Jump to content

Alliances Tier List


Dorian Grey
 Share

Recommended Posts

I MADE ONE HOW DO I PUT IMAGES IN THE TEXT BOX

 

10 hours ago, Pope Pink said:

tHis iS tHe uLTimaTe tIer LiSt, tHeRE iS No bIAs.

I guess you forgot you're allies with TKR, BK, and TO 😆

Do you guys know how to edit the signature field? I can't figure out where it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

899279922_my-image(1).png.b0743400ef8d2cc6dda088d36f3d3742.png

Here's mine, I used the C tier as the "average", plus some of those alliances I know too little about, so I put them in C tier.
This is the overall ranking, and I'll admit that some of those are in their respective tier mainly because of "sentiment", such as "They seem cool, they must be A tier". 


Let me know what you think

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bojack Horseman said:

my-image.thumb.png.3d7a17aadffa1683b782bc66f8d36790.png

 

S tier - pound for pound, each of these alliances will shred your alliance. Damages will make you look you're inactive, the forums will likely turn against you, RON might post a few articles about your joke of a milcom.

A tier - Consistent alliances that are considered leaders within the community but not necessarily revolutionary or scary.

B tier - Potential A or S tier alliances when given the right coalition or opportunity. Singled out or on their own may not be holding their own weight enough to be considered A or S.

C tier - Activity, econ, planning, or panache prevent these alliances from reaching their full potential but are generally respected within the community.

D tier - Basically like C tier but missing even more. FA may not be there, milcom may be AFK, etc. War performance reflects the lack of a government lineup fairly consistently but they aren't the worst.

E tier - Why do we have an E tier? This is where I put alliances who are activity-challenged, too new to really tell where they land, or generally have consistently poor war performances and a bad PR record. These alliances could use a makeover (or are too new).

F tier - This is where it may get mean. These alliances are consistently garbage. They create FA incidents (not the interesting kind, but the embarrassing kind), may try to separately surrender from a hard war, are generally bastions of inactivity only held together by their allies, and are likely home to multis. If you're in the F tier, disbandment or merging with someone more competent may honestly benefit the game.

image.png.9312916149bea65a9742ecff9b85a41b.png

indgertkr2.png

Legal Disclaimer:

My opinions do not necessarily reflect of the opinions of my alliance, allies, enemies or neutrals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's mine. Based on how they all fight and their coordination. (My experiences)

my-image.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

indgertkr2.png

Legal Disclaimer:

My opinions do not necessarily reflect of the opinions of my alliance, allies, enemies or neutrals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2021 at 8:51 PM, Suyash Adhikari said:

This tiering is so bad for so many reason, heres mine:
image.thumb.png.2750732b2f00c040e6389e680019ad2b.png
Rating these alliances on most everything with a heavy emphasis on MilCom. I used C as the average or where I put alliances I didnt know too much about.

No hard feelings 😘

& is above CoTL, TO, and TI? Based on military mostly? What are you smoking and where can it be bought?

Props on having a reasonable C tier and not just dunking on some of those aa's because that'd be pretty easy 😄

8 hours ago, Indger said:

Here's mine. Based on how they all fight and their coordination. (My experiences)

my-image.png

Best one posted so far

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Latsu said:

& is above CoTL, TO, and TI? Based on military mostly? What are you smoking and where can it be bought?

Props on having a reasonable C tier and not just dunking on some of those aa's because that'd be pretty easy 😄

Maybe they should've been below, when we left Swamp I thought they were the best ones in the bunch, which may have skewed my view a bit as I compared them to the rest of Swamp rather than Orbis.

User Images

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Maia said:

486f9a6e711e6ec8.png

It contains my personal view about alliances, I can be not 100% accurate with all of this so you can comment on that if you see some obvious mistake I typed.

Iconics ones:

TS for still making really good GDP compared to others for a long time. Basically their theme really fits reality.

Grumpy for gathering really fat old people together who are still willing to kicking ass and are competent unlike some other alliances containing only whales who just go inactive due to boredom.
Arrgh for being raiding alliance for ages. No matter what changes to the meta happened they still are the thing and are able to stay in top 50. They are worse to beat than cockroaches, they can survive everything! ;)

Yarr - stable offshore for some alliances. Due to many problems with foreign bank-alliances ending up as scams. This one proven so far and has become superior to others for quite a time. Booty saver for raiders. It's literally PnW version of Swiss Bank in real life.

Classic ones:
Guardians - never seen them underperform during war time which is amazing for such a time. 

TKR - creating blocs and doing several fa moves which had impact on the game(no matter if you seen them as good or bad ones). Good fighters, overall doing very well to be recognisable by everyone - ads, forum, discord etc. Staying always in top ten in game.

Rose - well, they were beaten in last global war but still it amazes me that they've kept 1st position in rankings. They have Vexz which is very known player in PnW. But even before she came there they were still a thing. It seems funny phrase "roll rose" it's still up to date but they managed to become immortal at this point. 

 

Better ones:(on the way to become classic ones some day)

Immortals and TFP for being in top ten, creating their own sphere, being overall good fighters, and have fine organisation within their alliances, same with politics. ---I know TFP is a an old alliance but never seen them as being relevant as they are today.

