[Yenisey]

Should the alliance score calculation/ranking system in CN:TE be reworked?

It's currently heavily biased in favour of the number of nations in an alliance, rather than the strength of those nations.


Example:
Lafayette Escadrille are, by all accounts, about 4 times stronger than The Phoenix Federation, yet have only a 0.19 lead in terms of alliance score. If TPF were to pick up a few extra nations at 0 strength, they would actually pass LE.


Or, Fark and Roman Empire. Fark has a higher score in every category save the number of nations.

Or MHA. Despite having lost 50% of their total strength in the last few days, their score has barely altered.

Or, Crimson Empire and New Viridian Order, a 0.06 difference in score when one alliance is around 3 times stronger than the other?

Poison Clan/ WAPA?

etc, etc.

There are far too many examples to list.


Given the rankings are used to determine sanctioned alliances, it seems a little odd to bias them so heavily in favour of numbers. It would be quite easy to "win" CN:TE with a 500 nation alliance at 0 strength, if you could find the recruits.


The simplest alternative system would appear to be ranking by total strength.


Something to think about for the next round?

[dran129]

The current calculation is done with this equation:
(Nations/Total Nations)*1000+(Alliance Strength/100,000)/3

I was looking at the equation, and a new, possibly more accurate score equation would be:
[(Nations/Total Nations)*10+(Alliance Strength/100,000)/3]*10

The *10 at the end is to make the scores bigger, otherwise they would all be single digits or fractions.

The new equation would also make the Nation Strength much more important than the nation count. Here are some examples I whipped up using the equations. (Using 4,000 Nations as the amount of nations total in CN:TE)

Alliance 1:
200 members
600,000 total NS
Current Score: 52.00
New Score: 25

Alliance 2:
150 members
600,000 total NS
Current Score: 39.50
New Score: 23.75

Alliance 3:
152 members
500,000 total NS
Current Score: 39.67
New Score: 20.47

[Jack Shepard]

^ I think your numbers are off?,

Either that or mine are... for Alliance 1 I get a current score of 28.06 (with 2558 total nations), Alliance 2 21.54 and Alliance 3 21.47

Anyway,

Either:
(Nations/Total Nations)*100+(Alliance Strength/100,000)/3

or

(Nations/Total Nations)*1000+(Alliance Strength/10,000)/3

would be better than:

(Nations/Total Nations)*1000+(Alliance Strength/100,000)/3

For TE.

[Craven]

I agree that there needs to be a change. The examples provided are enough to prove that.

[dran129]

I double checked and I don't see where we are getting different numbers from. Either way, here is a simpler version of my equation:

[(Nations/Total Nations)*10+(Alliance Strength/100,000)/3]*10

(Nations/Total Nations)*100+(Alliance Strength/30,000)


None the less, nations in an alliance is way too vital to the Alliance score than it should be. Currently, the game hold roughly 2500 nations. That means each nation, and this is with 0 NS, gives a score of 0.4. Each 1000NS only gives a score of 0.0033. I just don't see how 1 nation nation with no nation strength should be worth the same as 120,000 NS. It is baffling.

[Jack Shepard]

dran129, on Feb 23 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

I double checked and I don't see where we are getting different numbers from.

In your example:
Alliance 1:
200 members
600,000 total NS
Current Score: 52.00
New Score: 25

You have:

(Nations/Total Nations)*1000+(Alliance Strength/100,000)/3

But it is:

((Nations/Total Nations)*1000+(Alliance Strength/100,000))/3

The entire equation is divided by 3, not just the 2nd half

= ((200/2558)*1000 + (600,000/100,000))/3

= ((0.078)*1000 + (6))/3

= (78.186 + 6)/3

= 84.186/3

= 28.06, as stated in my above post.

This post has been edited by Jack Shepard: 23 February 2009 - 09:27 PM

[BluRaider]

I suggested change about 3 months ago, anyways, I support change in the alliance score calculation.

[Arcane]

BluRaider, on Feb 23 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

I suggested change about 3 months ago, anyways, I support change in the alliance score calculation.

Yes, please change this. I also suggested this change months ago and I think there is a huge amount of support behind this. MHA lost 70% of their strength this past round (and were ranked 3rd or 4th in overall NS) yet still maintained the lead because of the influence "number of nations" has.

EDIT: And now is the perfect time to do it before the alliance rankings get posted later on.

This post has been edited by Arcane: 26 February 2009 - 10:51 AM

[Borimir Resurrected]

Please please please please please implement this suggestion. The idea that the alliance with the most members, regardless of the fact that all their NS's could be 3, get the top spot is ridiculous.

[thaisport]

I understand the reasons why everyone wants changes to the scoring system, I myself thinks it needs to be tweaked, but I also understand it from both sides of the coin.

For lack of a better analogy, CNte scoring is equivalent to the house of representative in the US where legislation favors larger states. Hence it favored MHA in the last round. Though we did get hit really at the end and did fall in NS to 3rd, we were able to retain our membership and people stuck with us. This shows loyalty. Mi got hit hard and their membership dropped like flies.

If membership & loyalty is the goal of scoring, then this is a correct system.

Conversely, FARK did very well with their blitzes on us and moved above us in NS. There should be recognition for skills in blitzing and effectiveness. If the new point ideas are put into place, even smaller alliances have a chance of winning the round.

I don't claim to have an answer to this issue. If the game was design to handle both scoring system the you could, in effect, show who is ahead in both. But a sanction alliance can't be based on both scores. At least I can't figure out how it would be, but, if you had a dual scoring system at the end of the round you will either have a split winner: Largest Effective Alliance & Most Effective Alliance OR if the alliance is really strong, they would win both and hence be the ultimate winner.

My thoughts anyway...

[Arcane]

Any feedback from the powers that be on this?