| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Psilocin
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2007.09.22 15:27:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Narciss Sevar
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.
Someone give this man an award.
FOFOFOOOOO! |
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 20:51:00 -
[32]
Some good suggestions thank you.
Originally by: Pehova Mindtriq
Eve is too complex to decide which alliance is best at pvp just by looking at numbers.
It may be difficult to decide which alliance is best at PvP by looking at numbers, however I'm looking for an index of the alliance's 'power' to determine a ranking.
By considering power as an alliances ability to control regions of space and the corresponding military industrial and political strength.
From the suggestions so far (including location, 0.0 assets, killboard stats, economics etc.). Economics can be estimated by looking at an alliances POS network, refineries and factories cross-referenced with membership size.
For alliances that have large numbers of assets, but a small number of members, supported by their political surroundings, this is still a form of power.
For alliances with large capital fleets that know how to use them in the acquisition of territory, this is show in how many outposts they have conquered.
Does there need to be multiple rankings?
- Offensive index (for territory gains)
- Defensive index (for ability to regain territory)
- Economic index (mix of refineries, POS, factories etc.)
Is that just too damn complex?
What's useful when investigating other alliances to attack/ally/join?
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank |
Lowanaera
Amarr
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 21:07:00 -
[33]
I do think it is simply too complex. Space/infrastructure is no true indication of real power as there are always complicated political situations attached, special circumstances, individual alliances almost never conquer territory solely by themselves, and the political situation that gave them the opportunity to take that space can change in a heartbeat leaving them vulnerable to failing the first real test they are given. The examples throughout Eve history are countless.
The current "ranking" is a simple indicator of who currently controls how much space, and is plenty useful just as that. Trying to complicate it into some more complex measure of "power" will simply lead to squabbling over the unavoidable arbitrary nature of it. A parallel example can easily be drawn between the automated Eve influence map (which simply shows concentrations of sovereignty and infrastructure) vs hand-created maps (which try to reflect actual power and control and end up being heavily derided for bias and inaccuracy).
|
Takahashi Arran
coracao ardente
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 21:18:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Takahashi Arran on 22/09/2007 21:20:42
Originally by: Lowanaera
The current "ranking" is a simple indicator of who currently controls how much space, and is plenty useful just as that. Trying to complicate it into some more complex measure of "power" will simply lead to squabbling over the unavoidable arbitrary nature of it. A parallel example can easily be drawn between the automated Eve influence map (which simply shows concentrations of sovereignty and infrastructure) vs hand-created maps (which try to reflect actual power and control and end up being heavily derided for bias and inaccuracy).
I fear this is correct. Unless you can get an api export of alliance standings your never going to understand the complex politics of eve. I am obviously biased here but anyone who didn't put triumvirate in the top 10 most "powerful" alliances list would clearly be smoking something. However there is no real way to "prove" this clearly imho. Another example is non space holding alliances, i would say pandemic legion and cruel intentions have some of the best pvp forces in the game at the moment, but their not "powerful" because they are not POS warfare alliances. I think the current ranking works well for its intended purpose. and If you want to make a "political" ranking great but it will be hard to base it on real facts.
|
Sasha Evergreen
Gallente
Sand Castle Generals
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 21:22:00 -
[35]
Something that will keep Band of Brothers at #1 even after they loose a lot of space.
Thanks
|
Andargor theWise
Collateral Damage Unlimited
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 22:08:00 -
[36]
A major factor is the timezone coverage. If you can field 100+ pilot gangs round the clock, you will be far more effective than a more numerous alliance than can only cover 1 timezone.
This is mitigated by the timezone coverage of your allies, YMMV.
-
Got grief?
|
Manic Mole
VENOM72
Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 01:05:00 -
[37]
here's a simple way of having a points system:
100 points per constelation sov
25 points per outpost
1 point per sov sytem
1 point per 10 (or 25, 50, 100, whatever) members
and maybe a bonus 100 points per region with sov in past the first, not sure about this one.
---[sig starts here]---
a proud member of Venom72 & Sylph.
eveything i say is my personal feeling etc, etc, etc... |
Evil Pookie
BURN EDEN
Terra Incognita.
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 02:33:00 -
[38]
why have just one arbitary ranking system based on a number of criteria? Would it not be nice to be able to rank alliances by a number of criteria.
some examples of criteria I would like to be able to sort alliances by are:
1) number of outposts controled
2) number of systems controled
3) number of systems with sov x or higher
4) number of pilots
5) number of kills per month
6) number of kills per month / number of pilots
7) isk generated by outposts or some other economic criteria
8) average sp of characters in alliance
just to name a few.
|
Orc A
Interstellar eXodus
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 03:30:00 -
[39]
My input to this is i belive can be concluded in a single line, if you look at history of eve, history of rl, rl or other palce, you MIGHT (i cannot promise) notice that the correct "uberness rating" of an alliance can be measured by:
A x B + C = uberness factor.
