Jump to content

How to measure Eliteness?


StevieG

Recommended Posts

Interesting idea I had to try and achieve a ranking for "eliteness". Figured Id try it with the recordable statistic that is activity(in the AA page). This is a ranking for the round only, and Im sure its not fool proof, with some/many? exceptions ;). I have tried to comment. Feel free to do the same, and keep it civil as well :)

Bear in mind that this ranking system is not wholly accurate, even for activity levels, as there can and are many nations popping around a bit at this time of the round :D Taken at 5am game time on 2/7/2012 Top 20 sanctioned AAs, and some notable alliances.

Lafayette Escadrille 100% Consistently elite through god knows how many rounds. This round you may have been hurting from the start though. 27/27
The Flying Kiwis 100% Thats the highest I have seen. Been a decent round. 26/26
Citadel 100% Good show with the activity. Needs internal issues worked out though. 27/27
Farkistan 100% Wow 6/6
Hellas 100% :D 2/2
Ordo Paradoxia 96.5% Theres always one. 28/29
AP Coalition 95% Not bad at all. 24/25
The Phoenix Cobras 94.4%. Again just short. 17/18
Pork Shrimp 92.8% Small this round. 13/14
Rodentia Dominatus 92.5 Nice showing. 25/27
War Hawks 87.5% 8/9
Loss 86.3% 19/22
Duckroll 86% Always people going inactive. 25/29
Roman Empire 85.7% Pretty good for size. 48/56
We are Perth Army 85.7% 12/14
Cartharsis 83% 10/12
Global Democratic Alliance 81.8% 9/11
State of Unified Nations 80% Not bad for second round. 25/31
Warriors 79% Decent 19/24
New League of Nations 76.9%
AP Coalition Sucks 75% :P 3/4
Cradle of Snakes 70% 7/10
Synergy 66.6% Obviously evil. 8/12
Destructor Fleets 66.6% Again? 8/12
Grim 66.6% Getting worried here. 10/15
Afterschool Alleyway Alliance 58% Poor, but first rounds are hard especially if you are large. 18/31
The Hell Patrol 60% Dont seem to be here this round. 3/5
CN Staff 25% Lol 1/4

Perhaps it will only ever be a variable :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways, given the new AA membership process, this is a measure of how diligent the AA's leadership is booting inactives and not necessarily a measurement of "eliteness". Any AA can have 100% "active" members of they just boot the inactives. But the Alliance Score is so heavily weighed towards member count that some AA's may not care if they have inactives, just to keep their Alliance Score high. I have long thought that the Alliance Score needs to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alliance activity stats were changed a couple years ago to reflect how many people have logged on in the last three days, rather than collecting taxes. Or at least I know that is the case in SE. :v:

Definitely not the deciding factor in elite-hood, but an interesting concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328616028' post='2916089']Synergy 66.6% Obviously evil. 8/12
Destructor Fleets 66.6% Again? 8/12
Grim 66.6% Getting worried here. 10/15
The Hell Patrol 60% Dont seem to be here this round. 3/5[/quote]

the four of us shall, together, bring forth destruction so vast the Grim Reaper won't even be able to send all the victims to Hell fast enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1328625010' post='2916158']
I think this is decent idea for a thread! I think that the people on longer collection sleds will appear inactive when they aren't tho. That would include people in nuclear effects most of the time.
[/quote]
[quote name='Therm' timestamp='1328645594' post='2916291']
Imo should be the other way around. If too much activity = everybody collecting daily, means they'd have pretty !@#$%* warchests lol
[/quote]
It was changed from collecting taxes a wee while back.

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1328634792' post='2916197']
In some ways, given the new AA membership process, this is a measure of how diligent the AA's leadership is booting inactives and not necessarily a measurement of "eliteness". Any AA can have 100% "active" members of they just boot the inactives. But the Alliance Score is so heavily weighed towards member count that some AA's may not care if they have inactives, just to keep their Alliance Score high. I have long thought that the Alliance Score needs to be changed.
[/quote]
Yea, but large numbers of nations at 100% activity surely shows something?? And yeah, Duckroll for example has inactives that we keep to try and pull them back from a long back collect, or just to keep our trades safe, etc.

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1328639996' post='2916219']
Isn't activity from alliance statistics based on paying bills or collecting taxes in the last two days? There are situations where it is advantageous to skip bills for days at a time, and yet you can still be active.
[/quote]
I thought it was changed to paying bills. But now I am not so sure, as during war it should increase as people build up 2 to 3 days of bills to pay at a reduced rate.

