Late recruits excluded from alliance score

[ComradeRob]

Pretty simple idea really - alliance members recruited in the last 2 weeks of the round should not count towards the alliance's overall score. They would be able to receive reduced-eta defence and otherwise be entirely normal alliance members (so they're not punished individually).

This would prevent a recruitment race at the end of the round, which can lead to undeserved victories.

[bwtmc]

Particularly relevant at the moment it must be said.

Although maybe two weeks isn't enough, given recent events and 1-2 alliances that seem to be picking up new members and kicking old ones by the day \o/

[Doorsdown]

or just score not gained while in the alliance is not counted.

[Banned]

Doesn't an alliance's ability to attract good players/large planets in many ways reflect it's strength?

[The Real Arfy]

Actually I wouldn't really care about the addition of large planets. This beneifts the smaller guys who would otherwise not be accepted into an alliance because of the reduction in average score that some alliances aren't too fond of.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

Doesn't an alliance's ability to attract good players/large planets in many ways reflect it's strength?

Not really, imagine howmuch shipjumpers and players there are that only care for personal ranks ... The #1 alliance doesn't need to do any efforts to attract such players.

And I can speak of first hand experience about this (in previous rounds). Keizari (#1 in r13) for instance was a good example of this (I'm not calling him a shipjumper).

[Banned]

Originally Posted by The Real Arfy

Actually I wouldn't really care about the addition of large planets. This beneifts the smaller guys who would otherwise not be accepted into an alliance because of the reduction in average score that some alliances aren't too fond of.

I can't make sense of this. What are you trying to say?

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Not really, imagine howmuch shipjumpers and players there are that only care for personal ranks ... The #1 alliance doesn't need to do any efforts to attract such players.

And I can speak of first hand experience about this (in previous rounds). Keizari (#1 in r13) for instance was a good example of this (I'm not calling him a shipjumper).

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that an alliance's strength is reflected by their ability to draw players such as that.

Allow me to elaborate with an example. In round 13, Keizari moved from WP, who were unable to support him properly, to an alliance he felt could support him better. There were no doubt other factors contributing to his choosing Angels over any alternatives, but let's assume for argument's sake that this was the deciding factor in Keizari's choice between Angels and nos. Why nos? Because at the end of the round, his score was enough to swing nos to 2nd (the gap between nos and Angels was 68 million, his score was 42 million).

What would it have taken for a player like this to choose nos over Angels? Obviously nos would have to appear to be the stronger alliance. Now, what gauge, do we have to decide if he was right or not? We can't know if he'd have been able to finish first or not with nos. We can't know which alliance would have stood better up to late round assaults on him. We can judge, based on our experience in that round, which alliance stood up better under attack, but neither were put under the same type of pressure. Or perhaps he chose based on which alliance was more likely to be able to maintain its NAPs throughout the round.

One way of gauging it would be ranks. Angels were ranked higher than nos, therefore they were stronger. Of course, in this case if he'd chosen nos they could have been said to have become stronger than Angels.

Worth noting is that when I speak of alliance strength here, I'm including political situation, round progression, and not just 'command quality, officer quality, member quality, scanner coverage' etc.

[bwtmc]

And then there's the alliance that'd try pick up a player, not for them to interact with them at all, but in order to raise a few ranks. Thank God that monster doesn't really exist.

[Alessio]

Originally Posted by Banned

Doesn't an alliance's ability to attract good players/large planets in many ways reflect it's strength?

I totally agree with this tbh

[Nadar]

It's a decent idea I guess, just look at how Elysium "won" r10.

Doubt the idea will ever go through though.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by bwtmc

And then there's the alliance that'd try pick up a player, not for them to interact with them at all, but in order to raise a few ranks. Thank God that monster doesn't really exist.

I'm glad your alliance doesn't have any inactives, but there 121 alliances not in the top5 who I suspect are in a different position.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

I can't make sense of this. What are you trying to say?


You misunderstand me. I'm saying that an alliance's strength is reflected by their ability to draw players such as that.

