Fastest Growing of top alliances

DeletedUser

Guest
Heres a graph of the percentage growth in numbers of cities in December for the top 10 alliances.
PellaDecemberGrowth_zps41147e32.jpg

Main points as I see them are:

- 1) the dramatic growth of Great Global Warriors following their recent merger activity.
This is a trend likely to continue amongst all the alliances that are not already near their maximum size as we gradually approach the Wonder Age. MOS topped out their numbers relatively quickly, by the surrender of their victims, or the "bandwagon effect" of those who feel safest following the herd, but could be victims of their own success as they become THE target for everybody else in the Wonder Age.

- 2) strong organic growth for the DOOM alliance, who are consolidating their grip on the South of Pella.

- 3) the slow growth rate of MOS (red). Admittedly as the largest alliance, its hard for them to maintain the relative growth rate of smaller alliances as their player numbers are already near maximum. However, with their player numbers, they SHOULD be able to conquer cities in absolute numbers much faster than smaller alliances, but they aren't doing this.

Their activity page on Grepostats provides the answer:
http://www.grepostats.com/world/en40/alliance/1615/members
I wouldn't be happy with the amount of red or the number of zero's on there, even accounting for the seasonal period, its much worse than some of their rivals.

Further evidence for the first signs of rot setting in would be large numbers of internal conquests, and indeed this seems to be the case. In other worlds, I've seen the "bandwagon effect" mentioned above lead to a rush by players least committed to their alliance trying to join the top alliance, but these are also the players who also tend to drop out before the end. It will be interesting to see if this decay continues, or if MOS will be able to stop the rot !?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser35805

Guest
I would be interested to hear how Chris defends this...
 

DeletedUser1483

Guest
Still here arent we?

Happy new year everyone! :D

Chris x
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Heres a graph of the percentage growth in numbers of cities in December for the top 10 alliances.
Click to expand...
This is just wrong on so many levels that I'm not sure where to start pulling it apart!

What is this graph meant to tell me? I can see oranges being compared with apples and then plotted against an axis measuring pear juice. All I can really tell from it is that GGW and DOOM had spikes in their relative number of cities. The former tripling in size and the latter doing slightly better than PoP but not even close to doubling in size. If you ignore these artefacts and instead look at the rate of percentage increate then the gradients all look very similar (although it is hard to tell as the GGW result has skewed the scale making it difficult to see most of the others)

If you really want to compare the 'performance' of the various alliances then you should be using something like the average cities per player and plotting in on a logarithmic scale. That would remove the effects of mergers and the exponential rate of CP required per city. That would be a much more informative graph.

- 1) the dramatic growth of Great Global Warriors following their recent merger activity.
Click to expand...

What is your point here? GGW tripled in size?? They went from about 320 cities to 970, still a long way behind MOS and as most of that growth is inorganic you aren't going to see the same 'dramatic' effect when you run your graph next month.


- 2) strong organic growth for the DOOM alliance
Click to expand...

Really? I'll run some numbers for you (grepostats only went back to 2nd Dec for alliance details so I'll have to use that as a starting point rather than the 1st but you'll get the general point I'm making). As a comparrison I have put TSL figures in brackects after DOOM's ones - I'm doing this manually from grepostats and MOS had 30 pages of colonisations which I'm not about to copy and paste!)

DOOM (TSL)
Cities won: 98 (99)
Cities lost: 2 (20)
Internals: 17 (99)
Total organic growth: 96 cities (79)

Current cities: 574 (1170)
Cities on 2nd Dec: 326 (1059)
Total city growth: 248 (111)

% organic growth: 38.7% (71.2%)

38.7% organic growth. I would hardly call that strong.


- 3)the slow growth rate of MOS (red). Admittedly as the largest alliance, its hard for them to maintain the relative growth rate of smaller alliances as their player numbers are already near maximum. However, with their player numbers, they SHOULD be able to conquer cities in absolute numbers much faster than smaller alliances, but they aren't doing this.
Click to expand...

Ummm they are. MOS grew by approx. 444 cities in December - only beaten by the GGW merger which meant they grew by 643 cities. In 3rd place was DOOM with 248 cities - just over half of what MOS took. Smaller alliances like TSL and DK only grew by 111 and 83 respectively.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well done, frynturn, considering how much difficulty you began with understanding the graph you do actually seem to have grasped the main points ! I was amused to see you describe a three-times increase in GGW city numbers as an "artefact" though (like an elephant in the room is a minor inconvenience !)
:D

You bizarrely defined "organic growth" as net-gain (excluding internals) as a % of total-gain, which is nonsense when comparing a fast growing alliance like DOOM against a slow growing alliance like TSL. According to your logic:
- an alliance of 10 cities that made 1 conquest would have 100% organic growth, wheras
- an alliance of 10 cities that made 2 conquests and gained 2 cities from a new recruit would only have 50% organic growth !!! ("lies, damn lies, and statistics" !)

As you chose to compare DOOM & TSL, using your data I could just as well say:
- DOOM's 326 cities at 2nd December, net-conquered 96 (29%), wheras...
- TSL's 1059 cities at 2nd December net-conquered just 79 (7.5%)
Which would you say was better relative performance ?

