Yogesh's League Table v's and BenjaminGibbs' League Table

[DeletedUser]

Ben raised what I think is a valid point in another thread, and so we dont clog up that thread discussing it I have started a new thread.

Yogesh's League Table measures ABP's per member per day, whilst BenjaminGibbs' League Table measures ABP's per city per day.

I think what BenjaminGibbs is trying to alter is that Yogesh's Table penalises small players and rewards larger players because a large player is more able to launch a lot of attacks but may not be more aggressive than a smaller player (and aggression is what we are trying to measure).

Below is a side-by-side comparison of the two types of table. I have only included the ABP's to make it easier to read:

I think it would be worthwhile discussing the benefits of each of the two types of table.

I hope this doesn't descend into alliance posturing and keeps to the topic.

This is also not an attack on either systems, I still respect hugely what Yogesh did starting the league table and anyone who has not done so should go and give him some rep.

The column on the left is the current league table, and the one on the right is the new system, with the changes in position that this would cause.

 

[DeletedUser2140]

interesting ideas.

but i think the second penalizes those with a lot of cities.
Maybe you should include the number of cities in that list to get a better perspective.

But thanks for taking the effort. It's a very interesting read.

plus rep for that.

got me thinking of a new thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

Worthwhile table...

I agree it does penalize those with larger numbers of cities... If I am a small player I may attack with nukes from all three of my cities. If I am a larger player I may have 50 cities and only attack from the 3 which would dilute the numbers.

I do not know if this is reasonable, but this is a situation where comparing those alliances with roughly the same city count would be cool.

Also, having these side by side is not necessary since the information is not able to be compared the same way.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think both systems penalise one type of player or another.

The per member system penalises smaller alliances, whilst the per city system penalises larger players.

But it all depends what we're trying to measure. I think (and I may be wrong) that Yogesh's system measures how aggressive each member is on average, whilst BenjaminGibbs' system measures how aggressive the alliances is overall (we need better names for the two systems).

So do we want to know who has the most aggressive members, or do we want to know who has the most aggressive alliance.

(I posted the table just as a visual aid so people would have a better idea what I was talking about)

 

[DeletedUser]

I think it's worth considering.

Ideally I think the best updating chart would include the following 3 metrics:

1. Net gain per alliance
2. Ave gain per a player
3. Ave gain per a city

We all understand what these 3 values measure and I think they all should be factored in ranking overall aggression.

 

[DeletedUser]

Trouble is if you have more than one measure its difficult to put it into a league table. And it takes a lot of work putting together a league table with just one measure, if you include three it'll be a huge task.

 

[DeletedUser]

Trouble is if you have more than one measure its difficult to put it into a league table. And it takes a lot of work putting together a league table with just one measure, if you include three it'll be a huge task.

Agreed. I don't know how you guys find enough time to do one.

 

[DeletedUser]

It is a lot of work. It is the main reason I stopped doing my contributions

 

[DeletedUser]

stats are for noobs .who try to think there better than thay realy are
the black sheep are a prim example of this..althow thay have a high abp most of there attacks are pointless and not even worth the time to dodge them..there no better than the TA thay only work at the weekend ..and there 7 and 8 light ships attacks are laffable

 

[DeletedUser]

The way i see it, both systems have some information in them. In order to get a bit of truth from them, one should know the war affairs of this world, as well as the alliances presented in the league. Otherwise, they can be very misleading without background info or without considering other factors

Let's take two very different alliances to compare by taking different factors into account.
CJ and TBS

Activity

CJ: 41/77 players with more than 1000 ABP since the feb 26
TBS: 14/14 players

So, dividing the total ABP of CJ by 77 members when clearly 36 of them didn't/couldn't attack will result in a lower ABP
It'd be right to assume that CJ has a much higher inactivity or Sim rate than TBS (that's something greopstats can show also)

Map dominance

CJ: 3000+ cities
TBS: 600 cities (almost)

No, five times more cities don't get you five times the ABP. This has to do with the concept of core, frontline, and distance.
Think about how many of those 3000 cities are in the heart of the alliance and can't be really used effectively for attacking. Even if they were to use those cities in the core to send attacks to the frontline, they would take a longer time to hit and also would be hitting stacked cities which gives them a much lower ABP ratio.

As opposed to that, TBS should have it easier to reach the targets with 600 cities. At this stage of the game, 600 is just one ocean.
Again, one need to be familiar with CJ and TBS map location and their targets/ wars.

Targets

I lack info and i can't say which of the two is attacking easier targets. It's one thing to attack an MRA hopeless member or an inactive and it's another to attack an active good player who has the alliance backing. The difference in BP ratio can be huge

-----

Personally i don't find these stats much useful. They are interesting, for sure but they need too much info background to be able to read them.
One just need to have been in gamma for some time, keep his eyes and ears open, visit grepostats often and you can already have a pretty clear idea of the aggressivity and main affairs of each alliance.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think we can all agree that this and Tribal Wars are very similar in the way the fundamentals operate... so with that known fact in place, I will pipe in my 2 cents... Having played for 6 years now in World 3, I think I have a small amount of insight to this... in reality, here is the truth. While TBS is indeed making the most of the war at this point, unless LOE leadership caves in, TBS will fail. Why? you may ask would I even consider that as a fact!

Well consider this, unless TBS' player base is A) cheating and using Proxy servers to access each others accounts or B) have no job, and no life, the level of hyper activity with which they are playing is impossible to maintain and "Burn out" will occur, causing many of their small membership to leave the game. You may doubt this but here are the facts:
A group of tribes of elite players in TW amounting to over 500 members of very skilled players took on another group of players in TW amounting to roughly 1200 members... today that former elite group is down to 98 accounts, while the other side is at roughly 200 accounts. 9 of the top 10 were in that elite group in rankings, now only 2 of the top 10 are from that group, while 8 of the top 10 are from the larger group of players.