A = Alliance age.
B = amount of territorial conflicts participated in(defensive) and survived.
C = Bonus for offensive conflicts or defensive MDP support.
Numbers mean jack tbh -
If a 3k man alliance cant remove a 400 alliance from it's property then i think the uberness factor certainlly goes to the 400men's alliance, no?
|
Carniflex
Caldari
Fallout Research
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 07:52:00 -
[40]
In my opinion alliance power is function of it's 'PvP wing' strenght and dedication (stamina if you like, ability to fight long campaigns) plus industrial wing strenght. Unfortunately it's impossible to measure in any efficent way. I would put also amount of capital ships under 'pvp wing' strenght, altho it's also strongly dependant of industrial wing capabilities.
Currently available data lets you more or less measure 'Industrial wing' strenght of alliances (outposts, sov systems and all that).
Indirect measure for pvp power of alliance might be perhaps pilots per sov system or pilots per outpost. The less pilots you have per asset the better they need to be to hold those assets. It is rather rough measure and does not give full picture ofc, but it's closest thing to 'pvp power' measurement I can find in currently ingame available data. Overall strenght rating would then be function of outposts/sov systems compared against pilots in that organization holding them.
Somekind of in game automatic killboard would give propably better measurement, but thats not coming anytime soon (if ever) as I understand.
|
Graalum
Foundation
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 09:00:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Graalum on 23/09/2007 09:00:06
whatever makes smackkill #1 imo. 
in reality, i think the number of kills in that alliances home regions in the previous months should be a big indicator. The more dudes that have died in space that you still control is a big statement.
|
Taj Zela
Minmatar
Haha It Is To Laugh
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 09:02:00 -
[42]
I would say their power is in direct relation to their leaders E-peen. BoB lost power after shrikes got cut and now tolon just got circumsized.
|
Taj Zela
Minmatar
Haha It Is To Laugh
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 09:03:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
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.
win
|
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 09:32:00 -
[44]
If you want an accurate representation of which alliance has more power, then you have to use easily quantifiable statistics.
- Sov Systems
- Outpost Count
- Numbers
Once you start introducing variables such as FC skill, killboard stats, cap-fleet size, forum smack capability you move into an area where none of your statistics are meaningful because they are based on opinion rather than fact.
Originally by: Serenity Steele
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?
In this example, if you are ranking the alliances power then it is obvious that Morsus is the more powerful alliance. They have two additional sovereign systems and eight hundred pilots worth of additional manpower.
When it comes to ranking alliances you are not going to get much more accurate than that, there are just too many variables that are impossible to accurately measure.
|
Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 11:52:00 -
[45]
There's no one true measure of power. Everyone has their own perception of what factors are important and you won't get close to satisfying the majority of people that your method is correct no matter how much data you could acquire and how complex your ranking system. Is Israel or Australia more powerful? The former has nuclear weapons, the later a much higher GDP. They'd both be screwed if they went to war, so do they really have any power over each other? They're arguably both more powerful than the other but at different things and essentially incomparable.
Politics complicates things immensely. Superpower A and Superpower B are duking it out and both desperate for an edge over the other. Smaller alliance C can back either, and cause that side to win. C thus holds the power to destroy either superpower. Were there no war C would have much less power. You can't quantify such things, it's just an endless stream of What Ifs.
And as mentioned you don't have much data anyway. What I would like to see (because I planned it myself but probably won't ever get around to it) is a determined effort to form a central killboard leching from the killboards of every territorial alliance and the various non-territorial ones with high killlist activity. All station holders minimum in any case. It wouldn't be much use as a plain killlist of course you'd need to derive all kinds of stats, battle analyses, alliance profiles and so on. But it would be very useful and very interesting. Were someone to do it properly and choose to make it private I'm sure people would pay billions for access to the analyses.
Your best bet for ranking is just to have many different ones based on very simple metrics and let people choose which they think is important for whatever reason they want at that moment. Besides what you already have some interesting 'secondary' statistics might be:
'Age' - How long has the alliance held at least one station for, or at least one sovereign system.
'Average Quality of Space' - Average real sec status of all sov systems.
'Total Quality of Space' - Sum of real sec statuses of all sov systems.
'Population Stability' - Percentage difference between the minmum and maximum member count over 90 days
'Territorial Stability' - Percentage difference between low and high sov system count over 90 days
'Population Growth' - Percentage difference between the member count now vs 90 days ago
'Territorial Growth' - Percentage difference between sov system count now vs 90 days ago
If you can get killlist data there's a ton of stuff like how many titan pilots, how many ms pilots, how many carrier/dread/battleship/command/dictor. What percentage of ship losses are t2 gun fitted. What kinds of combat characterise the alliance (capital, fleet, skirmish, gank, low sec, empire, or is it all barge and indi losses). You can also go a long way to automatically guessing who's NAPed who based on who's shooting who. And who's projecting power where. I'd love to see a map automatically generated like the new influence map that shows not only where alliances are living but where they're fighting and how much stuff is getting blown up.
