R11 alliance scoring suggestion

[mist]

please note. the below is my own views/ideas and does not in any way reflect the views/ideas of the pa team.

rather than scoring alliances based on their member's scores, score them on their member's actions.

as was demonstrated last round, basing alliance scores on the size of their members can lead to such unsavoury antics as recruiting enemy players in the last few weeks in order to get an alliance win. if instead alliance score is based on a member's actions while in that alliance then this will be much less effective, as new members will bring no score to the alliance.

so, i'd suggest giving score to the alliance for:
successful attacks (more for attacks on enemy alliances?)
successful defences (probably with some score if the attacker recalls, depending on the eta they recalled at)
successful covert ops (assuming they're in)

i'm sure there's other things that people can suggest.

as well as solving problems with ship jumpers, this could, if done right, help with stagnation later on in the round. if you have to be attacking and defending in order to get alliance score then anyone sitting in a block safe and sound is soon going to be trailing.

again, this is only an idea. if you don't like it, fair enough, if you can suggest improvements, great.

-mist

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by mist

please note. the below is my own views/ideas and does not in any way reflect the views/ideas of the pa team.

rather than scoring alliances based on their member's scores, score them on their member's actions.

as was demonstrated last round, basing alliance scores on the size of their members can lead to such unsavoury antics as recruiting enemy players in the last few weeks in order to get an alliance win. if instead alliance score is based on a member's actions while in that alliance then this will be much less effective, as new members will bring no score to the alliance.

so, i'd suggest giving score to the alliance for:
successful attacks (more for attacks on enemy alliances?)
successful defences (probably with some score if the attacker recalls, depending on the eta they recalled at)
successful covert ops (assuming they're in)

i'm sure there's other things that people can suggest.

as well as solving problems with ship jumpers, this could, if done right, help with stagnation later on in the round. if you have to be attacking and defending in order to get alliance score then anyone sitting in a block safe and sound is soon going to be trailing.

again, this is only an idea. if you don't like it, fair enough, if you can suggest improvements, great.

-mist

Interesting idea but what can be deemed successfull is really in the eye of the beholder. Also it wont help with stagnation imo, attacking the dead block will yield score if done enough and there is less chance of a dead block resisting you. It wouldnt really prompt me to take any risks.

[mist]

the dead block would be smaller than you tho, perhaps if the score you gain were related to the (relative?) size of opponent?

-mist

[Yeggstry]

Originally Posted by mist

the dead block would be smaller than you tho, perhaps if the score you gain were related to the (relative?) size of opponent?

-mist

You'd also have to define the size of the "block" - something that I'm sure you want to avoid :P

[Kal]

so basically make value and score more different then....

[Yeggstry]

This idea also means that the major alliances will bash the active planets and get them to join their alliance....

Hmmmmmmmmm... that sounds familiar (lo Jurgen and co. at Dragons on Rimmerz in R10).

Edit: this is NOT a flame, I only speak the truth from what I have seen/heard.

[mist]

Originally Posted by KalVirtus

so basically make value and score more different then....

i was thinking use value for planets and score for alliances.

-mist

sum1 move this to the suggestions board ta

[TheACE]

interesting idea. But saying something like: 1 month befor end of round u r not allowed to get more member.
should also work (that is what i think). that is if that is the only prob u want to solve, otherwise: Good idea, still not sure if i am for it.

an other idea: I WANT MY TAG BACK

[JC]

Originally Posted by PowerAbusingMod

sum1 move this to the suggestions board ta

I presume Mist posted it here to grab more peoples attentions and it is to do with alliances so it can stay here.

This is "Alliance Discussions" not "Alliance Suggestions" just like "Planetarion Discussions" is not "Planetarion Suggestions" Thus move it or create a subforum

[JC]

No.

[meaple]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No.

fixed

[Cochese]

This wouldn't work functionally (loopholes tied up, etc) without adding more elements into the way alliance are coded into the game...formal states of war, neutrality, declarations of war, surrendering, etc.

[Wandows]

and from what i see its still is the same problem, a bigger alliance has more members, thus will gain more scoring points for ops as they can do more then smaller alliances. The only way to avoid that is to have average score for each alliance, but then again that doesn't reflect the true power on the battle field as a small alliance could be on top then while a big one would wipe the floor with that alliance if in war... I think there is no way of making a "fair" ranking when you have alliances coded into the game

[RealJames]

Originally Posted by PowerAbusingMod

sum1 move this to the suggestions board ta

Delete this account ta.

That aside, interesting idea.

The issue becomes with an untested and possible unmeritted system is that there will be come an appart easy way out that no matter how hard the designers and testers try some perverse mind will come up with a way to defeat the point.

I'm afraid the only things in my mind which are tried and tested are roids and value.

[auther pendragon]

they could sort the recruiting to victory stuff with some sort of sliding scale stuff
i.e after 120 ticks set limit of say 5 in any 100 ticks 9 in 200 ect

[Lord_Thunderball]

What about alliance score is the Total amount of score gained by members of the allaince.
If a top player leaves his allaince, his gained points during his stay will stay added to the allaince score. All score that is gained after he left are added to the amount of his new alliance.

I see one possible problem, what will you do with score loss? If you distract it from the total, you can play nasty tricks when moving to another allaince.

For Exampla. Gain 16 Mil score add it up to MISTU, leave MISTU, lose 16 Mil score, this will be distracted from his new allaince, Eclipse.....

But well, at least it's an idea to think about?

[Veil05]

why not, have it so allainces can declare war on other allainces but also surrender to other allainces, so lets say FAnG are attacking Eclipse, Eclipse can surrender and offer FAnG chance to recall, if FAnG do recall they score alot of points, and Eclipse lose alot, if u get me :S

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Lord_Thunderball

What about alliance score is the Total amount of score gained by members of the allaince.
If a top player leaves his allaince, his gained points during his stay will stay added to the allaince score. All score that is gained after he left are added to the amount of his new alliance.

I see one possible problem, what will you do with score loss? If you distract it from the total, you can play nasty tricks when moving to another allaince.

For Exampla. Gain 16 Mil score add it up to MISTU, leave MISTU, lose 16 Mil score, this will be distracted from his new allaince, Eclipse.....

But well, at least it's an idea to think about?

tbh, whatever scoring system there will be implemented, most pple will value score and roids. Also most players don't need to see official stats to see what alliances did great during a round and they don't need final rankings to say "mmm ohh look, Eclipse wasn't shit after all".

(Focht it was a JOKE, I could aswell have taken another alliance but hey ... I wub ya)

rgds Kj

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

tbh, whatever scoring system there will be implemented, most pple will value score and roids. Also most players don't need to see official stats to see what alliances did great during a round and they don't need final rankings to say "mmm ohh look, Eclipse wasn't shit after all".

(Focht it was a JOKE, I could aswell have taken another alliance but hey ... I wub ya)

rgds Kj

busy sucking up to rj ? :P

alot of good ideas but none of them will prevent abuse. The simple solution would be to allow in the late game (1-1.5 month before end) only to add ppl if you kick someone before or/and add a maximum of 1 player per day, while 2-3 weeks before end any recruitment is forbidden.
This basically would give alot of problems to "recruiters" and additionally if someone uses the system to his/her advantage clearly some "skill" and "thought" would be required.
Nevertheless everyone knows that even with pulling a recruiting stunt youll not gain the player related reward for winning the round. In old times eversince there were different measurements for winners, which were not neccessarily related to top planet or top gal or tag ranking (the only early value comparisons).
An politically strong alliance or fullfillings its own task (like deus) was always highly valued within the players perception of "winner" regardless of their pure "stats" ingame.