoosen

It’ll never happen.

Deder80

I totally disagree with this. Like @MrSakuragi said, it’s hard enough to recruit 30. It’s almost a full time job recruiting that many solid players. 30 is perfect. On the flip side. It would be nice though so if someone need a break the bench warmer could fill in( the guys who just want to casually play, or semi retired) time to time. I don’t see this ever happening

unknown

This content has been removed.

SirGamesBond

Atleast
68 members + 1 leader.
Else no deal!

willrun4adonut

Football conference realignment, but with alliances? Just have three mega alliances.

OKAYGang

Atleast
68 members + 1 leader.
Else no deal!

419 members plus a leader

SpideyFunko

Football conference realignment, but with alliances? Just have three mega alliances.

Pac-7

ChaosMax1012

Im not against the idea of increasing alliance member limit. But with how buggy the game is, definitely seems like a bad idea anytime soon. Would love to see it one day

Ayden_noah1

I'm down for 40 members only if war and AQ stay the same. This way we can have 10 members to rotate in, so the other members can take a break.

Keltan

I'm down for 40 members only if war and AQ stay the same. This way we can have 10 members to rotate in, so the other members can take a break.

Must as well cut down AW/AQ BGs to 2 so you can rotate those 10 members around ..
Not easy to recruit active and reliable players 😞😞😞

ChaosMax1012

I'm down for 40 members only if war and AQ stay the same. This way we can have 10 members to rotate in, so the other members can take a break.

Only problem is leeching of course, and outrageous events like gifting, heavy impact on battlegrounds, and distribution of defenders in war. 30 is the sweet spot for 3 battlegroups, but i could see maybe 45 members working for 15 members a battlegroup. Any higher however would be ridiculous. 30 will be fine for a very long time as it always has been, but would be nice to see some change involving members in alliances, or at the very least better communication systems implemented in game if anything