F-crew finish 3rd?

[Rc mayhem]

Originally Posted by Clogg

Maybe yhey should have kept the 50 max alliance members hardcoded and no exceptions what so ever. Would be interesting to see where F-crew as a "fellow trainingalliance" would have ended up then.

My view is lower yes, but forced to act more like a hardcore with recruitment as we would have to be picky, therefore higher average score.

[cura]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

My view is lower yes, but forced to act more like a hardcore with recruitment as we would have to be picky, therefore higher average score.

n/o, but if you were a training alliance you wouldn't care about ur rankings, nor would you care about what other people say about your ranking

I personally (I'm not saying all members/officers of ND) don't care at all about the ranking ND has, the best time I had with ND were when we weren't even in league for the t5

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Clogg

Maybe yhey should have kept the 50 max alliance members hardcoded and no exceptions what so ever. Would be interesting to see where F-crew as a "fellow trainingalliance" would have ended up then.

TBH i have to question if an alliance thats limited to 50 members (which really makes it closer to 45 to allow some room to move) can actually even be considered a training alliance as you will find that your HC, BC and other experianced players whom are there to help the new players greatly outnumbers your trainees. Currently our HC, BC and scanners accounts for 23 of our members and we have a further 10 or so members whom have experiance and while they cant commit to a command role take an advisor role to help the new players.

That would leave us realistically with 12 spaces for new players which is substantially down on what what we take now and isnt much higher than the number of lesser experiance players a hardcore alliance take over a period of a round. In my eyes with less than half your players being trainees your not really a training alliance as yoru focus is hardly training.

If you were to try and play under 50 member limit as a training alliance then it would be reliaint on a huge slice of luck as to how you ranked. You would have to obviously dump some of your experianced core to maintain your training alliance status and then with less room to work with when recruiting you would have to be lucky in getting the right players. Theres plenty of potential recruits out there for a training alliance to take a risk on but it is a risk because no matter how good you are at bringing players through its always hinges on the player themselves and you obviously have very little background to go on so its not even like its based on facts like recruitment for none training alliances. If you manage to get 1 player from every 3 whos willing to put the work in at their end then your being pretty lucky but it can be much lower and every person whom doesnt make it its a place that your having to turn down someone whom might come good. A further problem is the players whom will coem good arent always obvious, new and inexperianced players will often look like inactive and uncommitted players and this forces you to spend a bit more time on them than someone giving off such vibes in other alliances.

I guess what I'm saying is its basically a lottery, the risks taken at recruitment are higher but at the same time the rewards would probally be higher. If you get lucky you will be laughing, get unlucky and your in serious trouble, the kind of trouble which will often have repurcussoons for rounds as its the kind of thing that drives your experiance core away

[Razgriz]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

Raz did but then he looks like freddy mercury so draw your own conclusions

My Freddy Mercury days are behind me now

I don't really understand why we're having this big debate. This thread has jumped from one issue to another and back again. I'm not going to point any fingers but it seems when F-Crew do badly we get ripped and when we do well we get ripped. Of course not everyone see's it like that and i thank everyone whos said "good job". It is a very nice bonus to see us up there we've put alot of hard work into this round from HC to member.

On topic; we've done well and i believe that we can hold our top 5 position, but anything can happen in the last few days, you never know

[furball]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

Hmm, maybe we really shouldn't post threads in our irc channels...

Actually, I'm totally in favour of more people coming and posting on the forums (or at least reading them). It's not the same when it's just the regulars.

Regarding F-Crew in particular, a new PA player will always do better if they have access to the wealth of knowledge on the forums and the wiki. I remember being a newbie back in r3/4, then finding the forums and beginning to talk in #strategy around r5 time.

