Rejected Ranking alliances

Should ranking of the top alliances be added?

  • Yes

    Votes: 64 79.0%

  • No

    Votes: 17 21.0%
  • Total voters
    81
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

I agree, great idea I hope they will include it in next update... :)
 

Deleted User - 1278415

Added a poll to the thread.

I think the only thing it might have been lacking was a visual aid at most... but everyone knows what a report window looks like we just want a few column headings changed.

So 14 days on this poll and must have 80% to be moved on to developers.
 

DeletedUser

bigstockphoto_Check_Yes_431128.jpg
 

DeletedUser

Although I said nothing when it was only an idea (IIRC) I can vote only yes.
Although we already have rankings of many kinds, this one can't be "calculated" easily and will also be a nice addition to the game.
 

DeletedUser

I like the general idea of it, and I am not sure if it's possible or not, (or posted & deleted) but since the use of an alliance is mainly (in my eyes anyway) is for not only dueling but for fort battles, wouldn't it be handy to have a fort battles won/fort battles lost instead of town points & member points?

Alliance A won 7 lost 3
alliance b won 1 lost 4.......
 

DeletedUser

I don't want this, since alliances are a bunch of people who hug mostly. Hug as in the tribalwars sense of the word. I have never been afraid of those enourmous groups of 30-40 towns, say with 15 members each that give us a total of more than 500 members. Knowing that I can probably beat 490 of those, ranking their alliance on first place based on quantity really isn't needed.
 

DeletedUser

b00k said:
I don't want this, since alliances are a bunch of people who hug mostly. Hug as in the tribalwars sense of the word. I have never been afraid of those enourmous groups of 30-40 towns, say with 15 members each that give us a total of more than 500 members. Knowing that I can probably beat 490 of those, ranking their alliance on first place based on quantity really isn't needed.
Click to expand...

You are very right,but this is how the games goes!In the eyes of the week and medium players,the points are everything!
 

DeletedUser16008

b00k said:
I don't want this, since alliances are a bunch of people who hug mostly. Hug as in the tribalwars sense of the word. I have never been afraid of those enourmous groups of 30-40 towns, say with 15 members each that give us a total of more than 500 members. Knowing that I can probably beat 490 of those, ranking their alliance on first place based on quantity really isn't needed.
Click to expand...

I have to agree this is one table that isnt needed and would mean exactly nothing anyway. biggest will always be 99% of the time on top. All that is important is the wins and losses of forts not how many they have as a collective. As Book says if its full of crap duelers what makes them deserve a top slot because they have 500 members while my town has 50 and can beat their asses all day ??

Ive voted No
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top