EVE Search - How do you measure an Alliances Power?

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

How do you measure an Alliances Power?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution	Posted - 2007.09.22 09:46:00 - [1] Edited by: Serenity Steele on 22/09/2007 09:53:53 For the last 12 months, the Alliance Rank shown on eve-maps.com has used a fairly simple method for ranking: sorted by Outposts, Sov count, Member Count. While simple to implement, it ranks a 10 pilot 0.0 alliance with 1 sovereign system over a 1000 pilot empire alliance. So I'm going to change the ranking system to be points based. Since only podded corpses operate in a vacuum, I'd like your ideas. The open question to you is: What do you think should effect calculating the "points" ? Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution	Posted - 2007.09.22 09:47:00 - [2] A Simple exmample - points per sovereign system, outpost, member, alliance tournament ranking. Complex example - points per sov level (so sov 1 = 10 pts, sov 2 = 20 pts, etc.) - An refinery only supports 300 pilots productively. So 1 point per member at a refinery, up to 300 members per outpost. Less point for other members. - A Amarr factory in the same constellation as a refinery means a stronger logistics engine. More points for these factories. - Large alliances are inefficent. Less points per member after 500 members. Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank
Trypho Minmatar Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.09.22 09:59:00 - [3] 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 ;)
Seth Quantix Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.09.22 10:18:00 - [4] I think the problem you are bound to encounter with this is the question my friend. The problem is that your asking for alliance rankings but sadly for you a lot of the information you need to assess this is unaviable without the user input. I mean, I think that 'alliance rankings' should not just be numbers of players, number of station etc as they go pritty much hand in hand for the most part. 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. however, i think the work you have been doing is a massive achivement and to try and change that would be hard work, mabey one idea, system sovs could come into play. ie holding a system is one point, having sov 3 is 5 points and having sov 4 is 10 points per station system holding such sov?? O don't know but I truly wish you luck in thying to find a fair and accurate system....hope my pathetic views come across constructive
Mebrithiel Ju'wien Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.09.22 10:39:00 - [5] Not that I have any real input in such grand matters, but I think putting too much emphasis on numbers is a bad idea: They do count towards the strength of an alliance a lot of the time, Goonswarm being a great example of the superiority of numbers, but even an alliance with 5 pos in 0.0 and 100 people proves they have more staying power than an alliance of 1000 people and no hold in 0.0 at all. I also heavily agree with the INFOD guy above. "Gatekeeping" is a rather important role and I've personally witnessed entire alliances develop from just a gatekeeping corp alone. Delve is likely to be more heavily contested than Period Basis, for example, as non-sovereignty alliances in BoB space can only spread logistics out from empire so far before it takes a detrimental effect. Just my 0.02isk Bang Bang?
Privious Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.22 10:43:00 - [6] Alliance ranking issn't THAT accurate on http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp tbh, you also want to look at FC's.. a big fleet without a proper FC wil still end up dead prophably. aswell i suggest to look on the killboards ^^ --------- When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend.
Trypho Minmatar Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.09.22 10:49:00 - [7] Well, even without gatecamping the alliance closer will have close to guaranteed shipments while logistics further away are ALOT harder to organize. I used to live in Feythabolis where we had to build our own ships because of the buffer between us and empire. At the moment I get my alt in a hauler and I have a new BC within 30 mins at our HQ. Making trading in 0.0 very profitable and easy too. Also it theoretically gives us the possibility of filling the area with research POSses while still having the advantages from empire. As you know those slots are filled completely in empire, while we can have them without alot of trouble. It makes life hell of alot easier!
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution	Posted - 2007.09.22 10:50:00 - [8] 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? Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.09.22 10:51:00 - [9] Alliances with me in are more awesome than all the others. Therefore there should be a James Lyrus'o'meter, which indicates this. More seriously? I don't think there's an easy way to measure 'power' - there's just so many things that affect it - pilot count vs. area controlled in theory reflects a 'power density', but ... well. Hrm. I'd be inclined to say capital ship count is about the best reflector of 'power'. I know it's hard to measure, but your examples of a 10 pilot alliance, I'd consider 'more powerful' if those 10 showed up in motherships, than the 1000 pilot alliance if they're bundling you in cruisers. OK, actually that's not entirely true. But for alliances approximately comparable in size, I consider the number of caps they can put in space at once, to be a really very significant indictator of their power projection. But that's complicated to track and maintain, so I'd say go with option one instead ;) -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
Ahistaja GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:01:00 - [10] It's the K:D ratio obviously.
