Jump to content

Upper Tier Alliances


Placentica
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

You're always going to miss out on some important cases when you reduce entire alliances to such a simple little qualifier.

But for the most part I think of upper tier alliances as composed of larger nations (16-18 cities plus/over 3k ns or so). If your alliance is JUST those nations, you're definitely upper tier.

TKR is a good example of where that labeling system falls apart, because they are huge, but their tiering is all over the place. I wouldn't call them an upper tier alliance in the same breath I'd call something like Guardian one. I'd probably call TKR "An alliance that has an upper tier" rather than "an upper tier alliance". 

We agree completely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Buorhann said:

And yet they have more than most others combined.

It does all depend on definition, and my definition is an alliance primarily composed of upper tier nations.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kastor said:

It’s amazing people always try to discredit me by, what I believe, insinuating I don’t have intelligence.

Your average city count is 15. The upper tier is around 18-19. You have 49 nations at 18+.

The Commonwealth has 39. Guardian has 31.

 

So would you say that TCW and Guardian are upper tier alliances or mid tier? 

Also, before you ask, TCW is split closer to 50/50, with 55% being above 18 cities while Guardian has 62% above. TKR has 35% above, but the most 18+ cities in the game. So who is upper tier and who isn’t, Lordship?

Hypothetical: An alliance has 150 members, 50 in upper tier, 50 in mid tier, and 50 in low tier, so ~33% each (close to TKR's 35% upper tier). I would say that this alliance has a large upper tier, but is not an upper tier alliance due to that fact that the majority of their nations are not upper tier. An upper tier alliance would be GoB because the majority of their nations are upper tier.

But anyways, the entire definition of an upper tier alliance is subjective, and because of such there's no real reason to argue about it, it's more of a my opinion vs your opinion back and forth.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lordship said:

"It’s amazing people always try to discredit me by, what I believe, insinuating I don’t have intelligence. " - If you read my reply as trying to insinuate that you aren't intelligent, then you're doing this on your own lol. I was just saying how its easy to check the numbers. You're not a victim

I'd say they are upper tier alliances because the majority of their membership is in that range, which is consistent with what I said above.

 

14 hours ago, Lordship said:

We're in agreement there

So when Smetchy made the exact opposite claim and you agreed with him, what did that mean? Because you’re not being consistent.

4 hours ago, Micchan said:

TKR has 38% of upper tier nations therefore TKR is an upper tier alliance

Humans and bananas have 60% of DNA in common therefore bananas are primates

8d6.jpg

Lordship said that, not me. You’re insulting Lordship. 

2 hours ago, Cianuro said:

Hypothetical: An alliance has 150 members, 50 in upper tier, 50 in mid tier, and 50 in low tier, so ~33% each (close to TKR's 35% upper tier). I would say that this alliance has a large upper tier, but is not an upper tier alliance due to that fact that the majority of their nations are not upper tier. An upper tier alliance would be GoB because the majority of their nations are upper tier.

But anyways, the entire definition of an upper tier alliance is subjective, and because of such there's no real reason to argue about it, it's more of a my opinion vs your opinion back and forth.

I agree, but Lordship has had 2 different opinions and I just want him to clarify which is the one we’re going with today.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Cianuro said:

I agree, I think that TKR has good blending of their tiers, but are not necessarily a high tier alliance unlike GoB, TEst, CoS, etc...

It's Grumpy

3 hours ago, Cianuro said:

Hypothetical: An alliance has 150 members, 50 in upper tier, 50 in mid tier, and 50 in low tier, so ~33% each (close to TKR's 35% upper tier). I would say that this alliance has a large upper tier, but is not an upper tier alliance due to that fact that the majority of their nations are not upper tier. An upper tier alliance would be GoB because the majority of their nations are upper tier.

But anyways, the entire definition of an upper tier alliance is subjective, and because of such there's no real reason to argue about it, it's more of a my opinion vs your opinion back and forth.

Its still Grumpy, and you are correct the majority of our nations are all upper tier, we have do have 4 bottom tier members that ruin it ranging from 22-24 cities.  Also 18 cities being considered upper tier...

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

It's Grumpy

Its still Grumpy, and you are correct the majority of our nations are all upper tier, we have do have 4 bottom tier members that ruin it ranging from 22-24 cities.  Also 18 cities being considered upper tier...

Let me join your alliance Ronny that way you can claim diversity of nations and that you're not just all upper tier :^)

Also give me all your money lol

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Micchan said:

TKR has 38% of upper tier nations therefore TKR is an upper tier alliance

Humans and bananas have 60% of DNA in common therefore bananas are primates

8d6.jpg

Ah, but you are what you eat. Therefore humans are bananas.

You have more upper tier nations than several upper tier alliances, therefore you are an upper tier alliance.