Here is the point. Inactivity attacks EVERYONE... in time the alliance of wolves wearing black sheep clothing will find some sense of inactivity (new games, new challenges, school, college, military, work, family...) and TBS will collapse, leaving LOE to be the victor as long as their leadership stay strong and true. As much as skill plays a factor, so does the numbers game as well. TBS recognize this obviously, else they would not look to recruit new players.

Charts and graphs are good and fine, but unless done on an individual level for recognition purposes really does not satisfy any real purpose as an alliances longevity is just as much if not more so shown by leadership persistence, as much as it is from skill.

Kreger

 

[DeletedUser]

Kreger, what has that rant got to do with the 2 abp tables? People are obviously sick of your rants and one sided views in "The Kreger Report" so now you come here for some attention and to have a go at TBS/W players?

Might be an idea to keep you rubbish talk to about us for your own thread and let people discuss the abp tables here without listening to your never ending drivel?

On-Topic

I don't think there's a table that's gonna be able to say who is the most agressive alliance. Like many people have said, both tables work in favour of certain types of alliances. I'll be the first to admit they suit small alliance like us but I think when looking at the tables over a few months/weeks, we can get a good indication on what alliances are more aggressive than others.

 

[DeletedUser]

Kreger, what has that rant got to do with the 2 abp tables? People are obviously sick of your rants and one sided views in "The Kreger Report" so now you come here for some attention and to have a go at TBS/W players?

Might be an idea to keep you rubbish talk to about us for your own thread and let people discuss the abp tables here without listening to your never ending drivel?

On-Topic

I don't think there's a table that's gonna be able to say who is the most agressive alliance. Like many people have said, both tables work in favour of certain types of alliances. I'll be the first to admit they suit small alliance like us but I think when looking at the tables over a few months/weeks, we can get a good indication on what alliances are more aggressive than others.

perhaps you missed the part where I clearly stated that tables showing an alliances abp is not going to give you representative showing of an alliances strength, as much of that has to do with fortitude.

biased, perhaps... but no more so then he who sees my name and jumps to conclusions without actually taking the time to read what i posted.

my suggestion was that a table showing individual players abp would be of more use and better representative in the overall picture, as it is the players that make the alliance, not the other way around.

my usage of TBS in this conversation was to prove a point, that point (which you have obviously overlooked in your biased, predetermined viewpoint) is that with hyper activity of players and an alliance comes eventual burn out... I have not seen players of that activity last through to a games end...

let me put this in words you may better comprehend with biased viewpoint:
with a group like TBS that is performing at almost super human levels of activity, it does catch up to people, so showing this on an individual basis, is much stronger then showing it on an alliance level, especially when 1/14 of hyper activity can do much more to those stats then 1/70 just as an example. But if say all 14 players showed up in the top 20 of the abp on players lists, then that would paint a different picture. My using TBS as an example was purely on the basis as they fit the issue at hand much better, not based on my personal distrust of dislike of what they have done. In fact I will even go as far to say that on an individual basis as a collective they are one of the more organized groups I have seen in all of gaming... how is that for unbiased?

But back on topic - showing these stats on an individual basis is a stronger representation then on an alliance basis just because 1 or 2 players on hyper activity mode will more significantly impact their alliance of 14 players then say an alliance of 70-80 players... which this then skews the goal of these results IMO... hope that was a little more clear and straight forward for you.

kreger

 

[DeletedUser]

biased, perhaps...

Everyone is biased on some extent and we leave that in other threads so don't Spam this thread with the LOE - TBS/W war.

As many others have said the stats are good but aren't completely accurate for each alliance thats why its good to have the 2 tables to compare them. Although it would be cool to see a table for between the 2 types I doubt it would be possible to have it calculated yet alone think of how to do it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have an Idea while you all crunch the numbers I'm going to go back to attacking the crud out of some people and scaring the crap out of others.... Thus raking in the ABP and I could careless if I am Ranked 1st (which I am currently in my alliance ) or 9th in my alliance just so long as I am striking fear in the hearts of my victims. UGH number crunchers!!!

 

[DeletedUser]

i wasnt suggesting that stats are a bad thing for reading the game its just that some people are more intrested in the ego part of them ..stats do have there place but people that stack the stats to get personal gain like certan players we all know also give fauls readings so you can take into it what you will not all stats are correct

 

[DeletedUser]

Gone a little off topic in places but to be expected, I'll try bring it back on topic.

I think everyone who wanted a say on the two systems has had the time to have a say. So I need to know:

1) Should we continue the league table as it is with ABP's and DBP's per member?
2) Should we switch to the new system and have ABP's and DBP's per city?
3) Or we could use both systems side by side like at the start of this thread but just use ABP's and drop the DBP's part?

 

[DeletedUser]

Gone a little off topic in places but to be expected, I'll try bring it back on topic.

I think everyone who wanted a say on the two systems has had the time to have a say. So I need to know:

1) Should we continue the league table as it is with ABP's and DBP's per member?
2) Should we switch to the new system and have ABP's and DBP's per city?
3) Or we could use both systems side by side like at the start of this thread but just use ABP's and drop the DBP's part?

option number 3 sounds best to be honest as many people want to see both tables.

 

[DeletedUser]

both if time permits would be interesting I think for a while, so option 3 please Cai

 

[DeletedUser]

crunch, crunch, crunch om nom nom numbers 3 would be my choice too