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
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