Ok, let me give a view from an admin's point of view.

As admins, we try to get the best gaming experience for everyone, but that constitutes that there are competitions. And on way to many worlds, people simply bring a lot of subs, and win trough that. And/or that rank 2 and rank 3 alliance makes a deal with rank 1 that they get to keep ther position in return of not fighting rank 1. This leaves rank 4 and bellow to try and go against rank 1, which does end well some times, but usually, the gap is to big. This step is to give incentive to fight till the end instead of just sitting there, building.

It was brought up before that teams who play valiantly and fight hard throughout the era should be rewarded. IF this goes through and tokens are only given the the winning team, I think this idea should be implemented.

If only the top team is given tokens players will have to buy reds or continually make new accounts for the free tokens when they get into slumps and run out of tokens. If admins reward teams that fight hard and have a big impact in the era it would allow them to stay competitive.

Why boost reds in a sub, when you can boost reds in the main alliance?

Haha i love it.
Now all the horde alliances as screwed
Good luck finding 10 subs now.

agree and more tokens plz

This was brought up at the meeting, the problem would be complaints about admin biase.

I would agree, except for the fact that there is no way for us to fairly hand out blue for competitive alliances with big impact to the era. Even if we hand out fair and square, there will be those who didn't receive the rewards be like "admins are playing favors"

Base it off statistics then. If a team has x amount of troops killed by t tick they get some kind of reward in the end for fighting. Although that then brings up the issue of farming so I guess that isn't viable.

I'm sure we can come up with a way around the bias. It just doesn't seem possible for players to thrive or want to play if they lose their accounts with all their medals due to a little slump.

This decision, even though in fact it can make worlds more competitive, is really bad. First of all, forget diplomacy, which is personally my favorite part in the game! Top alliances wont need to even talk to one another because its clear, everyone will want first place. This decision also only helps the people boosting Basically, there is no point in playing unless ur paying. You could play for fun but that wont challenge anyone who is not boosting. Maybe it could be a good idea to take out third place but second also. Thats crazy It should at least decrease the amount of blues an alliance in third or second place get. I personally hate this idea, its only good for the boosters and even they might not like it because diplomacy will change. If there is a player that is unhappy with the amount of competition going on, them maybe u should attack a strong alliance and enjoy yourself fighting. Plus if a third place alliance looks at a top alliance and their score is maybe 3 times as high, it will be very risky for the third alliance to boost reds and maybe they wont at all!!!!

I know a lot of great players that need 2nd and third place blues to be competitive against big red boosters. You will get more comp sure. But your gonna kill the smaller guys that dont boost reds in the process. And watch as I simply dont boost at the beginning then when everyone gets killed off start boosting heavily. All this does is ruin the game for a lot of people. Strongly disagree with this.