Alliance from 20 to 25

[Husam]

I wish if Gi increase the alliance team from 20 to 25 members.
Regards

 

[A.Alecho]

It would be great for veterans to finish Tasks everyweek 😄😉
If G! hear you 😊

 

[Bob69bob]

I wish if Gi increase the alliance team from 20 to 25 members.
Regards

Why? Maybe if they did, they could add a feature like Olympic judging where the highest and lowest scores are removed? That would certainly tighten things up for alliances that dominate with only one player. It also allows a bit of scope if one player is away and not flying at all.

 

[Madge59230]

Why? Maybe if they did, they could add a feature like Olympic judging where the highest and lowest scores are removed? That would certainly tighten things up for alliances that dominate with only one player.

I can see a rush in some alliances to be second to last !🤣

 

[Husam]

Why? Maybe if they did, they could add a feature like Olympic judging where the highest and lowest scores are removed? That would certainly tighten things up for alliances that dominate with only one player. It also allows a bit of scope if one player is away and not flying at all.

I ask that because i love to add(gathering) more friends to my alliance and join us better than start new alliance group.
Now you open Gi eyes to add new feature 😂
Nothing will be changed just increase it from 20 to 25.

 

[jpm-wv]

I ask that because i love to add(gathering) more friends to my alliance and join us better than start new alliance group.
Now you open Gi eyes to add new feature 😂
Nothing will be changed just increase it from 20 to 25.

I am not sure if that is a good idea game wise. It may benefit the alliances. But there's a larger picture here. It would give some alliances a grossly unfair advantage when it comes to the weakly rankings as well as push alliance recruiting too far. And what if those alliances have all the top ranking players? Then there would be less incentive for a lower level alliance to actually attempt to get in the high rankings (why bother attempting something that is simply going to be doomed to FAILURE). You could also have a perverse incentive if recruiting gets to far because an alliance might want a player to perform too well because they know that player will probably get recruited in a high-level alliance and the original alliance loses.

And it would seem to me to group cohesion could be lost if you are dealing with more people in a group. Some alliances also depend upon members giving gifts to each other and I am in such an alliance. If that can grow too big, than the number of gifts required can easily exceed the number of gifts I'm allowed if I'm at a lower "personal reputation level". Even when communicating, it could become more difficult with more people because people tend to forget to things like tag an individual and that can cause misunderstandings, "lost messages (oh, thought you meant someone else, not me" or the reverse "I thought you meant me, not this other person."

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

I am not sure if that is a good idea game wise. It may benefit the alliances. But there's a larger picture here. It would give some alliances a grossly unfair advantage when it comes to the weakly rankings as well as push alliance recruiting too far. And what if those alliances have all the top ranking players? Then there would be less incentive for a lower level alliance to actually attempt to get in the high rankings (why bother attempting something that is simply going to be doomed to FAILURE). You could also have a perverse incentive if recruiting gets to far because an alliance might want a player to perform too well because they know that player will probably get recruited in a high-level alliance and the original alliance loses.

And it would seem to me to group cohesion could be lost if you are dealing with more people in a group. Some alliances also depend upon members giving gifts to each other and I am in such an alliance. If that can grow too big, than the number of gifts required can easily exceed the number of gifts I'm allowed if I'm at a lower "personal reputation level". Even when communicating, it could become more difficult with more people because people tend to forget to things like tag an individual and that can cause misunderstandings, "lost messages (oh, thought you meant someone else, not me" or the reverse "I thought you meant me, not this other person."

Depends what the alliance is like. I like the idea, I like helping those in the alliance.
It would also be a general benefit, in that there would be up to 500 more places in top 100 alliances, thus more people can get the elusive alliance maps.

 

[Husam]

I am not sure if that is a good idea game wise. It may benefit the alliances. But there's a larger picture here. It would give some alliances a grossly unfair advantage when it comes to the weakly rankings as well as push alliance recruiting too far. And what if those alliances have all the top ranking players? Then there would be less incentive for a lower level alliance to actually attempt to get in the high rankings (why bother attempting something that is simply going to be doomed to FAILURE). You could also have a perverse incentive if recruiting gets to far because an alliance might want a player to perform too well because they know that player will probably get recruited in a high-level alliance and the original alliance loses.

And it would seem to me to group cohesion could be lost if you are dealing with more people in a group. Some alliances also depend upon members giving gifts to each other and I am in such an alliance. If that can grow too big, than the number of gifts required can easily exceed the number of gifts I'm allowed if I'm at a lower "personal reputation level". Even when communicating, it could become more difficult with more people because people tend to forget to things like tag an individual and that can cause misunderstandings, "lost messages (oh, thought you meant someone else, not me" or the reverse "I thought you meant me, not this other person."

Top alliance rank can any alliance team take it ...... before 3 years it was difficult but now no.
Thanks to our friends in the forum also those the non forum can be contact them in FB just need to put a plan with your team and go for the top.
My point is to add some of our friends we know each other from a years and they left other alliance and always ask to join us, also sometimes i like to share the reward with others if i have a place i will add who need maps for a week or 2 then switch place ... etc, sharing gifts and help others for me is important and this what i learn from many members doing the same, sometimes i join other alliance to help and support so if there is 25 place and keep 2 place for free this will help many players .
About dealing with more people i dont think so its a problem i am in many groups and daily i am contact members

 

[jpm-wv]

Depends what the alliance is like. I like the idea, I like helping those in the alliance.
It would also be a general benefit, in that there would be up to 500 more places in top 100 alliances, thus more people can get the elusive alliance maps.

And some alliances seem to be more meritocracy (where you are only invited in and stay based on your merit or you leave for some other reason). These merit-based alliances would take all of the high-performers leaving many alliances with lower-tier members. That can cause imbalances. And another thing that can happen is that people will then rise to their level of INCOMPETENCE (the Peter Principal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle ) where you thrive at a low-tier alliance, you get recruited for a top 200-alliance, do well, move up to a 100 alliance, then move up to a to 20-alliance where you completely bomb.

And I can make another argument, if the alliance maps become to widely available as well as collection prizes, then what's the value of having them? It's a rhetorical question.

 

[Bob69bob]

There’s something wrong with the system if gaining a top position requires communication and collusion with other alliances. If GI did their job properly and removed the accounts using dodgy practices and made the alliances involved responsible for those members, it wouldn’t be an issue.

“If you can’t beat them, join them” is not the way to go.