alliance ranking sytem bug

View previous topic View next topic Go down

alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Lord Ishurue on Wed May 19, 2010 11:02 pm


1 Mujengan_(FIRE) Lord_Ishurue 210,990,783,427 1,392,993,431 42

This is clearly a bug .

TIe is almost twice our size . and over 50% of our TP .

Its no secret i want to be the rank 1 alliance but not like this .
avatar
Lord Ishurue
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

Alliance :
Mujengan

The Unlimited Elite Gun Force
Age : 29
Number of posts : 666
Registration date : 2009-11-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Admin on Wed May 19, 2010 11:07 pm

size 30%
power 20%
member war exp 30%
alliance war exp 20%

that's the weighings for making overall rank
atm both muj and tie are tied, so ...

it doesn't matter if they have even 10 times your population. it's still just rank 1 and you have rank 2 in population stat

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by ian on Wed May 19, 2010 11:13 pm

Err.... your telling me that The Imperium which is still twice FIRE's population, over 1/3 more in power size... is rank 2 based upon a 1million experience difference between FIRE and TIE in experience:

Alliance War Exp [Rank]: 1,125,146,865 [1]
Alliance War Exp [Rank]: 1,124,008,626 [2]

Don't you think the ranking's are slightly unrealistic? - which will potentially give new players the wrong impressions when it comes to the political/ power situation on the game....
avatar
ian
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

Alliance : You get 3 guesses as to which one Razz
Age : 28
Number of posts : 1180
Registration date : 2009-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by seaborgium on Wed May 19, 2010 11:23 pm

Go Fire, hides from Ian Very Happy

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Kingofshinobis1 on Wed May 19, 2010 11:50 pm

Wooooooohooooooooooooooooooooooooo Very Happy Twisted Evil

*also hides from ian* lol

Kingofshinobis1
Aderan Super Soldier
Aderan Super Soldier

ID : 171
Alliance : The_Mercenary
Hire For Massings
Age : 27
Number of posts : 823
Location : United States
Registration date : 2010-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Admin on Thu May 20, 2010 1:08 am

ian wrote:Err.... your telling me that The Imperium which is still twice FIRE's population, over 1/3 more in power size... is rank 2 based upon a 1million experience difference between FIRE and TIE in experience:

Alliance War Exp [Rank]: 1,125,146,865 [1]
Alliance War Exp [Rank]: 1,124,008,626 [2]

Don't you think the ranking's are slightly unrealistic? - which will potentially give new players the wrong impressions when it comes to the political/ power situation on the game....
it would be a very stupid thing to create ranks based on n! combinations of relative powers/sizes of the alliances. that's why a simple sort is used.

hint: that's why i also made the extra effort to repost the weighings...

A 2 follows a 1. I could make that each ranking is counted as a multiple of the top value in each stat (i.e. top army is 500 mil, so an alliance with 250 mil would have a rank of 2, a 100 mil army alliance would have a rank of 5). So that this case TIE would be rank 1 as they should be (because a twofold difference in army would offset the 0.1% difference in WE), however then people only know how far they are in relation to the top alliance, but not how they are in relation to other alliances, which is clearly a stupid approach
Once I can come up with a fix for that, or someone suggests a good fix themselves, we'll have to stick with the old system

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by skyfighter on Sun May 23, 2010 2:36 am

Suggestion: add a fifth element to calculate alliance rank.

Total Power / Total Army size, and you get military efficiency of an alliance army. I think that's what is misssing.

skyfighter
Aderan Farmer
Aderan Farmer

ID : 177
Alliance : Not needed
Number of posts : 55
Location : canada
Registration date : 2009-01-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by seaborgium on Sun May 23, 2010 12:26 pm

I don't think that will help mainly due to 'pver' powering a stat or 2 can jump you 10-15 ranks easy.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Nomad on Sun May 23, 2010 5:35 pm

I think the % are off and there is one I honestly don't understand. I'll split the two points tho.

1.
size 30%
power 20%
member war exp 30%
alliance war exp 20%

In my opinion in a straight up ranking system IMMEDIATE power should be the most important, meaning what you can do right then and there. Training and building weapons takes time so this slows the usefulness of having a larger size yet a smaller military force. While I agree past experiance (The 2 WE stats) is a good idea, it is also flawed (see point 2). That said I think the % should be more like

size 30%<----truest sign of economic power and endurance
power 40%,<--- truest sign of "immediate" military power.
member war exp 20%<--- truest sign of per player experiance
alliance war exp 10%<--- a slow built long term stat, should play small role.


2.
member war exp 30%
alliance war exp 20%

Ok member war experiance I get, and for the most part agree with. Alliance war experiance I do not get, and if its what I think I most definitely do not agree with. The down side to both of these are the fact it takes a lot of time to gain them, and a lot of cost. Under the present system a brand new alliance could be Bigger in size, More powerful is stats, and still be ranked far lower. This means an older alliance, lets say the first one made, could hold a rank based solely on WE earned over 1 year ago by players who are no longer even in the alliance? Thats crap.

Alliance War Exp = WR earned by players under the alliance tag. Even if the players who earned the WR no longer belong to the alliance the AWE is still there? If this is the case then I totally disagree for multiple reasons.
1. in fact the rank 1 AWE alliance could be taken over by members with NO WR and gain benifits from past players no longer affiliated with them
2. these scores are VERY long term and should have the least effect. an alliance can hold a rank over another even tho they are weaker in numbers, weaker in military power, weaker in player WR or activity, but are able to hold the rank based solely on the fact it has been around a great deal longer and over time built up a AWE record that in the present means absolutely nothing since the members who earned it are no longer there. I just dont like "age" being a major factor, minor maybe, but not as major a role as its given now.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Admin on Sun May 23, 2010 5:42 pm

I still think size would be more important than current power

so something along the lines of:
army 35-40%
power 30%
member WE 20%
alliance WE 10-15%

and the whole War exp story will undergo some changes in the future, but for now let's leave it at that

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Nomad on Sun May 23, 2010 6:03 pm

Admin wrote:I still think size would be more important than current power

so something along the lines of:
army 35-40%
power 30%
member WE 20%
alliance WE 10-15%

and the whole War exp story will undergo some changes in the future, but for now let's leave it at that

explain why you feel size is more important then power? Power can decrease size, size can not effect power.

*the above statement is in an immediate sense*
Size has to be trained and takes no account for training levels and tech levels where military power does. You are cheating all the funds spent in trainings and techs. There is no way someone larger in size can outclass someone with a standing military and built techs and training levels.

Me = 5 mill in size, no techs, level 1 training
you = 2.5 mill in size, 200% techs, 5800 train levels

I outclass you?
We go to war, in the first turn whats going to happen?
I go to training, you go to killing.

I hope to have made my point, as for the second part, Fine with me, we all know Rank means nothing, its just a pretty number, a shiney medal, and a bit of red ribbon. It has no true measure of a man nor a group.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Kenzu on Sun May 23, 2010 6:04 pm

Let's keep it nice and simple

Total Power: 40%
Total Population: 30%
Member Experience: 20%
Alliance Experience: 10%

PS: Total power has to be the strongest stat, and all experiences together should not add up above total power stat. Populations is weighted less strong, since current total power portrays the current power distribution the best.
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 30
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Nomad on Sun May 23, 2010 6:10 pm

I agree with the PS part.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: alliance ranking sytem bug

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum