Downscaling covert - again

[Sleipnir]

so do i, but if it means alliances will ranked like players, which means the alliance won't be ranked in power but rather by which alliance averages out better to achive that rank, i like but would be confusing so i'd probally say to keep the current system but add another 2 accomade this system in perhaps a trial run could tell weather ppl only want i or both.

Ok, a comparison. We've got 2 fruit dealers. We want to determine who has the best stock. Both count their inventory, and the result is: dealer A has 500 pieces of fruit, dealer B has only 200. So you'd say by this measure, dealer A has the best stock. But when we look further, we notice that dealer A has 450 grapes, 25 apples and 25 oranges. Dealer B has 100 grapes, 25 apples, 25 oranges, 25 pineapples and 25 melons. Now, who has the better stock? It's really hard to say because you can't add up apples and oranges.

The same goes for SGW. Who has more power, the one with 5 trillion covert and 50B defense, or the one with 10 trillion covert? It all depends on how you value each stat against the others. And because of the difference in magnitudes, a simple sum of stats won't do. Therefore it is better to rank each stat against the same stat for the other alliance.

[Lord Dougy]

so do i, but if it means alliances will ranked like players, which means the alliance won't be ranked in power but rather by which alliance averages out better to achive that rank, i like but would be confusing so i'd probally say to keep the current system but add another 2 accomade this system in perhaps a trial run could tell weather ppl only want i or both.

Ok, a comparison. We've got 2 fruit dealers. We want to determine who has the best stock. Both count their inventory, and the result is: dealer A has 500 pieces of fruit, dealer B has only 200. So you'd say by this measure, dealer A has the best stock. But when we look further, we notice that dealer A has 450 grapes, 25 apples and 25 oranges. Dealer B has 100 grapes, 25 apples, 25 oranges, 25 pineapples and 25 melons. Now, who has the better stock? It's really hard to say because you can't add up apples and oranges.

The same goes for SGW. Who has more power, the one with 5 trillion covert and 50B defense, or the one with 10 trillion covert? It all depends on how you value each stat against the others. And because of the difference in magnitudes, a simple sum of stats won't do. Therefore it is better to rank each stat against the same stat for the other alliance.

smart arse

[Desnar]

Definitely better idea than mine

[WaReHouSe]

perhaps i could have explaned better because i saw clickling on the alliance link and that displays there stats, much in the way of our own accounts where you have the rankings of the seperate stats then an all over rank. though this could start 2 get really confusing, not 2 metion the time it would take 2 implent.

[greenman]

I'm still confused. Why should having 100k spies be equal in power to 25k defenders?

I understand not wanting alliance power to be based on covert alone, but seriously. Common sense tells you that if you spend the naq for level 21 covert, then you've more then made up for the addition costs of the defenders/weps. So, why should 100k spies equal 25k defenders?

[Wolf359]

I think that's being too literal!

This suggestion is about reducing the relative effect that covert power has on rankings - it doesn't actually change anybody's covert in relation to anybody elses.

[darkness5723]

wolf's exactly right..
i also agree with this idea alot. alliance ranking is 99% based on covert right now.. actually i'd say 100%. Even in the top alliances the other stats only maybe add up to a few tril between all the players. Seeing as the alliance rankings are in the 100 trills.. that's not very much to influence the rankings at all.

[MAsterp]

My idea would be a totally different approach. Make alliances ranked separately in the 4 stats (just like players are), and make the final rank order based on the sum of ranks (again, just like the player rankings). So effectively this would be identical to the ranking of players, but it will use the sum of all players strike for the strike rank, all players def for the def rank, same for covert and mothership. What this does is get rid of the imbalance in stat magnitudes (covert in trillions, strike in billions, defense in tens of billions) because strike is ranked against strike, and so on for all stats. This would also make the alliance ranks a lot more dynamic because an alliance can focus on its weak stat to climb some ranks. Massing an alliance will drop their defense rank and overall rank. I think it would be much better than downscaling covert (AGAIN) only to have to downscale it AGAIN in a month or 2.

I agree, great idea. Btw, where ya been lately?

[WaReHouSe]

by ne chance was downscaling the covert sugested because of US's new jump to power and being just about all reps with high covert

[Sleipnir]

My idea would be a totally different approach. Make alliances ranked separately in the 4 stats (just like players are), and make the final rank order based on the sum of ranks (again, just like the player rankings). So effectively this would be identical to the ranking of players, but it will use the sum of all players strike for the strike rank, all players def for the def rank, same for covert and mothership. What this does is get rid of the imbalance in stat magnitudes (covert in trillions, strike in billions, defense in tens of billions) because strike is ranked against strike, and so on for all stats. This would also make the alliance ranks a lot more dynamic because an alliance can focus on its weak stat to climb some ranks. Massing an alliance will drop their defense rank and overall rank. I think it would be much better than downscaling covert (AGAIN) only to have to downscale it AGAIN in a month or 2.

I agree, great idea. Btw, where ya been lately?

Thanks. I've been very busy preparing for my internship. It's a 3d graphics project, and since we only have one course on that here, I'll need to put some extra time in it. I believe it'll be a useful addition to my studies. Sadly, that means I get a little less time to spend with all you guys, but don't fret, I'm not leaving or anything.