Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

TheZekoGamer · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:20 pm

16 is the best.
cause can i ask a questions why we no have a championship era in Batlle Dawn Galaxy?

Ilona · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:21 pm

gaurav1 wrote:

Ilona wrote:

Hi Alex,

You are around since quite some time... and so, you should know that the options in this voting are not reflecting a personal opinion of me or other single persons here.
As community manager, I'll go with the options that the community requested to have.
Even more, I would never state my point of view to this topic nor vote at this topic. If I would do, the result may change.

Battledawn has always been close to the players needs and we like to ask about their opinions. If you don't like the 16 player option, you are free to say why you think its not good.

Alexanderkitty wrote:

Is Tacticsoft truly so disconnected that they believe the game is now in a state where it can successfully support a competive 16 man world ?

This is subjective and not even a reason.
We will go with the alliance size that our community will decide. If this is too liberal for you, sorry

Ilona as admin and community manager, if anyone else's opinion on this topic matters its you. You have played in many teams and admined many worlds and watched different alliance sizes. You have a better basis to tell us what size you think will work compared to the BD players that have only maybe tried one or two of these alliance sizes out before.

Sorry for double post btw

Thank you G, and I really have my own opinion about that.
I won't say exactly as ...yeah.. it COULD affect the outcome of the voting, but I do agree that even with an alliance size of 200, there will be subs and stuff.
It depends to the individual players in each alliance. A good team of 10 will easily win against 16 or more mid-class players.
So at the end, the alliance size might not matter that much. As leader its for sure easier to manage it with a smaller teamsize. When you join just for the fun and not going to win, 16 or more might be an option. At least you will be able to have some online at any given time. It all depends to what you are looking for ....

CE is no kindergarden. Winning this is a tough job.

Gaurav · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:32 pm

CE is no kindergarden. Winning this is a tough job.

The issue Ilona is that with alliance size at 10, you can field more competitive teams, with alliance size at 16, like you said you will have few competitive teams and many more with just mid-class players. This is not normal BD era..this is CHAMPIONSHIP era...players coming into this should be playing for either a win or at least competitive placement and ofcourse fun. Players looking just to have some fun, troll etc..should be playing on another era and not CHAMPIONSHIP. We saw E1A1 what having large alliance sizes does to the world, you would think after so many experiments and nearing a decade now..BD would stop with running this game like its still in alpha or beta..and make decisions and stick with them based on past experience. The lack of it has caused so many players to leave Battledawn and the current lack of it will cause even more to leave. I know you guys want new players to come and it gives them a chance to shine, but this game was built on the backs of those vets that have countless hundreds of hours and countless thousands on this game. When those players do not agree with how BD is currently running, you know you have a problem. Many vets that still play, don't do it because BD is the best game or because they like how it is..they play it out of their own competitive nature and ego. But that can only carry a player so far before he gets tired and this game no longer gives them that will to play and they quit.

ilcaporegime · **Joined:** Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:41 am **Posts:** 5

Alexanderkitty wrote:

I see BD is still littered with ignorant morons who believe in the more = better idea.

‘Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity—and I’m not certain about the universe.’
— Albert Einstein
‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.’
— Albert Einstein
.

Albert Einstein hasn't said 90% of the (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..) people say he did.- The great Capo

Ilona · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:59 pm

gaurav1 wrote:

The issue Ilona is that with alliance size at 10, you can field more competitive teams, with alliance size at 16, like you said you will have few competitive teams and many more with just mid-class players. This is not normal BD era..this is CHAMPIONSHIP era...players coming into this should be playing for either a win or at least competitive placement and ofcourse fun. Players looking just to have some fun, troll etc..should be playing on another era and not CHAMPIONSHIP

Thats an argument against a big alliance size G, and it will be heard for sure.
My hope is to hear more arguments, and I also hope that people will go to this topic again and read why this or that alliance size is good before they vote for one, or change their vote when one argument was more convincing than the other.

Let us watch this topic for a while and see if more valid reasons will be added, okay? (No matter in which direction)
I'll send out a mass reminder on all worlds with the (not final) result in 1 week.
Its a lot time to consider or re-consider and also some time left to set up the roster for this event.

sheepdog5 · **Joined:** Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:27 am **Posts:** 257

Your logic is horrible ilona.

Tyranny of the majority will reign and in your infinite weakness you will put 16-man alliances into championship era, and thus you will ruin the round.

I am out. My team will not come if this is how it will be.

Your job is to give the community a SENSIBLE decision to choose. 8,10, or 12 man alliances....NOT 16.

This is empirically proven in crappydawn 5+ years ago with you had 14,16,18,24 man alliances.

There is a REASON we do not have them today.

If you will not see reason, I will not play. I will make sure my opinion is voiced to as many other serious teams out there as possible to ensure that no one WASTES their money on this horrid game.

-Colin

abeyant · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:42 pm

Yea I have to agree with Alex, Gaurav and Colin. 16 man teams would not only be hard to find, but also would kill the competition. Rather than having say 10 competitive teams you would have 5 or 6.

A championship is about finding the players that are the best at what they do, not the best at doing something similar to what they do. Do olympic soccer/football teams put 18 players on the field? No they still put 11, just like they normally do. Same should go for BD, the only options should be 10 or 12 because those are the standard alliance sizes.

GreenDayIsBack1 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:27 pm

Voting for 16 members Mhmmmm

so this means this world is going to be bigger?

and subs get bann?

GT5FTW2014 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:31 pm

*casual shoutout to RoFL winning E6*

GreenDayIsBack1 · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:33 pm

GT5FTW2014 wrote:

*casual shoutout to RoFL winning E6*

are you joking? xDDDDDDDDDd

CE 2014 - details and alliance size