Planetarion Forums - In the age of lesser numbers shouldnt......

BoredOfThis · 27 Oct 2004, 01:23

The winning alliance be judged by average member score?

Fyodor · 27 Oct 2004, 01:36

Ive always thought that average member score is the best way to judge an alliances true worth. Tbh 1up's showing thus far this round has impressed me infinitely more then their win did last round.

Slowfinger · 27 Oct 2004, 03:14

then you'd get t10 players branching off and creating their own 1-man alliances right at the end of the round to steal victory

Synthetic_Sid · 27 Oct 2004, 03:15

Average score is too easily manipulated. Aside from anything else, the #1 planet could make their own alliance and be guaranteed of having the highest average score.

Lei~ · 27 Oct 2004, 03:17

Just give 1up time theyll be nr1 soon anyway, if they keep growing like they are atm. Theyll simply have double the avg score of the other alliances and make up for their lacking numbers by it.
Very impressive indeed.

Chika · 27 Oct 2004, 05:55

Average score really only shows the par of the universe. If an alliance is performing better than that par, then i suppose it could be said that they are better.
And come on, any top player that would leave thier ally to win #1 ally would surely be the only one in the alliance he made the next round.

Helix · 27 Oct 2004, 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

And come on, any top player that would leave thier ally to win #1 ally would surely be the only one in the alliance he made the next round.

If I were able to finish as the #1 planet and the sole planet in the #1 alliance I would say that is a good enough note to retire from PA on

Kjeldoran · 27 Oct 2004, 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synthetic_Sid

Average score is too easily manipulated. Aside from anything else, the #1 planet could make their own alliance and be guaranteed of having the highest average score.

I agree, also alliances with less pple normally have higher avg score. Allainces that put their scanners under the same tag have lower avg score. It's a very good indication, but imo not THE measurement of who won a round.
I think most pple here are objective enough at the end of a round to realize which alliance has won the round. And ifnot, the ranks on the universe page will tell you the rest

lokken · 27 Oct 2004, 12:29

Alliance success is built on dominance and influence on the game, nothing else.

mazzelaar · 27 Oct 2004, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

Alliance success is built on dominance and influence on the game, nothing else.

Whereas Eclipse was built on dominatrix and alcoholic influence. That QD was a harsh mistress :/

lokken · 27 Oct 2004, 23:47

QD is a pussycat son

Clearly you haven't been on the end of Cryptic enough.

mazzelaar · 27 Oct 2004, 23:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

QD is a pussycat son

Clearly you haven't been on the end of Cryptic enough.

More than enough. The nightmares still wake me

Forest · 28 Oct 2004, 00:00

I stole Cryptics jacket/gloved and shades and put them on for the camera.

Clearly i shit myslef when he walked right past me

Linkie · 28 Oct 2004, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lei~

Just give 1up time theyll be nr1 soon anyway, if they keep growing like they are atm. Theyll simply have double the avg score of the other alliances and make up for their lacking numbers by it.
Very impressive indeed.

doubtful, it's very easy to take down an alliance when you have twice as many fleets as they do, higher average score/roidcount/value or not.
In addition, 1up has a higher roidcount which leads to higher score, yet not necissarily a value higher enough to make a big impact on a possible war.

Lei~ · 28 Oct 2004, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkie

doubtful, it's very easy to take down an alliance when you have twice as many fleets as they do, higher average score/roidcount/value or not.
In addition, 1up has a higher roidcount which leads to higher score, yet not necissarily a value higher enough to make a big impact on a possible war.

basically i agree and i dont wanna start any 1up fear propaganda. I still have to notice that 1up are by far the most professional and active alliance and what good are double the fleets if only half of em gets used? also less small members means less random hits and less defense needed...
So i think the advantages and disadvantages are balanced

Linkie · 28 Oct 2004, 19:19

I am quite sure that if there was an avdvantage in having a smaller alliance, more alliances would have a clean up and keep good players and kick the rest (score- and team-wise).

Inca · 29 Oct 2004, 05:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkie

I am quite sure that if there was an avdvantage in having a smaller alliance, more alliances would have a clean up and keep good players and kick the rest (score- and team-wise).

you would think that wudn't you

No i agree that average member score/size to me means more than overall score, maybe not in a 1-10 man alliance, but 1up who have 60 active players compared to most major alliances around 90, that still very much puts them in the frame. I think it shows a better level or teamwork and overall ability and so is a better guide as to who is doing what.

I also think that they do inspire fear, they prolly launch as many fleets as most of the bigger alliances, and activity wise what they loose in numbers they make up for in their dedication.

Personally i believe 1up play down their own abilites, watching what happens to previous round winners, the gang rape vengence etc... i think the smaller member base suits their will to again perform well. Having a smaller alliance is of course more manageable which indeed helps any alliance, i think 1up thought carefully about the trade off and were content with the players/numbers they picked.

Up until about 24 hours before i posted this most alliances were pretty loose, attacking pretty much any1, life was pretty spread, one night absolute wud drop a few roids, the next lch, the next mistu etc etc, but it shows the ability and organisation of 1up that they were able to get a substational gap in average member size/score. Of course with naps moving back into the game this will b less relevant.

Linkie · 29 Oct 2004, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inca

Personally i believe 1up play down their own abilites, watching what happens to previous round winners, the gang rape vengence etc... i think the smaller member base suits their will to again perform well. Having a smaller alliance is of course more manageable which indeed helps any alliance, i think 1up thought carefully about the trade off and were content with the players/numbers they picked.

You are quite right in that 1up is playing down their ablities knowing they'd get it hard if they played this round with a full memberbase, possibly hogging the #1 spot early-on. However, I seriously doubt they are still aiming to win. As Sid announced, 1up is playing as Kingmakers, not as Kings themselves. And please, don't you all start saying Sid is the master of propaganda, taking down a 60 member alliances is not that hard, even Sid knows this.

1up making up for lack of fleets with activity is to be honest, a load of bullshit. If you look at the numbers, you'll see 40 members = 120 extra fleets. That means that a full alliance like LCH has ~290 fleets, while 1up has ~180 fleets. Believe me, 1up is not that much more active than other top alliances like LCH, Mistu and so on.
More fleets give alot more room for manouverability, while less, but bigger fleets might do more damage against certain planets and galaxies, it doesn't open up for the tactical advantage having more members have. Ofcourse there is a balance here, but looking at the alliance rankings now, I think that balance is in LCH's favour.