DeletedUser
Guest
well i guess we just need to wait for eclipse to get 'round to it then 
- Status
DeletedUser
Guest
re-worded the OP to emphasise the current inconsistency between the systems used to calculate alliance points and alliance BP.
DeletedUser
Guest
I do not like this idea. The BP gained as an alliance shows how much BP you gained as an alliance, as a team. And I don't think that the alliance should lose BP when a member leaves, cos that member got the BP in the alliance, probably with help from others from the alliance.
DeletedUser
Guest
as i said, it's not perfect and that is the drawback of my proposed system. however i think that the total BP gained by an alliance viewed that way only has historical significance but none i.t.o. performance statistics.
an excellent example is -Black Shadows- in kappa. we absolutely crushed the competition i.t.o. ABP, getting many milestones before other alliances had even reached 2nd place in previous ones. then, of course, -BS- split up.
the result is that -BS- was #1 in ABP for months after splitting with not a single active member in it, which makes it exceedingly hard to make proper stats since the ABP average for -BS- was like 1m (or whatever it was) which could be 100 times more than the next best.
so while it is great to look back and see that -BS- is still in the top 12 ABP even though we split many months ago, -BS- is statistically irrelevant in kappa (although they have great historic value)
to stay with the kappa theme, an alliance called .9. was formed well after the -BS- split and although they accumulated ABP at a MUCH higher rate than any other alliance in kappa, they were never contenders for the #1 spot due to the massive headstart other alliances had on them, even though they had a huge % of players in the top 30 ABP. that is not very fair imo, and makes for some very skewed statistics. personally i'd like to know what the best alliances are, not what they once were.
DeletedUser17088
Guest
I think this needs a bit more veiwing and posting of support then im happy to move it into development. I agree that the current system is very misleading
DeletedUser
Guest
alright guys, get posting with the support!
DeletedUser17088
Guest
I especially love the references to -BS- and .9.
DeletedUser
Guest
I think the new idea by Pyth is a good idea. IMO you have aggressive players and non aggressive players in Grepo and differant levels of it also. If an aggressive player leaves one alliance and joins another he will still be an aggressive player so i think it should show that on his new alliances BP ratings and their old alliance shouldn't be allowed to still look so tough since this player has left. Even if his alliance mates were helping him it is only him that is getting the points for attacking.....
I don't even know if that makes sence and i wrote it Either way i like this idea
I don't even know if that makes sence and i wrote it
Either way i like this idea DeletedUser3393
Guest
love the idea!
DeletedUser
Guest
personally i think this should skip development and voting and go straight to the devs
DeletedUser6156
Guest
I love the idea, Pyth is a genius
DeletedUser
Guest
i like the idea but i dont think it should replace the current system. what about and extra colum
alliance - total bp (current system - player bp (pyths idea) - avergae (my imput)
alliance - total bp (current system - player bp (pyths idea) - avergae (my imput
)DeletedUser
Guest
average would be nice to have in also, i usually have to waste my time with a calculator getting that
however, i just wanna try keep this as simple as possible so try give it the maximum chance. maybe having alliance average BP stats could be another separate idea...
however, i just wanna try keep this as simple as possible so try give it the maximum chance. maybe having alliance average BP stats could be another separate idea...
Milos21
Phrourach
I must say that I disagree Pyth here. BPs are used to measure what alliance did as a team, even if it was long ago and members are now in other alliances. Average points per player is the ranking that measures how strong alliance is. Average ABP per player (ABP summed exactly as Pyth suggests - sum of all ABPs which players won individually) would be also a great thing to have to show how good and aggressive players are currently in the alliance, but I see total sum of ABPs won as something that is a permanent thing for the alliance. What if there were great alliances and all players left - how we would remember them if there are no ABPs which they earned together? If you want to see what the alliance is doing and how strong it is, check Grepostats. Check its colonizations in last 7 days etc. Having current ABP and total ABP is better than what we have now, I do agree, but do not replace cumulative ABP statistics with current ABP statistics.
DeletedUser
Guest
I think I'm with Skullyhoofd on this one. It would make more sense to have a compromise and just have an extra tab/ menu to change the the criteria for sorting the list. That way if its total accumulated BP your interested in you can see that, or, if your like Pythag and are curious to find the actual credentials of an alliance have an accurate portrayal of their achievements. I think it may be easier to have an updating average (based on a time frame of 1 week for example) of the alliance rather than the total accumulated divided by the number of players.
DeletedUser
Guest
i agree with you guys that the historical BP has interest value, so i also wouldn't mind it staying.
BUT, the system i've proposed gives a far more accurate representation of an alliance's strength - so if i had to choose one of the 2 i'd choose the sum of players BP ahead of historical BP.
but yeah, it would be good to have both if that is an option?
BUT, the system i've proposed gives a far more accurate representation of an alliance's strength - so if i had to choose one of the 2 i'd choose the sum of players BP ahead of historical BP.
but yeah, it would be good to have both if that is an option?
DeletedUser
Guest
If this were to be implemented, then it should not completely replace the all time total, but be to the side of it so both stats are shown.
As an example, I'll take my alliance, The Illuminati. Often times, it takes multiple players attacking to break conquests or start one up. Same thing goes for support. This is a team game, but changing the system will promote a more individualistic playing style.
To those saying that when a player changes alliances his total bp should be added as well, what if that player reduces his/her amount of aggression. What if the rest of the alliance sucks. Do you honestly think that increase in bp has been earned by the ALLIANCE. No!
In short, I would only be for this as long as both stats are shown.
As an example, I'll take my alliance, The Illuminati. Often times, it takes multiple players attacking to break conquests or start one up. Same thing goes for support. This is a team game, but changing the system will promote a more individualistic playing style.
To those saying that when a player changes alliances his total bp should be added as well, what if that player reduces his/her amount of aggression. What if the rest of the alliance sucks. Do you honestly think that increase in bp has been earned by the ALLIANCE. No!
In short, I would only be for this as long as both stats are shown.
DeletedUser
Guest
in my experience, players are either aggressive or they are not and the alliance they are in will not change that. however, being in a better alliance will give some less experienced players more confidence to build more attacking units. so while your point is not wrong, i don't think it's 100% correct either. as for the BP having been earned by the alliance, obviously it hasn't, but it gives a better representation of that alliances strength with that extra player added imo.
i agree with you on this 100%. i was reluctant to add it to my OP at first, but it looks increasingly as though everybody is on this wavelength
DeletedUser
Guest
You would be surprised. That player might end up dragging the others along and keeping them afloat. Doing more support work than actual bp.
The way it seems, the ones who play in older worlds will probably disagree with this idea more so than those who play in newer worlds.
Just a thought, maybe make it a 2.0 only addition? Or possibly one initiated by the popular vote in a world?
DeletedUser
Guest
i would like it to be in 1.x worlds too, but will take what i can get really!
i'm good with the voting idea, since i'm not too worried if it's not on worlds i don't play (i don't do stats for those
)the bottom line is really to try get some consistency between the methods used for calculating alliance points and alliance BP.
- Status