Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Planetarion Discussions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Alliance Points Breakdown (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=198962)

Appocomaster 25 Sep 2010 13:59

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:


+------+--------------+-------------------+
| Type | Total Points | Number of Records |
+------+--------------+-------------------+
|    1 |        79532 |              1899 |
|    2 |        35452 |            15220 |
|    3 |      198290 |              8408 |
|    4 |      1225286 |              8408 |
+------+--------------+-------------------+

+-------------------+------------+--------+
| Alliance          | Score Rank | Points |
+-------------------+------------+--------+
| Conspiracy        |          5 |  86179 |
| Apprime          |          4 |  77793 |
| NewDawn          |          2 |  73836 |
| [NFI]            |          1 |  72561 |
| Vengeance        |          7 |  71891 |
| WE ARE ASCENDANCY |          3 |  66718 |
| ODDR              |          6 |  62463 |
| Howling Rain      |        10 |  62204 |
| Osiris            |          9 |  60332 |
| the horde        |          8 |  50716 |
+-------------------+------------+--------+



1 = Defending in combat
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.

Tietäjä 28 Sep 2010 09:50

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.

Mzyxptlk 28 Sep 2010 10:28

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.

Tietäjä 28 Sep 2010 12:15

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.

Appocomaster 28 Sep 2010 13:06

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.

JonnyBGood 28 Sep 2010 13:40

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Any system which would declare an alliance other than NFI the winner this round is ****ing retarded.

M0RPH3US 28 Sep 2010 18:20

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

JonnyBGood 28 Sep 2010 18:33

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.

Mzyxptlk 28 Sep 2010 19:20

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Funny thing, I think we already have something like that. "Balue"? "Walue"? The exact term eludes me.

Tietäjä 28 Sep 2010 19:28

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster (Post 3199975)
So I insert even when no points are gained.

Riiiight you mean some of the incidents where asteroids have been captured there has actually been zero asteroids captured? Explains.

Sun_Tzu 29 Sep 2010 03:29

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3199993)
I always thought planetarion should be about having the most ships and roids at any given point in time but hey ho.

Such a strange idea! I like it!

Appocomaster 29 Sep 2010 07:17

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä (Post 3199996)
Riiiight you mean some of the incidents where asteroids have been captured there has actually been zero asteroids captured? Explains.

Either the alliance fleet landed with no pods (/not enough pods) so no roids were captured, or their pods were killed / blocked / stolen, or they landed on an alliance a lot smaller than them (like, 1/(20*number of roids captured) the size) so it didn't show up. :)

Tietäjä 29 Sep 2010 07:47

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.

Tietäjä 29 Sep 2010 13:06

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?

Appocomaster 29 Sep 2010 13:09

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)

t3k 29 Sep 2010 14:05

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))

Ave 29 Sep 2010 23:49

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.

JonnyBGood 30 Sep 2010 13:48

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
I'm sorry but does anyone think the initial rankings and points scores accurately reflect anything about alliances whatsoever?

Appocomaster 30 Sep 2010 14:27

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood (Post 3200097)
I'm sorry but does anyone think the initial rankings and points scores accurately reflect anything about alliances whatsoever?

do you mean the stuff in my OP?
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.

Mzyxptlk 30 Sep 2010 14:31

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.

Light 30 Sep 2010 14:43

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?

JonnyBGood 30 Sep 2010 22:41

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster (Post 3200112)
do you mean the stuff in my OP?
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.

Okay. What I'm asking is this. You clearly believe, in some sense, that the current ranking system inaccurately reflects how well alliances perform. Given what happened last round do you have any idea what sort of alliance ranking, 1-10 etc, your system should have shown?

Tietäjä 1 Oct 2010 10:14

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3200120)
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?

It's a traditional attempt to please the losing side telling them they weren't actually that bad but in the end really should've won. It's consistent with the statement of making value count for less and less (see: value measures power. it started counting for less when xp was implemented. xp is a measure of how well you can hit bigger targets. this is a downwards spiral where it's innately easier for less powerful people to do this, since there are more people above them).

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.

Monroe 1 Oct 2010 16:55

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.

Tietäjä 1 Oct 2010 20:24

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Monroe (Post 3200161)
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.

A game where breaking your fleet is the optimal strategy to win? I think we've seen it already, to be honest, and I reckon we concluded that it wasn't so great after all.

M0RPH3US 1 Oct 2010 21:09

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä (Post 3200170)
A game where breaking your fleet is the optimal strategy to win? I think we've seen it already, to be honest, and I reckon we concluded that it wasn't so great after all.

