User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 16:20   #1
RexDrax
Knightly Protector
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Avalon
Posts: 590
RexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of light
Alliance limits 40/60 split

I am curious to know what people thought of the change to alliance count and contributing score of members. Currently its max of 60 members with the top40 contributing to score.

What I like is now there are (potentially) more alliance able to go for the win. With only 40 counting towards ally score which is used to determine the winner mid tier alliance do have the chance to win the round. On paper its not the usual 2/3 alliances battling it out for the win.

What I dont like is that alliances that have over 50/54 members can afford to hide crashes more. They also benefit from pure defense planets quite a bit. This means that alliances that are between 35-45 members have quite a significant disadvantage compared to an alliance that has 53 or more members. The bigger member alliance can take more risks in landing the smaller alliance even if it means 1 of their top40 counting score planet crashes since another member can (potential) take their spot and reduce the crashed value amount.

I have mixed feelings about the set up. I like having more alliance being able to potentially win the round so I would like the counting score to low, 40 is a good number. I dont like the fact that with ally limit being 60 it gives the fuller tags quite a BIG advantage in terms of defence planet and being able to crash to take out their enemy.

Realistically (imo) an alliance just needs a few scanners so having 5 not counting towards score should be implemented. Something like 40/45 would "level" the playing field.

In any case what are other peoples thought on the 40/60 member split?
__________________
TGV Ex-HC
-No I am not suffering from insanity. I am enjoying every minute of it.


Est Sularus oth Mithas
My Honour is My Life, My Life is My Honour
RexDrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 16:48   #2
berten
respect, unity, order
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 280
berten is a jewel in the roughberten is a jewel in the roughberten is a jewel in the rough
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Yes, it's unfair to the smaller tags at this moment. yes, the bigger tags can afford more less-contributing planets.

however:

Altough I'm a member of the 'lower-tag-limit' fanclub, I do understand why a lot of people don't want this.
This is a game, people like to play games with their friends. Artificial limits make people quit.
__________________
Together We Stand Divided We Fall
[Ğragons]
berten is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 17:29   #3
Sandvold
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 168
Sandvold will become famous soon enoughSandvold will become famous soon enough
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

I agree. 20 planets you can "hide" or have as def planets is to much. I would prefer it back to 50 if tag limits isn't changed, and i don't think I it would help much decreasing ally size. It's not really an option for a 40 man ally to compete with a 60 man ally even with a limit of 40. At least not if it comes to a war.
Sandvold is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 18:08   #4
mathematician
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 52
mathematician has a spectacular aura aboutmathematician has a spectacular aura aboutmathematician has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

how about n alliance members contributing to score, but each member contributes only the alliance average score?

So the formula is
alliance_score := min(allianze_size, n) * alliance_average_score
with n = 40 or whatever

where alliance_average_score is calculated from all members except the lowest (say) 10% scorewise (those are most likely scanners)

Examples with limit = 40:
alliance with less than 10 members => score = sum of all members
alliance with 10 members => score = 10*(top 9 average)
alliance with 20 members => score = 20*(top 18 average)
alliance with 30 members => score = 30*(top 27 average)
alliance with 40 members => score = 40*(top 36 average)
alliance with 50 members => score = 40*(top 45 average)
alliance with 60 members => score = 40*(top 54 average)
mathematician is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 19:30   #5
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Id prefer to see something like tag limits 70 with 65 coutning, or 80 with 70 counting.
The tag limits are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to low atm, most alliances can fit all their members/applications in tag. Should be raised atleast 10-20
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 19:36   #6
Sandvold
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 168
Sandvold will become famous soon enoughSandvold will become famous soon enough
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematician View Post
how about n alliance members contributing to score, but each member contributes only the alliance average score?

