Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Alliance Ranking
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAlliance Ranking
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Alliance Ranking
    Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 05:06
You fail to appreciate the risk, then.
Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 03:23
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

What's bogus about the siege numbers?  Armies were in the field and at risk.  Cities were razed.
My training sieges were against inactive players, several below pop 10.  And two of the four bigger sieges were against a suspended player, not even the risk that he'd want to start playing again.Smile
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2012 at 21:17
What's bogus about the siege numbers?  Armies were in the field and at risk.  Cities were razed.
Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2012 at 18:01
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

attack scores are based largely on dedication to NPC hunting, but it gives some relative measure of military strength and/or experience.
Okay, I got lots of XP fighting gatherings, and some of these commanders are now at acceptable levels, more military potential than strength, however.  But my new commanders know that they either grow up fast or go to visit Audrey...   

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I don't think an alliance ranking based on players' overall scores would add useful information.
I love statistics, maybe they could offer average scores per category, if all already shown and useful values are kept.  You could then see which alliances focus on trade, magic, diplomacy, defense, etc.  Of course you could not see to what degree these scores are pure nonsense.  

It would be also nice to see the sieged cities on the alliance page, the siege page in the Herald sadly shows only the top 15 alliances.  There are of course also bogus values, maybe sieges of hamlets could be suppressed.


Edited by dunnoob - 13 Jun 2012 at 18:20
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2012 at 14:03
Population (and arguably land claimed) is, in my opinion, a far better proxy of an alliance's "power" than how many times one or two of their members can sell their alts one clay for 1 million gold.

A lot of the other statistics represent time in game as much as they do anything else.  (Such as the technology score.)

I think it's possible that a ranking option based on cumulative attack and/or defense scores would be interesting.  (Yes, attack scores are based largely on dedication to NPC hunting, but it gives some relative measure of military strength and/or experience.)

I don't think an alliance ranking based on players' overall scores would add useful information.  But I'm interested in hearing what other people think.
Back to Top
Rachel88 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 6 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jun 2012 at 12:34
There is something that is puzzling me!
 
In the Alliance over all ranking system. The rankings used to be calculated on population and now with the new alliance view it works on land owned.

But players on the other hand are rated on population, trade, technology, diplomacy, attack, defense, quests, and magic giving them an overall ranking. Which indicates the amount a player interacts with the game 

Now why aren't alliance rankings worked according to a similar system? e.g all the members combined overall ranking  divided by the amount of members. Wouldn't this make more sense?

Well i was just wondering

Many Thanks 

Rachel88Big smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.