Way to change Battle leaderboards!

[Curtis Snow]

Instead of having the Syndicate Battle rankings determined by total income of influence points why not change it to rank syndicates based on their actual win loss ratio? This will insure new leader board rankings almost every battle and FC wont always be king.

Now where do the influence points go you say?

They will do exactly what they are named for, influence who you will be facing in the next battle. Syndicates will be paired up with other syndicates who have a similar total influence point count. At the end of the event if syndicates are tied with the same record they then will be ranked based on their total influence points. i.e a syndicate with a 60-10 record with 300k influence points will rank higher than a 60-10 syndicate with 200k influence points.

What this does is create an equal playing field for all syndicates in crime city meaning a top 1500 syndicate now that didnt lose 1 battle could be number 1 if they went 72-0. The chances of that happening are still slim since it would be pretty hard for a 1500 syndicate to go 72-0 and still score enough influence points to match a higher ranked 72-0 team with more influence points.

What about gold spenders where does this put them?

Like i said previously, winning a syndicate battle will be the same as it is now based on influence points so if FC goes up against SAS they can spend away till one team wins. It would also promote more gold spending for lower ranked syndicates because the amount of influence points to win a single battle is much less than it is to rank up an entire tier as it is right. Gold spending will based on individual fights not just influence count.

[Captain Torgue]

What this does is create an equal playing field for all syndicates in crime city meaning a top 1500 syndicate now that didnt lose 1 battle could be number 1 if they went 72-0, that to me is the definition of a good syndicate. Not the amount of influence points you score.

Top 1500 syndicates don't spend money and for them to make number 1 they have to spend money. Gree is a company and are all about the profits.

If a free team could win the number one prize then no one would be spending money.

If you want the best prizes you have to spend the most money, that is the way it has and always will be.

Unless of course your name is Dipstick and you get a free ride in a top 10/25 team, but for everyone else they have to spend money.

[sister morphine]

Unless of course your name is Dipstick and you get a free ride in a top 10/25 team, but for everyone else they have to spend money.
Dippy is a free player, but he puts in a lot more attacks than you might think. Obviously he must spend all day and night downloading Tapjoy apps and watching videos, lol :) He deserves his slot in Blue for that kind of dedication to the cause.

[BigMoney]

How the hell does this idea make any sense in your brain.

- Even if matchups were based on W/L, FC would still be #1-- how many losses do you think FC has? In all wars. Combined.

- How in the hell would it be fair for a [current] "Top 1000" team that is undefeated to earn prizes anywhere close to what FC earns? How do you suppose a team that is currently 100% free-players is suddenly going to spend enough gold to make up for the gold you would lose from say a top10 that has an awful record after getting matched with FC/SAS/RG/etc multiple times?

- Why would anyone spend money to earn IP when clearly it is in your best interest to score the minimum possible amount of IP needed to win a match in order to match worse syndicates?

- How much gold spending are you going to lose when you start matching current top 10 teams against current top 1000 teams because they are both 3-0 or whatever, when there won't be a single player on the top1000 team strong enough to hit a top10 player? Why would the top10 team spend any gold when they don't even need to play to win the match (and can instead sit there passively and absorb failed attacks)?

- How would it be any fairer to switch to a system which places undue importance over who you match rather than what you do once you are given a match? E.g. a top1000 team outperforming a top10 team simply because the top1000 team matched three other top1000 teams, whereas the top10 team matched a top25 for their first match and had to score more IP to win, which then forced them into even more difficult matchups as a result of their greater IP total.


Summary: Poor thought, concept, and execution. F-.

[Captain Torgue]

Summary: Poor thought, concept, and execution. F-.

The hallmarks of a potential future Gree employee.

[MichelleEvelyncc]

This is a wonderful idea; I'll start a syndicate with 1-3 players, two on the other side of the world and we'll almost always get weak syndicates with more players; battle non stop and win about 95%.

[CCK-buttsy]

what if a top 4,000 syndicate and fight club has the same W/L? how would that be fair? GREE will never make it "equal" because this game is to make money, not to make people like you happy. this is the worst idea ever.