Allow me to elaborate with an example. In round 13, Keizari moved from WP, who were unable to support him properly, to an alliance he felt could support him better. There were no doubt other factors contributing to his choosing Angels over any alternatives, but let's assume for argument's sake that this was the deciding factor in Keizari's choice between Angels and nos. Why nos? Because at the end of the round, his score was enough to swing nos to 2nd (the gap between nos and Angels was 68 million, his score was 42 million).

What would it have taken for a player like this to choose nos over Angels? Obviously nos would have to appear to be the stronger alliance. Now, what gauge, do we have to decide if he was right or not? We can't know if he'd have been able to finish first or not with nos. We can't know which alliance would have stood better up to late round assaults on him. We can judge, based on our experience in that round, which alliance stood up better under attack, but neither were put under the same type of pressure. Or perhaps he chose based on which alliance was more likely to be able to maintain its NAPs throughout the round.

One way of gauging it would be ranks. Angels were ranked higher than nos, therefore they were stronger. Of course, in this case if he'd chosen nos they could have been said to have become stronger than Angels.

Worth noting is that when I speak of alliance strength here, I'm including political situation, round progression, and not just 'command quality, officer quality, member quality, scanner coverage' etc.

Fair point, but my point is/was that an alliance doesn't need to do extra efforts to attract such top planets. If you're top3, you'll receive applications.

On topic though, I don't think you should ban the score of new added pple, or be so drastic. Ofcourse we all want to avoid a lame Ely win where you recruit 20-30 ENEMIES in the last 2 weeks.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Fair point, but my point is/was that an alliance doesn't need to do extra efforts to attract such top planets. If you're top3, you'll receive applications.

Yeah, but an alliance does need a good set of testicles to reject them on grounds 'we're not going to recruit you just for rank.'

On topic though, I don't think you should ban the score of new added pple, or be so drastic. Ofcourse we all want to avoid a lame Ely win where you recruit 20-30 ENEMIES in the last 2 weeks.

Really? I'd find it greatly amusing if 20-30 EX joined 1up...

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

Yeah, but an alliance does need a good set of testicles to reject them on grounds 'we're not going to recruit you just for rank.'


Really? I'd find it greatly amusing if 20-30 EX joined 1up...

Tbh, and that's the tricky part. There are pple who do it for ranks, there are pple who genuinly look to play in a better alliance then their old one. With the 2nd type of player, you can build and expand and improve your alliance with.

Sadly enough it's not easy to see the difference (in the short run) ...

It would idd be greatly amusing

[Remy]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Pretty simple idea really - alliance members recruited in the last 2 weeks of the round should not count towards the alliance's overall score. They would be able to receive reduced-eta defence and otherwise be entirely normal alliance members (so they're not punished individually).

This would prevent a recruitment race at the end of the round, which can lead to undeserved victories.

Originally Posted by Banned

Doesn't an alliance's ability to attract good players/large planets in many ways reflect it's strength?

Both these statements are valid. I do not think that the idea is good enough tho to code it.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Banned

I'm glad your alliance doesn't have any inactives, but there 121 alliances not in the top5 who I suspect are in a different position.

Agreed. There's only 12m score between being 6th and being 11th.


Screw it, if one of the top planets asks to join us late in the round, we're not going to be saying no without some pretty good ethical/moral objections to doing so.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by furball

Agreed. There's only 12m score between being 6th and being 11th.


Screw it, if one of the top planets asks to join us late in the round, we're not going to be saying no without some pretty good ethical/moral objections to doing so.

Idd, just saying no because you're worried others might think you recruited to boost ranks is rubbish. Becides I wouldn't know a single top alliance that would refuse an active, dedicated big planet who's intentions are honnest ...

[Shyne]

I dont think this round is particularly influenced by recruiting to the top, with the new alliance limits.

[ComradeRob]

The round isn't over yet.

