Micro alliances + Plus the alliance pyramid ranking

[Mentor]

I am all for little groups, really, but i have to say, i think the alliance pyramid system needs some working. Here is how the system ranks the leagues at the moment:

 

3 points for a win.

1 point for a draw.

Bonus - best opponent hype receives 24 points bonus, down to 3 points for the worst.

+1 for a finish, -1 for being finished.

Adjusted Points - adjusted to average points per 30 fights, if you have more than 30 fights.

Top alliance promoted (plus some best place runners up, over the whole of that Division level).

Bottom 3 relegated (except in division 4).

 

Pay attention to the text in bold. So basically what is this saying? It is saying that you should a group of 5 alliance members which know what they are doing. There is several bad points with this:

 

#1 It encourages alliances to be small. Do we need small alliances? It means younger members will never make it to certain groups, which means they wont get the mentorship they need to develop.

#2 Smaller groups mean lower activity. A group of 100 members will likely be much more active overall than one of 5 (i know some will argue this point). Lower activity means people leaving the game.

 

About 4 years ago i joined a game called Cybernations. The admin made a change where alliances would benefit from adding newer members to their group. Guess what happened? Groups inflated, member retention increased, activity went up. I do not think we should encourage "micro alliances" to be micro! The more we encourage groups to grow, the better it is for the game and for new members.

 

I know this is coming from "the owner of the biggest alliance in the game", however, i can tell you that a lot of my younger members have SERIOUSLY gained from being part of a larger more active group. A lot of them are now very active in the game, building companies and developing. We need to encourage more of this, not less. I am sure alliances such as Steel Penn have done wonders for their own members as well.

 

My proposal:

 

A) Have a Micro alliance pyramid. All the alliances with less than 10 members will compete for the Micro alliance title, the big boys will compete in a different pyramind

 

OR

 

Make a minor adjustment which will look like this:

 

3 points for a win.

1 point for a draw.

-3 points for a loss.

Bonus - best opponent hype receives 24 points bonus, down to 3 points for the worst.

+1 for a finish, -1 for being finished.

 

Basically if an alliance is simple "Big", it wont be enough. They will be losing as much as they win and end results is that they will not be winning anything. Being Big wont be enough, you still need to bring in the results. Obviously bigger groups will have an advantage to a certain extent, but that advantage wont be enough, you will still need quality as well to win anything. You could increase the bonus for hype from 24 to 30 or even more to increase the value of higher ranking fights. That is another pretty good addition as well.

[Ramirez]

i agree mate, it is a lot harder to gain lots of points with a large alliance as the rules stand, there should be some adjustments so that the alliance with more members doesn't get penalised.

[Guest]

I agree also with what mentor is saying its not fair that being a large acgive group hurts you in the end

[Hammer]

Yeah, the 30 fight average certainly seems erroneous. It could have been set when the game had fewer members/ alliance size. Needs to be revisited now.

 

[vellum]

I agree with this % 110 but then again I am a little bias

[Guest]

I agree with this. The 30 fight average seems a little bit low. Looking at Division 1 and 2 of the alliance pyramid, you can see that most of the top alliance have 100++ in a month. If you can up that average to a 75 or 100 fight average then I think it will be fair and large alliances will be in equal footing as those with micro alliances.

[AlexiZaitev]

Consider this, just by myself alone, I am currently on 19 fights this month, i generally average 20-25 fights per month between my fighters. So just by myself, i put my alliance at the average limit.

[Guest]

I think so too. I think it will make the competition between aliances a bit fair

[Nickoson]

I agree with this as well. I am a new member to MMA Tycoon, and got lucky enough to get into Mentor's alliance. The people that I have talked to and am now associated with have helped in numerous ways. All newcomers should be able to join a group like this without the group as a whole being "punished" for it. If you are looking to grow the game, a helpful friendly alliance sure doesn't hurt. The more the merrier!