[CCK-buttsy]

how is a good syndicate, a syndicate that scores 1 point to win? that sucks in my opinion.

[CCK-buttsy]

Instead of having the Syndicate Battle rankings determined by total income of influence points why not change it to rank syndicates based on their actual win loss ratio? This will insure new leader board rankings almost every battle and FC wont always be king.

Now where do the influence points go you say?

They will do exactly what they are named for, influence who you will be facing in the next battle. Syndicates will be paired up with other syndicates who scored similar influence points in their previous battle. And at the end of the battle teams with the same record will be ranked accordingly based on total count of influence points insuring their are no ties.

What this does is create an equal playing field for all syndicates in crime city meaning a top 1500 syndicate now that didnt lose 1 battle could be number 1 if they went 72-0, that to me is the definition of a good syndicate. Not the amount of influence points you score.

What about gold spenders where does this put them?

Like i said previously, winning a syndicate battle will be the same as it is now based on influence points so if FC goes up against SAS they can spend away till one team wins. It would also promote more gold spending for lower ranked syndicates because the amount of influence points to win a single battle is much less than it is to rank up an entire tier. This does not make sense at ALL.

[Captain Torgue]

This thread is now declared officially AWESOME!!! and gets Torgues seal of approval and a 5 star rating!!!!

[BigMoney]

The hallmarks of a potential future Gree employee.

I don't know, he didn't mention anything about throwing in four other events to run at the same time, while rushing the production of this new event so that it is filled with bugs and glitches.

[P.Squiddy]

I don't know, he didn't mention anything about throwing in four other events to run at the same time, while rushing the production of this new event so that it is filled with bugs and glitches.

Or letting hackers run around freely.

[Bandit_]

When my syndicate faces an easy win, we dont spend gold and win the match by a small margin to insure the win. When we face a really tough opponent we dont battle and just take the loss to save gold? What would be the incentive to spend gold then?

[Dipstik]

Unless of course your name is Dipstick and you get a free ride in a top 10/25 team, but for everyone else they have to spend money.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4603261197550052&pid=15.1

[DoubleR7]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4603261197550052&pid=15.1

Where's the pony?

[Curtis Snow]

How the hell does this idea make any sense in your brain.

- Even if matchups were based on W/L, FC would still be #1-- how many losses do you think FC has? In all wars. Combined.

- How in the hell would it be fair for a [current] "Top 1000" team that is undefeated to earn prizes anywhere close to what FC earns? How do you suppose a team that is currently 100% free-players is suddenly going to spend enough gold to make up for the gold you would lose from say a top10 that has an awful record after getting matched with FC/SAS/RG/etc multiple times?

- Why would anyone spend money to earn IP when clearly it is in your best interest to score the minimum possible amount of IP needed to win a match in order to match worse syndicates?

- How much gold spending are you going to lose when you start matching current top 10 teams against current top 1000 teams because they are both 3-0 or whatever, when there won't be a single player on the top1000 team strong enough to hit a top10 player? Why would the top10 team spend any gold when they don't even need to play to win the match (and can instead sit there passively and absorb failed attacks)?

- How would it be any fairer to switch to a system which places undue importance over who you match rather than what you do once you are given a match? E.g. a top1000 team outperforming a top10 team simply because the top1000 team matched three other top1000 teams, whereas the top10 team matched a top25 for their first match and had to score more IP to win, which then forced them into even more difficult matchups as a result of their greater IP total.


Summary: Poor thought, concept, and execution. F-.


You must of read what i said wrong, Syndicates will be paired based on their total influence points not W/L ratio, so if you wanna win a battle youre still gonna have to score as many influence points as possible, which will keep gold spending the same if not increase it due to low ranked syndicates wanting to win. If you want to keep a perfect record to get the top prize then youre gonna have to spend gold.

[Ragmondino]

You must of read what i said wrong, Syndicates will be paired based on their total influence points not W/L ratio, so if you wanna win a battle youre still gonna have to score as many influence points as possible, which will keep gold spending the same if not increase it due to low ranked syndicates wanting to win. If you want to keep a perfect record to get the top prize then youre gonna have to spend gold.