So the formula is
alliance_score := min(allianze_size, n) * alliance_average_score
with n = 40 or whatever

where alliance_average_score is calculated from all members except the lowest (say) 10% scorewise (those are most likely scanners)

Examples with limit = 40:
alliance with less than 10 members => score = sum of all members
alliance with 10 members => score = 10*(top 9 average)
alliance with 20 members => score = 20*(top 18 average)
alliance with 30 members => score = 30*(top 27 average)
alliance with 40 members => score = 40*(top 36 average)
alliance with 50 members => score = 40*(top 45 average)
alliance with 60 members => score = 40*(top 54 average)
Liked that
Sandvold is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 20:31   #7
RexDrax
Knightly Protector
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Avalon
Posts: 590
RexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
Id prefer to see something like tag limits 70 with 65 coutning, or 80 with 70 counting.
The tag limits are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to low atm, most alliances can fit all their members/applications in tag. Should be raised atleast 10-20
I think everyone in the world knows your take on tag limit. I dont mind if that gets mentioned here but I rather it not hijack this thread. Police yourself! There are so many threads discussing tag limits. This thread is here to discuss the 40/60 split and if it should remain, go back to 50/60 or another alternative which prevents hiding def planets and crashes in the alliance tag limit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematician View Post
how about n alliance members contributing to score, but each member contributes only the alliance average score?

So the formula is
alliance_score := min(allianze_size, n) * alliance_average_score
with n = 40 or whatever

where alliance_average_score is calculated from all members except the lowest (say) 10% scorewise (those are most likely scanners)

Examples with limit = 40:
alliance with less than 10 members => score = sum of all members
alliance with 10 members => score = 10*(top 9 average)
alliance with 20 members => score = 20*(top 18 average)
alliance with 30 members => score = 30*(top 27 average)
alliance with 40 members => score = 40*(top 36 average)
alliance with 50 members => score = 40*(top 45 average)
alliance with 60 members => score = 40*(top 54 average)
That is an interesting approach. Didnt really think of that at all. Cant think of any big red flags and this also eliminates Butchers rant on ally tag size. Above formula also isnt that hard to code if the PA Team decides to try it out.
__________________
TGV Ex-HC
-No I am not suffering from insanity. I am enjoying every minute of it.


Est Sularus oth Mithas
My Honour is My Life, My Life is My Honour
RexDrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 20:58   #8
Bram
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 245
Bram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to beholdBram is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathematician View Post
where alliance_average_score is calculated from all members except the lowest (say) 10% scorewise (those are most likely scanners)
On what is the alliance_average_score based on?
Average of the total score of the planets in tag?
Average of the counted score of the planets in tag?
...?
Bram is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 21:00   #9
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by RexDrax View Post
I think everyone in the world knows your take on tag limit. I dont mind if that gets mentioned here but I rather it not hijack this thread. Police yourself! There are so many threads discussing tag limits. This thread is here to discuss the 40/60 split and if it should remain, go back to 50/60 or another alternative which prevents hiding def planets and crashes in the alliance tag limit.
Well this round again shows that most alliances have to kick out/reject members due to way too small tag limits.
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 21:10   #10
Clouds
Registered User
 
Clouds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,386
Clouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to beholdClouds is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
Well this round again shows that most alliances have to kick out/reject members due to way too small tag limits.
That's only due to lack of alliances. I can probably say that when Black Flag retired, there was an excess in applications to external alliances.
Clouds is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 23 Feb 2016, 21:24   #11
RexDrax
Knightly Protector
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Avalon
Posts: 590
RexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher View Post
Well this round again shows that most alliances have to kick out/reject members due to way too small tag limits.

Looking at top10 alliances, there are a total of 460 planets in those alliances. Currently with there is the potential of 5 different alliances winning; ult, fl, ct, pen, norse. Some are more likely than others but they all have a chance. If ally tag limit is raised to 80 as you keep saying several alliances would disband or be too small to function and we would end up with 2 probably 3 tags that are 70 or more and probably 3 tags that are 25-40 and the rest wont even matter. This would lead to basically it being a 2 way war for the entire round.

