[Declined] Change in Alliance systems/rankings

[Spurs]

I know similar topics have been dicussed before but i suggest a League system for alliances. Alot of the larger alliances are after the top few spots these tend to be alliances which have been around for a few years and know their stuff and the alliances lower down dont really have much to play for what i suggest is a league system. Where there is 3 leagues of alliances:

1. Top League- Alliances which ultimatly will always be the talking point of the round such as WP and 1up And will battle it out in war over and over.
2. The alliances that are almost there but lack the experiance to compete with some of the top alliances.
3. The newly formed alliances which are not really up to much and can only compete with each other

And what i suggest is league system similar to football... Top teams in leagues get promoted to league above or in Top league sytem win So many free credits/ t-shirts. The clubs which dont do well get relegated into the league below.

Some of you may think what is the point? Well it gives the newly formed alliances something to play for and may get newer players interested in starting up their own alliance.

The promotion/relegation/win Could happen quaterly or montly or something in a round.

[wakey]

So where would F-Crew go.

League 1 - We are hardly suited for that
League 2 - We are one of the last alliance you can say lacks experiance
League 3 - We arent a new

Do we get our own league

Seriously though I dont really see the point. Its fine if the top alliances cant attack the second tier ones BUT if the leagues arent locked off then it seems pointless if an alliance in another tier can then prevent a lowe tier alliance winning their tier

[Loz]

you'd be in the conference

[Spurs]

It just makes the game a bit more entertaining. For clubs on the way up and way down coz postion 20th means nothing in the current ranking sytems doesnt show how good the alliance is for alliances of similar ability. Yeh well f-crew are just special. I'm not suggesting anything which means the universe is seperated into 3. Just a case of pride of getting promoted or the shame of getting relegated. I dont know where your from But talking in terms of football if Chelsea and some pub team called Red Lion Rovers were in the same league. Red lion rovers would get mighty bored being in the same league noing they aint going ne where fast

[Spurs]

In theory could do something like create the league thing with locked off so higher tier cant attack you. But there are some People in Medium size allainces who have the potential to attack the likes of WP if the tiers were locked off then u might get alot of alliance hoppers.

[Alessio]

What are u suggesting?

instead of having a top30 we have 3 top 10 at the universe page?

and less targets for small people of big allies??

[Spurs]

well their re two options
1. What you just stated. But at the end of the round Each of the top alliances in each league are rewarded
2. A teir system where big alliances are blocked from attacking people apart from peple in their league. It prevents lower alliances gettin caught up in silly wars and helps players to devlop skills.

[Alessio]

I dont really see the need for this.. tbh
Their is a value attacklimit...
and big allies dont like attacking small allies.. they dont have enough fleets for that in a war, I think..

and people that get bashed once from "big" allies need to be able to attack smaller planets otherwise theyll be stuck their forever with their 150 roids that theve got left (and those planets aint any stronger then some1 from a small ally)

and this has been discussed b4

I coudl be tottally missing something but I dont think so

[Spurs]

Bigger alliances attack who they attack. They dont pick a target say oh no that planet might be in a small alliance even tho they have juicy roids i wont attack it. They really aint that nice.

[Rc mayhem]

1) with a tier system, what are you going to do with none alliance people?
2) how are new alliances who are made up of good players going to fit into this? Will it take 3 rounds for them to be allowed to win?
3) who is going to decide who goes in what league?
4) what happens if your unluckily placed in a league too high for you and so get smashed straight away?
5) what happens to the 70 odd small alliances with less than 20 people?

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

1) with a tier system, what are you going to do with none alliance people?

I was not aware that allianceless players currently featured in the Universe Alliance Ranks.

2) how are new alliances who are made up of good players going to fit into this? Will it take 3 rounds for them to be allowed to win?

I was under the impression that new alliances would be placed in Tier 3, however if they performed admirably they would be promoted higher (on a quarterly or otherwise basis).

3) who is going to decide who goes in what league?

No so much a who, but what - would ranks be determined on average score, total score, roids, activity?. clear benchmarks would have to be made public and well understood.

4) what happens if your unluckily placed in a league too high for you and so get smashed straight away?

Yup. You die - at least untill you fall into the top of the tier below. this is where the shame comes into play.

At least, that was my understanding.

5) what happens to the 70 odd small alliances with less than 20 people?

They would probably exist in the Second or Third Tier, depending on how 'good' they are (as per the ranks).

[Spurs]

i just think this would add a bit more excitment to the game. So alliances can actually aim for something new alliances aiming for position 30 doesnt really mean anything but aiming to make it to the tier above would mean something to the alliance.

[wakey]

I just dont like it for the following reason

In football you have the leagues. Now as we see every season the jump between the premiership and the championship is fairly major. Now would it be fair if a bottom half of the prem team like Newcastle were able to go to Sunderland and interfere with Sunderlands promotion chances. It just wouldnt be fair if they could as they are in differnt leagues. Thats why the leagues are locked, Newcastle can have no direct effect on who can be promoted and thats how it should be.

Now id be pretty annoyed if we were having a flawless round, were leading the group only to have one of the members of a league above destroy that. Atleast in the current situation if that happens they feel like we are competing in the same league, splitiing it simply wouldnt.

I also have to say that it could be very damaging for some alliances recruitment.. Being religated is a very bad word for members and potential members to hear, iyou may not be worse than the alliance that replaces you by it just sounds like you are. From the same point of view an alliance at the top of one league will find it very very hard to recruit compared to one at the bottom of another because while theres again little difference it just makes the alliance in the lower division seem so much worse

[Rc mayhem]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

I was not aware that allianceless players currently featured in the Universe Alliance Ranks.

I was refering to the idea of not been allowed to attack outside of your tier, which would cause problems for none alliance ppl.

[Spurs]

allianceless people wud be allowed to be attacked by every 1 will encourage them to join an alliance

[Zh|l]

This is stupid. The newer/smaller alliances gain their experiences from playing with the bigger ones. Plenty of second tier alliances have risen up through the rounds to positions where they can garner political and military might to have an effect upon a round - through help from the alliances above them that they managed to get 'in' with.

Splitting things wont achieve anything at all, as those smaller alliances wont adapt to the situations around them and learn from their success' and mistakes.

[Cooling]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

2) how are new alliances who are made up of good players going to fit into this? Will it take 3 rounds for them to be allowed to win?

This point alone makes the system unworkable and unfair.

[Goafer LX]

lol, GOAT would be in ther with F-Crew, the 2 of us in a league of our own
but i think the alliance ranking should be left alone tbh
as discussed when someone said they wanted the page split b4

[Loz]

Originally Posted by wakey

In football you have the leagues. Now as we see every season the jump between the premiership and the championship is fairly major. Now would it be fair if a bottom half of the prem team like Newcastle were able to go to Sunderland and interfere with Sunderlands promotion chances. It just wouldnt be fair if they could as they are in differnt leagues. Thats why the leagues are locked, Newcastle can have no direct effect on who can be promoted and thats how it should be.

I think Spur meant that the tiers would be locked and you cannot attack outside of your tier.

Locked tiers and unlocked tiers each have problems - being in a locked tier (particularly the "premiership" is going to force alliances to fight against each other, all but destroying the blocks we have seen in previous rounds (who heard of teams in the premiership being allied to each other). It can be argued that eliminating the blocks is what PA needs, but really if an alliance does not want to fight against another alliance they should not be forced into direct competition.

The main problem with unlocked tiers is like you said wakey, it could become far too easy for an alliance in the top tier to bash and play kingmaker for an alliance in a lower tier.

[Kal]

I think leagues are a mistake unless we have multiple games running at the same time.... so declined for now..