Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sir Bart
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 01:17:00 -
[61]
Would be awsome if you could find a way to know the age of the members.
All members are good for generating isk and such but fighting ability of an alliance is more important than economy. A player playing for 2 years being part of your alliance is likely to be wealthy and own a capital ship so if you could assign points based on the age of members it would be most accurate.
5 pts for 2 year olds 3 pts for 1 year olds 1 pt for 0-6 months
-Bart
|
Vio Geraci
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 05:04:00 -
[62]
Character age does not mean pvp ability, nor does it mean op participation, nor does number of older characters participating in pvp ops translate directly into power. If you consider a group with a lot of older characters that are led by incompetents -ISS is a low-pvp example- you can easily see how this would be an inapropos way to gauge power.
Hard power and soft power are too different things as well. A group like RISE might have a bit of hard power because they have a handful of Sturmgrenadiers that actually go on pvp ops and try to save their alliance, while RISE as a whole has almost no soft power at all because it exists in its present state at the whim of BoB.
|
Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 05:16:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Trypho Rank alliances that hold space close to lowsec higher, since they are the gatekeepers for 0.0. It might be difficult to implement, but as I`ve lived both far and close from lowsec in 0.0, I know it has a gigantic logistic advantage to have a guaranteed safe passage. We as INFOD have been very profitable as being those gatekeepers at times ;)
Profit does not equate to power, although it is a means of power it is not the sole factor in determining ones ability. I would contend that a vast majority of alliances deeper into the stretches of 0.0 are more suited in abilities than those finding themself near the comforts of empire.
Assign a greater degree of points to alliances that find themself further from the closest empire entry point. Life may be more difficult but it is those day to day hardships that in the end, foster a stronger alliance (if one survives at all).
|
RichThugster
Gallente Invicta.
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 12:56:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Bishop 5
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Ability to hold constellations over time. More constellations, over longer time = higher rating.
what this guy said.
the original guy being a member of RK, has done little more than suggest something which makes him out to be in one of the stronger alliances. Perhaps RK are strong, although simply because you hold constellations for time doesnt make you strong. The OSS has held lower syndicate, since what January 2005 iirc. Thats heading towards 3 years and other than a short stay by BOB during the height of anti-goon fever its been held. They have held onto those 2 constellations. Does that mean that they are better than say HUN Reloaded? IRON claim a similar number of constellations, but havent held them as long, does this make OSS better than IRON?
Simply because someone has held space long term, does not make them good, but what is good? is good an alliance with huge earning potential? is good an alliance which can roll over anyone? is good an alliance where everyone is happy? different people have different ideas so there will never be a a way to list alliances in order.
Originally by: Joeyboy When goons and company lose, it's because of lag, and when they win it's because of better tactics?
|
KaiTech
Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 13:15:00 -
[65]
Something that might be interesting to show is the Stability that an Alliance can bring to a Region it occupies.
In example: a region that shows a certain stability due to good defence and dedication should give more points/better ranking to an alliance occupying it, than a region with same outposts or Pos's or whatever... which changes hands every 3-4 months...
An additional indicator would be how fast an alliance starts to crumble after that it gets attacked or sieged.
In another example : a region gets attacked and the defender defends it well during let's say 4 months and then folds or succeeds, this would give more points to that alliance than another would get for defending the same amount of space for only 2 weeks before folding or succeding
I think the that would reflect the "power" of an alliance quite well.
Cya in game soon Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected]) |
Kieranda
Weyland-Yutani Future Technologies Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 13:23:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Kieranda on 24/09/2007 13:23:47
Originally by: RichThugster The OSS has held lower syndicate, since what January 2005 iirc. Thats heading towards 3 years and other than a short stay by BOB during the height of anti-goon fever its been held. They have held onto those 2 constellations. Does that mean that they are better than say HUN Reloaded? IRON claim a similar number of constellations, but havent held them as long, does this make OSS better than IRON?
when measuring constellation sovereignty there would be a differentiation needed between NPC claimed space and Alliance held space, the latter obviously being the stronger one
|
Morpheus Solo
Minmatar Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 13:30:00 -
[67]
The only measure i can think of with the data available, except the "old" measures are an indirect one.
Treat your data historically in combination with sov, outposts and so forth. What I mean is, an alliance that gains space and outposts (military power if taken, economical power if build) would get extra points for this, one loosing will loose points. Use some second order extrapolation or whatever and u might be able to find a quite decent measure for alliance ranking.
|
Unbeliever Kresmoreen
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 13:30:00 -
[68]
Factor in how often they undock in their home systems imho.