Granted that is not different then the current block wars of the last few rounds. However alliances have stabbed each other in the back or done some interesting political maneuvers to increase their chances of ally win. With your proposal of increasing tag limit to 70/80 or higher, politics pretty much goes out the door and the universe gets divided into 2 sides. If there were more people playing then a higher tag limit makes sense but with the current number of planets it doesnt, unless you are just wanting alliance A vs B game for 1177 ticks
__________________
TGV Ex-HC
-No I am not suffering from insanity. I am enjoying every minute of it.


Est Sularus oth Mithas
My Honour is My Life, My Life is My Honour
RexDrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 Feb 2016, 15:14   #12
mathematician
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 52
mathematician has a spectacular aura aboutmathematician has a spectacular aura aboutmathematician has a spectacular aura about
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bram View Post
On what is the alliance_average_score based on?
Average of the total score of the planets in tag?
Average of the counted score of the planets in tag?
...?
would have to be counted score. Or else an alliance can just recruit some high score planets just before end of round.

sort alliance members by counted score, discard the bottom 10% and build the (counted score) average of the remaining members.
mathematician is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 24 Feb 2016, 16:24   #13
ArcChas
General (Adjective Army)
 
ArcChas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
ArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

By all means look at alternative scoring methods (although not too alternative or we'll just ignore the in-game ranking and go back to calculating the winners ourselves).

BUT for the love of all that's holy let's not have another (non)discussion about tag limits.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
ArcChas is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Feb 2016, 00:16   #14
ArcChas
General (Adjective Army)
 
ArcChas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
ArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by RexDrax View Post
So what are your thoughts on the proposed alternative by mathematician so far? And what did you think of the current 40/60 split?
I think the proposal needs work. After all, if we take an alliance average score and multiply it by 111% and then by 90% of the alliance members we're going to be left with something very close to the original total alliance score - and that isn't affected by the numbers of players in the alliance.

As for the current arrangement, it's a "compromise" intended to allow smaller tags to compete with larger ones without actually reducing the tag sizes and thereby upsetting members of the latter. As with all compromises, it leaves much to be desired.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
ArcChas is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Feb 2016, 09:21   #15
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
Kaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Doesn't the tag limits all come down to activity?

From experience in both 40 man tags dcing and a 70 man tag hcing the amount of commitment at the top greatly increased as the limit is raised. The larger the tag the more incommings you can receive in a small period, the strain on dcing increases the more people you have to protect. There are a couple of special sausages who could cope with larger incs as a dc (Irvine, agar3s, carDi) but mostly you would need multiple dcs working alongside each other to coordinate defence which requires more pre-planned defence strategies from HCs and officers. It almost becomes a job rather than a game with the amount of time invested and realistically even if tag limits went up to 80 alliances are not gonna recruit more than 50 useful players meaning you end up filling your remaining spaces with deadwood which means up to 40% of your alliance is a liability defensively and would cause animosity in your ranks causing a decline in enjoyment and commitment.

Also you get the issue where ppl naturally want to win. If you were to raise the tag limits to 80 then why wouldn't 30 decent players from ct/nd/fl/p3n join Ultores? The vastly more organised and capable alliance out there. This would only strengthen ults hand whilst weakening the rest.

On topic the 40 tag counting size works in the current environment. It enables smaller alliances (Norse) to compete score wise with larger alliances (ult) and frankly I don't see any downside to it. What I would change is the non counting to 10 giving a total of 50. ATM it's too easy to hide crashes in noncounted score which hurts those that have maybe got 40-50 members but couldn't get the extra 10. Their crashes are less hide able when the final tally is taken
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Feb 2016, 09:57   #16
Krypton
KK
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 662
Krypton is a jewel in the roughKrypton is a jewel in the roughKrypton is a jewel in the rough
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Agreed Kaiba. I definitely think the 40 counting has been a vast improvement on previous rounds, but even as a p3n, I wish there was a way crashes could be highlighted more in total score!