Not to true. In KA they currently have guild ltqs for wins in war. A good strategy has shown some low spending teams get the final prizes, which are stronger than a top 10 prize. So it will not promote spending for a lower team if they are good strategists.

[OBAMASMAMA]

You must of read what i said wrong, Syndicates will be paired based on their total influence points not W/L ratio, so if you wanna win a battle youre still gonna have to score as many influence points as possible, which will keep gold spending the same if not increase it due to low ranked syndicates wanting to win. If you want to keep a perfect record to get the top prize then youre gonna have to spend gold.

You're missing the point. And your stats are weak.

[Stooboot]

Only a "totally free player" whos "proud of there quick getaway" could come up with such a bad idea. This is a "pay to win" game you dont pay so u lose forever, get use to it.

[Gingeasian]

You also realize that fight club has never lost a battle so they would still be number 1. While gree loses lots of profits. Either way its a terrible idea

[Curtis Snow]

Only a "totally free player" whos "proud of there quick getaway" could come up with such a bad idea. This is a "pay to win" game you dont pay so u lose forever, get use to it.

Sorry I dont like to spend my money on virtual trash I will never get to see and a game that will most likely be dead in a year or 2 like a lot of you losers who get a sick thrill of whackin their meat to buying stats. No skill in buying your way to the top sorry.

[BigMoney]

You must of read what i said wrong, Syndicates will be paired based on their total influence points not W/L ratio, so if you wanna win a battle youre still gonna have to score as many influence points as possible, which will keep gold spending the same if not increase it due to low ranked syndicates wanting to win. If you want to keep a perfect record to get the top prize then youre gonna have to spend gold.

No, you won't. A Top 10 team that happens to match, say, a Top 250 team in their first match will spend a tiny amount of gold, if any at all, to beat the Top 250 team. The Top 250 team has few, if any, players strong enough to hit even the weakest Top 10 player. As a result, the Top 250 team throws their free attacks at a good number of players before realizing it is a lost cause. Even if they found a player that they could hit, the vast majority of the top 250 team will be without a target, and the top 10 team could probably hit almost anyone on the top 250 roster. Even if that one dedicated strong player can't possibly spend enough gold to beat the entire top10 roster, who is now going to spend the minimum necessary to beat the top 250 team (which isn't going to be much). The point is the Top10 team will now be 1-0 with, say, 20k IP, and the Top 250 team is 0-1 with 5k IP (and remember, it's in their best interest to give up as soon as they realize they can't win- sure, they could go absolutely nuts with the 1-2 players they have that can hit the Top10 team, but the end result is that they will still lose, 0-1, but then they would also have a large amount of IP, which is going to cause them to draw other teams that scored a lot of IP-- which in general, will likely be better than teams that didn't).

Now compare that to two evenly matched top 25 teams, or two evenly matched top 50 teams. Neither of them are going to give up since they both know they have the ability to beat each other, and they are both going to put up a large amount of IP, which is going to force both of them into more difficult 2nd matchups, win or lose, because they have a larger amount of IP. That Top10 team that's 1-0 with 20k IP might then face a Top500 team, that happened to beat a Top 4000 team or whatever. The Top10 team can cruise to more easy victories, while teams that were unlucky enough to get an even matchup are forced to spend more and consequently ruin the rest of their matchups, since the only teams capable of scoring a lot of IP (win or lose) are the teams that are already at the top. If you are forced to win with 200k IP, that's more than some teams see all battle. And 200k is a relatively low score for most top (1-50) teams-- my top 25 team put up a million points in our first battle-- but the majority of syndicates won't even dream of seeing 200k in a battle, let alone a whole war.

Can't believe my first post wasn't enough for you. I understood what you were saying perfectly, it's just that it's a terrible idea and makes no sense.

Current wars: spend as much as possible in any matchup you can to win. Doesn't tell you exactly how close the teams are behind you to force you to spend more to keep a placement (Top 3, Top 10, Top 25, etc) that you might already have safely in the bag.

Your system: spend the absolute minimum possible necessary to win a battle. Places undue emphasis and luck on the matching system, as surely some teams will be "luckier" than others and receive far more favorable matchups.


Not to mention you didn't explain how stats would factor into matchups. Currently, stats is a large component of matchups, and teams with a large amount of high stat players are more likely to get matched with teams ranked above them (who naturally have higher stats as a result of consistently high finishes in previous wars). My top 25 team has matched Top 3 and Top 10 teams for more than half our battles. Bad Blood Rising always complains about matching highly ranked teams even when they are sitting outside the Top 50, and it's because they have a lot of high stat players themselves (especially for a top 50). That's how matchups work. Your proposed system would also unfairly punish high stat players by giving their teams better matchups. That, or you would ignore stats, and frequently match teams in two different leagues entirely (eg Top 10 vs. Top 1000) simply because they had the same record, allowing the better team to not even waste free attacks and still win. Or if you are taking stats into account, you'd get teams like SAS rearranging their teams to be 50% low-stat campers, and 50% their biggest spenders just in case (or distribute them across their teams however). Easily exploitable.

tl;dr: Still a terrible idea.

[MattThomas08]

No way I'm reading that BM. What is this, 1897? Nobody has the attention span for that anymore.

[BigMoney]

It's okay, I didn't read it either.

[OBAMASMAMA]

Forgot to rate this. Dumb idea

[kgod]

tl;dr: Still a terrible idea.

Lol. All these ideas to "balance" the playing field probably come from the same type of people who decided everyone should get a trophy in tee ball, even the kid who holds the bat upside down and keeps running past first into the outfield.

[BigMoney]

Lol. All these ideas to "balance" the playing field probably come from the same type of people who decided everyone should get a trophy in tee ball, even the kid who holds the bat upside down and keeps running past first into the outfield.

Sorry, I was too busy "whackin my meat to buying stats" to read this. :rolleyes:

[kgod]

Sorry, I was too busy "whackin my meat to buying stats" to read this. :rolleyes:

Aw man too bad I thought it was one of my better posts. Is this thread derailed yet?

[TMI]

Aw man too bad I thought it was one of my better posts. Is this thread derailed yet?

Just about to be.
I'm buying some limited edition explosives right now, about to get my attack stats to 500k...almost there...oh god...I'm getting so close to 500k...just a few more...aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh...limited time explosive, you never let me down. I love you :)

Aaaaaaaaaand now it's officially derailed!

[kgod]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay

[Stooboot]

Sorry I dont like to spend my money on virtual trash I will never get to see and a game that will most likely be dead in a year or 2 like a lot of you losers who get a sick thrill of whackin their meat to buying stats. No skill in buying your way to the top sorry.

Guess u cant read its a "pay to win" game has been since day 1 if u dont like it play another game, dont try and make excuses for why u suck.

[dr007]

Instead of having the Syndicate Battle rankings determined by total income of influence points why not change it to rank syndicates based on their actual win loss ratio? This will insure new leader board rankings almost every battle and FC wont always be king.

Now where do the influence points go you say?

They will do exactly what they are named for, influence who you will be facing in the next battle. Syndicates will be paired up with other syndicates who have a similar total influence point count. At the end of the event if syndicates are tied with the same record they then will be ranked based on their total influence points. i.e a syndicate with a 60-10 record with 300k influence points will rank higher than a 60-10 syndicate with 200k influence points.

What this does is create an equal playing field for all syndicates in crime city meaning a top 1500 syndicate now that didnt lose 1 battle could be number 1 if they went 72-0. The chances of that happening are still slim since it would be pretty hard for a 1500 syndicate to go 72-0 and still score enough influence points to match a higher ranked 72-0 team with more influence points.

What about gold spenders where does this put them?

Like i said previously, winning a syndicate battle will be the same as it is now based on influence points so if FC goes up against SAS they can spend away till one team wins. It would also promote more gold spending for lower ranked syndicates because the amount of influence points to win a single battle is much less than it is to rank up an entire tier as it is right. Gold spending will based on individual fights not just influence count.

Please think first then post. FC has yet to lose a battle genius!