You have less upper tier nations proportionately speaking than several upper tier alliances, therefore you are not an upper tier alliance.

Therefore you are both an upper tier alliance and not an upper tier alliance, and also bananas.

1jcn12.jpg

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
eh, my posts can't all be winners
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kastor said:

So when Smetchy made the exact opposite claim and you agreed with him, what did that mean? Because you’re not being consistent.

No idea who this Smetchy guy is, but I made the exact same claim as Thrax did, which is that labels are redundant. Of course I also said that I think quantity of upper tier matters more than proportion, and that I would personally define TKR as an "upper tier" alliance, but that is why the label is kinda pointless, since its subjective. Whenever people throw out these labels I usually bring actual stats to the discussion to avoid this particular debate anyway.

So yes, In an actual war scenario, TKR is the most dominant alliance in the upper tier, in the game currently. How you choose to define that is up to you.

Edited by Sketchy
  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2018 at 3:30 PM, Kastor said:

 

So when Smetchy made the exact opposite claim and you agreed with him, what did that mean? Because you’re not being consistent.

Lordship said that, not me. You’re insulting Lordship. 

I agree, but Lordship has had 2 different opinions and I just want him to clarify which is the one we’re going with today.

1. Sketchy and Thrax's points are incredibly similar, about how a simple label is problematic. I agreed with Thrax in that we are an alliance "with an upper tier" as opposed to being "an upper tier alliance".

2. I never said we were an upper tier alliance. In fact, I have been contending from the very first post that we aren't. I am convinced you have not seriously read any of the posts in this thread based on your questionable replies. You are the one listing percentages and Micchan was replying to you. Having to explain this is hilarious lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that we qualify as upper tier. Sure, we have a large upper tier, but that's more a by-product of our size than anything. TKR is more so an alliance with an upper tier than an upper tier alliance. No matter what tier is getting talked about TKR is gonna wind up top 5 just due to our sheer size, so using quantity as our standard would result in the absurdity that TKR is a micro to mega whale tier alliance. 

  • Upvote 1

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, japan77 said:

Interesting that we qualify as upper tier. Sure, we have a large upper tier, but that's more a by-product of our size than anything. TKR is more so an alliance with an upper tier than an upper tier alliance. No matter what tier is getting talked about TKR is gonna wind up top 5 just due to our sheer size, so using quantity as our standard would result in the absurdity that TKR is a micro to mega whale tier alliance. 

Well they wouldn’t, as TKR has more upper tier nations than anyone in the game.

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kastor said:

Well they wouldn’t, as TKR has more upper tier nations than anyone in the game.

So, is it now that you are only tier x if you have the most nations in that tier?
So, BK isn't low tier because NPO has more low tier? Please come up with a definition that actually makes sense, is consistent and doesn't result in certain alliances winding up in multiple tiers.

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, James II said:

Why are people getting offended by being called an upper tier alliance? You have a good portion of upper tier, you can be an upper tier alliance and a lower and middle.

I'm guessing they perceive as a means of legitimizing how threatening they look?  I don't know.

 

Now we know all what GOB has to do is accept all the new guys joining in the game to no longer be considered "upper tier", whether they do anything with them or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I'm guessing they perceive as a means of legitimizing how threatening they look?  I don't know.

 

Now we know all what GOB has to do is accept all the new guys joining in the game to no longer be considered "upper tier", whether they do anything with them or not.

It's Grumpy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, japan77 said:

Interesting that we qualify as upper tier. Sure, we have a large upper tier, but that's more a by-product of our size than anything. TKR is more so an alliance with an upper tier than an upper tier alliance. No matter what tier is getting talked about TKR is gonna wind up top 5 just due to our sheer size, so using quantity as our standard would result in the absurdity that TKR is a micro to mega whale tier alliance. 

TIL TKR is a micro tier whale alliance ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, japan77 said:

So, is it now that you are only tier x if you have the most nations in that tier?
So, BK isn't low tier because NPO has more low tier? Please come up with a definition that actually makes sense, is consistent and doesn't result in certain alliances winding up in multiple tiers.

I haven’t ever called you upper tier. All I’ve said is you have the most upper tier in the game, which is true.

1 hour ago, James II said:

Why are people getting offended by being called an upper tier alliance? You have a good portion of upper tier, you can be an upper tier alliance and a lower and middle.

TKR has always tried to look like the good guy throughout every situation. They forum gag members and stop differing opinions because they are afraid to get rolled. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I'm guessing they perceive as a means of legitimizing how threatening they look?  I don't know.

I thought this was a discussion about what the community considers upper tier alliances, and when I challenge the contention, we are accused of being offended or of being scared of the label lol. Is this a discussion or are you trying to score some political points by doing your best to make as unintelligent an argument on the topic at hand as possible?

Edited by Lordship
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.