[Guest]

I fight nearly 30 times a month myself some months and the vast majority of alliances have under 10 people anyway. I don't see how this would be effective.

 

Better to either increase the adjustable point number of fights or, more importantly I think, change the emphasis on opponent hype to a weight average of the competition rating. Or, with your thought in mind, make it so that an alliance with <30 fighters per month (6 fights a month per 5 managers) is illegible to be promoted past Division 3.

 

An org with 5 managers of rank ~3000 with 10 wins against 5 managers of rank ~1000 would get far more bonus points then 5 managers of rank ~1000 beating 5 managers of rank ~3000 irrespective of individual fighter hype.

 

EDIT: I have a newly merged alliance of 18 people (VC-13, everyone who isn't humours or splash is welcome, http://www.mmatycoon...php?ali_id=1011) and we have ~7 highly experience managers and the rest are all new guys who joined within the last few months.

 

We are not good enough to be a Div 1 alliance and to be honest I think we will struggle to maintain at Div 2 (for the near future anyway) so I don't think the current system is broken. Not every alliance is Div 1 material.

[Manfred]

Not for nothing, but all but two of the replies of "I agree 110%" and so on are all members of your alliance, lol.

[Guest]

I'll admit I AM in mentor's alliance but I agree with him either way, but especially considering the HUGE help that being in his alliance has helped me to get my first organization running. I began playing this game in 2009 but stopped because I found people stand offish about who they let in their alliances. This pushed me from the game but I recently decided to give it another go and being almost a complete noob in terms of running businesses Etc. So I feel larger alliances with these sort of caps would definitely help some of the younger managers learn the ins and outs of the game without screwing over the whole alliance.

[Mentor]

I fight nearly 30 times a month myself some months and the vast majority of alliances have under 10 people anyway. I don't see how this would be effective.

 

Well, you already answered the question. You fight almost 30 times per month, so having a cap at 30 fights does not make any sense. I went and had a look at the Div 1 and 2 alliances and with the exception of 2-3 alliances (one being a deleted on), everyone already has 30 fights+ already and we still have this week to fight.

 

As for alliances having less than 10 members? Well that is the whole point of this thread! Alliances will naturally grow or look to grow is such a change took place. The cap (if we decide to have a cap) should be orientated towards alliances of at least 10 members. If on average they fight 20 times per month, the cap should be well over 100. From what i see, the majority of the top Division alliances will probably make it to around 100 fights anyway.

 

I still think adding a -3 points for a loss would be a much fairer system. That will work the same way the finishes work now (where you -1 for a finish loss and +1 for a finish win).

 

We will also need a much bigger hype gain for highest average fight hype, that way smaller groups which are getting less fights but will with higher quality fights, will still be able to compete. I think the fight hype gain should be around 2 or 3x bigger.

[CusDamato]

The alliance points system was made just for a bit of fun so i think it's fine the way it is to be honest.

[SteelPenn]

Well, you already answered the question. You fight almost 30 times per month, so having a cap at 30 fights does not make any sense. I went and had a look at the Div 1 and 2 alliances and with the exception of 2-3 alliances (one being a deleted on), everyone already has 30 fights+ already and we still have this week to fight.

 

As for alliances having less than 10 members? Well that is the whole point of this thread! Alliances will naturally grow or look to grow is such a change took place. The cap (if we decide to have a cap) should be orientated towards alliances of at least 10 members. If on average they fight 20 times per month, the cap should be well over 100. From what i see, the majority of the top Division alliances will probably make it to around 100 fights anyway.

 

I still think adding a -3 points for a loss would be a much fairer system. That will work the same way the finishes work now (where you -1 for a finish loss and +1 for a finish win).

 

We will also need a much bigger hype gain for highest average fight hype, that way smaller groups which are getting less fights but will with higher quality fights, will still be able to compete. I think the fight hype gain should be around 2 or 3x bigger.

