Alliance Ranking

just a suggestion, i think alliance ranks should be based on the alliance total power,
not with total war experience or size, i personally think its unfair to say the least,
if a new alliance or a existing one builds up their power, their never have a chance to having their alliance rank 1, because the bigger alliances that were here longer have so much experience the'll never be able to catch up or pass them up, even if they were to war them, because that would only build their war experience up even more, so the only other way for an alliance to try and catch up would be to start attacking smaller players not in any alliance so that they can raise up their experience, if that would even work,
idk it just makes no sense to rank by size or experience.

what do the rest of you think?


skylar

I agree with lil monsters.

I think alliance ranks should be based mainly on total power, but at the same time population should be considered too.
of course we can also consider experience, but this should have only a tiny weight (but question is, do we need experience count towards rank at all? If yes, why?)

I suggest following distribution of weights on ranks:

Total power 40% weight
Total population 30% weight
Total income 10%
Total unit production 10%
Total member experience 10% weight

alliance experience shouldn't be considered at all. What counts isn't experience gathered from players who played before in the alliance, but what counts are current members with their experience. A new alliance could get an inflow of old experienced players, however with alliance experience a 0 it would have a terrible rank, even though alliance experience doesnt mean anything.

Member e

Thats so full of it Kenzu.
The Marauders is what 6 days old. We are currently ranked 5th on the server. We have crap for Alliance war exp.
Alliance War Exp [Rank]: 3,523,406 [17]

While I think total power = very badly managed accounts, that isn't 100% true, as I can build almost 25% less then kenzu can and I can out rank him.

I do not have a good answer to how to get it, but using total power is a bad idea, gives the wrong impression.

I think Income should play a major part in it

Kenzu wrote:I agree with lil monsters.

I think alliance ranks should be based mainly on total power, but at the same time population should be considered too.
of course we can also consider experience, but this should have only a tiny weight (but question is, do we need experience count towards rank at all? If yes, why?)

I suggest following distribution of weights on ranks:

Total power 40% weight
Total population 30% weight
Total income 10%
Total unit production 10%
Total member experience 10% weight

alliance experience shouldn't be considered at all. What counts isn't experience gathered from players who played before in the alliance, but what counts are current members with their experience. A new alliance could get an inflow of old experienced players, however with alliance experience a 0 it would have a terrible rank, even though alliance experience doesnt mean anything.

Member e

" I think alliance ranks should be based mainly on total power, but at the same time population should be considered too. "

population, isn't all the members power added together to get the total alliance power?
thats how they are counted, alliance size shouldn't have nothing to do with it or there will always just be the same 3 alliances with most all the members in the rank 1 position,

" by Steveanaya on Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:46 am
I think Income should play a major part in it "

lol income shouldn't have nothing to do with it really.

total power would give the true rank, and it would be fair for anyone that has or wants an alliance a chance to build up and go for rank 1,


skylar

why cant it be like the player rankings... 4 powers add totals ....then rank them and divide them

melonhead wrote:why cant it be like the player rankings... 4 powers add totals rank em divide em

I don't that would be too fair either,

In the event of the rank 1 person creating an alliance, he/she alone would be he highest rank alliance, while this is an extremely exaggerated veiw on this idea, it expressed my point all the same. That point being that if there are a large mass of top 30-50 players etc in an alliance, the alliance with a majority of the other players would not out rank the first alliance.

Sorry if that was hard to understand...

Osyndicate wrote:

melonhead wrote:why cant it be like the player rankings... 4 powers add totals rank em divide em

I don't that would be too fair either,

In the event of the rank 1 person creating an alliance, he/she alone would be he highest rank alliance, while this is an extremely exaggerated veiw on this idea, it expressed my point all the same. That point being that if there are a large mass of top 30-50 players etc in an alliance, the alliance with a majority of the other players would not out rank the first alliance.

Sorry if that was hard to understand...

not that it was hard to understand, but it just made no sense why one person alliance would be highest rank

on that note, I kinda got the feeling that some people think that War Experience has a big impact on ranks. Let alone Alliance War Experience which takes the longest to build up.