Personally I post AD threads in Vengeance private channels every now and then either as an update on the political situation or just to show some good posts from various people. I like members to come and ask me about what's going on: they're the people who think about more than their own planet/alliance, and usually the people who have the potential to be future HCs in Planetarion.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by El-CuRa

n/o, but if you were a training alliance you wouldn't care about ur rankings, nor would you care about what other people say about your ranking

I personally (I'm not saying all members/officers of ND) don't care at all about the ranking ND has, the best time I had with ND were when we weren't even in league for the t5

Everyone cares about rankings (either alliance/galaxy/personal) as the ranking position is your reward for the work put into the round and it feeds the competative spirt thats present in most living beings. The only differnece is as a training alliance the ranking isnt everything its just something thats nice to acheive. It may not even be the actual ranking position but the fact you have beaten someone else (a rival alliance, a friend or such like)

As for what people are saying about the alliance or the alliance rankings its a simerlar thing. Its nice to get some praise for the work you put into helping the community and it is annoying when people critise you for trying to help the community grow

[Fal]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

Hmm, maybe we really shouldn't post threads in our irc channels...

Grr CM, just because I don't post much doesn't mean I don't scan the forums often. I actually saw what you put on the channel after I posted.

Back to the topic however, I still maintain that (within reason) alliances with a lower average score should be allowed more members, because in the end the average score IS the tell tale sign of how well an alliance is doing, and the not-so-dedicated alliances should be allowed to compete for the top 10. Pherhaps a second ranking system, involving highest average score should be introduced?

[coffee-]

Which Asc would also win?

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Fal

Grr CM, just because I don't post much doesn't mean I don't scan the forums often. I actually saw what you put on the channel after I posted.

Back to the topic however, I still maintain that (within reason) alliances with a lower average score should be allowed more members, because in the end the average score IS the tell tale sign of how well an alliance is doing, and the not-so-dedicated alliances should be allowed to compete for the top 10. Pherhaps a second ranking system, involving highest average score should be introduced?

Actually I think Average Scores are as misleading if not more misleading than score. You see your average can be dictated by the HC somewhat. You see an alliance which is being elitist can keep its average high by recruiting based on score alone, if you only recruit people above your average and dont touch those below your boost your average. On the other hand alliances whom give alot of players below their average a chance, especially if they are well below the average will see their average being artifically low

[Fal]

That is inherent in the game in the end wakey, I guess you have to decide whether or not to compete for the top 10 or not. If you recruit those above your average then you will do that, if you recruit below that then you are basically a training alliance/not going for a high position. That is why I thought my idea (see Alliance limits) was a reasonably good one, although noone seems to have had any input on it yet :P

Oh, and coffee, thats not a floor in my logic, thats to do with game mechanics and xp stats Oh and superb tactics on Ascendencys part

[Rc mayhem]

On F-crewers posting and IRC pastings I was refering to the sudden influx of F-crewers with "give us credit" type messages. Maybe I really should follow Wakey's ban on me posting...

Originally Posted by wakey

Actually I think Average Scores are as misleading if not more misleading than score. You see your average can be dictated by the HC somewhat. You see an alliance which is being elitist can keep its average high by recruiting based on score alone, if you only recruit people above your average and dont touch those below your boost your average. On the other hand alliances whom give alot of players below their average a chance, especially if they are well below the average will see their average being artifically low

I still prefer a system based on "value added" to players so that late round jumping doesn't have the same effect as it does now - A major problem, and kick in the teeth for "training" alliances right now.

[Clogg]

Originally Posted by wakey

TBH i have to question if an alliance thats limited to 50 members (which really makes it closer to 45 to allow some room to move) can actually even be considered a training alliance as you will find that your HC, BC and other experianced players whom are there to help the new players greatly outnumbers your trainees. Currently our HC, BC and scanners accounts for 23 of our members and we have a further 10 or so members whom have experiance and while they cant commit to a command role take an advisor role to help the new players.

I personally believe that there should be more experienced players in a alliance then that there should be new players. Having more experienced players around just improves the learning curve for new players. Also you can pay more attention per new players, thus increasing the knowledge transfering. Not perfect English, but I think you get the general idea.

Having more unexperienced players then experienced ones is a recipe for disaster IMHO.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by wakey

Actually I think Average Scores are as misleading if not more misleading than score. You see your average can be dictated by the HC somewhat. You see an alliance which is being elitist can keep its average high by recruiting based on score alone, if you only recruit people above your average and dont touch those below your boost your average. On the other hand alliances whom give alot of players below their average a chance, especially if they are well below the average will see their average being artifically low

I guess that's up to the alliance itself and I don't think you should generalize this for all dedicated alliances. Obviously if you boot inactive members, chances are that you kick the lowest ranked ones because most of the time their inactivity explains their low rank.

