Crowning an Alliance Winner

[King James XVIII]

This next idea is one that has been discussed a great deal over the last few rounds.

 

TE is fundamentally an alliance game. We should have a workable formula that awards the strongest alliance at the end of the round. I also think this would fundamentally change the game, as it would motivate players from top to bottom to be active, build well, and fight well. DM posted a proposed formula some time ago that I am raising again. 

 

It may be controversial, but maybe we only give flags or SE bonuses to alliances that win the round. Honestly though, the pride that would come with winning a round as part of a team could be enough--especially for the long time players.  

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hc-s8VlwyaZ9xAS7Sd2AOHOZRXAigD8Vluj8XRsuVQE/edit?pli=1

[Instr]

Alliance mega-mergers. The main issue with flags has always been politics;

 

the game seems to be converging towards a point where a bunch of people make shady backroom deals about who is entitled to a flag and who is not entitled to a flag.

If you do it on a score basis, what's to stop people from just calling in SA Goons and flooding the game in the last 2 weeks with a GOON swarm to fuck with the alliance system?

[paul711]

Alliance mega-mergers. The main issue with flags has always been politics;
 
the game seems to be converging towards a point where a bunch of people make shady backroom deals about who is entitled to a flag and who is not entitled to a flag.

If you do it on a score basis, what's to stop people from just calling in SA Goons and flooding the game in the last 2 weeks with a GOON swarm to fuck with the alliance system?

Because part of the scoring system would involve ave NS and such a swarm would be detremental to that. One could also add time spent with an AA as a small part of the scoring. Doing so would, under such an idea, make a player who spent all 90 days in his AA worth 9 players who only spend 10 in theirs and therefore rewards loyalty. It would likely cut down on all the AA jumping, swapping, and merging that we saw this round. I support King's idea.

[King James XVIII]

Alliance mega-mergers. The main issue with flags has always been politics;

 

the game seems to be converging towards a point where a bunch of people make shady backroom deals about who is entitled to a flag and who is not entitled to a flag.

If you do it on a score basis, what's to stop people from just calling in SA Goons and flooding the game in the last 2 weeks with a GOON swarm to fuck with the alliance system?

 

I have been fighting for an alliance winner and new scoring system for many rounds now. As Paul says, adding in ANS and maybe even average casualties to a new alliance score would keep SE alliances from jumping in en masse at the very end to take the crown. At the same time, I think it would bring in new alliances that want to prove themselves in a world that has a definitive winner. Sure, alliances in the game may use each other to position themselves for the crown, but that would be counterbalanced by others that are only motivated by self interest. Alliances that have any pride would play to win--and you don't win if you don't fight.

 

Because part of the scoring system would involve ave NS and such a swarm would be detremental to that. One could also add time spent with an AA as a small part of the scoring. Doing so would, under such an idea, make a player who spent all 90 days in his AA worth 9 players who only spend 10 in theirs and therefore rewards loyalty. It would likely cut down on all the AA jumping, swapping, and merging that we saw this round. I support King's idea.

 

As I said in another thread, I like the idea of AA banners for their flag if they win. I assume you mean something like "(name of alliance) CN:TE winner Round X"

 

In addition, there should be a stats page that holds the record of alliance winners and their members. Such a page would basically be a snapshot of the alliance page at the end, including seniority to prevent stragglers from joining at the end inadvertently or by design (by alliance administrators).

 

Again, I am a big believer that crowing an alliance winner would fundamentally change the game for the better. From building, to fighting, to recruiting, to strategy and commitment, having virtually everyone in TE finally have a real chance of being part of something special is critical to the game's survival. 

[Jimmy Page]

I think the idea is a great one, creating a team mentality.  Even within dedicated alliances you still have members hedging their bets and not committing to the wars.  I think rewarding an alliance that works as a unit instead of just individual members would completely reshape the dynamics of the game, in an awesome way.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Jimmy Page

[OverlordShinnra]

I wish there was a thread that had a comprehensive prize strategy that I've seen talked about. 

 

Alliance Winner (based off of modified scoring formula which includes casualties and avg. ns but not overtly so) - Submit a Flag to the Flag Database

 

Top 3 Nations in NS (Keep it the same as two rounds ago)

 

Top 3 Nation in Casualties (The same as the top 3 in NS)

-----------------------------

 

This would open up the game substantially to players who want to play the game differently. It also makes sense that alliance flags go to the alliance who wins and the individual prizes go to the individual players. 

