Change the formula for ally score
 

Atm it disregards the lowest 40 members of a 100 man ally. This means an ally like xVx gets to look leeter than they are (no offense intended) by having their 25 most shite members not counted in avg score. Meanwhile, the alliances at ranks 10 through 18 (I cba to name them all) get to look like crap because they don't have enough members to have any not counted in their average.

The solution?

Make it so the bottom 40% don't count of any alliance. This way even a 20 man ally can look better and take in noobs without consequence by having their bottom 8 players not count!

Just my two cents.

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

Nice idea, but i think that band KISS says:

Or we could drop tags to 50, all counted, no support, so that everyone can play a somewhat decent round where the winner isnt determined by tag size (ie recuitment officer)/support planets?

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

Totally pointless.

(the OP)

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

I see 0 (nill) advantages in this system. Practical application: DLR, 22 Members. 8 members not counting * 6M score (the suckers in their alliance, like some particular person now :p) = -48M score. Silly at the least!
In sum: NO!

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

I fail to see how it's pointless. HR have an avg of 3mil and xVx have an avg of 5. I can't help but think they'd be much closer in avg if either all of xVx were counted or the worst players in HR weren't.

So, either drop the stupid system of not counting certain planets or make it apply to all alliances, not just the ones who are lucky enough to recruit past 60. This just results in alliances like xVx and VGN looking artificially better than they actually are and getting more applicants while allies like HR and HA get to look less skilled and ruin their chances of ever recruiting to 60.

I agree about the DLR thing, however. Perhaps a system that would allow you to opt out of not counting your smallest planets if your membercount is below 60.

All in all I dislike the system of not counting certain planets, but if it has to be there I feel there should be some consistency and have it treat all allies equally instead of screwing over HR/HA/ROCK/ASS/Factory/FC/hirr/Rdm/HellsFury/OPA while making xVx/VGN/Orbit/Omen/CT/Asc look better than they are by boosting their averages.

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

assuming intel is right (or even close):
-Munin- xvx Members: 85 (60), Value: 272074474 (232861481), Avg: 3200876 (3881024), Score: 377076514 (320594261), Avg: 4436194 (5343237), Size: 84281 (72629), Avg: 991 (1210), XP: 1750034 (1462213), Avg: 20588 (24370)
-Munin- howling Members: 42, Value: 102827464, Avg: 2448272, Score: 148827304, Avg: 3543507, Size: 28972, Avg: 689, XP: 766664, Avg: 18253

i fail to see the point. counting the lower members only really affects the averages, and your average score does not determine who wins the round.

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

The whole integrated alliance system probably needs looking at.

I'll be interested to see what mz has to say about this when he gets back.

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

Who cares about average score, isn't it the total score that matters ?
Interesting would be to count alliance score from bottom score up (means in alliances above 60 members you don't count the top players :banana:).

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

Very well then, disregard the entire system of not counting planets. The point of the system was to allow allies to accept noobs without consequence, so just make it so that the signup system detects new players, by way of email address and other info, and allow alliances to not count new players for their first round.

Personally I think the whole system is silly.

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

I don't think there is any need to make the alliance rankings more forgiving for crap alliances. If your alliance manages to attract (and keep!) a lot of players then it deserves the score this gives it. If your alliance suffers in the rankings because no one wants to play for you, you only have yourself to blame (and the alliances better than you, I guess). I have no sympathy for aliances that want to look better than they really are. Hard work and clean living, kids.

I am all for making it easier for small alliances to compete. To name an example, the big galaxies we've seen this round are very much detrimental to many alliances and I am totally in favour of fixing that problem (and others) in order to make it easier for them to play. However, this topic is not concerned with making it easier for small alliances to play, it just makes it seem like they're not suffering, while in reality they are. In that light, the suggestions in this topic not only fail to help small alliances, they also hide that there is a problem, thus actually harming them.

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

Here i agree

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

Why not just make all players count for score?

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

Agreed. I'm not strictly petitioning for smaller alliances to have members not counted. I'm instead petitioning for uniformity, to matter what it entails. Either count 100% of all alliance members, or count 75% of all members, but don't count 75% of the biggest and 100% of the smallest.

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

if you count 100% of the bigger alliances, it'll make the smaller ones look even worse.

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

I still haven't found out what your underlying rationale for this is, but 100% is better than 25% not counted for smaller alliances. When 100% is counted an alliance will feel crashes, and large alliances will have their full score counted. In contrast, small alliances will have the same vantage point, just the differences are now more pronounced. Making the small alliances look even worse. So, at the end I would say: count all and decrease alliance size or keep the way the system is (and also decrease alliance size :P )

Re: Change the formula for ally score
 

Alliance size should never be limited.
Alliance average should be counted from every player.