I can't speak for other alliances but we recruit according to our core and our needs and goals in the long run. We're not interested in a top10 player who'll leave us next round nway (and before you jump on this, mistakes have been made in the past so yes we had the occassional disloyal member). A good example of that would be Nitina. We refused his application while knowing he's a damn good player and officer ... but but he and I knew he'd be exilition again next round.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Rc mayhem

I still prefer a system based on "value added" to players so that late round jumping doesn't have the same effect as it does now - A major problem, and kick in the teeth for "training" alliances right now.

I'd support a 'value added' system aswell so alliances don't get screwed if top members leave for personal glory or other way around that alliances can't win because they poached top members of other alliances.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by wakey

Actually I think Average Scores are as misleading if not more misleading than score. You see your average can be dictated by the HC somewhat. You see an alliance which is being elitist can keep its average high by recruiting based on score alone, if you only recruit people above your average and dont touch those below your boost your average. On the other hand alliances whom give alot of players below their average a chance, especially if they are well below the average will see their average being artifically low

I see that your misconceptions about the object of this game just keeps getting bigger and bigger Wakey.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

I see that your misconceptions about the object of this game just keeps getting bigger and bigger Wakey.

And I see your inability to apply simple logic is once again rearing its head.

If we base the rankings on avg score alone the rankinsg would be as follows

Ascendancy  	5889458.38
DLR 	5829588.07
hirr 	4637788.00
1up 	4119586.80
Daous Dava 	4010817.24
sneaky 	3881475.00
NewDawn 	3766963.95
FAnG 	3673027.00
BaD 	3642375.00
Angels 	3637545.81
reinVENted 	3568912.81
Subh 	3513930.74
[BIG] 	3327089.00
LCH 	3168161.92
1down 	3155482.00
TGV 	3136838.75
Vengeance 	3109000.28
rotten 	2979261.00
xVx 	2806599.26
Howling Rain 	2658741.44
[F-Crew] 	2536713.91
SiN 	2528873.26

The object of the game isnt to reward those whom can maintain ahigh average from two good player but to reward the alliances whom get the balance right.

That list is misleading and theres alliances whom are extreamly picky and only a handful of the best players pass their recruitment policy holding positions while alliance like F-Crew and VGN are low down as we have given low ranked players a chance. If it was based on average this problem would be even greater and alliances would be even more picky because its not about actual streagth of the alliance but on who you let on

[lokken]

the fact is that performance is based on who is best able to manage and perform under a tag within the limits as set by the rules of the game. Just like with XP, if you don't accept it, you might as well go have a quick chat with a wall.

Personally I don't have much objection to F-Crew's recruitment - if they are an attractive proposition, that's something they must have earned. If they are a training alliance in every sense of the word, most alliances outside the top 5 should be pretty confident of passing them. Unless you're afraid of being embarassed, that is.

[TSP]

n/o, but if you were a training alliance you wouldn't care about ur rankings, nor would you care about what other people say about your ranking

I don't see why that's true. Within any alliance there's a diversity of opinion, and due to its nature F-Crew has a wider scope of opinion than most others. I've never seen F-Crew as a "training alliance" to be honest - more a casual alliance in that our objective is primarily to have fun rather than winning. But sure, winning is nice too. I don't think accepting new players is a burden either - by far the best players I've had the experience of playing with have been new to the game or returning after an extended break rather than existing players who have been taken in. I think F-Crew's continued stability is down to the alliance's willingness to accept new blood.

Personally I think the current rankings demonstrate how flawed the alliance limit was this round - I'm really quite surprised that nobody tried to abuse it.

Maybe yhey should have kept the 50 max alliance members hardcoded and no exceptions what so ever. Would be interesting to see where F-crew as a "fellow trainingalliance" would have ended up then.

Well, considering that half of that would be filled with the band of highly experienced HCs and BCs .... actually pretty poorly

[Cut Tooth]

Why Not Create a more elite F crew wing, with say 20 or so members in, allowing ones you've trained to join this wing once they're up to scratch. Actually this idea does have some pitfalls

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by wakey

And I see your inability to apply simple logic is once again rearing its head.

