Alliance ranking

[Hiske]

Good morning nice people! I know there have been already many discussions about the current alliance ranking system and how things can (should!) be improved... The alliance ranking will be changed; cause the admins are convinced of the fact that the current rankings isn't good for the game... I'd really like to ask you all to post your ideas here about the proposal stasy wrote in mod-area last week... here's the discussion I had with him:

We think of changing alliance points system - it will be something like if you win a war you take all military points for alliance statistic, if you lose you take 1/2 of them. So there will be no fake wars  and of course it is simple and I think very nice idea 

yes... I'm going to whine again... RUN!!!

The problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't encourage nice wars in the beginning of the era cause they will not bring much points compared to big wars in the end... Which also means that it will be best to farm for 2-3 months; then build army; fight some wars and win the rankings... Even 1 very big war (like the uruk_hai-llllllll war) can give enough points to win the rankings... this is again something that encourages a style of playing that is already encouraged so much with the current rules

But this suggestion is much better than the rankings right now cause at least it encourages big wars at the end

Come on do not only critic me, help with suggestions 

you're right... I've been thinking a lot about this... and I guess there's no easy solution... no system is perfect I'm afraid...

but thinking about the suggestion... maybe it's possible to cut the realm in 4 pieces... the 1st month the military points will count 4x; the 2nd month 3x, the 3rd month 2x and the last month 1x...

this is impossible... it cannot be made automatically, "sorry" is what developers said

ok... then what about making it dependable on the size of total net-worth-points?

total net worth below 50k points: 3x
total net worth between 50k and 200k: 2x
total net worth above 200k: 1x

is this possible? do you like it?

nope I don't like it - if you are 200 001 points is not great difference than being 199 999 points, and why should we differ people by points - you may want strong economy and fight all the time - it is not that difficult to reach 200k points - you can have army for more than 100k points worth. This is not right 

so ok... this is part of the discussion we had... The proposal is still:

if you win a war you take all military points for alliance statistic, if you lose you take 1/2 of them

please let us know what you think! I only want real comments; all spam will be deleted without prior warning! that also counts for messages like 'I agree'... always make it 'I agree, because...' Let's come up with some nice ideas to convince admins!



Edit Stasy: Spam and meaningless post will be delete with no warning - please follow this rule

[k_mihai]

My first comment is what will happen with first wars, when the war points are 0....

I don`t like the new proposal, because it doesn`t reflect the performance in wars. Why should one be rewarded for the enemy past performance? It has no logic.

It is still vulnerable to fake wars, because, let`s imagine some wars in the end of the era. when the 2nd alliance makes an agreement with the 3rd alliance to stage a war (or th 4th etc), and they still can fake the system like that.

Besides, is worse that the system before the current one was implemented. Imagine an alliance full of farmers, with 0 war points, which declare wars in the last weeks, and win the rankings with 2-3 wars.

It will also reduce the battles, since well, one must not do anything than score some points attacking empty forts and win the war.

I think wars should reflect battle performance during the wars, and maybe to put some penalties on wars between disbalanced alliances (like farm alliances against small ones). Also, empty fort attacks should not bring military points.   

 

[Machucado]

Stasy's idea won't help fake wars. It encourages big fake wars in the end of the era.

Almost all of the players last era that made Marshall in the last 2 weeks were from staged battles.

 "Don't disband your armies, give them to me so I can become Marshal..." was one of the messages I got.

It will be the same with wars. We will have tons of fake wars in the end, when players that have nothing more to fight for give away huge armies to their friends who stage battles with proxies or by other means.

Big cheaters will have entire alliances of proxy multiaccounts and wait for the last week to stage a war and smash them all into fortress walls at no cost for the winner.

I still say that alliance war points for losing soldiers is the best solution. Then there is a limit to how much points you can win and a fake war will cost the winner a lot, in proportion to the points won.

Edit: 100 % for the winner and 50 % for the loser is a good idea, btw 

[Hiske]

It will also reduce the battles, since well, one must not do anything than score some points attacking empty forts and win the war.

that's not true... cause the more points you score (thus the more armies you kill); the higher your points for the rankings are...

It will be the same with wars. We will have tons of fake wars in the end, when players that have nothing more to fight for give away huge armies to their friends who stage battles with proxies or by other means.

Big cheaters will have entire alliances of proxy multiaccounts and wait for the last week to stage a war and smash them all into fortress walls at no cost for the winner.

I know that theoretically you are right... but do you really think this will happen? I mean; there are not many big cheaters who have entire alliances of proxy multiaccounts... they have to play for 3.5 (or 7.5) months just to smash their armies at the end to win the alliance-ranking... that's not really likeable, is it?

I still say that alliance war points for losing soldiers is the best solution. Then there is a limit to how much points you can win and a fake war will cost the winner a lot, in proportion to the points won.

but it doesn't encourage big wars in the beginning of the era... so then the only way to win the rankings is to farm for 2-3 months (in a 4-month-realm); get huge armies and fight some big wars at the end... I agree that it avoids fake wars; but it doesn't encourage wars in the beginning of the era.

[stasy]

I see only critics nothing else and till there are no other Ideas I can't take any of this critic in mind. This topic is not to criticize my proposal but to  find better one (of course it will be implemented if it is technically possible)

[k_mihai]

that's not true... cause the more points you score (thus the more armies you kill); the higher your points for the rankings are...

well, you said alliance statistics. there is a list with all war fought, and when you say to take them,  i understood of points from all wars. do you mean the points scored in the ongoing war? if so, is ok with me, because all systems discourage big wars in the beginning. at least, the score is related to battle performance

I see only critics nothing else and till there are no other Ideas I can't take any of this critic in mind. This topic is not to criticize my proposal but to  find better one (of course it will be implemented if it is technically possible)

is impossible from a logical point of view to come with new ideas, without criticizing the old ones (if the other ones have no flaw, why bother with new ideas...).

