Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Samwise

Strongest Alliance award

Recommended Posts

Alliance score is largely affected by member count. So much so, that in efforts to achieve the "Top Two Nations By Strength In The Strongest Alliance" award, nations who have literally contributed nothing to gameplay other than score inflation were spawned into the game on the last days of the round for the previous 2 rounds now. In efforts to show admin that this award needs to be changed, several alliances have banded together and sent all their membership to the same alliance. 

 

With all the score manipulations that have taken place, this award has lost all meaning that admin originally intended, and I suggest it be removed.

 

JmD5q18.jpg

mV2fdSJ.jpg

wqSzPwc.jpg

RytaOip.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Removing the award is easier than restructuring the way the award is won.

 

o/ Samwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in favor to have this award removed.

 

o/ Samwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that this award should be removed, and possibly replaced. What, if any, award would people like to see instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Das Blitzkrieger said:

I also think that this award should be removed, and possibly replaced. What, if any, award would people like to see instead?

 

Translation: Let's figure out another one that I can manipulate the system to win through the use of all my "friends."

 

We still expect UN to start with 60 members you'll personally revitalize the TE community!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LordSunday said:

 

Translation: Let's figure out another one that I can manipulate the system to win through the use of all my "friends."

 

We still expect UN to start with 60 members you'll personally revitalize the TE community!

 

I'll take that as a "not any." I appreciate your constructive response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bajoran Federation said:

I agree.

 

It should be removed and replaced with something more competitive and less prone to manipulation.

Of course you're fine with getting rid of the award now that you've won it with the very manipulation you're now against. Admin needs to investigate the +40 nations created in one day that joined your pathetic alliance. 

 

You're all a joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HiredGun said:

Of course you're fine with getting rid of the award now that you've won it with the very manipulation you're now against. Admin needs to investigate the +40 nations created in one day that joined your pathetic alliance. 

 

You're all a joke. 

 

Let's look at your accomplishments of round 44: 

 

You fought seven wars and lost every single one.

 

You spent the round fighting dirty, getting rolled, and then making excuses as to why you kept getting rolled.

 

And worst of all, you had your friend make a nation and declare war on you for the sole purpose of illegal economic gain.

 

Anyway, if you'd like to continue this debate, please move it to Discord. This is a suggestion thread, not a thread for you to hurl derogatory insults and denigrating accusations. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bajoran Federation said:

 

Let's look at your accomplishments of round 44: 

 

You fought seven wars and lost every single one.

 

You spent the round fighting dirty, getting rolled, and then making excuses as to why you kept getting rolled.

 

And worst of all, you had your friend make a nation and declare war on you for the sole purpose of illegal economic gain.

 

Anyway, if you'd like to continue this debate, please move it to Discord. This is a suggestion thread, not a thread for you to hurl derogatory insults and denigrating accusations. :)

Where is your proof that I had a friend declare on my nation? You're desperate here cos you have nothing else to fabricate against me but everyone seen you bring in over 40 new nations in one day, that is a fact not a accusation, I'm not claiming your manipulation and highly questionable newly created nations cheated everyone else, we all know it did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HiredGun said:

Where is your proof

 

= I'm lying

 

Like I just said, please move this to Discord if you'd like to continue arguing. All you're doing is diluting this thread with insults and accusations, which will make admin neglect it and take it less seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Das Blitzkrieger said:

I also think that this award should be removed, and possibly replaced. What, if any, award would people like to see instead?

 

The only thing I heard of someone suggesting to change this award to stop what happened yesterday is:

 

1. Turn off the ability to create new nations say in the last week to a month before TE ends. As these are 100 day rounds, even a month doesn't sound too bad considering anybody who creates 30 days before TE ends is going to be a severe disadvantage due to lack of wonders.

 

2. Keep the ability of creating nations, but only count those who have more than a certain seniority. I believe an award used to be "Top 2 nations in the alliance with the highest avg. NS" so on the last day a couple big nations would make an alliance to snipe the award last minute. Setting a mandatory seniority that an alliance member must have before they contribute to alliance score would've stopped everything that happened yesterday on both sides.

 

A different award I'd like to see in place of strongest alliance is a return of the alliance with the highest avg NS award as mentioned above. As I said previously, alliance score is so easily manipulated by member count, that the strongest alliance award almost always goes to the alliance with more members. The fact that the alliance that won last night, was the one who accepted nations that were 0 days old should prove that. Alliances base their war targets all round based on avg NS, so to me, it's the fairest and best way to show who had the best members, pound for pound. But as I stated above, include alliance seniority as a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Samwise said:

 

The only thing I heard of someone suggesting to change this award to stop what happened yesterday is:

 

1. Turn off the ability to create new nations say in the last week to a month before TE ends. As these are 100 day rounds, even a month doesn't sound too bad considering anybody who creates 30 days before TE ends is going to be a severe disadvantage due to lack of wonders.