Heres that data for the top 10 alliances for period 2nd-31st December, in performance order:
PellaPerformance_zpsbb3ca48e.gif


I like your idea of a graph showing average conquests per player though, perhaps you could do the honours !
:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1483

Guest
Frynturn's response beat mine. :(

Top Killers in Dec - (Alliance aBP/dBP and Player aBP/dBP)

*edit*

To clarify.. the 96 cities lost by MOS include any cities lost to ANY alliance other than MOS itself?

So if we handed a city over to TSL for instance.. that would count as a loss? Cos we definitely havent lost 96 to enemy alliances in total yet; and thats counting since mid november. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Leonidas, you have to stop doing straight line comparisons of city numbers between the alliances. It is meaningless given the number of cities is defined by an expontential equation. Here is your graph for the previous 2 weeks, the elephant that was in GGW's corner has scarpered (must have been an artefact). Gone is the 200% growth and you can see the general trend is that the alliances with the larger number of cities having relatively smaller amounts of percentage growth. This is how the game is designed.

woa43.jpg

(Interesting to see that DOOM has dropped from 75% growth to just 20% - must be something going wrong in that alliance!)


Organic growth is the gain in cities not made via a merger. This would include successful conquests, city losses, and colonisations (I don't include the latter in my calculations as grepostats doesn't have this readily available afaik. I think this would be negligible in any case as the top alliances should be doing a minimal number of these). I then expressed the organic growth as a percentage of the total growth as this makes it independent of the total number of cities and therefore is a figure that can readily be used to compare alliances with. Call it bizarre if you will but then again I find the stats you provide bizarre too. Running the numbers against total cities like you have done again is either ignorant or flippant.

Here is the percentage of total growth that was organic for the top 10 alliances.
ma9vd4.png


What I take from this data is that those alliances closer to the top are very stable (OftR perfect example) and those trending lower down the table are less stable as they have more movement in their membership makeup which is always problematic. I'm not saying MOS or DOOM are unstable (Reapers looks like a ticking timebomb though!) but they will have to handle the changes in their membership or else they might be later down the track. You certainly wouldn't want a small figure too many months in a row.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well frynturn, YOUR method of stats manipulation appears to be a deliberate deception ! You didn't answer my question about your method, so I'll restate it. Using your method:

- you would give a 1000 city alliance who gained 1 conquest a 100% organic growth rate, wheras
- you would give a 1000 city alliance who gained 100 conquests and 100 recruited cities a 50% organic growth rate !?

Using your method to rank alliances is a completely meaningless measure of performance !
Hopefully you aren't taking important decisions based on your "stats" !

chrisg2003bt, the stats I posted included all losses (including handovers to other alliances) as there is no objective information on which 'losses' are conquests, and which are given away (I presumed these are a relatively small number so wouldn't skew the overall picture, but perhaps not if you have a policy of giving significant numbers of cities to TSL). I'm happy to adjust my figures if all top-10 alliances declared who they give cities to (but that sounds like an objective similar to attempting to herd cats !)

Leo
:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1483

Guest
As time progresses there will always be inactive members for alliances to eat. Especially if these members are in frontline areas.

Unfortunate that this is the way it is general progressing with grepolis these days. The loss to new worlds of smaller players that cannot keep up (not within alliances but in the world in general) and the loss of higher ranked players who cannot keep up the time required to run the account are downfalls to any alliance and world.

It's something that each alliance has to cope with on a day to day basis.

To speak for MOS' lower organic growth, than others, it's a simple case of moving our members around. Taking in our newest Phoenix members and ensuring they had cities in our core area from which to expand and assist, swapping cities and manoeuvring to compensate for newer fronts which have emerged in the past month are all factors to our growth percentage. No doubt this months growth will fare a little better. :)

I'm still working on fun ways to make it a little more challenging for our enemies. No doubt when they start to come up against determined resistance (where they have normally been used to smaller amounts of players and where support from our main alliance core is 2 oceans away) it will get a little harder.

Hope someone pays attention to the forums otherwise making subtle hints is just no fun. :(
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Whichever way you look at the stats and graphs, i for one like them... But not as much as i like the link from chrisg2003bt :)

Happy New Year Everyone
 

DeletedUser1483

Guest
I thought some might like that. :p

I personally enjoy it as well.

HNY to you as well Great Dane. :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Still good to see the guys in Play For Keeps are doing their thing. Keep up the good work guys!
 

DeletedUser1483

Guest
But they are nasty and mean and keep picking on my friends. :(

*sniff*
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Lol, PFK doesn't play games when it comes to their wars. If your in their territory your better off leaving or home evictions will be given out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1483

Guest
"Its MY sandpit and noone else can come play here"

Its so much more fun to share. :) Ill make sure to throw some toys in there.
 

DeletedUser24139

Guest
GreatDane said:
Whichever way you look at the stats and graphs, i for one like them... But not as much as i like the link from chrisg2003bt :)

Happy New Year Everyone
Click to expand...


It is a very nice player profile......

However all you need to know is that you must take The RedPill
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I was wondering where chrisg2003bt had disappeared to, I thought he'd been swallowed up by The Matrix !
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top