Alliance Points.

[tobapopalos]

I'm not saying the average rank 1 alliance wouldnt perform well throughout the round if they had to. Quite the opposite - I think they will. I'm saying that if a different scoring system is in place and an alliance still decides they should only commit one week and then sit at the top for the rest of the round, then they're not competent.
I know it's hard to change someone's mentality but there are a lot of people who complain that the rounds end far too soon, yet they do nothing about it and when they're in a ftw alliance they just do the same thing everyone before them has done.
I also don't think the "rank 2" alliance will be favoured, because if the rank 1 alliance cared about the points they wouldn't be too far ahead of rank 2 because they'd want to keep low in order to have targets for BH, eff and honour.
I think that would make the game a whole lot more tactical. You'd see people losing huge chunks of their troops just for some effectiveness, and they might count it as a good attack.

I would also like to point out that being in the rank 2/3 alliance this round hasn't inspired me to make this suggestion because I want some sort of reward. I just think that we should encourage everyone to work just as hard as everyone else. Some people can't be contactable and that doesn't mean they shouldnt get a shot at winning

The thought that you had made this thread because you're in the rank 2 alliance hadn't even crossed my mind tbh. But I still think it would favour the rank 2 alliance. They're always the ones who are active and contactable and get plenty of big incoming from rank 1. So, getting effectiveness is always relatively easy. Plus, they usually have plenty of bounty targets from the other alliances and solos around and below them.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the motivation behind this idea. I just don't think this is the way to go. Alliance points were never a very exciting prospect and they didn't have any impact on the way people played the game. The main thing I remember about them was people saying stuff like "rofl we're rank 3 in alliance points again. How did that happen?". They were just a comical side-show. Anyone who won alliance points and made something of it got laughed at.

If we want people to change their playstyle we have to give them something new and interesting. Something which will make old players come back and say "hey I heard about ******* and thought it sounded interesting so I'm back to try it out".

A different kind of statistic, one which has already failed once and which people have uninspiring memories of, is not the kind of thing I have in mind.

 

[Steve_God]

Alliance Rankings:
Along with the above changes, alliance rankings needed to be overhauled to work with the new systems. Whenever you visit the alliances page (alliance rankings), alliances are now ranked by a new "Points" system, calculated over a number of things (particularly rankings within the 3 new score systems, with a few other modifiers). Exact details of this new points system will not be revealed, but active, warlike alliances that fight those around them a lot and can defend themselves effectively should find themselves getting high points. You can also optionally choose to display alliance rankings individually for the 3 new score systems (Effectiveness, Valuation, Bounty Hunting), so an alliance as a whole could, if they wished, purely aim for getting their alliance to be the biggest bounty hunters. See the portal ranking update below for details on how this affects, and other changes to, the portal final alliance ranks.

The problem with the old points system is that it was a messy system with too many things feeding into it, so no-one knew what to do to actually do well in it.

With a simple, 'Wars Won' points system, it would be a lot more easier to see what you have to do

 

[willymchilybily]

i dont like bringing back things that didnt work. (except for bounty). Doesnt feel like progress.

that aside maybe you alliances total effectiveness/fame (good indicator of activity/frequency and successfullness of attacks). should be all that accounts for the ranking. (not honour)

honour should instead be the moderator for the bounty. and it should be visible to all on the tool tip.(evil alliance = members get more base bounty) and it tells the member on the overview (bounty level tab) the total bounty you have and how much is contributed from your alliances evil deeds.

The points before was for winning battles/wars?(iirc) I havent ever seen any alliance win an alliance war by the amount necessary....it was a poor formula. with no incentive to go to war in the first palce.

but points/rankings (1st 2nd 3rd 4th etc) for the alliances effectiveness/fame would be interesting to see. just an additional column on alliances page.

i wouldnt mind a simple raking by eff only.

I disagree with the idea that your allies can contribute to your bounty. Its stupid if i attack honourably, but have 50% bounty because the rest of my alliance is dishonourable.

if the maximum bounty a player can get is 76...then the maximum bounty you should get from an alliance is like 14% tops. (anything over 90% is silly) ..and if you look at the alliances now the only ones who would get a max bounty addition is rank one for being dreaded. most other alliances would only suffer a few extra % or nothing but meh doesnt bother me either way.