[OverlordShinnra]

The only problem is who submits the flag?

[Banned]

I hate to agree with Overlord Shinnra, but I like this.

[King James XVIII]

I wish there was a thread that had a comprehensive prize strategy that I've seen talked about. 

 

Alliance Winner (based off of modified scoring formula which includes casualties and avg. ns but not overtly so) - Submit a Flag to the Flag Database

 

Top 3 Nations in NS (Keep it the same as two rounds ago)

 

Top 3 Nation in Casualties (The same as the top 3 in NS)

-----------------------------

 

This would open up the game substantially to players who want to play the game differently. It also makes sense that alliance flags go to the alliance who wins and the individual prizes go to the individual players. 

 

For an alliance prize you could do a number of things and adjust over time. A banner that lists the rounds the alliance wins was a good idea. Maybe a flag. Certainly a winners page much like the one we have now. 

The only problem is who submits the flag?

 

Alliance owner. If that person violates the will of their members they'll get killed  :P

 

At any rate, I think the recognition of winning a round and a page to be kept for all to see will be far more important to the average member than being able to upload a flag.

 

Unless of course, that flag flew on the TE log-in page with the alliance name at the bottom for the next round  :smug:

[CubaQuerida]

I like the idea of alliance awards/bonuses.  The focus gets shifted almost entirely to the end result when you make it all about one nation, this would allow even those nations who have fallen on hard times or been on the wrong end of a beatdown, to recover with a purpose and give valuable assets to their AA.  As long as the award/bonus is kept within TE, you'll have players across the board in favor of such a move.

[King James XVIII]

I like the idea of alliance awards/bonuses.  The focus gets shifted almost entirely to the end result when you make it all about one nation, this would allow even those nations who have fallen on hard times or been on the wrong end of a beatdown, to recover with a purpose and give valuable assets to their AA.  As long as the award/bonus is kept within TE, you'll have players across the board in favor of such a move.

 

Exactly. With the crowning of an alliance at the end of each round, even the lowliest of nations feel like they can be part of something special. That changes the mentality across the game. Right now, I'd say maybe 50 players at the start of each round have a chance to win a prize at the end of each round. With an alliance crown, hundreds could potentially have a shot. Much like RL sports, everyone begins with hope at the start and everyone works toward standing on top of the mountain at the end..and then defending their spot. For longtime alliance members who are here for no other reason but the glory of their alliance, this is the ultimate. 

[Instr]

The problem with this idea is that you'd end up having some kind of scoring system that could be gamed.

There's also the issue of alliance sizing; for example, if you do things off ANS, what about micro-alliances? Let's say, we have what starts as a 18-man alliance with 1 runner-like, then at the end of the round 17 of the people leave, with the runner inflating the score and ANS of the alliance.

 

It's a great idea, but only if you can have a fair scoring system.

[King James XVIII]

The problem with this idea is that you'd end up having some kind of scoring system that could be gamed.

There's also the issue of alliance sizing; for example, if you do things off ANS, what about micro-alliances? Let's say, we have what starts as a 18-man alliance with 1 runner-like, then at the end of the round 17 of the people leave, with the runner inflating the score and ANS of the alliance.

 

It's a great idea, but only if you can have a fair scoring system.

 

I think the chance of a scoring system being gamed can be significantly reduced with a comprehensive score. I'm not big on formulas, but the smart guys in the room could probably come up with an initial scoring system and tweak it over time. ANS wouldn't be the only factor in measuring score. 

 

As for alliance sizing, seniority and member count (in a significantly diminished way) can be part of a score. I think one of the consequences generally from an alliance crown and new scoring system is that the days of open joining would end. Leaders would need to carefully consider new members and there would be more scrutiny for those that take on strong nations midway through the round.  

[OverlordShinnra]

Any formula can be gamed. That's why they call it a game.

[Forward]

Unfortunately, the spin that you present here would actually simply be what you tell the smaller members in propaganda, not what would actually be the case.

 

Just as they do now, alliances would still rely almost entirely on the top tier for generating both statistics for this new (and current) alliance score as well as power during war. Smaller members would continue to be mostly insignificant, and would indeed lower the ANS (depending on how important ANS is in any new formula, this could even result in them getting the boot for being too small).