Error404 - good performance last war. Borg is still part of them, right? Just making it even greater seeing theme fits their skills. 

Good ones:

KT - being like a zombie no matter what, seeking for brains, you can beat them but they always come back. Not a classic raiding alliance I would say imo. They are half standard, half raiding alliance. If they keep like that maybe they become iconic. But they were like other alliances before so it wasn't idea from the start so it needs time before their current playstyle will become iconic. Thalmor radio is a + too.

Aurora - I am biased here but what I would say is being pretty recognisable - being part of new blocs, artworks, ads etc. Decent fighters in the last war.

BK- good to see a good one bk again with old gov - they are funny again(which was their strenght) and are good fighters.

Camelot - creating new bloc, overall ok, their leader is recognisable in PnW which is a good thing. His radio thing is a + too. He is also guest for other radios.

Colt - overall good but they had major reputation issue.

The Commonwealth - despite with loosing their bloc I think they are overall ok. Can't say more but at least I recognise them and they were always  in top ten or close to it.
The Order - good performance during last global war. They have very experianced ex-pirate as their leader so it is a good thing. Close to top ten and are recognisable which is a good thing.

Carthago - because they are top ten and have recognisable player Krampus who has RON. 

Not that great: one of the reason listed above in the picture. - simply there is still room for improvement to be good one. 

Being dumb tier etc:

Alpha - just nuking, no matter what strategy should be implemented, only nuking is a correct one. Aaaand currently very inactive, even in game.
WTF/Farkistan - a bit biased due to war where they just jumped at Grumpy and just nuking them and stealing slots when no one asked them for that.(I was in CoS trying to grab them down). Farkistan struggles in finding a stable bloc.(previous ones were also pretty inactive fa wise)

Soldiers of Liberty - despite being called the most intelligent alliance in The Jonhsons bloc. Leaving Oasis bloc they were reduced to smaller bloc with unexperianced alliances. They agreed to make Dave III as their representative bloc wise which we all know how it ended up. They could lead the bloc but they chose to be just a follower. They had a lot of experiance from Oasis bloc which they could use in their own bloc but it seems they did not.

TLE - how they discused in their bloc channel(leaks), making whole bloc disband. This is amazing achievement. Leaks are inevitable but what is even worse in this particular example no one wanted to stay with them(oh, even fight alongside with them!) They are only with Federation rn, it makes their future even more darker.

Sorry for mistakes etc. Hope it was somehow interesting to read.

Reasonably good one as well

1 minute ago, Suyash Adhikari said:

Maybe they should've been below, when we left Swamp I thought they were the best ones in the bunch, which may have skewed my view a bit as I compared them to the rest of Swamp rather than Orbis.

They (&) always let me down offensive wars-wise is all, also TO has Boyce who is usually spoken highly of from what I've seen (idk if that's changed).

To be fair & could've improved recently, its not like I'm in their milcom channels.

CoTL I've always seen as competent..more than I can say for ex-swamp (including &).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my-image-2.png

Not really interested in writing an in-depth explanation on each alliance but I'll give a shorthand description of the parameters for each tier

S - strong, influential, really at the top of their game

A - strong, influential, great overall, just not enough for me to consider them S tier

B - solid alliances but lacking in one area or another with strong potential for improvement to make it into A (or even S) tier

C - decent alliances, maybe lacking in a couple areas, but have strong potential/drive to improve and become much better than they currently are

D - disappointing, acknowledging the potential to be (so much) better but historically just haven't improved or even tried to

E - Bottom of the barrel alliances that don't give me a lot of hope for their futures

No opinion - self explanatory, I don't know enough about these alliances or they're too new to comment about

Also the tiers are not ordered

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Denison-1.png

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Suyash Adhikari said:

okay but no, just no, sorry :P 

I still will say that my F-tier is accurate. Okay maybe not Aurora but still.

Edited by Joe Schmo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

Alright, legitimate one because there are not enough hot takes in this thread and I wanna stir up some controversy. Alliances I would pick on a dream milcom team:

my-image.thumb.png.be4f7e67088254a8c627b4b7706d968a.png

Guardian: People who say Guardian couldn't live without Grumpy are seriously kidding themselves. They have been criminally underrated yet overperform so consistently on so many occasions. In my tier, I would absolutely dread fighting these guys the most.

The Syndicate: Leave it to tS to have one of the most consistently strong leadership groups in the game; put these guys in a bad spot and they will always find themselves a way out.

ASM: Tight-knit; IMO they deserve much better than Rose. Equally capable on the spy front, willing to suicide planes in a heartbeat, great for coordination. And they dropped WTF, which is based af

CoTL: These guys were always raring to go during the last global and I could always pull people here to go with me if I needed it.

Eclipse: IMO the majority of their membership is fairly young and inexperienced, but strong leadership tells me the only way Eclipse can go is up.

CC: Besides the whole getting their bank looted a lot thing, they are solid in their tier, surprised with a good spy performance, and are always communicative outside the alliance.