_
|
Banlish
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 11:54:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Serenity Steele
Does there need to be multiple rankings?
Yes
Originally by: Serenity Steele
- Offensive index (for territory gains)
- Defensive index (for ability to regain territory)
- Economic index (mix of refineries, POS, factories etc.)
Yes, yes, and yes.
Originally by: Serenity Steele
Is that just too damn complex?
.... Your asking this to people that play EVE  
Originally by: Serenity Steele
What's useful when investigating other alliances to attack/ally/join?
Not sure, size of alliance, distance from alliance, higher number of outposts they control = less people showing up to help you, lower number = higher amount, something along those lines?
|
John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 13:25:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
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.
Is that a fact? O.K. let's look at it. 0.0 has High-end ore (in comparassion to Empire) which brings industrialists out. 0.0 has high-end rats (in comparrisson to Empire) which brings ratters out. Industrialists and Ratters and the fact that you don't have the pain of loosing your security rating or bills for war declerations brings PvP corps/alliances out there. If not for the wealth of null space, there'd be no industrialists and ratters therefore no need for PvPers to go out there and all PvP would be limited to Empire space.
If everyone was living in Empire, there'd be no Conquerables, no Outposts, no Titans, no Motherships, no Dreads, no Carriers and no formal Alliances therefore the way we judge an Alliance's power would be significantly different to how it's measured now. Your failure to grasp that simplistic concept and follow it back through to the reasons why half the stuff we take for granted is in the game now, coupled with CCP's mantra of 0.0 being about risk vs. reward, is why you will always fail.
Make a Difference
|
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 14:33:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Jotan Veer on 23/09/2007 14:34:55
Originally by: John McCreedy
If not for the wealth of null space, there'd be no industrialists and ratters therefore no need for PvPers to go out there and all PvP would be limited to Empire space.
You sure? I recently heard the shocking news that there are actually people who pvp for the sake of pvp.
Also, I seem to recall that pvp isn't just about ganking miners and ratters or babysitting said miners and ratters.
As for your assumption that people would be in empire if 0.0 space was crap, I think drone space might contradict that.
Yes, people need a source of income to replace their ships, and yes population of 0.0 space would be the fraction of its current size if 'industrials' had no reason to be there but I hardly think the ONLY reason people choose to settle and fight somewhere are the resources.
HUN Corp. recruitment info (Hungarian players only) |
Narciss Sevar
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 14:50:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Narciss Sevar on 23/09/2007 14:50:21
Originally by: John McCreedy
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
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.
Is that a fact? O.K. let's look at it. 0.0 has High-end ore (in comparassion to Empire) which brings industrialists out. 0.0 has high-end rats (in comparrisson to Empire) which brings ratters out. Industrialists and Ratters and the fact that you don't have the pain of loosing your security rating or bills for war declerations brings PvP corps/alliances out there. If not for the wealth of null space, there'd be no industrialists and ratters therefore no need for PvPers to go out there and all PvP would be limited to Empire space.
If everyone was living in Empire, there'd be no Conquerables, no Outposts, no Titans, no Motherships, no Dreads, no Carriers and no formal Alliances therefore the way we judge an Alliance's power would be significantly different to how it's measured now. Your failure to grasp that simplistic concept and follow it back through to the reasons why half the stuff we take for granted is in the game now, coupled with CCP's mantra of 0.0 being about risk vs. reward, is why you will always fail.
You attract people out to get rich not to succeed with that attitude. Hence you will always fail.
|
Lowanaera
Amarr
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 15:36:00 -
[50]
Originally by: John McCreedy
Originally by: Narciss Sevar
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.
Is that a fact? O.K. let's look at it. 0.0 has High-end ore (in comparassion to Empire) which brings industrialists out. 0.0 has high-end rats (in comparrisson to Empire) which brings ratters out. Industrialists and Ratters and the fact that you don't have the pain of loosing your security rating or bills for war declerations brings PvP corps/alliances out there. If not for the wealth of null space, there'd be no industrialists and ratters therefore no need for PvPers to go out there and all PvP would be limited to Empire space.
If everyone was living in Empire, there'd be no Conquerables, no Outposts, no Titans, no Motherships, no Dreads, no Carriers and no formal Alliances therefore the way we judge an Alliance's power would be significantly different to how it's measured now. Your failure to grasp that simplistic concept and follow it back through to the reasons why half the stuff we take for granted is in the game now, coupled with CCP's mantra of 0.0 being about risk vs. reward, is why you will always fail.