 

This would also make [i]fewer[/i] people capable of winning a round, as only very few existing alliances (specifically, their leaders and top members) would have a shot at winning. Otherwise, this would cause the present handful of undeclared blocs to just merge at the start of the round (or later, if the scoring system includes a hole that allows for this), creating chaos with only ~3 large groups and some random micros left to fight each other.

[paul711]

Unfortunately, the spin that you present here would actually simply be what you tell the smaller members in propaganda, not what would actually be the case.
 
Just as they do now, alliances would still rely almost entirely on the top tier for generating both statistics for this new (and current) alliance score as well as power during war. Smaller members would continue to be mostly insignificant, and would indeed lower the ANS (depending on how important ANS is in any new formula, this could even result in them getting the boot for being too small).
 
This would also make fewer people capable of winning a round, as only very few existing alliances (specifically, their leaders and top members) would have a shot at winning. Otherwise, this would cause the present handful of undeclared blocs to just merge at the start of the round (or later, if the scoring system includes a hole that allows for this), creating chaos with only ~3 large groups and some random micros left to fight each other.

As has been laid out already any system is subject to manipulation and there is no way around such things. It was proposed to include time spent in an AA as a part of any formula to reward loyalty. Also, under your scenario I think AAs would actually work harder to help new people grow properly thereby increasing retention. As to your assumption that major blocs would form I have one word for you: POLITICS. the politics of TE will reign on such attempts look at how OP and TPC went at each other in rd 25 but worked together against all the people who infra hugged. I have seen other similar things throughout TE history and have little doubt we will again. I will, as I started out initially, agree with you that it is open for manipulation but like flag running now you will see people going at the cheaters. Maybe throw in a vote from amongst the top 3 AA finishers, that would also enhance politics.

[King James XVIII]

Just took a look at the moderator's blog, and I like the changes that have been made. I am still a big fan of crowning an alliance winner at the end of the round. A lot of people have fought for this idea over the rounds and I think this is an essential change to open the game up for more people.

 

The most difficult thing to implement would be a new scoring system, but it doesn't need to be perfect from the start. Just come up with something that takes things like military strength, casualties, seniority, etc. into account and adjust it over the rounds.

 

The prizes don't need to be anything large or tangible since you are dealing with multiple "winners" within an alliance. Honestly, a simple banner to state which rounds an alliance won and a page similar to the tournament winners page that memorializes the members of the winning alliance for each round would do. 

 

Anyone else with me?  :P

[Forward]

We could have a pretty little banner for alliance winner under the [b]current[/b] scoring system, but it remains my view that only leaders and prominent members (the people who generally can flagrun, in any worthy alliance) are useful in alliance winning anyway (other than for total member count). Imperfect, but modifiable ;)

[King James XVIII]

Bumpity bump bump

[StevieG]

This is actually a great idea. Would make it more like a tournament should be.

[Komplex]

I also support this idea. TE is very much a team based game.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

This next idea is one that has been discussed a great deal over the last few rounds.

 

TE is fundamentally an alliance game. We should have a workable formula that awards the strongest alliance at the end of the round. I also think this would fundamentally change the game, as it would motivate players from top to bottom to be active, build well, and fight well. DM posted a proposed formula some time ago that I am raising again. 

 

It may be controversial, but maybe we only give flags or SE bonuses to alliances that win the round. Honestly though, the pride that would come with winning a round as part of a team could be enough--especially for the long time players.  

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hc-s8VlwyaZ9xAS7Sd2AOHOZRXAigD8Vluj8XRsuVQE/edit?pli=1

 

I kind of just skimmed over the formulas so I may have missed some points but it seems to give more advantages to the alliances with more nations?

[dealmaster13]

I put together a few numbers a while ago, so some tinkering may need to be done.

 

The whole point of the scoring system proposal was to rid of the current formula which places excessive emphasis on nation count, which isn't a fair estimate of an alliance's strength.

 

Some notable changes I notice are giving a score for average nation strength and for nuke count.

[King James XVIII]

As we've mentioned before, I think this has widespread support among alliance leaders and members. It is time to give everyone a greater stake in the game. It would improve quality imo as crap alliances that refuse and/or suck at fighting and building would be rendered useless by people who want to win. 

 

The formula can always be tweaked. In fact, I would expect it to be changed over time to better reflect how we all already value what alliances are the best. 

[King James XVIII]

I'd also like to restate my wholehearted support for this idea. 

 

Someday I will get everyone in TE to agree on this  :P