Alliance Points Breakdown
Hi all,
I've attached a .csv with a breakdown of all the alliance points. I think the main thing it's worth noting is the amount of points currently awarded and if it's worth looking at changing some of the points. Also, I think it's worth looking at adding a maximum ratio to reduce some abuse. Code:
2 = Making fleet recall 3 = Landing an attack 4 = Stealing asteroids A breakdown of the points for every top 10 alliance vs each other is linked below so you can see where the alliances got their points. I've not had too much time to analyse it yet, but I'm sure some people will want to look at the stats :) I'll do one for all alliances if you wish. I want to see how they all fared against PATSA :) http://www.planetarion.com/files/app...nce_points.csv Edit: making fleet recall points were completely wrong. I've adjusted them as best I could, but it involved inverting and where the attacking alliance was much bigger than the smaller alliance, we lost the results. This shouldn't impact the ranking too much, though! Note the change in ranking. I have a breakdown of points by rewarded alliance / opposing alliance / type / tick (well, action, actually. e.g. each individual landing, etc) if anyone wants me to generate that. The base formulas are: x*opposing_alliance_score/your_alliance_score where x is 30,20,10,(metal+crystal+eonium asteroids stolen) for each of the 4 respective activities mentioned above. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Interesting enough the record numbers for both landing attacks and stealing asteroids are identical. It makes you wonder if this is a coincidence.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Gee. I wonder. Maybe it's that you only cap roids when you land an attack. That would surely be a revolutionary discovery.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Gee. I wonder. I wonder what this means regarding the purpose of rewarding alliance points for both landing attacks and capping roids. Would it not mean, that you get points for each discovery, and then points for each revolutionary discovery, but each revolutionary discovery is a regular discovery in the first place.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
I double checked this as I noticed it too. There's ~ 1.2k type 3 records which are 0, and ~2.4k type 4 records that are 0 (or something).
So I insert even when no points are gained. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Any system which would declare an alliance other than NFI the winner this round is ****ing retarded.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
well
CT winning the round over "insert anyone" by a MARGIN looks to me a bit "retarded" it looks to me like the capping of roids is much more valued, then the defending and actually keeping them (thats the only reason i could imagine CT got that many points) now nothing against CT - "Hello gm" but isnt it the criterias for a top alliance to : *in that order* 1) keep the roids they have (make attackers recall, have em crash) 2) have more roids then their opponents 3) cap more roids then their opponents with the progressing round *in that order* ??? it looks to me without looking at the *.csv (who the **** can open these?) that 1) makin an attacker recall isnt rewarded enough 2) capping roids is overvalued 3) why would landing an attack give points if capping roids (which means to land an attack) give points allready? Solutions: (cause i like a new ranking idea) 1) heavily higher the points for makin an attacker recall (cause thats where a succesful alliance has its rootage) - see 4) also 2) lower the points for capping asteroids (it has nothing to do with "beeing good in PA" to cap 100 roids every day - but loosing 200 every 2nd) 3) remove the points for landing an attack (see above) 4) implement a rate which calculates the number of alliance naps and those alliances "ranks/size/avgscore" (i am not sure which criteria would be the best) and which determines how many points you get example: Alliance A is napped with B C and D while Alliance E is playing without Naps now A makes an attacker of E recall and gets xxx base points multiplied by a factor of ??? which is calculated by a complex formula including a) number of naps b) members of the napped alliances c) avg score of those alliances and d) alliance points of the attacking alliance e) score diffrence of the attacking player while when E makes an attacker of Alliance A recall, E gets xxx base points multiplied by a facor of ??? also calculated with the same criterias while ofc beeing napped to none highers the multiplier, compared to having three naps amd ofc making a bigger player recall from a better alliance adds to the multiplier aswell sounds complicated ? yes, but hey :D why all this? because it takes not much skill to cover all appearing defcalls when you have napped the three biggest alliances next to you while the next 2 are afraid to hit you fullscale and the only calls showing up are from soloattacking and galraiding lower alliances - and therefore you shouldnt be rewarded with many points in a situation like this while on the other side, beeing gangbanged on and still covering 80% of the calls is something which determines a good alliance and a possible worth round winning one Ofc you dont have to ALLY your friendly alliance ingame (just dont hit em instead, like NAPS have been "old school") and so you can "trick" the formula but you loose the bonus effects from having a ingame alliance like 1) getting a full coord swap, which updates itself 2) beeing able to defend em and recieve defence from em 3) avoiding "irregular" attackers and the following morning ceremony of: Stormtrooper: Hey your member x:y:z is attacking our member a:b:c, pls get him to recall MilleniumFalcon: Ok, i smsed him, i hope he reads the sms before landing (and doesnt ignore it) Stormtrooper: Ok but if he lands, we will take the roids back ! MilleniumFalcon: I am sure it was an accident and that he will recall... . . . to cut a long story short it shouldnt be about napping the biggest opponents nor about capping the most roids but never keeping em but instead about playing politics well (which has nothing to do with a high amount of naps) and keeping the most roids with your members while at the same time fighting the biggest opponents |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
I always thought planetarion should be about having the most ships and roids at any given point in time but hey ho.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Funny thing, I think we already have something like that. "Balue"? "Walue"? The exact term eludes me.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
I see. I think I'm going to look at the sheet once I get home today. Maybe. It sounds interesting enough.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Are you sure you're not making it too inverse in terms of "hitting upwards" in that, it's relatively difficult for a "high score" alliance to gain "alliance points" in compared to smaller ones?