And in response to your previous post Butcher. Ult could, seeing as they already have out of tags - no one else can. It would just create a higher gravitation of serious players to the same alliance, but BB's opinion is gospel and not flawed at all!
Krypton is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Feb 2016, 10:47   #17
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
Doesn't the tag limits all come down to activity?

From experience in both 40 man tags dcing and a 70 man tag hcing the amount of commitment at the top greatly increased as the limit is raised. The larger the tag the more incommings you can receive in a small period, the strain on dcing increases the more people you have to protect. There are a couple of special sausages who could cope with larger incs as a dc (Irvine, agar3s, carDi) but mostly you would need multiple dcs working alongside each other to coordinate defence which requires more pre-planned defence strategies from HCs and officers. It almost becomes a job rather than a game with the amount of time invested and realistically even if tag limits went up to 80 alliances are not gonna recruit more than 50 useful players meaning you end up filling your remaining spaces with deadwood which means up to 40% of your alliance is a liability defensively and would cause animosity in your ranks causing a decline in enjoyment and commitment.

Also you get the issue where ppl naturally want to win. If you were to raise the tag limits to 80 then why wouldn't 30 decent players from ct/nd/fl/p3n join Ultores? The vastly more organised and capable alliance out there. This would only strengthen ults hand whilst weakening the rest.

On topic the 40 tag counting size works in the current environment. It enables smaller alliances (Norse) to compete score wise with larger alliances (ult) and frankly I don't see any downside to it. What I would change is the non counting to 10 giving a total of 50. ATM it's too easy to hide crashes in noncounted score which hurts those that have maybe got 40-50 members but couldn't get the extra 10. Their crashes are less hide able when the final tally is taken
Who are you trying to fool? Norse cant compete with anyone. Perhaps they are more likely to beat ND.
The 40 counting is another idiotic change, maybe the worst ever?

DCing is a lot harder now than many rounds 20 rounds ago by the look of it. The amount of activity required is highee, we need room for more inactivies/community members. Alliances kick out members who arnt top notch now days, and new players arnt being actively recruited
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Feb 2016, 14:58   #18
Kaiba
Valle is my hero
 
Kaiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,581
Kaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud ofKaiba has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

So butcher have you after 5+ posts here formed an opinion on the question posed? We're all waiting to hear your on topic response
Kaiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Feb 2016, 15:14   #19
BloodyButcher
Propaganda Chief
 
BloodyButcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
BloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud ofBloodyButcher has much to be proud of
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiba View Post
So butcher have you after 5+ posts here formed an opinion on the question posed? We're all waiting to hear your on topic response
Lowering the "counted" score increases the need for "pure def planets" in tag.
It does make it more viable having 10 planets "going off strat" pumping one ship only to counter certain "attack ship strats".


So does it make it easier for smaller tags to compete with mid tier tags? Sure, fencing made it possible, deliberately or not, for norse this round, but under normal circumstances it wont happend.

Its one of the counter productive changes made to PA in recent history, and should be changed back ASAP
__________________
RainbowS

RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
BloodyButcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 25 Feb 2016, 15:23   #20
Cheggers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 27
Cheggers can only hope to improve
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

I like the formula from mathematician.

Last edited by Appocomaster; 26 Feb 2016 at 15:08.
Cheggers is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 26 Feb 2016, 15:28   #21
Appocomaster
PA Team
 
Appocomaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
Appocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAppocomaster spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

I've tidied up the thread a bit to remove unnecessary conversation and tried to keep the slightly more civil comments.

My only comments to make about the 90% rule:

1) Do scanners scale linearly with alliance size? My initial feeling was no, but I guess alliance of 20 having 2 hardcore scanners vs alliance of 60 having 6 hardcore scanners... It may be that it's right, but it feels like once you have 2 you probably won't end up with many more than 2-3 smaller scanner / covert op planets. I'm sure those with more history can comment on this better, though.