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:04:00 - [11] Originally by: James Lyrus Alliances with me in are more awesome than all the others. Therefore there should be a James Lyrus'o'meter, which indicates this. Haha, ok, but history tell us that previous alliance you have been in were unable to recapture an outpost once it was lost. (Yes Glass house .. stones etc.) So more seriously; History should be calculated in: Ability to regain outposts/systems lost is a factor. (or perhaps simply Nr. times Outposts are conquered vs. Lost) Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:13:00 - [12] You need to look at what it takes to live in 0.0 for a prolonged period of time. You need to take into account a variety of things such as the following factors. 1. Number of Outposts. 2. Proported size of the Cap fleet. 3. Proported make up of said Cap fleet. 4. Proported economic strength. 5. How many FCs do they have? 6. Number of pilots. 7. Average pilot's age. Going by number of outposts only would of made ASCN the most powerful Alliance in Eve yet this was clearly proven to the contrary with its in-fighting and subsequent collapse. The size of a Cap fleet determines their ability to take down enemy POS and enemy Cap ships. This as we've seen since RMR was launched, is key to the survival of any 0.0 Alliance. Their economic strength I'll agree is hard to quantify, afterall, who is willing to give you a true reflection of how much money they have, so it would have to be taken with a pinch of salt. It does, however, allow one to determin how quickly they can replace lost ships from their fleet, which is key to winning any war, as well as their ability to attract new membership. Afterall, the only reason any of us live in 0.0 is for the wealth it brings. However, this measurement also means that Empire based and 0.0 based Alliances, in terms of their "power" are not mutually exclusive. You might find some of the more powerful Alliances actually dwell in Empire which would be a refereshing change. The number of FCs means you're able to determine how effective their fleets are. The number of pilots guages the size of the territory they are able to effectively control but like outposts, should not be the only factor in determining an Alliances power. Afterall, MC are not even in the top 10 Alliances by measurement of size yet I sincerely doubt anyone here would disagree with the assesment that in terms of power, they're significantly stronger than the majority of that Top 10. Finally the average pilot's age (as in character age) invariably reflects the type of ships they're able to fly and can be used as a guide to expereince. In my opinioin, those seven areas of cirtera determine an Alliance's likely longevity and that is where you should be basing an Alliance's power on, not by how many station's they've conquered. Make a Difference
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:15:00 - [13] Ability to hold constellations over time. More constellations, over longer time = higher rating. - Recruitment open again-
ollobrains Mission Invasion Squad	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:16:00 - [14] Originally by: John McCreedy You need to look at what it takes to live in 0.0 for a prolonged period of time. You need to take into account a variety of things such as the following factors. 1. Number of Outposts. 2. Proported size of the Cap fleet. 3. Proported make up of said Cap fleet. 4. Proported economic strength. 5. How many FCs do they have? 6. Number of pilots. 7. Average pilot's age. Going by number of outposts only would of made ASCN the most powerful Alliance in Eve yet this was clearly proven to the contrary with its in-fighting and subsequent collapse. The size of a Cap fleet determines their ability to take down enemy POS and enemy Cap ships. This as we've seen since RMR was launched, is key to the survival of any 0.0 Alliance. Their economic strength I'll agree is hard to quantify, afterall, who is willing to give you a true reflection of how much money they have, so it would have to be taken with a pinch of salt. It does, however, allow one to determin how quickly they can replace lost ships from their fleet, which is key to winning any war, as well as their ability to attract new membership. Afterall, the only reason any of us live in 0.0 is for the wealth it brings. However, this measurement also means that Empire based and 0.0 based Alliances, in terms of their "power" are not mutually exclusive. You might find some of the more powerful Alliances actually dwell in Empire which would be a refereshing change. The number of FCs means you're able to determine how effective their fleets are. The number of pilots guages the size of the territory they are able to effectively control but like outposts, should not be the only factor in determining an Alliances power. Afterall, MC are not even in the top 10 Alliances by measurement of size yet I sincerely doubt anyone here would disagree with the assesment that in terms of power, they're significantly stronger than the majority of that Top 10. Finally the average pilot's age (as in character age) invariably reflects the type of ships they're able to fly and can be used as a guide to expereince. In my opinioin, those seven areas of cirtera determine an Alliance's likely longevity and that is where you should be basing an Alliance's power on, not by how many station's they've conquered. number of unique cahracters over 2 years perhaps, Killboard ( when posted correclty and accurately) damage over losses. ( perhaps everything BC and up only) perhaps a gauge of survival. Its hard to qunatify really but some good input there from JM Group mission invasions