What I know is this: both of the top two (and quite possibly the 3rd-placed alliance) could win the round by recruiting a few high-scoring planets. One consequence of a slightly shorter and much more closely-fought round is that the gap between the top alliances is much smaller than it was last round.

Not only that, but those alliances all believe that the others intend to recruit their way to the top. The "exilition will add 30 mil score on the last day" rumour has been going around for a while now. Similar rumours persist about ND. As a result, both alliances have plans in place to counter the others recruitment by... recruiting a bunch of players themselves. In this scenario, the result could be down to who has the most friends willing to join the tag, rather than who is the best alliance.

I admit, this is a slightly pessimistic scenario and probably (hopefully!) won't happen. But I think it may be worth creating a mechanism to prevent it in future.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

The round isn't over yet.

What I know is this: both of the top two (and quite possibly the 3rd-placed alliance) could win the round by recruiting a few high-scoring planets. One consequence of a slightly shorter and much more closely-fought round is that the gap between the top alliances is much smaller than it was last round.

Not only that, but those alliances all believe that the others intend to recruit their way to the top. The "exilition will add 30 mil score on the last day" rumour has been going around for a while now. Similar rumours persist about ND. As a result, both alliances have plans in place to counter the others recruitment by... recruiting a bunch of players themselves. In this scenario, the result could be down to who has the most friends willing to join the tag, rather than who is the best alliance.

I admit, this is a slightly pessimistic scenario and probably (hopefully!) won't happen. But I think it may be worth creating a mechanism to prevent it in future.

Wouldn't that mechanisme be highly subjective? Who decides if the gap is small and that you can recruit your way to the top? Who decides the winner has already been decided midround or only at the end (like now)?

I fail to see how you could create an objective rule here. If the gap is big enough, then why prevent pple from recruiting new members?

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Wouldn't that mechanisme be highly subjective? Who decides if the gap is small and that you can recruit your way to the top? Who decides the winner has already been decided midround or only at the end (like now)?

I fail to see how you could create an objective rule here.

I proposed an objective rule at the start of the thread - any new members recruited in the last 2 weeks do not count towards the final alliance score.

If the gap is big enough, then why prevent pple from recruiting new members?

I'm not suggesting that recruitment is prevented. New recruits could still have the benefits of alliance membership, but their score would not be counted towards the alliance total.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I'm not suggesting that recruitment is prevented. New recruits could still have the benefits of alliance membership, but their score would not be counted towards the alliance total.

If a member is kicked/leaves in the last two weeks, does his score stop counting for the alliance?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I proposed an objective rule at the start of the thread - any new members recruited in the last 2 weeks do not count towards the final alliance score.




I'm not suggesting that recruitment is prevented. New recruits could still have the benefits of alliance membership, but their score would not be counted towards the alliance total.

Wouldn't that encourage alliances to keep inactive pple cause, regardless of their inactivity, replacing them would lower your score. Recruiting new pple is because you want to inject fresh pple into your alliance, pple you believe can contribute to your alliance.

Then what use does it have to defend the roids or to help with the attacks of a member who's XP cannot be added if he joins in the last 2 weeks. Taking in mind that this game is all about XP. You don't gain XP by defending, you don't lose much XP by losing roids ... but you gain MOST XP by attacking. Then what point do attacks have for those pple if their XP they gained from it cannot be added to an alliance?

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by Banned

If a member is kicked/leaves in the last two weeks, does his score stop counting for the alliance?

I am tempted to say yes. Kicking your shit members at the end of the round, after having kept them for the entire round, seems like a cynical thing to do. I'm not sure that it should be rewarded.

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Wouldn't that encourage alliances to keep inactive pple cause, regardless of their inactivity, replacing them would lower your score. Recruiting new pple is because you want to inject fresh pple into your alliance, pple you believe can contribute to your alliance.

If you've let them stay there the whole round, being shit and inactive, then it's your own fault.

Then what use does it have to defend the roids or to help with the attacks of a member who's XP cannot be added if he joins in the last 2 weeks. Taking in mind that this game is all about XP. You don't gain XP by defending, you don't lose much XP by losing roids ... but you gain MOST XP by attacking. Then what point do attacks have for those pple if their XP they gained from it cannot be added to an alliance?

