Jump to content

Alliances Ranked by Nation Development.


Saxplayer

Recommended Posts

Nation Development is (for the purposes of this list) the average amount of Tech per member in an alliance. I also took infra into the equation, but Tech was worth way more than infra in this calculation. Basically, it;s average NS, but more weighted towards Tech.

 

The Top 75 non-neutral Alliances.

1. DBDC            73845.7

2. Old Guard     27962.4

3. Umbrella        25104.6

4. SPTR             20970.4

5. DT                 19977

6. The Gramlins 17143.5

7. TOP               16028

8. Wolfpack       15416.8

9. DoD               15003.6

10. AO               14459

11. WAPA          14011.2

12. FEAR           13517.5

13. Sengoku      13297.3

14. NEW            13193.5

15. GLoF           12775

16. AB                12493.1

17. GDA             12460.3

18. STA              12460.3

19. TPF              12106.6

20. KoN              11659.7

21. Avalanche     11439.5

22. Menotah       11236.6

23. Argent           11223.5

24. Valhalla         11094.5

25. RIA                10789.2

26. TSK               10538.3

27. FAN               10488.1

28. PPO               10209.3

29. Fark               10093.4

30. TSC                9738.4

31. TIO                 9708.4

32. IRON               9695

33. tJL                  9641.8

34. ODN               9633.1

35. GOP               9401

36. TSM                9193.4

37. AGW Overlords 9089.3

38. MI6                  8940.1

39. Non Grata        8732.4

40.Sparta              8688.7

41. MHA                8684.6

42. GATO              8431.3

43. UPN                 8331.9

44. III%                  8246.1

45. MCXA              8239.6

45. CRAP              8239.6

47. NADC              7975.1

48. Ai                     7964.9

49. Kaskus            7848.5

50. TLR                 7837

51. DS                   7700.9

52. TTE                 7306.2

53. GOONS           7281.3

54. VE                   7185

55. R&R                7134.9

56. The Int            6831

57. TTK                 6819.5

58. NATO              6779.5

59. Invicta              6731.9

60. MW                  6706.7

61. NpO                 6515.4

62. NPO                 6511.4

63. KotRT              6436.2

64. NoR                 6411.2

65. LoSS                6229.2

66. GOD                 6172.4

67. SUN                  5777.8 

68. SRA                  5662.1

69. CCC                 5500.1

70. The Legion       5241.6

71. NSF                  5016.9

72. NSO                  4937.6

73. Atlas                 4674.5

74. USN                   3179.6

75. Kashmir            2560

Edited by Saxplayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did you pick this list of alliances?

 

I picked the top 75 non neutral alliances Score wise. If I did this for all alliances in the game, you'd see tons of one man AA's littered in there, I COULD include Neutrals in the list if someone really wanted me to.

Edited by Saxplayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is wondering why NPO, NpO or IRON are so low, it's because it's development of the average nation in that Alliance. Because NpO, NPO, and IRON all have a lot of smaller nations, that weighs them down immensely.


That would be our case too, to answer kd8 a little further ..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, Old Guard aren't neutral? You learn something new every day.

 

No, not neutral. Old and set in our ways perhaps and not super involved in politics, but we get out the walkers occasionally and get dirty. We also do not recruit so we have less young nations than most alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would personally weight wonders. Particularly MP, WRC, and SDC. Quantity also has a quality of its own.

Quantity does have a quality of it's own, and I'm trying to construct a fair way of taking into account the number of nations that an alliance has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why don't you put these stats up on the OP

 

And risk ppl reverse engineering his proprietary formula?  Surely you jest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your equation is flawed because you take into account land and militarization when you factor in ANS. If you're going to weight things, do a proportional ranking system based off a particular statistic or building's impact on damage output. Aka, weight tech heavily and account for military wonders, like Auctor said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your equation is flawed because you take into account land and militarization when you factor in ANS. If you're going to weight things, do a proportional ranking system based off a particular statistic or building's impact on damage output. Aka, weight tech heavily and account for military wonders, like Auctor said.

Show me an equation that isn't "flawed" and I will consider using it.

And as I believe I said before, I agree with making certain wonders count for points, I will most certainly work them into the next formula that I make.

Edit: I'm sorry, I didn't say that before, nonetheless, I will be including certain wonders in the next formula. It will probably be something like "If X% of your alliance has this wonder, your score increases by some amount. Basically, there will be a limit to the number of points you could get from having that wonder. Like if 100% of your alliance has Wonder X, then you gain Y amount of points. Remember, the point of this is Moreso to show which alliances' nations are the most developed. Edited by Saxplayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is wondering why NPO, NpO or IRON are so low, it's because it's development of the average nation in that Alliance. Because NpO, NPO, and IRON all have a lot of smaller nations, that weighs them down immensely.


I can give you two AA's... both start with 30 nations all top teir

AA1 - recruits 30 new members per month for a year

AA2 - sits on its hands and does nothing for a year

The net result is AA1 will slip exponentially in your list. With every new member they take on and develop they statistically would be punished even if they did amazing in the development programs per nation. Your list could really be turned upside down and renamed "CN's best recruiters" and be just as relevant to be honest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can give you two AA's... both start with 30 nations all top teir

AA1 - recruits 30 new members per month for a year

AA2 - sits on its hands and does nothing for a year

The net result is AA1 will slip exponentially in your list. With every new member they take on and develop they statistically would be punished even if they did amazing in the development programs per nation. Your list could really be turned upside down and renamed "CN's best recruiters" and be just as relevant to be honest.

 

I refer you to TOP and DT, DT moreso because they have around 80 members, (which in this day and age, is a significant amount) And they are 5th on the list. IRON, if you take into consideration how many nations they have, is pretty high on the list. Also, you could think of it like this, if they keep growing all their members, they will still increase somewhat, Yes, DBDC and Old Guard may be the highest on the list, but they do have some of the most developed nations in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...