Alliance Points.

[Dimitar]

Bring 'em back!

Any given alliance can win if they stay really active/contactable and commited for a week nowadays. And in the end the smaller alliances end up doing a lot more throughout the round but they don't win anything.
If we bring back the concept of Alliance Points(maybe altered a bit) then the game will get far more competitive. Instead of just looking at the score have a formula that takes into account Bounty Hunting(maybe make the base bounty at 15% to encourage hunting), Effectiveness and Honour/Fame rating.
This way the early winner alliance will be forced to try to keep low in order to get effectiveness and BH and the endless bashing won't be such a big issue because people will want to attack honourable for their alliance's sake.
You still may get the same extra-active, contactable and commited players winning a round but they'll have to work for the win throughout the entire round.

I know Azzer doesn't really care about bush nowadays but if he somehow stumbles upon this suggestion I hope he decides to implement some changes.

 

[CrazyMonkey01]

That sounds like a really good idea I'd like to see it done but yeah azzer doesnt check up on this game anymore.

but anyways.

TROLL TROLL TROLL

 

[Steve_God]

I agree - even if it's a basic system around 'wars won' using the war declaration feature.
(However don't raise the base bounty to 15%, unless becoming honourable would reduce the bounty on your head)

Back in the day there was lots of detailed discussions with Azzer around different Alliance war options, and ways to improve it, even including options around 'capture the flag' style mechanisms that centred very much around the HQ.

I'm not giving up on Azzer just yet, but when he does make his big appearance back, I personally would like to see some (albeit small) change giving a greater emphasis or focus on alliance wars. (Eg, at the moment, Combo has little need to attack and kill Anagram as we have more land and will grow bigger each time, other than it loses us more score on each attack and is a laugh, and it's more fun to lose troops in attacking, rather than defending against Kiwi - having a war point system would make things a lot more interesting in my opinion)

 

[timtadams]

I agree with this too. It will give the lower alliances something to challenge for.

But dont raise base bounty

 

[xvi]

I like it

 

[xvi]

I agree - even if it's a basic system around 'wars won' using the war declaration feature.
(However don't raise the base bounty to 15%, unless becoming honourable would reduce the bounty on your head)

Back in the day there was lots of detailed discussions with Azzer around different Alliance war options, and ways to improve it, even including options around 'capture the flag' style mechanisms that centred very much around the HQ.

I'm not giving up on Azzer just yet, but when he does make his big appearance back, I personally would like to see some (albeit small) change giving a greater emphasis or focus on alliance wars. (Eg, at the moment, Combo has little need to attack and kill Anagram as we have more land and will grow bigger each time, other than it loses us more score on each attack and is a laugh, and it's more fun to lose troops in attacking, rather than defending against Kiwi - having a war point system would make things a lot more interesting in my opinion)

Azzer is around. I had a question and he answered it in 12 hours

 

[alwaysnumb]

I like the idea but people will still see score as the winning number. Making bounty higher just means lossless attacking is too easy.

 

[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.

 

[Dimitar]

The points were score + bh + eff last time and I think it worked pretty well so I'm not sure why they got removed

 

[timtadams]

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.

 

[tobapopalos]

The points were score + bh + eff last time and I think it worked pretty well so I'm not sure why they got removed

Firstly, because the rankings didn't make any sense. Alliances would go up and down in alliance points without doing anything. It was just stupid.

Secondly, score is the only score which matters. Effectiveness and bounty are nice side-shows but score is the main event. Nobody cared about alliance points.

Basically, it was taken out because it didn't work and nobody liked it. I don't see the point in bringing it back.

 

[timthetyrant]

its a game about numbers and i dont mind having more and different representations of my numbers, show what i have accomplished over the round. Same thing goes for my alliance and comparisons between other alliances. Makes it more enjoyable for me. i like this suggestion.

 

[Dimitar]

Secondly, score is the only score which matters. Effectiveness and bounty are nice side-shows but score is the main event. Nobody cared about alliance points.

And that's exactly the part I would like to see changed. If you play well a week out of two months you don't deserve much, and most certainly are not the best alliance. If alliance points are brought back (not the same formula, just the concept) you hopefully will have alliances trying to fight each other more instead of sitting on seeds for a month or so

 

[LuckySports]

The only way to encourage more fighting would be to reduce the punishment for staying on attacks, higher insurance for example.. As it stands - you could lose a weeks worth of group in a single attack.. or even a months..

 

[tobapopalos]

Secondly, score is the only score which matters. Effectiveness and bounty are nice side-shows but score is the main event. Nobody cared about alliance points.

And that's exactly the part I would like to see changed. If you play well a week out of two months you don't deserve much, and most certainly are not the best alliance. If alliance points are brought back (not the same formula, just the concept) you hopefully will have alliances trying to fight each other more instead of sitting on seeds for a month or so

My point was not that there shouldn't be more than one score rank, but that alliance points isn't the way to go. I'd much rather see a new war system based around a revamped alliance HQ to encourage fighting.

When alliance points were around nobody gave a **** about them because everyone knew it was a score system for people who couldn't compete. It was like the Europa League of Bushtarion. Why should it be any different this time?

 

[Max]

When we had alliance points, all I can remember is people complaining, as "it's only score that really matters" \o/

I suggest that we just add an additional column under the score rankings, such as "Bounty Hunting" or "Effectiveness". Then you just pick the column that is most important to you

 

[Dimitar]

My point was not that there shouldn't be more than one score rank, but that alliance points isn't the way to go. I'd much rather see a new war system based around a revamped alliance HQ to encourage fighting.

When alliance points were around nobody gave a **** about them because everyone knew it was a score system for people who couldn't compete. It was like the Europa League of Bushtarion. Why should it be any different this time?

I'm aware of that but my point was that THAT needs to change. If points were to return Azzer would have to somehow make them relevant. If they stuck around for longer than a round people might start caring about them, and the mentality of the bushtarion players might change.
It takes a lot more skill to have a decent ammount of score, BH, eff and honour/fame than to play 16 hours a day for the first week and win. Imo the latter should be the ones classed as "not able to compete".

 

[tobapopalos]

I'm aware of that but my point was that THAT needs to change. If points were to return Azzer would have to somehow make them relevant. If they stuck around for longer than a round people might start caring about them, and the mentality of the bushtarion players might change.
It takes a lot more skill to have a decent ammount of score, BH, eff and honour/fame than to play 16 hours a day for the first week and win. Imo the latter should be the ones classed as "not able to compete".

You can't force people to care about alliance points. That's why they were removed the first time around.

There have been many attempts to change the mentality of the average bushtarion player, and not one of them has worked. We're all just as retarded as ever.

And iirc alliance points were around for a lot longer than 1 round. I think it was more like 10?

And as to the last bit, that is clearly nonsense. Rank 1 alliances get where they are because they are more active, more contactable, and more co-ordinated than any other alliance. Ie, they are better. They can then afford to go relatively inactive and enjoy the rest of the round just sending out attacks when they feel like it. Just because they only have to work hard for 1 week doesn't mean they COULDN'T work hard if they had to. Do you think, for instance, if Combo and Anagram resisted right now Kiwi would just go "OMG WE SUBMIT"? No. They'd get people online and organise defence and win.

An alliance points system would be massively favouring whoever the rank 2 alliance is at the time, and it still wouldn't mean anything.

 

[Dimitar]

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

 

[Ogluk]

An alliance points system would be massively favouring whoever the rank 2 alliance is at the time, and it still wouldn't mean anything.

in the 10 rounds that points were in use, 3 alliances not ranked 1 for value won on points and only 2 alliances completed a clean sweep of all 4 ranks, points, value, eff, bh, which were Leftovers in the bizarre round 19 and Hell in 27

it'd hardly seems to massively favour a rank 2 alliance, just, imo, shows a more balanced picture of the entire round rather than the opening 2 weeks which decides who wins on value