2) I was going to comment on the maths itself but I misread a couple of times. The only thing I would say is that the formula doesn't really cover the <=10 condition very well unless you take ceil(#planets * 0.9) - which is a fair enough approach but usually not the one Planetarion takes in this sort of situation. If we amend the formula to include this, then I would agree with the formula being viable.

It's certainly an interesting approach, but I would say it actually makes it a much more interesting decision about whether to have more than 40 people or not, as adding people lower than your average actually harms the alliance score. With this being the case, I can see towards the end of the round people will kick people from their alliance so they get down to the 40 or so people with the best scores - I assume scores are linear enough that dropping below 40 will cause a score decrease.


With this being the case, I'd probably choose n=50 and keep the actual limit at 60 if I were to go with this. Seem reasonable?
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
Appocomaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 26 Feb 2016, 17:18   #22
RexDrax
Knightly Protector
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Avalon
Posts: 590
RexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of lightRexDrax is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Alliance limits 40/60 split

Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster View Post
I've tidied up the thread a bit to remove unnecessary conversation and tried to keep the slightly more civil comments.

My only comments to make about the 90% rule:

1) Do scanners scale linearly with alliance size? My initial feeling was no, but I guess alliance of 20 having 2 hardcore scanners vs alliance of 60 having 6 hardcore scanners... It may be that it's right, but it feels like once you have 2 you probably won't end up with many more than 2-3 smaller scanner / covert op planets. I'm sure those with more history can comment on this better, though.

2) I was going to comment on the maths itself but I misread a couple of times. The only thing I would say is that the formula doesn't really cover the <=10 condition very well unless you take ceil(#planets * 0.9) - which is a fair enough approach but usually not the one Planetarion takes in this sort of situation. If we amend the formula to include this, then I would agree with the formula being viable.

It's certainly an interesting approach, but I would say it actually makes it a much more interesting decision about whether to have more than 40 people or not, as adding people lower than your average actually harms the alliance score. With this being the case, I can see towards the end of the round people will kick people from their alliance so they get down to the 40 or so people with the best scores - I assume scores are linear enough that dropping below 40 will cause a score decrease.


With this being the case, I'd probably choose n=50 and keep the actual limit at 60 if I were to go with this. Seem reasonable?
Thank you for cleaning up the "irrelevant" posts.

I have played a scanner a few times and it really comes down to what timezone they are and when they can be online. If you get 2 good North American/Aussie scanners you are fine. Or a European that is a night owl and awake at that time. Generally when I HC I try to make sure at least 1 scanner is around at TP and 2 more during the prime incoming time period with maybe another 2 that take their time becoming a scanner. An alliance can function on 2 scanners but you probably want 3/4 to ensure you have coverage or if someone cant be around for a day.

What I like about the formula is that the potential exists for more alliances to go for the win. It might not be perfect for a tag that is less than 20, but in those cases the alliance in question are not really going for ally tag win but probably aiming for top planet(s) or best average score/value/roid ranking or some other goal.

In the current round there are a lot of alliance that have the chance to win and its going to come down to the last tick. This is pretty rare and usually its a 2 legged race. Having more endings like the current round I think is more feasible with mathematician suggested formula (with some tweaks).

Alliances can kick member to go down to 40 in order to increase their chance of winning. That is an option and could lead to abuse, however we currently have that scenario where alliances hide out of tag planets to add last minute to slingshot into the win. I dont think it will make much of a difference. Would be interesting to take the current data and use the formula and see how much of a difference kicking down to 40 would make.

I understand where you are coming from with the 50 limit over the 40, but I think going up to 50 reduces the potential alliances able to go for the win. Right now norse with 35 has a very good chance of winning the round. With a 50 counting limit they would be out of the race (I think).
__________________
TGV Ex-HC
-No I am not suffering from insanity. I am enjoying every minute of it.


Est Sularus oth Mithas
My Honour is My Life, My Life is My Honour
RexDrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018