That, divided by how many 'roids are left before respawn ;).
|
Blade AOI
Caldari Out of Order
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 13:43:00 -
[69]
Only way to do this is like this
1. Number of players (1 point) 2. Sov systems (100 points) ---------------------- Total Power
|
Muff Joos
Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 14:28:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Serenity Steele
Originally by: Hardin Using your example - yes CVA has less members that Morsus Mihi and approximately the same space. However CVA controlled Providence is also a home to many 'friendly' alliance and neutrals who all play a part in maintaining order and CVA control thanks through our NRDS policies.
Those numbers are invisible, at least in a basic model like this.
So while yes on the face of it CVA holds the same territory as MM with (apparently) lower numbers this really doesn't tell you anything about the comparable PvP capabilities of the two alliances or the strength they can delpoy on the battlefield...
True about PvP. From another angle, does this mean that CVA's territorial claim makes them equally powerful to Morsus Mihi? (Even if their power is derived from political relationships etc.) since they *are* capable of maintaining so much space?
Does that make CVA more powerful than The OSS or FLA, who also have 600 members, but no sov? more powerful than Brutally Clever Empire, with 1493 members and no sov?
You bring up something that should be taken into consideration here. Is it just about military might? It shouldn't be. If CVA has awesome diplomats and are able to maintain sov over longer time regardless of how they do it, then that should be taken into consideration. This game is as much about relationships as anything else. Someone said that alliances that "NAP" everyone around them would get a higher power rank over time even though they get into fewer fights. So what? Making friends and holding on to your assets without burning out your player base is good gameplay. Obviously I'm in a warring alliance but I still think that diplomacy should be considered somehow as well as economic power, not just straight military power. How to do this? I dunno.
|
|
royce jones
Caldari Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 15:03:00 -
[71]
I'd like to suggest that you split the rankings and rank empire alliances in a different table to 0.0 alliances. As has been said previously, empire alliances don't hold sov or stations etc so to compare them against 0.0 alliances is a tad unfair tbh. With empire alliances having their own table following it's own rules, a fairer assesment can be drawn of them and their abilities/strengths versus their peers (other empire alliances). :)
With the 0.0 alliances, having two distinct scores for outposts might help with the assessing of their economic power: Conquerable outpost = 20 points Alliance-made outpost = 40 points ...This may help in a way to assess their military power as well since taking a conquerable requires just the deployment of a combat fleet, whereas the construction of an outpost from egg to completion requires not only a combat fleet but also an industrial and logistics fleet, plus these pilots need to be online until outpost is built.
/2ISK :)
|
VileLust
Minmatar Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 16:19:00 -
[72]
I always looked at age. Older alliances that last are, to me, the powerhouses of the game. New alliances are coming up all the time - many look good now... but they are crap :p until you prove the test of time you have nothing.
Take FIX for example. They don't hold a massive area of space, they arnt close to being a force in PVP, and they dont really do much. But... they have been around for years, have always been known to fight back when they can, and have always remained fairly respectful in game and on these forums. Then look at say, ASCN.. LV.. Both were huge, easily capable of crushing FIX in their prime - but utterly dead now. Small alliance FIX > superpowers. Lots of examples can be made of that. Red Alliance, ISS(grumble - what a joke-_-), BoB, Razor. Those among others have shown that numbers means little - that space is really not of value. Member quality, and important leadership make alliances.
I would easily give one of the aged smaller alliances more credit than the new larger more PVP driven alliances. PootyPooty. |
VileLust
Minmatar Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 16:35:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Unbeliever Kresmoreen Factor in how often they undock in their home systems imho.
That, divided by how many 'roids are left before respawn ;).
gonna be saving that one BTW - that rocks =D PootyPooty. |
Svetlanna
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 17:52:00 -
[74]
You can really estimate an alliance power by its success at creating fun for its members.
|
Pezzle
Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 18:03:00 -
[75]
You cannot quantify the Power of an Alliance by age, territory or numbers.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 20:23:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Pezzle You cannot quantify the Power of an Alliance by age, territory or numbers.
Maybe not by Age and Territory, but you can by numbers ;) Particularly if the primary value is to create a relative index of power in a specific context, It's just a matter of making a meaningful index that is actually useful for something more than E-Peen.
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank |
Devian 666
Sectoid Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 00:58:00 -
[77]
This existing ranking system is fine as any further modifications will favour a particular style of alliance (such as the ability to hold ghetto regions such as geminate). Simplicity is it's current strength. However, the addition of other indices to get an idea of industrial ior military power would be interesting to see.
I agree I don't have the features to be a holoreel star. Most people have missed the point that this is Mobsters Online and that carebears are at the bottom of the foodchain. |
Internet Knight
Caldari FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 02:21:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Complex example- A Amarr factory in the same constellation as a refinery means a stronger logistics engine. More points for these factories.
The problem there is that, for example, FREGE has a refinery in NGM-OK and a factory in 9IZ-HU. These systems are in separate constellations, but are a mere 2 jumps from each other. --- How to resolve Singularity mirrors for everyone who doesn't regularly test on Singularity
|
Ituralde
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 02:47:00 -
[79]
Capital fleet strength is really the #1 way to determine an alliance's strength.
Most alliances these days though do not operate alone. So you had might as well have one gauge for individual strength and another for active coalition strength.
For example.
Fix is a decently powerful alliance.
However, they are as 'strong' as they are because they have constant MC support and regular BOB support.
Now, obviously numbers aren't the only thing. I'd put my money on BOB in an equal number BOB vs Goon situation. (granted this rarely happens so despite the favorable k/d ratio BOB has, the RSF has gained ground)
Basically, I'd do it by a completely subjective system. Something like the NCAA FB polls to determine rankings. Have a weighted ranking (say, top 25) poll via IGB (to restrict to 1 vote/char and get stats by corp/alliance of voting player) and while you won't really get an accurate reading of the actual relative power of the alliances in question, you will get the opinion of the cluster and that's really as good as you are going to get. (See the ESPN.com College FB fan poll and you will see what I am talking about)
Surely, the overall poll will most likely be garbage, the breakdowns by alliance/coalition/neutral/etc will most likely allow you to by some arbitrary algorithm (something like a composite drawing on the results from Alliance/Coalition/Neutral polls equally)come up with a composite structure you could release as the final alliance power ranking.
If you can get this to work, I'd imagine you could use it to collect a bunch of other random statistics that could prove interesting. _____________________________ Fear is the mind-killer.
|
Charrette
Nubs. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 07:26:00 -
[80]
There is a striking similarity between the problems faced in assessing power in Eve and the problem of assessing state power faced by international relations scholars. Of course the biggest problem is the uncertainty of assessment and the unwillingness of the subjects to reveal "classified" information.
Anyways Because of the inherent anarchic and pvp oriented structure of eve, might i suggest starting with the most relevant indicator of power -- military capability in the form of Capital Fleets. Possessing them greatly enhances strength. Not having them negates the significance of territory if the resident alliance has only a small capital fleet with which to defend its space.
The second component of this measurement complements the first. Namely, the economics of producing and maintaining a capital fleet. This is where the number of outposts and POS's come into play (as indicated by sovereignty).
These two variables subsume several other indicators of power. Among them are the average age of players, number of players, isk liquidity (related to the number of players as well), and access to empire.
|
|
xBANDWAGONx
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 07:39:00 -
[81]
by the size of its wang
--++-- ------[ EPIC FAIL ]------ --++--
|
Troubadour
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 10:49:00 -
[82]
e-peen
|
Extreme
Eye of God O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 09:31:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Extreme on 17/11/2007 09:35:38
Here's my idea of a good tool to see the alliances strength;
You should work together with http://ineve.net/skills/ for a couple of reasons:
1. Skillpoints of a member
2. Groups of skills listed at InEve can be divided into military, economical, industrial and science values (points)
3. It shows the capability what ships pilots are capable to fly
4. By frequent updating their sheets at ineve.net you are able to make a count of true active membercounts of an alliance.
The most powerfull alliances will have their members updating their ineve.net sheets while less organised alliances will have outdated membersheets.
Also you can find out by the total number of registered membernames at Ineve.net and the ingame membercount how many alts and inactives an alliance have and this result should cut a percentage of the results from the other calculations/formulas (regions/outposts and so on)
5. (In my honost opinion players input of what i mostly read here is dependant on how reliable their information will be once implemented. Also there are too many changes for you to make on a daily base as the situations in game always chenges and therefore not good to implement)
/Extreme . .
|
Mr Broker
Amarr Station Gremlings
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 09:39:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Mr Broker on 17/11/2007 09:40:24
Originally by: Extreme Here's my idea of a good tool to see the alliances strength;
You should work together with http://ineve.net/skills/ for a couple of reasons:
1. Skillpoints of a member
2. Groups of skills listed at InEve can be divided into military, economical, industrial and science values (points)
3. It shows the capability what ships pilots are capable to fly
4. By frequent updating their sheets at ineve.net you are able to make a count of true active membercounts of an alliance.
what a horrible idea to measure anything but e-peen
what good are skillpoints when you don't fight?
we're now well past any individual alliances holding any significance in Eve anyways
|
olzi
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 10:24:00 -
[85]
I doubt you can find one absolute way to measure it, so maybe you should just give an option for the user to select by which criteria he/she wants to sort the alliance list. Of course one of those choices can be any kind of point system you want to implement.
|
Sekar casal
Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 17:18:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Sekar casal on 17/11/2007 17:19:21 First off thank you for the excellent info you provide.
Personally, and Im basing this on stuff outside of Eve as Im still an utter nub, I think your trying to measure something intangible.
Lets take the example you showed here.
Originally by: Serenity Steele Edited by: Serenity Steele on 22/09/2007 10:51:40
Originally by: Seth Quantix it's just a shame that you are not privi to all players achievments, strenghts, capital asset lists, average player strenghts, fleet battle stats. ie team A fights team B 100 v 200 yet them A consistantly wins etc.....catch my drift.....not sure I do.
For the purpose of ranking alliances, it may not be have data on the individual achievements - aggregation could be sufficient. Eg.
Morsus Mihi <RAWR> : 1 Const, 6 Outposts, 33 systems @ 1451 members
Curatores Veritatis Alliance <CVA> : 1 Const, 6 outposts, 31 systems, @ 611 members
Would it be fair to say, that CVA are better at PvP than Morsus? Would 200 CVA win against 200 Morsus in a battle for territory?
If say MM could replace their losses 3 times or 4 times faster than CVA, the whole PvP thing becomes less relevant as they out power CVA economically ( Im sure this is not the case this is purely hypothetical).
If your trying to measure based on PvP power, then fine, thats PvP power, but there is also economic power and ability say to project power using influence or there own direct action.
I really dont thik you will come to something that people will say "ahh fair enough", infact it might be damaging if you brand it as purely "Power".
Another example could be trying to do it based on average SP's of an alliance (tho this then excludes influence), well that would measure PvP and possibly economic power but doesnt take account of player activity level, natural ability etc.
Think what Im trying to say is you need to define power, but when you do, I realy dont think you can measure it.
Perhaps growth rate would be as good a stat as any, but that then precludes small tight nit groups, for example, GHSC, that wieled one hell of a lot of power accross a period of time Ill give you, but it certainly wielded it (Ok, possib ly it was GHSC's emplyers that wieled it . . . another twist), how on earth could you ever measure that ?.
Summary to my ramblings, your going to have to be very specific, state your being specific and put up with folks saying but that doesnt rate them accurately as long as you use it.
Sorry, nub's opinion anyway :).
|
Dramaticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 17:59:00 -
[87]
The willingness of its members to die for a cause.
|
missionalt
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 18:14:00 -
[88]
I don't think you could quantify it using in-game statistics; personally I believe an alliance's power lies in how dangerous each of its peers consider it towards their own welfare (if it were to be hostile). Irrelevant I-wish stuff in quotes.
Quote:
If I had to break it down I'd say you could break that down into:
- Number of battleships the alliance can reliably field - Number of dreadnoughts & carriers the alliance can reliably field - Willingness to engage in POS war - Willingness to go on extended campaigns to the other side of the universe
Unfortunately these can't really be computed using in-game stats. If you were willing to though, pulling data from a few dozen alliance's killboards and pooling it would provide an incredible resource.
The first two could be measured by counting the number of times unique pilots are registered on kill or lossmails in the appropriate ships, while the fourth you could evaluate from the geographic distribution of kills/losses the alliance recieves.
Without wandering off into dreamland though, the third metric could be achieved with your current data. Instead of just taking direct outpost/sovereignty counts, weight the counts depending on the value of systems in proximity to the alliance's holdings. The lower the trusec and the larger the number of belts of the systems within a few jumps of an outpost, the more valuable holding that outpost is. Bonus weighting if there's a COSMOS constellation or mission running hub close by.
|
Alias11
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 18:24:00 -
[89]
get the alliance leaders to drop trough. Simple, indisputable measurement of power
|
Viktor Konstantine
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.17 18:27:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Edited by: Serenity Steele on 22/09/2007 10:20:23
The open question to you is: What do you think should effect calculating the "points" ? What makes your alliance more powerful than others of similar size?
Posts per day
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |