alliance ns competition

[digger]

Right now all of the prizes are for individuals, or two people who are supposedly fighting each other. This seems strange for a game that is so much about team work. There should be a prize for the alliance with the largest total NS at the end of the round.

In order to make this work, there would have to be a cap on the size of an alliance in order to qualify for this prize. Just to toss a number out there, say 9 nations. Many teams would, of course, be bigger than just the 9 in the flagrunning alliance. They would have to put their 9 largest nations into their running alliance. The rest could concentrate on attacking the flagrunners of other teams. It would be a group version of the current ns competitions.

[Bwyard]

I like this idea,but i think 20 nations would be better. And you could either do top 20 from each alliance or you could have the alliance's choose The nations that will count by day 5 or 10.

[AlexanderRM]

I think this is a great idea, although how to deal with alliance size is something of an issue. It might make more sense to make it the highest average NS rather than total NS (since the latter would just give the award to whichever alliance has the most people... which would often by the same alliance or the same couple of alliances), although that would give an incentive to simply kick everyone too weak which, while doable, isn't really the point of aiming to be the strongest alliance. Perhaps it could be something like the X strongest nations in an alliance (5 or 10, for round numbers; the ideal number woudl vary depending on the total TE population and various dynamics thereof, which IMO isn't a good design) counted?

 

One issue some might see with this is that it incentivises for the entre alliance or at least a large part of it to avoid major wars or minimize damage they take, whereas currently only the frontrunners have that incentive (still a bit of an issue arguably, but one that affects fewer people), which takes away from the constant massive bloodshed aspect of TE. One way to fix this would be to do the same thing but instead of NS have it be based on damage dealt to enemies (not damage taken in the way that most destructive war works, that sounds silly to me IMO).

[Nick GhostWolf]

Simply going by highest NS would make it so that whoever has the highest NS at say, 23:59:30 on the last day of the round could simply make their own alliance and sweep it.  There would need to be a time limit for eligibility or this can and will be abused.  If your alliance doesn't exist before nukes are purchasable would make sense.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

The problem with the current situation is the game has rewards and recognition titles for the efforts of a small hand full of individuals that number less than 1% of total nations while the remaining 99% do not have that opportunity.

 

I'd suggest changing it by first adding the following prizes to the awards system:

 

1st Place Total Alliance Strength -

2nd Place Total Alliance Strength -

3rd Place Total Alliance Strength -

 

2nd and 3rd may be optional but it'd be good to have a Top 3. In game prizes wouldn't be essential but its always good to play for more than a title even if 1st place is only rewarded. With a maximum potential of rewarding 60 nations, it may require to much effort to code but even without in game prizes, its better than nothing.

 

I'd add that an alliance can only have a maximum amount of 20 nations join. This number may change depending on the circumstances, such as the total TE nation count, the community opinion and the moderators judgment.

 

I'd also add that all nations are blocked from joining an alliance after 75% of the round has passed. So for instance, a 60 day round would mean nations are unable to join an alliance after 45 days. The only exception to this alliance lock out would be new nations aged 20 days and under. This is to prevent alliances inflating their total alliance strength by having multiple nations join in a late coordinated effort to win.  Again these numbers may vary.

 

This proposal gives the entire community the opportunity to be rewarded and recognized for their efforts and contributions to their respected alliances. TE is very alliance orientated so I'd like to see this aspect of the game receive the recognition it deserves. Existing alliances that are small may merge with another small alliance or they may just choose to stay small and larger alliances may create 2 or 3 alliances that can potentially fight together. This may even help to balance out the war declarations with more AA's having a closer membership count.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Daenerys Targaryen

[Candor]

I think this is a great idea, although how to deal with alliance size is something of an issue. It might make more sense to make it the highest average NS rather than total NS (since the latter would just give the award to whichever alliance has the most people... which would often by the same alliance or the same couple of alliances), although that would give an incentive to simply kick everyone too weak which, while doable, isn't really the point of aiming to be the strongest alliance. Perhaps it could be something like the X strongest nations in an alliance (5 or 10, for round numbers; the ideal number woudl vary depending on the total TE population and various dynamics thereof, which IMO isn't a good design) counted?

