Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Alliance player cap?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Alliance player cap?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Poll Question: Should we lower the alliance player limit?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
0 [0.00%]
7 [38.89%]
0 [0.00%]
6 [33.33%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
3 [16.67%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [11.11%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
King Sigerius View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 202
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote King Sigerius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Alliance player cap?
    Posted: 11 Feb 2024 at 17:08
In my opinion, the worst thing to ever happen to this game was the raise past 10 towns while the community faced a downward trend. The 100 player limit is far too high for the past 5 years of gameplay with these amounts of towns. A few teams, get all the players. And they build them to 20 towns, they leave and someone takes control of that account and farms it. Now they can move that player out to make room for a new player and moving the farm into another of their teams. This has been typical since the beginning of the game. The problem I see is the vast amount of towns that now lie dormant producing goods and able to be used militarily. Meanwhile if you build a military account you might get to 9 towns in 5 years. 
With all of these accounts clustered in to such few alliances, there doesn't need to be much if any communications outside of an alliance or 3. Big teams can sit mostly dormant. I believe this is the games biggest issue. 
My thought is that a cap of 20-30 accounts per alliance would force more intra alliance relations and be harder for a small group of say 4 people to control 500 accounts. Instead of 5 alliance leaders for 500 people, there would 25 alliances needed to be formed if 20 was the cap. Now there is more leaders, harder to control, ie more potential for LITERALY ANY SORT OF GAMEPLAY to occur. The game is boring, I have like 8 people I play with that are active. And I've been in an ac with 90 accounts with less talk than Iron ac. What does that tell you? 
Maybe this alliance from 2010 with 90 people only actually has 8 people. I see absolutely no reason alliance caps should not be smaller. If a large team is scared they'll lose people, just confed with them?
We don't have to kick existing people from the capped teams, but not allow them to recruit more. (I think forcing them to choose 20-30 that will stay would be better) 
Now the 90 player team is a fake example, but you all know exactly what I am talking about. I believe more teams = more dreams. We create the content here, but if lets say 1000 people play this game. In theory we could fit them into 20 teams without sat accounts, reduce allowed players in an alliance to 20, that turns into 100 teams, all potentially with their owns paths and goals down the line, even if they all start as their own thing. 
I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS CAN HURT. I do see how a teams leader ego would be to big to potentially lose control of the mass amount of accounts they do.  I do see how it would make a multi accounters life more difficult to manage. Let me know yalls thoughts!

KS
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2024 at 17:24
The phrase rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind.
Back to Top
Silly Britches View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 25 May 2013
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Silly Britches Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2024 at 17:25
I'm ok with being able to have more than 10 cities, but I can see where smaller alliances could be better for the game. The biggest issue I think is the inactive " sitter " gold farms. Most of the older large alliances( especially "training alliances" ) are full of them. It's been a problem for a while. I enjoy the game, but it could be much better if alliances couldn't control large portions of the map with 90 - 30 plus town inactive accounts
Back to Top
King Sigerius View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 202
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King Sigerius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Feb 2024 at 17:39
Yea I wouldnt want to rid the city limit. That part was a great attempt at fighting sats. But in the end creates more multis because the effort makes the account more valuable for keeping.
KS
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 435
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2024 at 10:18
Short summary:
In my opinion your suggested change is not going to fix anything. There are just going to be more "sister"/"brother" alliances. But the change would make the situation worse for a lot of players (more work for leadership and less AC chat activity) and thus in my opinion bad for the game.

I agree that the devs need to change something in the game - but in my opinion it should not be your suggestion.

Long version:

A closer look at the situation:
Lets start with a closer look at the player base of Illyriad. Essentially there are two major groups of players:
  1. The "hardcore" player who logs in multiple times a day and spends on average hours per day in the game
  2. The "casual" player that logs in a few minutes each day/other day/ week but is more active sometimes when he/she has time
The "hardcore" players can be split into two major groups again: Some are in war alliances and others are in the bigger tournament mass alliances. The "casual" player is usually in the bigger mass alliance - they do not want to be in a war and thus look for protection in masses.

The "problems":

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

And they build them to 20 towns, they leave and someone takes control of that account and farms it.

The "casual" player i mentioned above does not have the time for even more accounts. The "hardcore" player in the bigger alliance usually has a lot of cities and plays tournaments. Tournaments are mostly about positioning and activity - thus there is not too much reason to have and use a gold farm. That said i do think there are a few. That leaves the "hardcore war" player that needs gold to feed his troops. In my opinion and personal experience multies and gold farms are a lot more common for "war" players.