[quote name='Richard VII' timestamp='1328644290' post='2916277']
The alliance activity stats were changed a couple years ago to reflect how many people have logged on in the last three days, rather than collecting taxes. Or at least I know that is the case in SE. :v:

Definitely not the deciding factor in elite-hood, but an interesting concept.
[/quote]

If anyone knows exactly what it is, please do tell. Logging on in the last few days could just be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be too hard to concretely nail down what specific stat or stats or specific criteria of what makes an elite AA and what does not. Everyone has their own perception, some think its activity levels throughout the round, some may think its coordination during wars, and still others may believe its your nation building skills which affects the AA's ability to generate WCs. There are also abstract measurements which the stats page cannot measure such as reputation and how other AAs view another, important considering it is a political war game, for instance TPC will always have sizeable WCs as will most of DR, and LE will always continue to fight hard. Another prime example is RE who for a long time had a very bad reputation as being not very good at fighting and AAs half their size would be called out for downdeclaring but they have turned that around and no longer have that stigma( In no way a comprehensive list but just to highlight a few quick examples). Personally, I think the true definition is a combination of all of those factors which combine to make an AA elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is "Elite" in TE is what the community defines as Elite. Such "elite" skills include, active members, good nation growers, AA's who have won flags in previous rounds, good fighters and warchests. Their are other values as well, however, these seem to be the main ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't discount the ability to have fun while winning or losing. RD values those who have fun and play nice (as do others)
and good sportsmanship is an important factor....

there are too many ways to quantify elite, and the most important one of them is 'who brought Bacon?'.. so in that case ....
:v:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have long thought that the alliance score system is a very significant flaw in TE. The overwhelming number of people who play TE [i]never[/i] have an opportunity to finish in the top 3. Most play in an alliance. Creating a score that measures the strength of alliances gives everyone (finally) a greater stake in the success of their alliance and I believe would improve the quality of competition in the game as everyone attempts to finish #1.

I'm not a tech guy so I don't know how coding(?) would work but you could probably create a score system that does a better job to assess the strength of each alliance without skewing the numbers in favor of those with high member numbers.

We were close to a formal proposal some time ago but admin made other changes before we could send it out.

The current score is

((alliance nations / total nations * 1,000) + (alliance strength / 10,000)) / 3

A while back TPC with DM leading the charge created the beginning of a framework for a new alliance score...I'll see if I can find and post it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except high member numbers isn't exactly difficult to accomplish. If score was important to alliances, there would be more effort to maximize it. Even a recruitment conversion percentage that's around 5% gets ten new members per recruiter per day. Right now, ten members is about 4.2 score for [i]only[/i] the nation count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1329092789' post='2919277']
Except high member numbers isn't exactly difficult to accomplish. If score was important to alliances, there would be more effort to maximize it. Even a recruitment conversion percentage that's around 5% gets ten new members per recruiter per day. Right now, ten members is about 4.2 score for [i]only[/i] the nation count.
[/quote]

Sure, there could be more recruitment all around (another thing that we all must work on to increase numbers in TE) but that doesn't necessarily translate into "eliteness". It just builds a bigger potential base. RE has been consistent in maintaining high member numbers over the rounds. It seems like RD in this round has also increased its usual member count. Aside from that, it looks like alliance member numbers are either down or consistent with previous rounds.

Currently, no one tries to maximize score because it is fundamentally flawed in the way it measures what is strong, let alone elite. Instead of a system that rewards things such as military strength, economic strength (infra/tech) and maybe even casualty counts on a micro level, it looks at aggregate nation strength and member numbers.

A look at the current rankings best illustrates this point.


The Flying Kiwis--Rank 6
27 total nations
222,825 NS
8,253 ANS
42,722 Infra (1,582 per nation)
7,436 Tech (275 per nation)
69 Nukes in 8 nations (8.6 per nation)
8 nations over 10k (29%)
40,521 military strength
[b]18.78 Score[/b]

Warriors--Rank 7
24 total nations
229,207 NS
9,550 ANS
39,339 Infra (1,639 per nation)
6,205 Tech (258 per nation)
138 Nukes in 12 nations (11.5)
7 over 10k (29%)
63,723 military strength
[b]17.70 Score[/b]

Warriors has more infra per nation which should lead to more improvements and money to build and fight
Warriors has more ANS
Warriors has more nukes in total and average, even with more nations nuclear capable
Warriors has more total military strength ready for war at this moment

Yet, Warriors is a full point in score behind TFK. That removes any incentive for alliances to try to reach #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disputing that the current score mechanism is useless. I'm only saying that should alliances want a higher score, it's not that hard to get. Warriors could go recruit two nations at 4k and jump TFK in score. I would say they don't do that because score is not important to Warriors (yeah, yeah, swimmers run, warriors war, blah, blah).

I don't see altering the score mechanism causing more AAs to try maximize score. We already have a system where it's easy to do that, and there are no AAs that try to maximize score.

The only way I see to get AAs to try getting higher scores, is to have score mirror stats already considered important by the entrenched player base. Some of these are available (ANS, nuke count), some are hard to aggregate (casualties), some are private / hard to measure (cash reserves, war records, responsiveness).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...