Its a war game for crying out loud. Experience should count. I saw you make it so the exp goes up/down.

You kill stuff it adds up, when you lose stuff it comes off the total. That to me would show the true power.

seaborgium wrote:Its a war game for crying out loud. Experience should count. I saw you make it so the exp goes up/down.

I lowered it because it was a legit reason asking that exp shouldn't count for half the rank.

seaborgium wrote:You kill stuff it adds up, when you lose stuff it comes off the total. That to me would show the true power.

Probably the single only statement in this whole thread presented with actual reasonable arguments.

Anyways, the alliance ranks are a tricky thing to do, it really just depends on what the aim is.
Power reflects current military potential, but NOT the ability to use this potential.
Army size reflects for the most part economic ability, by extension military capability too (though by that argument, UP should also form a separate rank, separate because it's a ton easier to compare than if i were to add it to army size somehow)
Member War Experience reflects how good the individual members can fight, someone who killed 1 mil units will generally have better understanding of fighting than someone who killed 1k units.
Alliance war experience reflects how long the alliance has existed, it might have more leverage in negotiations with other long standing alliances than a newly formed alliance, better notoriety between players themselves, etc.

Is the aim to create an image of long term power projection by each alliance? Then economic production and war experience should be important
Is the aim to allow fluctuating ranks which have connection with reality and have 2 warring alliances fall to the bottom of the ranks just because they are good at wiping out each other's stats while other less able alliances can catch the top spots for a short time? then go for total power

Maybe we could have it all lol.

Maybe make the allinace section sortable.....

have it default to to load based on Name, or # of memebers or even power.
Make it so you can sort it by total power, alliance exp, economic power.

I not sure that would be a good idea considering someone could sort by eco and watch those accounts that best fit the farming needs.

I think it might be good to do the
when you kill enemy units/wepaons blah blah it adds the exp value, and then it adds up what you have lost and takes it off the value, then you are left with the real value of exp of who is a better power house.

I like the current system.

Regarding the issue about experience and those saying new alliances never stand a chance of catching up.

To give you a idea - The Imperium Empire:

Member War Exp [Rank]: 6,272,138,108 [1]
Alliance War Exp [Rank]: 8,082,962,972 [1]

Before the war with T.O.C our member experience was about 1.5billion, and our alliance experience was about the same as well.

About 6 weeks of war quadrupled our member experience and increased our alliance experience by at least 5 times its amount - and if it wasn't for a couple of TIE members forming their own alliances (Vesper & seaborgium) the member experience would be at least 5 times what it was as well if they d have stayed....

Honestly.... if that doesn't disprove the whole "its impossible to get alliance & member experience" complaint I don't know what will. The moment you find yourselves in a war you ll find your experience will sky-rocket as well...

As for getting rid of Alliance & member experience. Total power tells only a fraction of the story and shows a fraction of the true power of an alliance.

The Imperium Empire right now is 248,550,267,960 total power. Mujengen's 128,012,254,905 & World Republic is 147,818,697,913. If you look at total power alone that doesn't make The Imperium seem much more stronger than Mujengen or WR - but if you then factor in Member Experience & alliance experience it completely changes thing's - namely TIE's still having that power after the alliance & member experience baring testimony to just how large scale, intense and brutal the fighting has been which The Imperium has lived through.

The same applies to Mujengen, World Republic & any other alliance. Their total power tells the server what they have now - their member experience & alliance experience tells the server the real story - of their capacity to fight, and their ability to keep fighting & when coupled with their current stats, the ability to recover and keep pushing forward.

Power is merely an indicator of what an alliance has now - it gives no idea of what an alliance had, or what an alliance is capable of having - for the the ability to regenerate & rebuild is what the true power of an alliance is about. ANY alliance which has strong power, but is unable to keep regenerating & rebuilding it - is one giant sitting duck which once properly dismantled in a couple of weeks is effectively neutralised.

Its the ability to rebuild & regenerate that counts, coupled with the ability & willingness to fight... and the only way to get an indicator of this is the alliance & member experience.