Weebunism: Out of everyone in Roasis Inc, Weebunism probably performed the best pound-for-pound out of everyone in their tier; their coordination within the alliance was solid.

BK: Solid in their tier for both fighting and spies. Literally any time you saw one of their guys get hit they'd be sending counters to bail em out almost immediately. Also Clown is gud

E404: They got knocked down pretty early in GW18, but through resilience pulled the net damage back and grew into the war nicely.

Grumpy: Something something upper tier domination; during round 1 they pulled huge weight. Only in B-tier because I think Guardian is better and because I think it would be equally fun fighting against them.

tO: Boyce, 'nuff said

TKR: Solid, pushed us all to beige cycle during GW18. Were off doing their own thing most of the time but did that job pretty well.

DB: Probably more tight-knit than most Roasis Inc groups. Nothing if not persistent, perhaps with the right guidance they have room to grow.

TFP: Has its fair share of pixel huggers but I'm putting this here solely because of Vice lmfao

TLE: No one will like me for saying this, but I like the smack talk; it all comes down to how willing they are to back it up and go the distance.

Arrgh: Most Arrgh members are pretty much inactive these days. There are a few decent ones but almost all the good raiders are in separate alliances these days.

Carthago: They have a few standout members that distinguish them from the rest of Nexus, but beyond that are unmemorable in most ways.

Aurora: Much more flexible than Camelot.

KT: Individually I would put them in the high end of A tier, but as it stands right now I doubt they would actually listen to anyone else in a coalition lmao

TI: Mixed bag. I feel like some of their gov/members would be reasonable and chill people to work with, but the other part would also be a total headache.

&, AT, GATO, OWR, TFed: Eh, I have never been impressed or seen anything particularly notable in the past year by any of these alliance performances.

BF: Have the most experience out of anyone in Johnsons at knowing how to defend themselves (rofl) but that isn't really saying much.

Cam: Underwhelmed horribly in GW18. Pursued all the wrong objectives and were so inflexible and stubborn-minded that I wouldn't enjoy working with them at all.

Rohirrim: Seem to have significant difficulty defending themselves from outside threats even during peacetime.

Rose: Milcom likes to give up after the first round, only thing they have going is their size from being rich. Needs to spend much more time recruiting top milcom talent and much less time recruiting useless meatshields.

SoL: Probably the most reasonable of the alliances in Johnsons, but again, that's not saying much.

SoS: They performed okay in... some aspects? Seems like they treated GW18 as another Locutus raiding exercise but at least that's better than collapsing immediately.

Alpha: Pixel huggers, they won't mind being in this tier because their goal is more or less to just make everyone hate them lmfao

CoA: Imagine choosing Alpha and Polaris as your closest allies and treating them better than your own training alliance and protectorates lmfao

Fark: Inactive meat shields and loot pinatas.

Genesis: Bloated micro, imagine struggling against TCM lmfao

HS: More loot pinatas. Had an absurd amount of people VMing during GW16 and when they weren't doing that, almost always kept juicy loot on their nations or built free ships and tanks to statpad off of.

Polaris: Are they even playing the game at this point?

RnR: Are totally incapable of defending themselves, drop massive amounts of loot, and would almost certainly refuse to fight all wars if given the chance.

SMC: One of if not the worst gov lineups in the top 50; I have no clue why they are bloc leaders other than the fact that scientifically people tend to listen to the louder voices rather than the correct ones.

TCW: They may have stopped bleeding members and leaking drama for now, but that has done them no favors in terms of competence or also being massive inactive loot pinatas.

Legion: All my opinions of HS naturally extend to Legion; I see literally no difference in the two alliances lol

Wei: Free stats, horrible beige control. If anything their presence probably hindered the entire Roasis Inc war effort.

TUA: With their previous leadership they were already helpless enough. After they jumped ship, I can't imagine that the quality got any better.

UPN, WTF, Yarr: Did these guys at least know how to press the declare war button? Sure. Are these guys active enough normally to know how to launch the correct attacks? Nah.

USN: I am honestly not sure why they aren't simply just a protectorate of another alliance.

aight now time to prep for downvotes \o7

These threads are pretty dumb but it's always fun to see different perspectives on alliances.

Whales rating whales, raiders rating counters, pixel-huggers rating randoms no one else thinks is good at war...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, WarriorSoul said:

are the people putting kt at/near the top all doing it ironically? gotta be some joke i'm missing out on

KT is amongst the all-time best fighting and most capable alliances in the games history. Their history dates back almost 3 years before you even created your nation and even though they're a shadow of what they once were, they'd still put up amongst the strongest fights you'd get in the game.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WarriorSoul said:

are the people putting kt at/near the top all doing it ironically? gotta be some joke i'm missing out on

KT undoubtedly makes the game interesting. Every time they roll someone in the middle of a NAP or blitz someone who thinks they'll do fine because they have 3 times the numbers. 

  • Upvote 2
2lsJlTp.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't based just off military performance, and it includes other aspects such as economic power, internal affairs, and community. 
image.thumb.png.0c8d1d615bb109ec9a6a7eccd474f569.png




 

  • Upvote 2
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.