This is wrong, we do not need more systems in place that rank us off of our win %. This game is called MMA Tycoon and give all the hype to good fighter managers and none to game tycoons.

 

Base the alliance ranking off of our combined managers rating plus our combined fighters rating and our combined company rating giving our alliances a combined rating telling us who is really the best alliance.

 

Allow us to be MMA Tycoons and not, The Ultimate Fighter Manager as it set up now. He who wins the most fights is the best in this game. What does that have to do with being a Tycoon?

[Guest]

Must have misunderstood what you meant because I agree, if something is to be changed it should be the cap on the fights but more or less I think it is dandy. I do like the idea of bonus points being given on the comparative opposition manager ranking as opposed to hype as any of us with ID restricted or KT fighters basically get screwed there, both in individual and alliance pyramids.

[Guest]

This game is called MMA Tycoon and give all the hype to good fighter managers and none to game tycoons.

 

Aye, MMA Tycoon, not 'clothing store tycoon' or 'nutrition company tycoon' It's all about the fighting.

[vellum]

Not for nothing, but all but two of the replies of "I agree 110%" and so on are all members of your alliance, lol.

 

HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE GOOD HONEST PEOPLE OF.......oh wait a minute.... um yeah.. um......

[AK47]

since mentor said it. it should be law. also i want mud wrestling

[Guest]

Naked mud wrestling.

[KellyM5]

I agree, I like the idea. I also would like to see opp hype get a bigger bonus.

[Guest]

I do NOT want to see AK and Jax mud wrestling nude It would be like watching Arnold Schwarzenegger in Predator, covered in mud, hiding from the predator, cranking one last load out.

[Stu_Pidasol]

This is wrong, we do not need more systems in place that rank us off of our win %. This game is called MMA Tycoon and give all the hype to good fighter managers and none to game tycoons.

 

Base the alliance ranking off of our combined managers rating plus our combined fighters rating and our combined company rating giving our alliances a combined rating telling us who is really the best alliance.

 

Allow us to be MMA Tycoons and not, The Ultimate Fighter Manager as it set up now. He who wins the most fights is the best in this game. What does that have to do with being a Tycoon?

 

All it shows is that regardless of how much you real life cash you spend on multi accounts to own business's you'll never be recognised a a great manager because you have no fucking idea how to fight.. Its easy to manipulate the economy with multi's not so easy to manipulate the fight sim with them.

 

I fail to see why those that choose to have smaller alliances should be punished in the alliance rankings. Having a smaller allainces means more personalised help and people don't get lost amongst the 100's of members.

[SteelPenn]

All it shows is that regardless of how much you real life cash you spend on multi accounts to own business's you'll never be recognised a a great manager because you have no fucking idea how to fight.. Its easy to manipulate the economy with multi's not so easy to manipulate the fight sim with them.

 

I fail to see why those that choose to have smaller alliances should be punished in the alliance rankings. Having a smaller allainces means more personalised help and people don't get lost amongst the 100's of members.

No sir your wrong, this has nothing to do with me. It has to do with bringing game members together and you can not do that by making each member who joins an alliance act as an individual. We must have alliance members act like they are allied. Have alliance members care about who their allied with as it will affect them as a whole group and not just one person.

 

The key to success is to unite game players making this game more fun. Stop thinking how one person could benefit and focus on how this would bring members together.

[Stu_Pidasol]

Is it normal to for you to change the whole message of your post when you lose an argument?

 

Your whole post was one big whine about you not being recognised as great "tycooner" because you manipulate the business side of the game though multis.

 

Having 90 members in your alliance doesn't mean you can communiate any better with them - in fact its the absolute opposite. Quality over quantity - something you obviously really struggle to come to terms with..

 

Finally get off the soapbox about being some sort of patron saint to this game and new players - you're a cheat, you've abused new players through selling fake supps and through raping QFC fighters - you are a hypocirte and you really just shut the fuck up.