Passed Alliance BP Measures

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Guest
Proposal:
I propose that the an extra Alliance BP statistic (alliance attackers, alliance defenders and alliance fighters) should be provided, calculated as the sum of the relevant member BPs rather than BP gained in that alliance, the same as the current system for an alliances total points. The previous BP (historic BP) could still be shown in another column/tab as it does have some historical value, just not as much statistical value ;)

Reason:
When computing BP statistics to compare alliances, the figures as they are now calculated do not always (or generally) give an accurate picture. Newly formed alliance with high ABP members will have no ABP to their credit, alliances who have had aggressive members leave them are still credited with that BP and have wildly skewed averages. If the alliances ABP was the sum of its players ABP, we would have a much fairer comparison (and the BP stats would be more consistent with the point stats since they'd be calculated in the same way).

Can you imagine that the alliance points were given as the total points earned by members under the alliance banner rather than the sum of the points of the players? :D you would end up having disbanded alliances at number 1 and other ridiculous situations (which does happen in the BP stats)

the best measure would really be BP per day, but this is not the most practical and people also enjoy seeing as accumulation of BP rather than averages. the best proxy to BP per day is total member BP, which i am proposing (this assumes of course that good players remain good players regardless of what alliance they are in, which in my exp is a fair assumption)

Details:
Currently an alliance's ABP is made up of any kills made by any current or past members during their time in the alliance. I propose that an additional alliance BP statistic be provided, calculated the same manner that alliance points are calculated - as the sum of the appropriate BP of the current members.

Visual Aids:
n/a

Balance:
No effect in-game, only to statistics.

Abuse Prevention:
n/a

Summary:
An extra column in the BP statistics providing the total player BP in an alliance which would be more consistent with the point statistics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Thumbs-up. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense to have the current system, unless the only purpose behind BP statistics is bragging rights.

I can't think of any cons to changing it, unless people think "logic" is a con...

On second thought, we might be wise to not rule that possibility out entirely.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
disagree, and this is weird because i was thinking about this last night

here's my reasoning

While the players may have a lot of ABP, that new alliance has yet to prove it self. It makes no sense for them to have a huge ABP. They should have to earn it again, they should have to work together and earn it.

ABP should be a reflection of that alliance's ability to communicate and work together, if they are a new alliance but have a massive ABP from new members joining it's misleading. They might not be as good as coordinating as the previous alliance and therefore might not be as good at attacking. When you look at ABP rankings, and you see the #1 ranked alliance, you know they're good at attacking. If that alliance was #1 because of previous battles but in reality they aren't as good as the stats show then it becomes misleading.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
super fast said:
If that alliance was #1 because of previous battles but in reality they aren't as good as the stats show then it becomes misleading.
Click to expand...
this is the problem right here... if an alliance of, say, 120 members has gained a lot of BP through a war and then 100 members have subsequently left, then you end up with an alliance of 20 players who might have virtually no BP themselves, but are still in an alliance ranking highly for ABP. very misleading.

the best measure would really be BP per day, but this is not the most practical and people also enjoy seeing as accumulation of BP rather than averages. the best proxy to BP per day is total member BP, which i am proposing (this assumes of course that good players remain good players regardless of what alliance they are in, which in my exp is a fair assumption)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
super fast said:
If that alliance was #1 because of previous battles but in reality they aren't as good as the stats show then it becomes misleading.
Click to expand...

Hrm, this is kind of confusing because the last sentence you've written (in opposition of the idea) is the same basic reason Pythagorus has proposed the idea. It's a bit of a paradox, because it operates the same both ways.

Two situations to illustrate what I think is the conflict:

(1- Old Way) Alliance X has 1000 ABP from all its original members. The top 5 members of the Alliance leave. That alliance is no longer as strong as it was, and as you said, lacks the same cohesiveness, strategy, tactics etc. However, Alliance X still has 1000 ABP without the core contributors and is credited with that ABP (i.e., "ability") by the rest of the server.

(2- New Way) Alliance Y has 100 ABP, totally just dogging it on the war front. Those 5 guys from X join Alliance Y because they're feeling charitable and could use a little project to work on. Now Alliance Y has 1000 ABP without having actually done anything.

I think the best way to evaluate this would be to determine what we actually want from ABP stats. An accurate reflection of an alliance's current strength or an historical record of its performance.

Obviously a very opinion-based concept, and my own feelings waver but I think it would be fairer and more accurate for the ABP to follow the player so that Alliances can't coat-tail their way through recruitment.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Shoot, sorry Pyth- basically repeated exactly what you said.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It's two extremes i agree, and after looking at both your posts i feel like the " new way " is better than the " old way "

so i'd support this idea
 

DeletedUser

Guest
added this to the OP just for some extra explanation before reading other posts.
the best measure would really be BP per day, but this is not the most practical and people also enjoy seeing as accumulation of BP rather than averages. the best proxy to BP per day is total member BP, which i am proposing (this assumes of course that good players remain good players regardless of what alliance they are in, which in my exp is a fair assumption)
Click to expand...
i think this is important because my proposed way is not the perfect way, but i think it is a better way than the one currently in use.
 

DeletedUser6635

Guest
Instead of having it as a replacement for the current way it is calculated why not have it as an added extra?
Perhaps have it so that there is one TAB for "Alliance ABP" ie the ones gained by people as part of that alliance and a second one showing the "Members ABP" ie the total BP of all members of that alliance.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Gareth Thomas said:
Instead of having it as a replacement for the current way it is calculated why not have it as an added extra?
Perhaps have it so that there is one TAB for "Alliance ABP" ie the ones gained by people as part of that alliance and a second one showing the "Members ABP" ie the total BP of all members of that alliance.
Click to expand...
that is also a possibility... i like to do alliance stats in the worlds i play and the 'member ABP' is the only ABP i'd use for stats if i had a choice between the 2 (or in fact the option of using both)

i'm not anti-having the old alliance ABP too if others want it, but i personally wouldn't use it for any proper stats if my proposed system was implemented alongside it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I like it but both ways have differences maybe they could alternate for different worlds such as world A has earned in alliance and then world B total Bp
 

DeletedUser

Guest
/bump

anybody else with an opinion on this? would you vote in support or not? how should i change the idea to make it better? etc
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i'm sure quite sure exactly how much support needs to be gained before the idea is considered for a vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top