 

One issue some might see with this is that it incentivises for the entre alliance or at least a large part of it to avoid major wars or minimize damage they take, whereas currently only the frontrunners have that incentive (still a bit of an issue arguably, but one that affects fewer people), which takes away from the constant massive bloodshed aspect of TE. One way to fix this would be to do the same thing but instead of NS have it be based on damage dealt to enemies (not damage taken in the way that most destructive war works, that sounds silly to me IMO).

 

I like that. As for the issue you brought up in the second paragraph, I also agree. I think that an attack award could also be handed out. Maybe highest avg NS, and a second award for most damage dealt?

 

Edit: Also, Daenerys, I like that. My only concern is that people may plan to join the game 20 days to the end, and flood the game.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Candor

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

I like that. As for the issue you brought up in the second paragraph, I also agree. I think that an attack award could also be handed out. Maybe highest avg NS, and a second award for most damage dealt?

 

Edit: Also, Daenerys, I like that. My only concern is that people may plan to join the game 20 days to the end, and flood the game.

Everyone should be welcomed with open arms to join the game whenever they want to and at 20 days to the end is almost pointless considering the NS size of most of those who've started playing from day 1 so they'll have very little effect joining that late with many disadvantages. If the start up is similar to the last round then they'll only have 10 million cash to start off with from scratch, they'll be starting from scratch with wonders and they'll be lucky to find a full trade circle considering most are already full. I'm not sure what they'll gain other than having a little fun in the very low tiers so you probably wont even notice those that want to start playing that late.

[Nick GhostWolf]

Simply going by highest NS would make it so that whoever has the highest NS at say, 23:59:30 on the last day of the round could simply make their own alliance and sweep it.  There would need to be a time limit for eligibility or this can and will be abused.  If your alliance doesn't exist before nukes are purchasable would make sense.

 

 

 

I like that. As for the issue you brought up in the second paragraph, I also agree. I think that an attack award could also be handed out. Maybe highest avg NS, and a second award for most damage dealt?

 

Edit: Also, Daenerys, I like that. My only concern is that people may plan to join the game 20 days to the end, and flood the game.

 

 

Candor, Daenerys, see the first quoted post.

 

Perhaps 10 days in would be an acceptable eligibility limit.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

 

 

 

Candor, Daenerys, see the first quoted post.

 

Perhaps 10 days in would be an acceptable eligibility limit.

Even though most will play fair you'll still get nations stack an alliance with high NS at 23:59:30 for the win even if the alliance they use is created on day 1. To prevent this, I suggested we have a cut off date 15 days before reset so nations need to join an alliance or be unable to join any as soon as the cut off time is in effect. Using my suggested numbers for a 60 day round this gives you 45 days to find and settle in an alliance which is more than enough time needed considering most should have found your alliance of choice very early in the game. The reason I allowed 15 days from the alliance cutt off date to reset is for those who may be looking at immoral strategies like stacking 20 high NS nations just before the cutt off and creating a super high NS alliance. The rest of us we'll have 15 days to teach them a lesson for trying to game the system which should be plenty of time.

 

To be fair it doesn't matter how many barriers you put in the way of those who'll game the system because they always find a way. It really comes down to the veterans and the leaderships to not only punish those for using dirty tactics but more importantly lead by example.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Daenerys Targaryen

[Nick GhostWolf]

Even though most will play fair you'll still get nations stack an alliance with high NS at 23:59:30 for the win even if the alliance they use is created on day 1. To prevent this, I suggested we have a cut off date 15 days before reset so nations need to join an alliance or be unable to join any as soon as the cut off time is in effect. Using my suggested numbers for a 60 day round this gives you 45 days to find and settle in an alliance which is more than enough time needed considering most should have found your alliance of choice very early in the game. The reason I allowed 15 days from the alliance cutt off date to reset is for those who may be looking at immoral strategies like stacking 20 high NS nations just before the cutt off and creating a super high NS alliance. The rest of us we'll have 15 days to teach them a lesson for trying to game the system which should be plenty of time.

 

To be fair it doesn't matter how many barriers you put in the way of those who'll game the system because they always find a way. It really comes down to the veterans and the leaderships to not only punish those for using dirty tactics but more importantly lead by example.

 

I believe that, for the first time ever, you and I are in total agreement :)

[King James XVIII]

I have been pushing for an alliance crown for a long time now...I hope to see it one day. 