Aha! A compromise, then: only score gained after the member joins the alliance is added to the alliance score. Score gained in other alliances doesn't count.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I am tempted to say yes. Kicking your shit members at the end of the round, after having kept them for the entire round, seems like a cynical thing to do. I'm not sure that it should be rewarded.



If you've let them stay there the whole round, being shit and inactive, then it's your own fault.



Aha! A compromise, then: only score gained after the member joins the alliance is added to the alliance score. Score gained in other alliances doesn't count.

Hehe Rob, now THAT would idd be a more fair solution. Atleast the alliance will gain from the time and efforts they put into a new recruit.

Good point m8 !!

[Banned]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I am tempted to say yes. Kicking your shit members at the end of the round, after having kept them for the entire round, seems like a cynical thing to do. I'm not sure that it should be rewarded.

While this is obviously better than the alternative (imo), it does leave open the possibility of recruiting people away from an alliance to guarantee a win. Going back to the r13 example, the two top Angels (Keizari and sjor) totalled over 70 million score, thus if nos had been able to bribe them, they could've left tag 2 ticks before the end and given nos 2nd. Them actually joining the nos tag (thus giving Angels time to twat them for it) wouldn't have mattered, because they wouldn't add score.

Of course, this is a lot less likely a scenario than replacing low score members with high score recruits for the last 2 weeks to pass #1.

Aha! A compromise, then: only score gained after the member joins the alliance is added to the alliance score. Score gained in other alliances doesn't count.

This definitely appears to be an improvement. In fact, I think it could be used to rework the entire scoring scheme. For example, value might count in whatever alliance one is currently in, but XP is earned once for self, and once for the alliance. Thus, a high XP player who leaves will take his value with him and keep his own XP (so it won't directly affect his rank), but the XP will still be counted as 'Team XP' for the alliance.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

This definitely appears to be an improvement. In fact, I think it could be used to rework the entire scoring scheme. For example, value might count in whatever alliance one is currently in, but XP is earned once for self, and once for the alliance. Thus, a high XP player who leaves will take his value with him and keep his own XP (so it won't directly affect his rank), but the XP will still be counted as 'Team XP' for the alliance.

It would indeed be a good idea to seperate alliance XP and planet XP. It's a good suggestion to give alliances the XP they deserve, no more no less. When a member leaves or joins, the alliance will keep the collected XP. This would probably be another arguement to improve activity in alliances.

Sadly this can be abused rather easily, especially if you wanna give any value to average score and average roids

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Sadly this can be abused rather easily, especially if you wanna give any value to average score and average roids

I'm not sure I understand, could you explain this?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

I'm not sure I understand, could you explain this?

Well, if your alliance gained 100 XP and has 50 members, then the avg XP per member would be 2. If you remove 25 of those members, you'll still have 100 XP, divided by 25 instead of 50 ... which gives you an avg score of 4.

And since it'd be the last day, it doesn't influence your alliance in any negative way.

You're correct about the avg roid count, I assumed wrong there

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

And since it'd be the last day, it doesn't influence your alliance in any negative way.

You'd lose their value, though. Also, kicking a member always improves your average.

Edit: that last sentence is wrong. (Maybe I meant to say kicking a small member?)

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

You'd lose their value, though. Also, kicking a member always improves your average.

Value is not a key value that defines who wins a round, XP is.

Yes, kicking members always improves avg. But kicking members also LOWERS your total amount of average and your total amount of members. If, in the proposed system, you kick your biggest member, or your smallest ... it wouldn't make any difference because the XP gained by the alliance stays, yet the membercount drops with 1.

Mind you, I'm talking about the last day. If you kick them earlier then you'll find negative consequences in removing high value, I agree.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Value is not a key value that defines who wins a round, XP is.

This is not true*.

Yes, kicking members always improves avg. But kicking members also LOWERS your total amount of average and your total amount of members.