 

2. Keep the ability of creating nations, but only count those who have more than a certain seniority. I believe an award used to be "Top 2 nations in the alliance with the highest avg. NS" so on the last day a couple big nations would make an alliance to snipe the award last minute. Setting a mandatory seniority that an alliance member must have before they contribute to alliance score would've stopped everything that happened yesterday on both sides.

 

A different award I'd like to see in place of strongest alliance is a return of the alliance with the highest avg NS award as mentioned above. As I said previously, alliance score is so easily manipulated by member count, that the strongest alliance award almost always goes to the alliance with more members. The fact that the alliance that won last night, was the one who accepted nations that were 0 days old should prove that. Alliances base their war targets all round based on avg NS, so to me, it's the fairest and best way to show who had the best members, pound for pound. But as I stated above, include alliance seniority as a factor.

I think (2) is a better option than (1). So, if the award became the top two nations in the alliance with ANS, would there also need to be a minimum number of nations in the alliance? If I recall correctly, an alliance put all it's members but the top 5 on pending in order to win that award in a previous round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Das Blitzkrieger said:

I think (2) is a better option than (1). So, if the award became the top two nations in the alliance with ANS, would there also need to be a minimum number of nations in the alliance? If I recall correctly, an alliance put all it's members but the top 5 on pending in order to win that award in a previous round.

 

I think after two of TPC's made an alliance to win the award, admin made it where you had to have 10 members. 10 is the minimum requirement for the strongest alliance award currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Samwise said:

 

I think after two of TPC's made an alliance to win the award, admin made it where you had to have 10 members. 10 is the minimum requirement for the strongest alliance award currently.

I like the idea of reintroducing this award in the place of strongest aa, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reintroducing the highest average NS award does play a fun factor but what limits would be set there?

Can a single nation with 45K NS jump into its own one man alliance and get the award as he technically has the highest average, despite only having 1 member?

 

Anything involving a score would be open to score manipulation and not much can prevent it.

 

I'd say a seniority limit would help with the existing award. We wouldn't have to get rid of the award entirely, and just setting a seniority limit would prevent 

1) multiple new nations joining to boost score

2) alliances merging to boost score

 

It seems like the most agreeable term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addenum:

Just read the 10 member minimim requirement.

Either or would work fine in that case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Samwise said:

 

The only thing I heard of someone suggesting to change this award to stop what happened yesterday is:

 

1. Turn off the ability to create new nations say in the last week to a month before TE ends. As these are 100 day rounds, even a month doesn't sound too bad considering anybody who creates 30 days before TE ends is going to be a severe disadvantage due to lack of wonders.

 

2. Keep the ability of creating nations, but only count those who have more than a certain seniority. I believe an award used to be "Top 2 nations in the alliance with the highest avg. NS" so on the last day a couple big nations would make an alliance to snipe the award last minute. Setting a mandatory seniority that an alliance member must have before they contribute to alliance score would've stopped everything that happened yesterday on both sides.

 

A different award I'd like to see in place of strongest alliance is a return of the alliance with the highest avg NS award as mentioned above. As I said previously, alliance score is so easily manipulated by member count, that the strongest alliance award almost always goes to the alliance with more members. The fact that the alliance that won last night, was the one who accepted nations that were 0 days old should prove that. Alliances base their war targets all round based on avg NS, so to me, it's the fairest and best way to show who had the best members, pound for pound. But as I stated above, include alliance seniority as a factor.

This helps as a deterrent but what is to stop an alliance from creating nations to pad stats as early as the start of the round but not contribute anything and wait to be used to increase score, they can shift them between member and applicant without resetting seniority.

 

The avg NS will mean some alliances will drop everyone except their 10 highest avg ns temporarily to log a record avg, but not every alliance will drop their members.  I always assumed this was one of the reasons why admin scrapped it.

 

There shouldn't be any need to remove the current "Strongest Alliance" award if the UN ceased to use these immoral and unsportsmanlike tactics like mass creating new nations for the sole purpose of increasing an alliances score, the UN should be stripped and fair play rules implemented with future breaches punished accordingly. This award has been around for multiple rounds but should everyone be punished for the UN's greed for more flags?