I have been the main Prestige trader in Centrum for a few years and i also fight for a lot of tournament squares in Illyriad. If there would be a huge abuse regarding gold farms there would either be a) a lot of Prestige sales or b) huge amount of troops that cannot be explained by the players size. In 5 years i have not really seen this on the tournament players side. That said, as far as i know it is different for "war" players (some can be explained with Prestige sales, some with hunting/harvesting ... and the rest??).

The point i am trying to make: You experience a (bigger) issue of gold farms in your part of Illyriad ("war" alliances) and extrapolate it to the whole community. In my experience that is not the case.

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

With all of these accounts clustered in to such few alliances, there doesn't need to be much if any communications outside of an alliance or 3. Big teams can sit mostly dormant. I believe this is the games biggest issue.
All the big alliances participate in tournaments. In fact the currently 3 biggest alliances fight for the first place and all other Top10 alliances fight at least for squares (exception: Ascn because of their war). So no, we do not sit dormant. We put a crazy amount of work and troops into the tournament every 3/6 months for a few years now. Tournaments kill 10+ million troops each tournament with probably around 10k and more single attacks.

Do bigger alliances mostly stay out of "war" drama? Yes - because we need our focus and troops for the tournaments. It is either "war" or "tournaments"- that is in my opinion the main problem here.

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

The game is boring, I have like 8 people I play with that are active. And I've been in an ac with 90 accounts with less talk than Iron ac. What does that tell you?
You are in an alliance with "hardcore" war players. The play the game a lot more and of course because of this AC is a lot more active. On the other hand the bigger alliances contain a lot of the "casual" and less active players. So what do you expect?

And yes, an inactive AC in a big alliance is in my opinion a huge problem. But splitting AC in more parts is in my opinion not a solution - it is going to make it worse.


Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

be harder for a small group of say 4 people to control 500 accounts.
We and as far as i know other big tournament alliance leaders do not control the accounts. We sit some accounts - but me (and as far as i know all others) do not take anything from them. The goal of the big alliances is to keep them safe and protected while making content with Seasonal tournaments, hunting tournaments and helping with growing and learning.

If my goal would be to control accounts or even increase my power then i would have went the "war" player route.

The solution:

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

My thought is that a cap of 20-30 accounts per alliance would force more intra alliance relations
We already have "sister"/"brother" alliances. So what is going to happen? Instead of 150 players in two alliances we have 150 players in 8 alliances. Around 15 years ago i played inselkampf, a war-strategy browser game and there where alliances with 10+ sub-alliances later on.

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS CAN HURT.
There are quite a few reasons:

1. AC activity for "casuals"
Some AC chats in big alliances are already quite inactive. Splitting them up makes them even less active - meaning people have less chances to talk. Which is in my opinion horrible for the game.

2. More work for Leadership
Handling and coordinating more alliances is going to be a lot more work for leadership. We already have an in my opinion huge leadership problem in Illyriad and that is going to make it a lot worse.

A few important leaders keep alliances and content running. As soon as they are less active or leave the alliances or content breaks down (more or less). And yes, there are new ones - but in a healthy scenario we would want to increase the amount of content we have!

Examples: Loki, Sin and TRST merge into TCol because of leadership issues. Quite a few alliances merged into Yarr because of leadership issues. Faction Play and Elves/Orcs/... more or less died because nobody replaced Jejune. Lemon more or less died because Willd left. Some alliances got a lot less active because of their leaders being less active (eCrow, Pirates, ...).

And yes, there are new and amazing alliances that do well ( FOR) or leaders that are good for their alliance (Lola, Bazoon, Toki). But is it healthy enough? Again - in a perfect scenario we would find replacements for those leaders and create new ones.

3. Less protection for "casuals"
In my experience the majority of "casual" players does not want to do anything with the "war" part of the game. Splitting the alliances into smaller parts reduces the protection. Which is the point you are suggesting it - but in my opinion it would be seen as a bad change by a lot of more "casual" players.

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

Let me know yalls thoughts!

And if you disagree with that opinion like yesterday in GC you declare war on that person. Thats horrible for the discussion and in my opinion bad for the game. But its a different topic for a different post. Just couldn't help myself mentioning it, sorry Wink


Edited by Thirion - 12 Feb 2024 at 10:22
Back to Top
Sif View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2021
Location: Athens
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sif Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2024 at 09:17
The big cap help inactive/old/peace players, when in the other hand small cap help active/war. In my opinion the solution to the problem that the cap creates at alliances (and at cities limit) is not set 5 or 10 or 60 or 90.... The solution is you get a benifite from being big and a negative. Ritgh now both at alliances and at cities the bigger you become is only benifite and the only negative is your effort to reach there.
I would like to see a anti big negative like the bigger the plaier the less reaserch produce. 
So something similar could work with alliances you pay an upkeep given to the distance of each city to the alliance capital multiply by the size of the city... Something like CIV
Or a negative  bonus at battle modifiers 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.