Total amount of average?

If, in the proposed system, you kick your biggest member, or your smallest ... it wouldn't make any difference because the XP gained by the alliance stays, yet the membercount drops with 1.

Again, incorrect. Your largest player is very likely to have more value than the smallest member. I get the feeling you're looking at current top10 when you say this, when you should be looking at the final top10 for previous rounds.

Mind you, I'm talking about the last day. If you kick them earlier then you'll find negative consequences in removing high value, I agree.

What, so in round 13 EX should've kicked their 2 top members to improve their average, despite Angels winning if they do?!

*That is, it's not necessarily true. It might hold for one round, but not for another. It's pretty easy to see that, for example, 1up's score in r14 was made up more of value than xp.

[god113]

Originally Posted by Banned

Doesn't an alliance's ability to attract good players/large planets in many ways reflect it's strength?

This is true. But it doesn't mean we want that to be rewarded. I mean, say ND now would be a stronger alliance if they managed to recruit the top Exil players, this is true. But does the game really want this?

I think the original idea is great.

[Kargool]

Good idea. For next round.

[Doorsdown]

i think rather than just the end of the round have like a week or 2 where someones score doesn't count to the alliances score till they have been there for that week or 2

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

Total amount of average?

That was a typo, I meant Total amount of XP. If you kick a member in the current XP setup, your total amount of XP will be decreased with the XP of the member you kicked. In the new proposed system, the alliance keeps the "earned" XP and it doesn't matter if you kick them or not.

Can you explain, Jester, how value contributes to XP? I mean, the most XP you gain is by attacking (preferable larger targets). If you lose half your fleet, sure your XP might drop slightly but if you so 1 good attack, your XP increases far easier.

A good example is a galm8 of me who has 4 times less value then me (his fleet got twatted quite a few times) yet his XP is equal to mine ...

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

What, so in round 13 EX should've kicked their 2 top members to improve their average, despite Angels winning if they do?!

In the proposed XP setup (where alliances keep the XP the members gained while they were part of that alliance), if you kick your 2 largest members 1 tick before the end, then your avg score will increase. Why? Because you still KEEP the XP you got, yet your total membercount is 2 less (hence the percental share will be higher).

If you kick your 2 lowest members ... you'll have EXACTLY the same avg score.

And I know the round's winner is determined on total score, not average ... but using this new system, we might aswell remove average scores because it makes no sence at all.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

In the proposed XP setup (where alliances keep the XP the members gained while they were part of that alliance), if you kick your 2 largest members 1 tick before the end, then your avg score will increase. Why? Because you still KEEP the XP you got, yet your total membercount is 2 less (hence the percental share will be higher).

My point was that EX would've lost the round (on absolute score) if they'd lost the value in their top2 members.

If you kick your 2 lowest members ... you'll have EXACTLY the same avg score.

This is plain wrong.

And I know the round's winner is determined on total score, not average ... but using this new system, we might aswell remove average scores because it makes no sence at all.

You're an idiot. This is a minor nitpick that has nothing to do with the general idea and is preemptively whining about specifics that are still undecided upon, because no PAteam has even commented on the idea.

Edit: Sorry for having to ask this, Kjeldoran, but you do know that an alliance's score at the moment includes both score from value and score from XP? Because it really sounds like you don't

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Banned

My point was that EX would've lost the round (on absolute score) if they'd lost the value in their top2 members.

This is plain wrong.


You're an idiot. This is a minor nitpick that has nothing to do with the general idea and is preemptively whining about specifics that are still undecided upon, because no PAteam has even commented on the idea.

Edit: Sorry for having to ask this, Kjeldoran, but you do know that an alliance's score at the moment includes both score from value and score from XP? Because it really sounds like you don't

ohh well, I was wondering how long you could have a discussion untill you started flaming/insulting me (old habit I guess) ... guess it ends here then. All I wanted was a discussion, if you feel I'm wrong then correct me, don't insult me ...

pathetic really