size does matter

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Stifler

to get average score/size of the alliance members, as well as overall ranking?

well, as nice as your avg score might be, it won't show you who actually won or didn't. The winner is simply the one ending on top in the end. Otherwise the #1 player can start his own alliance and thus have the best avg ...

rgds Kj

[Shaithess]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

well, as nice as your avg score might be, it won't show you who actually won or didn't. The winner is simply the one ending on top in the end. Otherwise the #1 player can start his own alliance and thus have the best avg ...

rgds Kj

Personally, I think that an average score for each alliance should be available at the end of the round, with some other 'interesting stats' :/

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

well, as nice as your avg score might be, it won't show you who actually won or didn't. The winner is simply the one ending on top in the end. Otherwise the #1 player can start his own alliance and thus have the best avg ...

rgds Kj

i didnt say drop the overall ranking! Its just another method of ranking

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Otherwise the #1 player can start his own alliance and thus have the best avg ...

he wouldnt stay number #1 for very long then, as there would be no one to defend him!

even if he just did it right at the end he would still have to wait 72 ticks before he could create his alliance in which time the other alliances would have raped and pilaged him off the number #1 spot and hence best average ranked 'alliance'

[Maddix]

Originally Posted by KalVirtus

was i moaning?

can we go back to killing each other now

You, me, a pistol and ten paces at dusk (dawn is far too early fs)?

Ofc the fact that you won't have the pistol is a bit unfair, but it does at least give you something justifiable to actually moan about

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Stifler

i didnt say drop the overall ranking! Its just another method of ranking





he wouldnt stay number #1 for very long then, as there would be no one to defend him!

even if he just did it right at the end he would still have to wait 72 ticks before he could create his alliance in which time the other alliances would have raped and pilaged him off the number #1 spot and hence best average ranked 'alliance'

maybe, maybe not. Top players tend to have galaxies defending him and friends supporting them etc. Imo, avg rankings are nice yes, mainly for the none top alliances, to measure their strength.

Though, for top alliances, the only ranking that really matters is the overall rankings. Otherwise alliances will just kick "low score" members 2 ticks before game ands and thus have alot better ratio.

Atleast, that's how I see it.

rgds Kj

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Though, for top alliances, the only ranking that really matters is the overall rankings. Otherwise alliances will just kick "low score" members 2 ticks before game ands and thus have alot better ratio.

Atleast, that's how I see it.

rgds Kj

but like i said, thats why you dont just drop/ignore overall ranking but the avg rankings are an additional ranking to look at.

why would this both you since fang are top atm, unless your just bloated and have lots of smaller players and a few high ranked players (ie low average)

[edit]
could a persons galaxy defend 12 hrs of overkill incoming on their own? I don't think so especially in a random round where there would be players friendly to the attackers in the gal and therefore wouldnt defend

[[i2k]Xy]

shut it stifler - 4S owns yeh.

[[i2k]Xy]

btw:
creampie -> Noun. The view of recently deposited semen oozing from a vagina or anus. An expression originating in the porn industry.

There u go allfarter.

[Blazde]

It'd certainly be easy for a top player forming their own alliance to claim the top spot, they only have to keep their fleet safe for the last 72 ticks, roids doesn't matter too much. What's being suggested (move this thread to PS incely) is publishing the total score, average score and (perhaps) member count. Similar to the old tag rankings where we'd see eg. LDK 2nd with an average in the millions and WP top with a few thousand points each.

However, to avoid putting too much emphasis on either method of scoring (and create lots of AD controversy about who really won the round) it should be possible to order alliances by either method on the rankings screen.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Though, for top alliances, the only ranking that really matters is the overall rankings. Otherwise alliances will just kick "low score" members 2 ticks before game ands and thus have alot better ratio.

And no doubt if your alliance was in Ely's position you'd be saying the only rankiing that matters is average. Fact is, it's two different ways of viewing the rankings and neither is definitive. And I suspect if it changed alliances would be very willing to shed their inactives long before the end of the round. The current system encourages them to hang on to them at all costs. More or less every alliance is now wasting resources defending members who just aren't playing anymore. It's also difficult for HC to kick disobedient members, or those not pulling their weight defence wise etc... because they doesn't want to lose the member's score. Then we have the insane situation of different alliances joining together under one tag to boost their ranking.

Creating a winning alliance imo, is about bringing together a stable group of people, fighting enthusiastically for their cause, and then running the whole show efficiently. This round it seems creating a winning alliance is about recruiting as many planets as possible.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Blazde

And no doubt if your alliance was in Ely's position you'd be saying the only rankiing that matters is average. Fact is, it's two different ways of viewing the rankings and neither is definitive. And I suspect if it changed alliances would be very willing to shed their inactives long before the end of the round. The current system encourages them to hang on to them at all costs. More or less every alliance is now wasting resources defending members who just aren't playing anymore. It's also difficult for HC to kick disobedient members, or those not pulling their weight defence wise etc... because they doesn't want to lose the member's score. Then we have the insane situation of different alliances joining together under one tag to boost their ranking.

Creating a winning alliance imo, is about bringing together a stable group of people, fighting enthusiastically for their cause, and then running the whole show efficiently. This round it seems creating a winning alliance is about recruiting as many planets as possible.

Even if I was in Ely's position, I would pay more attention to the overall rankings then the avg one. It's the one being used ingame and to me, all alliances have the same chances and abilities. How they use it is up to them really.

And this round isn't about "who's recruiting the most members" at all. This round is the ONLY round where the top alliances didn't have shitloads of members. It's infact the only round that prevents alliances to mass recruit like hell.