[Machucado]

I see only critics nothing else and till there are no other Ideas I can't take any of this critic in mind. This topic is not to criticize my proposal but to  find better one (of course it will be implemented if it is technically possible)

Here is my proposition for the Alliance Ranking points.

In general alliance ranking points should be based on losing soldiers in war. It reduces the possibilities of friendly wars, as it comes with a cost for the winning alliance. Other issues are military strength, difference in size, offensive/defensive wins and empty fortresses. I still think that the military points system for determining the winner should remain untouched.

Problem 1: friendly wars
Solution: alliance ranking points are granted for LOSING soldiers in war.

Problem 2: wars with mostly empty fortresses
Solution: alliance ranking points are granted for LOSING soldiers in war.

Problem 3: equal alliances should fight eachother
Solution: Coefficient System, less points for an offensive win against a small alliance, and more points for a defensive win against a bigger alliance.

Problem 4: wars in different stages of the game should be treated equal
Solution: Military net worth is considered in comparison to the soldiers lost.

Problem 5: noob alliances win the alliance race
Solution: If the noob alliance can win 20 out 21 wars, maybe they aren't so noobish after all.

Formula:

A/B x 100
      C

Total military net worth LOST during war(A) / total military net worth+ soldiers created during the war (B) x the difference in size (C) (only for offensive wins against a smaller alliance and defensive wins against a bigger alliance)

Example: the winning alliance total military net worth when the war was declared was 36,000. During the war soldiers for 4,000 was created, totals 40,000. The winning alliance lost 10,000 during the war. Which equals 25% = 25 points.

To these points the total net worth (economic + military) difference is applied. For offensive wins against a smaller alliance the 25 points are divided by the NW coefficient. If the coefficient is 1,2 the points granted are roughly 21. For defensive wins against a bigger alliance, the difference is used to increase the points: roughly 25 / 0,83 = 30. The losing alliance loses the same amount of points as the winner wins.

The formula can be used in any stage of the game as all wars are considered equal.

[k_mihai]

mc, you system will put a penalty on experienced players who limit their losses, and reward noobs who don`t know how to build armies 

[Machucado]

I know that theoretically you are right... but do you really think this will happen? I mean; there are not many big cheaters who have entire alliances of proxy multiaccounts... they have to play for 3.5 (or 7.5) months just to smash their armies at the end to win the alliance-ranking... that's not really likeable, is it?

Not many big cheaters? There were entire alliances made up of only one person, they didn't go for alliance ranking this time, but if they can pull it off with a few wars THEY WILL. If only one alliance does it and wins the ranking, it will be an outrage and kill 4 months of playing for dozens of real players.

but it doesn't encourage big wars in the beginning of the era... so then the only way to win the rankings is to farm for 2-3 months (in a 4-month-realm); get huge armies and fight some big wars at the end... I agree that it avoids fake wars; but it doesn't encourage wars in the beginning of the era.

Yes, but it can be fixed with a net worth coefficient. 

[Machucado]

mc, you system will put a penalty on experienced players who limit their losses, and reward noobs who don`t know how to build armies 

It's no penalty, experienced players will use their soldiers wisely, and use them for the next war. Noobs will crash their soldiers and have no defence for the next war.

[stasy]

It's no penalty, experienced players will use their soldiers wisely, and use them for the next war. Noobs will crash their soldiers and have no defence for the next war.

This is not realistic I will do anything to win a war does it mean that I am noob? And what does "wisely" mean?

[Machucado]

This is not realistic I will do anything to win a war does it mean that I am noob? And what does "wisely" mean?

No, it doesn't mean you are a noob if you do anything to win a war. We all do that. I think Mihai's point was another, but it wasn't clear.

I think he meant that noobs will maximize losses to get more points.

Wisely: experienced players won't crash soldiers in a war they already have won just for some extra points. It will probably be better to keep them for the next war.

[k_mihai]

mc, people will build light spears just to boost their losses (experienced players)

and by noobs, i mean people who bring lets say more than enough troops (lets say they attack with 100 k elite archers), win the battles but with a lot of losses and still be equal with people who did a lot of simulations and know how to build armies.

moreover, mil med will become pointless, why limit the losses....

it can still be cheated, especially in the end, where there are big faked battles with a lot of casualties. that can be transformed with ease in a war faking strategy.

[stasy]

So, so called "wise" players will limit their attacks, is this what you propose?

[Machucado]

mc, people will build light spears just to boost their losses (experienced players)

and by noobs, i mean people who bring lets say more than enough troops, win the battles and still be equal with people who did a lot of simulations and know how to build armies.

moreover, mil ac will become pointless, why limit the losses....

it can still be cheated, especially in the end, where there are big faked battles with a lot of casualties. that can be transformed with ease in a war faking strategy.

Light or elite has no bearing, it's not the casualties that counts, it's the worth of the soldiers.

With points for losses there is a limit to the fake points you can win. Why save up army for 4 months and then use them in the last war?

So, so called "wise" players will limit their attacks, is this what you propose?

Just as "wise" as any attack when you want to limit your losses (I suppose you mean losses, not number of attacks  )