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
tbh, that's a fairly legit concern.
I'm wondering about something more like: base_points * function (target_alliance_value) or base_points * function (average_top_10_alliance_value/target_alliance_value) where the function is capped at 2 and takes the value of the alliance you're hitting. I'd maybe use the average top 10 alliance value purely because this means that you get a ratio rather than a score, so it's more consistent over the round rather than being drastically weighted towards the end of the round (as roids already are). This would mean that the #1 alliance and the #3 alliance would get the same score for stealing 100 roids from the #2 alliance. The other option is to lessen or alter the ratio between the two alliances so that it has less of an effect. For example, take a square root of the ratio, or only give a bonus if the alliance is bigger than yours (set it at a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2) |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
how about something like
APS = (roids capped*10*((min(2,target_planet_score/your_planet_score) -0.2) * (min(2,target_planet_value/your_planet_value) - 0.1))*60) + ((Fleet-cost / 100) + (Resources / 150) + (Constructions * 200) + (Roids * 200) + (Security Guards*6) + (Agents * 60)) |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Very interesting thread.
Attacking should be valued above defence, as that is the one causing the conflicts. With defence only the game will be deadly booring. Obviously attacking major alliances should give multiple bonus from landing as it is far more difficult. You should perhaps count made kills too, instead of just stolen roids. Kills tell alot how well alliance performed killing off enemies, far more better than beeing able to pick a few roids from here and there. Second off comes perhaps covering the incoming, forcing recalls. Here alliance size perhaps dont need to count, as even a smaller inc affects your gameplay and roids kept. This will keep the top alliances score high aswell comparing to others. Obviously crashing attacks should be calced as your good too, important kills to determine winners. yeah perhaps some nap/political factors, but those are harder to track/calc perhaps. Agreed there regardless. I wouldnt mind having two desiding ranks, pure value/score rank and then xp/alliance points rank. Perhaps calculate them together to get a winner. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
I'm sorry but does anyone think the initial rankings and points scores accurately reflect anything about alliances whatsoever?
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
I think the relative ratios of points is fairly good (points for recalling is low but it was a bit bugged). If we add some sort of capping on for next round, I think it'll be a bit more interesting. I think that the fact we've discussed reducing the ratio factor shows that it's a generally overplayed factor on the current rankings and is generally unfair to the top alliances who haven't got anything above to challenge them. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
The current system of ranking alliances is much better than APS. To take round 38 as an example, any system that shows an alliance other than NFI winning is hilariously wrong, while any system that shows NFI winning is redundant, because score already does that.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
I dont really see the points in APS, what is wrong with ranking the alliances based on strength (value)?
Why are we trying to construction a ranking system where everyone has a chance? regardless of size, strength or skill? |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
The point of the system seems to be to construct a ranking that is based upon some narrow definition of "activity" and "military ability" but one that also means that a powerful alliance can never win simply due to the fact that losers really need this for comfort. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
If I were to add an APS to the game the objective would be to provide another path to winning the round beyond the rather basic one that is the current game. I know value and the ability to retain it has been the basic core of the game since r1, but some folks are perhaps bored by this and so Appoco has decided to try and make the game more flexible by adding an APS to try and give the game more than one dimension.
