Quote:
|
Originally Posted by furball
Do you intend to rebut my point that the ranking system's primary function is not to show who finishes #1?
|
No I do not. That's your take on what a ranking system should do. It is not mine. There isn't much more to discuss. Simply put, if a ranking system fails to identify the rightful victor, I think whatever else it does is irrelevant. What I do think is that we are interpreting
primary differently: By primary function I mean the first criteria it must fulfil. By primary you mean the most important function generally. As such, we may not disagree so much.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by furball
Still standing by this part of your earlier post? I find it incredibly patronising and close-minded, although sadly not that uncommon an attitude among players who only play in the alliances aiming for the #1 spot.
|
Afraid I do. Apologies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by furball
2) We should strive for fun, by which ever means provides the most fun.
|
Couldn't agree more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by furball
3) It's up to the community to decide who is the best. In recent rounds the community has decided to rely on the rankings to do so, but exceptions to this include Elysium's #1 rank in Round 10, etc.
|
Try and say 1up actually won round 16, and you'd probably be right, but try making such a statement publically, and you'll get flamed with "Well the game says different and if you can't understand that then you're a retard". As much as we'd like to think the community 'decides' (if that's even possible), it's simply not true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by furball
By seeing alliance score as arbitrary and meaningless, you must logically see planet score as arbitrary and meaningless
|
It is meaningless. If I had to assess someone who I didn't know, I would look at their value first, their roids second, and score last.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by furball
Alliance ranks represent the totals of alliances' planets' scores. Nothing more. If you want to see how powerful an alliance is, show its total value - but you don't need to rank alliances by it.
|
The problem is that they don't. Not with these stupid alliance score equations. I think you'll find that if the alliance value were published AS well as score, then the community would be more able to decide which is most significant. As it stands, only one measure is provided to us. If I had to choose one of the two, I'd choose value. If it was possible, I'd like to see both.