General Questions - Alliance Ranking

Print Page | Close Window

Alliance Ranking

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: General Questions
Forum Description: If your gameplay question isn't answered in the help files, please post it here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=3670
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 19:16
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Alliance Ranking

Posted By: Rachel88
Subject: Alliance Ranking
Date 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

Rachel88

Replies:

Posted By: Rill
Date 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.

Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2012 at 18:01

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...

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.

Posted By: The_Dude
Date 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.

Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 03:23

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

Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 05:06

You fail to appreciate the risk, then.