If we base the rankings on avg score alone the rankinsg would be as follows

Ascendancy  	5889458.38
DLR 	5829588.07
1up 	4119586.80
Daous Dava 	4010817.24
NewDawn 	3766963.95
Angels 	3637545.81
reinVENted 	3568912.81
Subh 	3513930.74
[BIG] 	3327089.00
LCH 	3168161.92
TGV 	3136838.75
Vengeance 	3109000.28
xVx 	2806599.26
Howling Rain 	2658741.44
[F-Crew] 	2536713.91
SiN 	2528873.26

The object of the game isnt to reward those whom can maintain ahigh average from two good player but to reward the alliances whom get the balance right.

Now try that again with actual alliances Wakey. Infact. I edited ur list so u could actually take the alliances with more than ten members in it.

If you define 1 man tags as alliances I really needs to lower my standard conceptions on what you are actally capable of saying. 1-2 man tags are not alliances...

[Benneh]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Now try that again with actual alliances Wakey. Infact. I edited ur list so u could actually take the alliances with more than ten members in it.

If you define 1 man tags as alliances I really needs to lower my standard conceptions on what you are actally capable of saying. 1-2 man tags are not alliances...

oh for gods sake, im sure he just took them off of sandmans or something put them in excel and sorted and copied them over... jeez

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Now try that again with actual alliances Wakey. Infact. I edited ur list so u could actually take the alliances with more than ten members in it.

If you define 1 man tags as alliances I really needs to lower my standard conceptions on what you are actally capable of saying. 1-2 man tags are not alliances...

1-2 tags ARE considered alliances by the game and thus on a rank on AVERAGE would hold the positions above. And if you start imposing conditions like "Only alliances with more than x members are an actual alliance" where do you draw the line. What would make a 9 member alliance less worthy than a 10 member one, is a 15 man alliance like DLR really an alliance, how about those with less than 30 members liek reiVENted and Daous Dava should we discount them too after all you really arent a competative force with less than 30 members.

Anyway you are just being dumb if you fail to see my point about average scores being more unreliable than total score. The game isnt about who can be the most selective in recruiting but whom has the most combined acheivements. Theres enough players looking for alliances floating around that none of the alliances inside the top20 should be struggling to reach around 50 members, let alone 40 like some of them are. Now if they are struggling to reach these membership levels its for one reason they are being very selective with recruitment. This is something that we at F-Crew have seen and i'm sure other open alliances like HA and Rock have seen when we try and clear out backlogs by recommending other alliances whom when they are approached turn them down often on score alone.

This is why you would see alliances like DLR, reinVENted and Daous Dav being up at the top if it was just done on average because their selective recruitment while weakening their actual combined acheivments, artificially boosts their average score while an alliance like HA who has given players a chance would find themselves ranked 37th because their average is artifically low as they have taken on alot of really small players.

You would end up with a game where alliances would become even more selective than they are now simply to give their average an artifical boost and you would leave no reason for anyone to try and help out new and inexperianced players as doings so would give you very little reward for helping these people and would probally work as an encouragement for those whom come good to leave for a higher ranked alliance as soon as they reached a certain point thus lowering their ranking even further while boosting those being overly selective

[[Aequitas]]

Ya know, Kargool, if you want to go and pick apart everything Wakey says (which I will admit you have a knack for), I will gladly go back and look up the definition for each word of each sentence in each of your posts.

Alliance: A connection based on kinship, marriage, or common interest; a bond or tie.

Therefore a 2-man tag is most DEFINITELY an alliance, seeing as how they are bound together by a common interest.

Now, before this goes any further, take a step back and just look at the alliance screen. If its on the ally screen, has an average score, and all of the hype of a larger alliance, why the hell would you say that these alliances aren't really alliances?
If the PA team and the game itself saw fit to declare these little "tags" as alliances on the ally page, who the hell do you think you are to sit here and tell these alliances that, no matter what the game tells them (IE: their little "tag" is posted as an alliance), they really are NOT an alliance?

Kargool, unless you are a member of the PA team, or one of the scripters for the game, please do not sit there and insult them by trying to bend and manipulate the definition of "alliance" to fit your needs.

Aequitas
Proud Ex FC Member/Trainer

EDIT: spelling ><