[Candor]

Well, I think people should be able to play in alliances even after the reset. My suggestion would be to have an official list of alliances at 45 days, and then track their strength. No one would be allowed to join those alliances. The rest would make their own little alliances if the joined late. Just an idea. I've come in last minute a few times.

[Konata Izumi]

I like the idea, but seems unfair to the smaller alliances, whom are going to be targetted anyway. I think it should accomodate for them as well.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

I believe that, for the first time ever, you and I are in total agreement :)

That is strange huh :o :D

 

 

I have been pushing for an alliance crown for a long time now...I hope to see it one day. 

The more support it receives, the more likely it may happen. Adding or improving ideas and questions about why it wouldn't be good also contribute.

 

 

 

Well, I think people should be able to play in alliances even after the reset. My suggestion would be to have an official list of alliances at 45 days, and then track their strength. No one would be allowed to join those alliances. The rest would make their own little alliances if the joined late. Just an idea. I've come in last minute a few times.

Anyone who joins after 45 days is irrelevant to the awards and for the rest of the round. Majority would be re-rolls who probably never followed any building guides and spent all their cash on a war and multis.

 

 

I like the idea, but seems unfair to the smaller alliances, whom are going to be targetted anyway. I think it should accomodate for them as well.

If they want to compete for the alliance title then they may need to find ways to add players to their alliance. They may find another AA with similar interest and merge or they may not even care (like many currently do) and just play how they've always played. The game can only help so much and then everyone has to help themselves but if you think you have ideas so the game can accommodate them then do share.

[Candor]

That is strange huh :o :D

 

 

The more support it receives, the more likely it may happen. Adding or improving ideas and questions about why it wouldn't be good also contribute.

 

 

 

Anyone who joins after 45 days is irrelevant to the awards and for the rest of the round. Majority would be re-rolls who probably never followed any building guides and spent all their cash on a war and multis.

 

 

If they want to compete for the alliance title then they may need to find ways to add players to their alliance. They may find another AA with similar interest and merge or they may not even care (like many currently do) and just play how they've always played. The game can only help so much and then everyone has to help themselves but if you think you have ideas so the game can accommodate them then do share.

 

Hmm. I like the irrelevant part. Anyone who ends up going into the big leagues for ns all joined on day 1 or 2. I remember that my former alliance (not SKAROs, TOtKT) started out as an end of round thing called Guerilla Camp, and then when TE came back, we ended up with 10-12 members for a round or 2.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

Hmm. I like the irrelevant part. Anyone who ends up going into the big leagues for ns all joined on day 1 or 2. I remember that my former alliance (not SKAROs, TOtKT) started out as an end of round thing called Guerilla Camp, and then when TE came back, we ended up with 10-12 members for a round or 2.

If you think the game can cater for everyone to be some kind of utopia your going to be very disappointed. My proposal gives you 45 days to organize your alliance which is plenty of time. If you don't have a limit then people will try to game the system by combining large NS nations in the last minute to win the title. This was my point you seem to miss. If you have another way to counter that then please do share instead of crying about not being able to form an alliance at the end of the round.

[Candor]

If you think the game can cater for everyone to be some kind of utopia your going to be very disappointed. My proposal gives you 45 days to organize your alliance which is plenty of time. If you don't have a limit then people will try to game the system by combining large NS nations in the last minute to win the title. This was my point you seem to miss. If you have another way to counter that then please do share instead of crying about not being able to form an alliance at the end of the round.

 

That wasn't the point! I was simply stating that trying to form an alliance at the end of a round just doesn't work. Besides that, we were ranked well below even 15th, which is my point. Doesn't work. I already know it can't be a utopia. Which is why there is a suggestion box, my friend.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Candor

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

That wasn't the point! I was simply stating that trying to form an alliance at the end of a round just doesn't work. Besides that, we were ranked well below even 15th, which is my point. Doesn't work. I already know it can't be a utopia. Which is why there is a suggestion box, my friend.

You said you formed an alliance at the end of the round and then when TE cam back you had 10-12 members for a round or 2 so just going by your own words, it does work. Anyway this contributes nothing to the OP. 

[Candor]

Whatever. Just saying. Besides, my point is that Guerilla Camp had absolutely no chance of winning. It's easy to flood the game if you know what you are doing. Anyway, that's just my opinion.