This being said, I can totally see why most of the "traditional" crowd would be against this, but I for one wouldn't mind seeing a more flexible game. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
nor for that matter based on maximising your value (beeing high on value, pays of in so many ways, why make it the term to decide the round winner?) i would love to see a system where the politcs are involved (amount of naps, number of planets in your tag etc...) and also the bravery of your alliance actions (attacking bigger galaxies and planets, defending of bigger guys etc...) atm only an alliance can win the round with close to a full tag (counting planets) so however u work out the alliance tag limits (which could be removed in a situation where the tag size doesnt have (much) influence on the Rankings (APS)) it will always be an alliance to win the round with a full score counting memberbase (atm) so everyone not close to a full counting tag is disqualified from any alliance competition thats sad imo maybe we could introduce a modificator system with f.e. a galaxy modificator lets say everyones galaxy starts with a modificator of 10 then u get hit and the launched value is compared to the defending value, and some weird kick ass formula counts your new galaxy modificator (implying lost roids, number of alliances in your gal, number of attacking alliances, rank of those alliances, avg score of em, launched cross defence fleets bla bla bla.....) tbh i have absolutly no idea how you would wanna calc it however you could have this modificator for alliances also! so in the end the APS u get while hitting a galaxy/planet would be connected to the galaxies modificator while at the same time to the individuals planets alliance modificator hell you could even implement a planet modificator (running your fleet lowers it, while fighting a good fight makes you achieve some points, while winning a battle beeing it in having someone recall from you or crashing on you heavily adds to your modificator) that way the top galaxies would feel some pressure as they would be the perfect APS targets specially if they fought off many attacks, contain many diffrent alliances (a hooray for fencing) and rock in cross defence... roiding those should be rewared more then bashing Mr. 300 roid noobie in a shit gal , where everyone runs his fleet at the first sight of trouble again a long post i am sorry P.s. i am drunk |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
If it's just a bland rehash of destroying your fleet for a glorified "XP" then sure I agree with you, but perhaps some out of the box thinking will come up with something interesting... or perhaps not. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
All of those things already have an effect on your value, as well as that of your opponent.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
I'd like to emphasize that all this rant about bravery factors will inevitably mean that introducing such factors always benefits the alliances with less value more than ones with more value, in a double-dip fashion.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
I feel as if we are trying to mess with the alliance ranking system for all of the wrong reasons. IMO the only reason some rounds have gone so out of skew with 1 or 2 very dominating alliances has been because of the actions of everyone else. Why are we trying to level the playing field just because certain alliances have come out on top and played the round correctly in order to win.
If these wins were due to x amount of naps or by screwing people over so what.. they played to win, or in some cases got handed it. That is the fault of opposing alliance HCs and the strategy of the dominating alliance HCs, which cant be stopped. In simple terms, get over it and stop trying to think that playing with crap members gives you the right to be a #1 alliance. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
to make the rankings interesting its needed to come up with a system that indeed ranks the alliances taking into account their activity and strongness, while avoiding pushing the alliances to top1 that just have the numbers.. alliance that gets the top tag and isnt the most active/powerful/good valued does not deserve the win, however it would be nice imo if alliances with the size of 40-50 members can still be in a race for top1 tag in the round.
and here it comes again, make tag size smaller and bring on more competition, simple! |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
It then avoids pure numbers taking the #1 spot by the alliance tag, which only a smaller amount actually contribute to that score. So a smaller alliance can be #1 if they've got 50 (or whatever the number is) more active/better players than other alliances. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
how about deducting 10% of the points every time you nap another alliance
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Houw about 27.3%?!
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Meaning that people will want to NAp eachother even earlier before they have accumulated points...
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
Im not saying here that 5man tag should get a roundwin if thats 5 uberactive members there.. just that i still stand strong to my idea that with the reduced playerbase it would also make sense to make alliances more smaller and therefore make the competition a bit more interesting.. and dont start with the arguments about not having enough ppl to form new tags, etc.. this aint right and u know it ive already gotten used to the fact that the tags aint gonna be made smaller and more competition will not be introduced with that so im not even trying to fight for it nemore :P apart from unregular mentioning of the subject in the forums i know everyone has their own opinions and the way they see it in their head, which is good i guess.. just that not many prominent ppl from planetarion forums share my view :/ |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
i also understand ppl that are bringing the argument of breaking up the communities.. having smaller tags do not indeed give the chance to play as ND has played so far, a whole alliance, 1 tag, all together.. but there would be possibilities to keep the community alive in IRC, which is imo the biggest part of the game neways, and make ND1, ND2 and ND3 if they like.. but thats again the thing that should liven up the competition, as even if all ND tags gangup every night for attacks then still tagwise (and defpool wise, which is a very important thing) alliances like DLR with their 1 and only tag still has a chance to finish for top places (read: without having to recruit for numbers to make the possible defpool and attacking firepower bigger)
why not try to include such alliances to top race as well and make politics a bit more interesting with that as well? |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
This thread is becoming more hilarious with every post. Keep up the good work, guys.
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
this game is becoming more hilarious with every round, doubt the active part is enjoying it tho
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
Quote:
The smaller the tag, the more owned an alliance can be by blocks. A block of 3 alliances could feasibily 3 wave every single planet of an alliance tag. |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
having smaller tags might also courage to a way of playing without huge blocks |
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
alliance limits are not changing this round
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
Quote:
|
Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
im not saying this couldnt happen, but being in a block also kinda determines ure round outcome.. u choose wrong side and ure gonna lose, having more diverse universe however gives alliances more choices what and when to do
also having smaller tags, might also mean that dlr/ct/vgn and other a bit smaller tags do not need to block with 2-3 big alliances to take down #1 tag nemore that has twice their members atm(im refering to the big tag rounds atm).. having their enemies as big as themselves memberswise might courage em to go against em with less naps as they now are on same level kinda.. at least defence wise if this happens between 2 80 member tags this point then yea thats a roidrace and nothing much comes from that.. having more diverse universe competent tagwise might create something else from this tho, as different alliances have different goals and things on their mind |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:40. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018