 

Moderation needs to intervene and decide what needs to happen but the easiest solution is to remove the award though this is unfair to every other alliance in the game that united under the one banner and stood in solidarity against the UN's dirty tactics.

Edited by HiredGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Samwise said:

 

The only thing I heard of someone suggesting to change this award to stop what happened yesterday is:

 

1. Turn off the ability to create new nations say in the last week to a month before TE ends. As these are 100 day rounds, even a month doesn't sound too bad considering anybody who creates 30 days before TE ends is going to be a severe disadvantage due to lack of wonders.

 

2. Keep the ability of creating nations, but only count those who have more than a certain seniority. I believe an award used to be "Top 2 nations in the alliance with the highest avg. NS" so on the last day a couple big nations would make an alliance to snipe the award last minute. Setting a mandatory seniority that an alliance member must have before they contribute to alliance score would've stopped everything that happened yesterday on both sides.

 

A different award I'd like to see in place of strongest alliance is a return of the alliance with the highest avg NS award as mentioned above. As I said previously, alliance score is so easily manipulated by member count, that the strongest alliance award almost always goes to the alliance with more members. The fact that the alliance that won last night, was the one who accepted nations that were 0 days old should prove that. Alliances base their war targets all round based on avg NS, so to me, it's the fairest and best way to show who had the best members, pound for pound. But as I stated above, include alliance seniority as a factor.

 

You cant stop nations from joining period, thats bad. No way should you do that.

 

Seniority as a qualifier is good, but this whole award is bad anyways and needs to be removed. The "top two nation" at the end round is bad for who from the AA wins it too. Should be canned.

 

Average NS is a Good award for rewarding Economic Growth but similarly finishing NS as it was before is bad to decide who wins it from the AA . Incentives saving money for the very end.. There are better awards.

 

We have had Infra destroyed, theres tech destroyed too, land, . Lots of things that can be used, and changed regularly. However whatever the 2 nation qualifier is needs to be something other than finishing NS.

 

I also think at least some individual awards should be changed from rewarding building tons of cash for a late game push, and moved towards damage output and things like that. Over a whole round instead of the BIGGEST war etc.

 

Most destructive war and Most bills are pretty silly awards. And you could even argue Peak NS and Land just reward hoarding 500 600 million dollars at this level of starting cash. But some would probably argue we should keep some "money" awards.

 

Rewarding solid building collecting and fighting throughout the entire round is what we should do to incentivize all members who are active and fighting and building a solid nation.

 

Its pretty simple to use Infra, Tech, Land, Soldiers, Tanks, Navy anything. And tally it up over a round.

 

Although something will have to be done about the numbers dropping off when opponents nations delete. Maybe its not that big a deal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just observations and random thoughts

 

Top two NS nations  this last round were from alliances of less than 10 nations (until last day) both fought hard had million plus Casualties yet would receive no awards when over if only Strongest Alliance nations can win

 

With only 125 people playing during most of  the round and 50% in two or three alliances that means half the people cant win anything even if they had a great round

 

That is why again I feel you max alliances to 12 people require to trade within alliance and extra twist max each team color to 20 members (12 colors x 20 players = 240 total players no max on No Team color)

This twist would make you want to control your team color also

Those in alliance of less than 12 can trade anyway they want.... that might bring some parity 

 

Adding new twist to the game each round will make the game interesting

That is the problem in SE its the same old stuff everyday ( that is why if SE is going to survive it needs to do a reset once a year)

 

Most Land award has never made scene to me, what good is land past a certain population density .. Population Per Mile award would at least be a combination of infrastructure and land

 

Land/Tech/Infra combination like it shows in the war screen might be a better award or some factors like landx2+techx3+infra=award 

 

I am trying to remember Why was 1st Place Nation Strength dropped and added Top Nation in Strongest Alliance

 

Alliance membership freezes 2/3 of way though round can't add or drop nations ... if nation deletes or goes inactive to bad you can't refill slot

 

you can't buy   Casualties  so that race is OK ... yes it could be manipulated,  fill a guys war slots and only throw CM attacks .. this way he can't get   Casualties... but everything in the game is manipulation

 

 

 

When it all comes down to it the game is a game of manipulation... How you manipulate your nation differently from others to get an outcome you desire...  and how they use wars to mess you up .. or vice versa

 

Like I said just observations and random thoughts

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Wayne World

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think ridding TE of all these awards would be beneficial either. Some guys play just for those, so we'd be killing some of the membership on this already decreasing game.
The way the score for Strongest Alliance can be easily manipulated is what is drawing attention to that award alone (as well as how it has happened previously, more than once.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×