APS shouldnt be based on crashing your fleet for roids [XP]
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

Monroe 1 Oct 2010 22:51

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä (Post 3200170)
A game where breaking your fleet is the optimal strategy to win? I think we've seen it already, to be honest, and I reckon we concluded that it wasn't so great after all.

No, perhaps one where the number of in game NAPs you have is limited, or the number of constructions you destroy counts, or amount of research you do, or number of successful covert ops counts, or even something that no one has thought of yet.

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.

Mzyxptlk 2 Oct 2010 00:23

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
All of those things already have an effect on your value, as well as that of your opponent.

Tietäjä 2 Oct 2010 08:18

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.

Munkee 2 Oct 2010 08:55

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.

HaNzI 2 Oct 2010 13:24

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Munkee (Post 3200193)
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.

We have certainly seen how well alliance HCs, including yourself, have managed to keep the amount of NAPs down the last 3 rounds.

Munkee 3 Oct 2010 08:30

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by HaNzI (Post 3200201)
We have certainly seen how well alliance HCs, including yourself, have managed to keep the amount of NAPs down the last 3 rounds.

What's that got to do with anything? I couldn't give a crap about a new ranking system since the current one adequately reflects who should have won. As had been said any system that didn't put nfi at number one is retarded

Light 3 Oct 2010 14:06

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tietäjä (Post 3200148)
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.

Bored of a ranking system which ranks alliances by how good/strong they are? So we need to change the ranking system which has nothing to do with strength or value?

neroon 4 Oct 2010 07:04

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!

Light 4 Oct 2010 09:41

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by neroon (Post 3200323)
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..

We do that already, its called the alliance ranking system which ranks by score (which is mainly value).

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.

Mistwraith 4 Oct 2010 10:09

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
how about deducting 10% of the points every time you nap another alliance

Shev 4 Oct 2010 10:19

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Houw about 27.3%?!

Paisley 4 Oct 2010 10:20

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistwraith (Post 3200331)
how about deducting 10% of the points every time you nap another alliance

I like that idea

isildurx 4 Oct 2010 10:21

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Meaning that people will want to NAp eachother even earlier before they have accumulated points...

Paisley 4 Oct 2010 10:27

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by isildurx (Post 3200334)
Meaning that people will want to NAp eachother even earlier before they have accumulated points...

I would also suggest having a 10% (may need tweaking) impedance on accumulating new points per tick per NAP.

neroon 4 Oct 2010 10:35

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3200329)
We do that already, its called the alliance ranking system which ranks by score (which is mainly value).

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.

with ganging up in planetarion, as we`ve seen in past what every round, and with having 40-50 additional members in tag making defpool larger than the smaller alliance has - this system still is not giving any possible way for smaller 40-50 man tags to compete for #1, or even #3.

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 :/

neroon 4 Oct 2010 10:41

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?

Mzyxptlk 4 Oct 2010 11:15

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
This thread is becoming more hilarious with every post. Keep up the good work, guys.

neroon 4 Oct 2010 12:03

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
this game is becoming more hilarious with every round, doubt the active part is enjoying it tho

Light 4 Oct 2010 13:12

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistwraith (Post 3200331)
how about deducting 10% of the points every time you nap another alliance

Then alliances will nap without using the ingame feature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neroon (Post 3200337)
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?

So, how would a tag of 40 compete against 3 tags of 40? thats 40 vs 120 before we even start the round.

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.

Tietäjä 4 Oct 2010 16:01

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley (Post 3200335)
I would also suggest having a 10% (may need tweaking) impedance on accumulating new points per tick per NAP.

And a 15% cumulative penalty in the same fashion for each alliance who plays politics unfairly.

neroon 4 Oct 2010 16:46

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Light (Post 3200343)
Then alliances will nap without using the ingame feature.



So, how would a tag of 40 compete against 3 tags of 40? thats 40 vs 120 before we even start the round.

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.

tag of 40 would compete cos the other tags are also as big as they are, they are leveled on defence side (yes attackwise 3 tags could gangbang on one 40 man tag but this has happened every round neways so nothing new in that)

having smaller tags might also courage to a way of playing without huge blocks

[DDK]gm 4 Oct 2010 17:47

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
alliance limits are not changing this round

JonnyBGood 4 Oct 2010 18:13

Re: Alliance Points Breakdown
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by neroon (Post 3200348)
having smaller tags might also courage to a way of playing without huge blocks

Seriously why is this going to happen? IF anything surely the decreased size of alliances would make you more vulnerable and more likely to try and arrange naps and allies to counter anything against you? While NFI held off, I use the term loosely, apprime/ascendancy last round I have my doubts NFI 1 could have beaten asc 1, asc 2, app 1 and app 2.

neroon 4 Oct 2010 18:46

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