alliance ranking sytem bug

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

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....

Go Fire, hides from Ian

Wooooooohooooooooooooooooooooooooo

*also hides from ian* lol

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I agree with the PS part.