xBANDWAGONx Caldari Purge Corp	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:18:00 - [15] I thought everybody knew this one... killboard stats [sig] DON'T LIKE MY STYLE... TELL MY CEO DON'T LOOK AT MY THREAD [/sig]
Dez Erichs Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:23:00 - [16] I like it the way it is. Easy to find whomever you're looking for. --- PvP Training: www.agony-unleashed.com, "Veni, Vidi, Caedi"
Pehova Mindtriq Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:26:00 - [17] 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? Problem with looking at numbers is that an alliance that rarely fights can rank higher than an alliance that always fights. As we know there are alliances out there that are given space without having to fight for it and there are alliances that have napped everything around them to avoid getting attacked. These alliances can rank higher than those alliances that fight constantly for their space just because of numbers. Eve is too complex to decide which alliance is best at pvp just by looking at numbers. Celestial Apocalypse Recruitment
Mr Funkadelic Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.09.22 11:38:00 - [18] Who smack the most on CAOD
MassonA Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.22 12:07:00 - [19] the only way i can think of it is some sort of way to measure how quickly an alliance has grown, # of outposts, whether captured or built, and who they were taken from i have no idea how that would work though
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution	Posted - 2007.09.22 12:11:00 - [20] Originally by: Mr Funkadelic Who smack the most on CAOD I was thinking this could be an accurate inverse multiplier. More smack = less real power. Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank
Hardin Amarr Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2007.09.22 12:21:00 - [21] Originally by: Serenity Steele Would it be fair to say, that CVA are better at PvP than Morsus? No Originally by: Serenity Steele Would 200 CVA win against 200 Morsus in a battle for territory? And no As someone else has pointed out EVE is too complex to measure things just by numbers. 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... ------------------------------ CVA - Kicking Arse For The Empire - http://eve-files.com/dl/83607
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution	Posted - 2007.09.22 12:47:00 - [22] 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? Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.22 13:38:00 - [23] Originally by: Serenity Steele A Simple exmample - points per sovereign system, outpost, member, alliance tournament ranking. Complex example - points per sov level (so sov 1 = 10 pts, sov 2 = 20 pts, etc.) - An refinery only supports 300 pilots productively. So 1 point per member at a refinery, up to 300 members per outpost. Less point for other members. - A Amarr factory in the same constellation as a refinery means a stronger logistics engine. More points for these factories. - Large alliances are inefficent. Less points per member after 500 members. I have to agree with the person who said the way it is, is pretty good. However if you want to get a more complex model going I'd have to say that something such as the following would have the be tracked. The first refinery would very large amount of points, counting something like 15 to 25 claimed systems. After all with new game ships and techs, distance is quickly becoming easier to travel. Yet the first factory would have to be worth MORE then the first refinery simply because it creates a stable economy which lets alliances go crazy with growth. Something like being worth the points of 25 to 30 claimed systems would be around this measure. I have to give an example and I hope I won't step on anyone here by doing so to prove what I mean. If you look at alliances over the past months to years (and some of us log on late at night and when we are bored we look at the alliance 'rank' screen) you can see the alliances that have only 2 outposts/stations usually hit a growth 'barrier'. An old example: Pure. Back during the past year, Pure sat at around 2 outposts, yet when they built that factory outpost near the refinery of their 'good' constellation they experienced growth. When they built that 3rd outpost in the constellation they again experienced growth since more docking area's and offices were available for habitation. They grew again after expanding into 87 region. I'm not sure if this is because of the disbanding of the makahi or because they now had outposts in 4 different constellations and 2 regions. A more recent example. Hydra. During the past months hydra held two outposts for quite a while, a refinery and a office outpost. Then no outposts sprang up for a long time. Then a few weeks ago hydra puts up a factory outpost in range of their refinery. Suddenly, Hydra's numbers go up pretty sharply. I'm not trying to talk down about either alliance, but after the hard work was done, membership increased. Both could be from the makahi disbandment but I think there were new corps in both alliances that don't have anything to do with the makahi. However, some things which don't make sense are the drone regions. You see many regions have small clusters of outposts, yet have thousands of members in some alliances or as few as a few hundred in others which control multiple. For example: Invictus controls 2 outposts, 22 systems and 1137 members, while Intrepid Crossing controls 2 outposts, 15 systems and 751 members. Why is this? Recruiting does play a part to be sure. However if you look at the spacing between the outposts as well as the number of systems in the constellations. Invictus has a better setup. Invictus has their 2 outposts spread out 1 jump apart so that both halves of their 'pocket' constellation have hub stations to jump to. All 9 systems in Invictus's constellation only have to jump a single jump to get to the safety of a station and the two systems that have to go 2 jumps are at the very back of the constellation. This means that if they keep a lazy on eye on the intel channels even ppl the farthest from the outposts can't be caught unaware. Intrepid Crossing on the reverse has their 2 outposts right next to each other, this is a good thing for transfer of minerals between the refinery and factory. However it means that 3 of their systems are 2 or 3 jumps from the nearest post (cont)
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.22 13:39:00 - [24] apologies for WALL OF TEXTÖ (cont) And to make matters worse, Intrepid's constellation is on a travel route while Invictus has theirs in a pocket where the only traffic is invited. Intrepid however gets 6 systems vrs Invictus 9. This brings up the next point "how easy to hold constellation sov" If a war came about, Invictus would have to hold I believe 5 of their 9 systems for constellation sov, while Intrepid only has to hold 3. If you take moon counts into effect this could be brutal for Invictus and potentially very easy for Intrepid. I believe the fact that Invictus is a.) in a pocket 2.) has more systems to access in their constellation 3.) has their outposts spread out so more space in between can be 'filled' by corps. I believe those factors give Invictus a very good situation, and might be a factor in why they have more members then intrepid. Great Powers The way to show a 'great power' would be how many constellations it has 'firm' control over. An example of a great power would be United Legion if you look at them, they have 4 outposts in 2 different regions. However they have claims in over 15 constellations, as well as 4 outposts in 3 different constellations. They are over 1,100 members and are slowly increasing in numbers as the weeks go on. All of this adds up to many different areas to exploit, travel between, create trade (as little in the game there is) and explore in. This gives United Legion a great ability to keep it's members mining/ratting/exploring and in general keeping things flowing towards their war efforts or build ups. They are also on the cusp of having 3 outposts in one constellation. Which would give them status in the next area: Super Powers Powers that have the following fall into this category: 1. Have control over more then one region. (People like BoB, RA, Goons, Pure, and YouWhat fall into this) 2. Have multiple 'chains' (chains are refinery + factory in the same constellation) under their control 3. Have more then 25+ systems claimed by the alliance The last two would be large points towards their score but are not required to be on the list as a super. 4. Have a sov 4 constellation 5. Have over 2k members The 'chains' allow alliances to have 'back up' income/growth, because unless an enemy is attacking multiple outpost clusters at a time there is always some economic activity going on in an alliance. Just ask any outpost holder, their could be the BIGGEST attack in the cluster going on at one of their outposts in one region. Yet you'd still see refinery mineral taxes coming in just 6 jumps away at another despite a Call to arms. This makes a super and great power able to have income coming in at all times, and camping of refineries is less meaningful because unless you get almost ALL of them, your not going to turn off the income stream for that alliance. Now, I see that since I began writing this you mentioned Brutally Clever Empire. Yes, they would be ranked lower then say Intrepid crossing because they live in a NPC controlled region and all of the tax from refineries, repairs and clones currently goes to NPC stations. In Intrepid space all of those funds go to Intrepid high command to distribute how they see fit. BRUCE's corps also don't get the POS fuel discount for the sov claim since they can't take control of it. They have more members yes, they have amazing potential. But until (or if) they ever move, they are losing out on alot of power by being stuck in that region. Those tax's and minerals coming into alliances are a big deal. In Bruce, they have alliance fees they collect from their members, in Intrepid it's automatic that your helping the alliance with every single refinery load. See why Intrepid would have more power to use? I hope these help, I in no way mean to talk down on any alliance and hope this will help in the new ranking system.
sophisticatedlimabean Gallente The Illuminati.	Posted - 2007.09.22 13:43:00 - [25] You can talk about ranking all you like but in the currant eve universe alliances are mostly all napped woth others for whatever war they are in. A true ranking will hardly ever be possable due to these considerations and i doubt it will change any time soon.
Banlish Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.22 13:51:00 - [26] One thing that has to be taken into account but is almost impossible to measure, would be alliances that are given their space by another with conditions. For example: Tri controls ALL of Dek as far as I'm aware. Yet they have put Destiny in the former D2/Sparta stations while they put Praesidium Libertatis in control of the former FLA stations. This would have to be counted in some way since both alliances will assist Tri in holding their own space and maybe even contribute members towards other operations. It makes Tri more powerful and grants both destiny and P-L a stronger defense. It would be very hard to figure out how much this helps everyone without Tri stating directly who is part of their coaltion and who isn't for direct measure by Serenity. I don't know where the line would be however for alliances that pay rent to their landlord alliance and alliances that simply work very well together. For example: BoB has some alliances that pay rent BoB also has some alliances that simply hold space and help their coaltion. Alliances like RA/Goons are considered partners. So their sorta a bloc so that's even a 3rd dynamic that has to be taken into effect. How the hell do you measure those 3 different status?
Nomakai Delateriel Amarr Delictum 23216	Posted - 2007.09.22 14:06:00 - [27] Originally by: Banlish I have to agree with the person who said the way it is, is pretty good. However if you want to get a more complex model going I'd have to say that something such as the following would have the be tracked. The first refinery would very large amount of points, counting something like 15 to 25 claimed systems. After all with new game ships and techs, distance is quickly becoming easier to travel. Yet the first factory would have to be worth MORE then the first refinery simply because it creates a stable economy which lets alliances go crazy with growth. Something like being worth the points of 25 to 30 claimed systems would be around this measure. I'd say that a refining outpost is definitely worth more than a factory outpost. You can always replace a factory outpost by a few production POSes, but instant refining is worth so much for an alliance that it's insane. In any case. Some regions would have to be ranked higher than others. CVA is a good alliance, and it has plenty of allies in providence which means it can put a lot more resistance than its numbers suggest. However one big reason for them being able to claim so many systems is that compared to many other regions Providence sucks. Sure, it's far better than Empire or Low-sec (mainly because you do get battleship spawns) and it's close to empire, but outside exploration there isn't any Arkonor, Crokite or Bistot (heck, the standard ores in the region are Hemorphite and Hedbergite!), and the biggest standard ratspawns in the region are dual 950k battleship spawns. ______________________________________________ -You can never earn my respect, only lose it. It's given freely, and only grudgingly retracted when necessary.
Bishop 5 Gallente Macabre Votum INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.09.22 14:11:00 - [28] Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Ability to hold constellations over time. More constellations, over longer time = higher rating. what this guy said. ------------- meh
Kyrie Elaison GoonFleet	Posted - 2007.09.22 15:05:00 - [29] Key things to measure, in order from least important to most important. 1. Military strength - It's the most obvious indicator of power. This is measured in terms of skillpoints, fcs, discipline, and determination (which, if you find a way to measure, I applaud). 2. Economic strength - This one is tough to measure. You can check a region's markets and contracts, but they don't tell the whole story (case in point: Delve). One way to measure it, though inaccurately, is to note the progression of fittings over time during a war. The worse they get, the worse off economically the alliance may be (of course, game mechanics can influence this heavily). Also, how easy is it for the alliance in question to import from empire? This can skew markets. 3. Political strength - Both overt and covert. Does the alliance have other people willing to fight with them? Are these others reliable over a long haul? Is the alliance adept at the "darker" side of politics, namely spying, sabotage, etc.? What is the internal makeup of the alliance? Is it a grouping of the likeminded (in some fashion) or a bunch of corps with no common purpose? Anyway, here's some ideas. Hope they help.
Narciss Sevar Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.09.22 15:12:00 - [30] Originally by: John McCreedy Afterall, the only reason any of us live in 0.0 is for the wealth it brings That's why you will always fail McCreedy.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.