Increasing the number of players in the alliance

Vanya

I apologize in advance if such an offer has already happened. But I'm just wondering why only 18 players can make up an alliance and not allow 30 people. Or at first there were 18 and then with something you could increase the number of players. I'd love to hear your opinion!

KillMasterC

It's strange you can keep more people at the same level. One popular request from this problem is to allow different difficulty for each battlegroup.

SilverZA

More people would have to join the Alliance Missions, and there may need to be more battlegroups.

UmairKhan05

I would go against advising this. This would ruin the fun of Alliance Missions. I think 18 members in an Alliance are really okay. If members increase, they hv to increase the no. of battlegroups and that would get really messed up. 6 members are more than enough for exploring a battlegroup, sometimes just 4 are enough. So, I am happy with the 18 members in an Alliance

Vanya

And why exactly 18 players in the alliance and not round up to 20 and make 4 fighting groups of 5 players. Well in general I agree 18 players it is normal but still in the future as one of the ideas can and implements.

UmairKhan05

Vanya wrote: »

And why exactly 18 players in the alliance and not round up to 20 and make 4 fighting groups of 5 players. Well in general I agree 18 players it is normal but still in the future as one of the ideas can and implements.

The current implementation of the Battlegroups of limiting the no. to 6 people per Battlegroup seems legit as 2 extra players can act as backups for helping on the 2 different wings which can be really helpful given the present AM map. Limiting it to 5 players would mean that if help is needed on both the wings, then one wing would be left, which will let the map be unexplored, thereby missing the rewards. See I am not saying that increasing the limit of no. of players in the alliance is a bad idea...but rather, I am telling it through the AMs perspective as these missions may be impacted in a negative way and yes, I love AMs a lot, so I won't like it if that happens.

Gunz0

The game’s already dead and hundreds of alliances are struggling to recruit good players. Where did you get this idea from?

KillMasterC

Gunz0 wrote: »

The game’s already dead and hundreds of alliances are struggling to recruit good players. Where did you get this idea from?

Help us to merge?

Vanya

UmairKhan05 wrote: »

Vanya wrote: »

And why exactly 18 players in the alliance and not round up to 20 and make 4 fighting groups of 5 players. Well in general I agree 18 players it is normal but still in the future as one of the ideas can and implements.

The current implementation of the Battlegroups of limiting the no. to 6 people per Battlegroup seems legit as 2 extra players can act as backups for helping on the 2 different wings which can be really helpful given the present AM map. Limiting it to 5 players would mean that if help is needed on both the wings, then one wing would be left, which will let the map be unexplored, thereby missing the rewards. See I am not saying that increasing the limit of no. of players in the alliance is a bad idea...but rather, I am telling it through the AMs perspective as these missions may be impacted in a negative way and yes, I love AMs a lot, so I won't like it if that happens.

For me AM toe is a very important thing and as you say the extra players don't hurt. For example, if someone can't participate then they can be replaced with others. As for the battle groups, you're right.