Nway, I'm just stating how I see at it, and tbh I do think most will agree with it (atleast I hope).

rgds Kj

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Even if I was in Ely's position, I would pay more attention to the overall rankings then the avg one. It's the one being used ingame and to me, all alliances have the same chances and abilities. How they use it is up to them really.

Its the one used in game, but people have asked if its possible to see the avg score at the end, therefore could be used as well.

All alliances have the same chance IF they have the same amount of members but if they have less then it means they have to work this extra bit harder OR take the easy path and recruit more (they would have less members so they could fit them ingame]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

And this round isn't about "who's recruiting the most members" at all.

All this round has done is stop the 'stuipd' mass recruiting, but in this size of universe its a big difference between 40-50 members in an alliance

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

This round is the ONLY round where the top alliances didn't have shitloads of members. It's infact the only round that prevents alliances to mass recruit like hell.

So if you have an alliance with 100 members and and another with 130-140 members, and the alliance with more members is ranked higher then they are better? Thats like saying an alliancce like BlueTuba was better then legion or fury in earlier rounds because they might have an higher overall score cos of more members. (Yes, I know BT is extreme example because they wouldn't fit into the ingame alliances but there were more players then)

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Nway, I'm just stating how I see at it, and tbh I do think most will agree with it (atleast I hope).

why have others said it would be interesting to see the average scores then?

[mikay]

The ingame alliance ranking is just bad and really means nothing. The winning alliance has always been the one with the most T10/30/100 planets and probably control of T10 galaxies. Playing to the current alliance ranking means the only thing that matters is recruiting people for the last week of the round.

A perfect example of this would be if all LDK planets decided to retag during the last week. LDK would suddenly be about 5th in the game despite not actually playing the round as an alliance and FAnG would probably drop to 3rd/4th.

72 ticks bla bla - roids are of minor relevance at the end so all you really got to do if you can't cover potential incs is run your fleet.

In game alliance ranking is a nice way of comparing alliance strength during the round but should not be used to decide who won.

Anyway if an alliance works with allies they can't really claim the victory as their own. Others worked to make that victory happen, it's a shared victory.

As far as the original topic - well alliances are far too secretive. Within a week of the round starting every alliance knows 95% of their enemies - shame they won't give out arbi access to their own side to make the job much easier.

[Blazde]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

It's infact the only round that prevents alliances to mass recruit like hell.

No alliance has reached the 150 member limit, so it's 100% irrelevant.

[mjrTorspo]

maybe he ment its the only round that prevented FanG from mass recruiting like hell (ok now im just trolling..)

[Tomkat]

It would be nice to see a breakdown of info like Highest Score planet, Highest Score Cluster for the Alliance, etc, etc.

But before this info is released alliances would have to agree on what constitutes a "win". Any data can be twisted and changed so that it looks like a win "Oh, we have more clusters controlled than you".

If the data was given out at the end simply for people to peruse, and not use in an AD argument, that's fine.

The game has been designed in this way, so alliances all round have been getting to the top using methods that ensure they'll win. I know I have flamed Dragons and FAnG for pushing their players to the top at the possible expense of their lower-scored players, but they've done it for a reason.
If the game scoring for alliances was suddenly changed at the end, then it isn't fair on alliances who have been formulating plans all round to suddenly be pushed down a notch or two because their average score isn't as high.

[Tomkat]

TBH IM SOOOOOOOO GAY IT HURTS AND I LIKE TIGHT G0AT BOTTOMS RRAAARRRAAARRR


p.s i have a small winkie and everyone should ignore my posts on AD/PD cause i sound silly and talk rubbish lalalallalala

[xtothez]

Kjel, put down TK's account...

[Kjeldoran]

Xto, I'm not the one using password and login of pple to gain access to FAnG services, you know anyone who did?

Nway, I don't see a point in any of this. to me, whoever ends up at the top rankings ingame (whether that will be FAnG or Eclipse or Ely doesn't change a bit for me). When we started playing this game (PAX), we agreed to this. Ofc I do realize that putting other ways of evaluating a round and it's winner will be available but to me those are just nice "addons" and stuff to feed AD with.

Every alliance goin for the victory this round, played in function of how the total sum will be made at the end of the round, which is overall rankings.

On a sidenote, FAnG sees no point in kicking smaller members just to make sure your avg is higher, to me that's simply betraying those who STILL did some efforts for the alliance.

rgds Kj

[xtothez]

sense_of_humour--;

[RealJames]

Originally Posted by AzureWrath

an HC from every alliance just post your membercounts for fun

Five.

That was fun.

[Stifler]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Xto, I'm not the one using password and login of pple to gain access to FAnG services, you know anyone who did?

don't you have to login yourself

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Stifler

don't you have to login yourself

Ofc not, I got officers to do that for me ... plz don't tell anyone

rgds Kj

[Tomkat]

Uhm. That was someone on my computer (ChipZ^). I went to the loo and left the window open accidentally.

Still.... I BET IT WAS THOSE FANG HAX0RS ;O

PS: I don't really like goat's bums. THAT WAS JUST THE ONE TIME.

[Mistwraith]

All the average planet size would require is Honesty and one HC from each alliance to post the total score.. total no. of members and then the calculation.. At the end of the round when all that stuff is academical.

Man what am i thinking.. Honesty.. like thats gonna happen....

what it needs is for people to post the truth and others to believe them.. not flame em as liars..

ok thats not gonna happen either ..

But thats all it needs :-)