And how do you explain organizations like CVA, who for 3 years have fought tooth and nail to secure and build up a region with a worse risk vs reward than low-sec? Motivations for building an empire in 0.0 vary greatly, and believing ISK to be the sole universal motivator is quite short-sighted. You of all people should understand the idea of building for the sake of building, as ASCN and so many others have done.
|
TrippyX
Caldari
Fallen Angels Inc
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 16:22:00 -
[51]
In your OP you say
"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."
All suggestions i've heard so far are based on controlling space, but in empire alliances can't control space/constellations/outposts.
So if you want to make a fair ranking of ALL alliances including those in empire you'll have to find a way around the controlling space factor. A problem with this is that empire life is hardly documented. If a 0.0 alliance gets kicked out of their space you'll notice it on the map (sov change, big red blobs on kills in system, etc) if an empire alliance loses space they 'control' you'll not see it because of changing sov. Also if you go by big red blobs then Jita changes hands about once a minute.
tbh i dont think you can make a fair ranking for both empire and 0.0 alliances.
|
Alha Qmar
Caldari
Xenon Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 17:14:00 -
[52]
Its impossible to measure, unless you have a guy in each and everyone ofthem.
Numbers are also inrelevant. You can have a 200 player empire alliance hoarding billions of isk doing trading/manufacturing/mission running in empire alone. Whilst you can have a 2k player alliance losing isk everyday in 0.0 warfare
Also numbers is nothing compared in pvp, but I like to see it more as an area where a certain group of players has influence over. Like a certain group of pirates can keep a 1k alliance composed of carebears docked, whilst this alliances is supposed to control a constellation.
It all boils down, you can do alot with few people, you can do nothing with a large group because of disorganisation. This also boils down to influence. If a large group was to stand on their own, would they be as powerfull without all their friends?
|
Berrik Radhok
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 17:25:00 -
[53]
i measure an alliance's power with my scouter
unless it explodes 
|
NO BRAKES
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 17:26:00 -
[54]
I CANT OFFER YOU AN ALL ENCOMPASSING SYSTEM BUT PLEASE ALLOW ME TO PUT FORTH ONE SUGGESTION FOR WHATEVER SYSTEM YOU DECIDE UPON.
1. DO YOU PAY RENT?
YES = ALLIANCE HAS NO POWER OR RANKING
NO = RANK ALLIANCE
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 20:07:00 -
[55]
Originally by: NO BRAKES
I CANT OFFER YOU AN ALL ENCOMPASSING SYSTEM BUT PLEASE ALLOW ME TO PUT FORTH ONE SUGGESTION FOR WHATEVER SYSTEM YOU DECIDE UPON.
1. DO YOU PAY RENT?
YES = ALLIANCE HAS NO POWER OR RANKING
NO = RANK ALLIANCE
I would disagree. I'd suggest that; paying rent = buying power.
Still, it would be very interesting to know who paid rent, and where.
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank |
olzi
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 20:15:00 -
[56]
By the amount of exotic dancers they have.
|
TrippyX
Caldari
Fallen Angels Inc
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 20:28:00 -
[57]
Originally by: olzi
By the amount of exotic dancers they have.
in that case, i declare IVC the most powerful alliance, the sheer (sp?) number of ED's in Virt's hangar is enough to cover for the alliance.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 20:33:00 -
[58]
With the discussion so far, It's looking like the suggestion is to keep the current ranking. This then leads me to the follow-up question:
What additional derived information would you like to see about alliances?
eg. I can make an estimate of the alliance income from each outpost type, that is accurate enough to be useful. Similarly with each POS network, adjusted for density and scale.
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank |
Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 20:34:00 -
[59]
I gauge alliance power levels based on the number and quality of their posts in this subforum.
|
NO BRAKES
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.23 21:05:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Serenity Steele
Originally by: NO BRAKES
I CANT OFFER YOU AN ALL ENCOMPASSING SYSTEM BUT PLEASE ALLOW ME TO PUT FORTH ONE SUGGESTION FOR WHATEVER SYSTEM YOU DECIDE UPON.
1. DO YOU PAY RENT?
YES = ALLIANCE HAS NO POWER OR RANKING
NO = RANK ALLIANCE
I would disagree. I'd suggest that; paying rent = buying power.
Still, it would be very interesting to know who paid rent, and where.
I HUMBLY OFFER YOU THE 2 EXAMPLES OF RISE AND ISS. BOTH ALLIANCES THAT PAY FOR THEIR SYSTEMS. THE ONLY REASON EITHER ALLIANCE IS IN 0.0 SPACE IS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN STRATEGICALLY STRONG LOCATIONS THAT THEY DID NOTHING TO CLAIM THEMSELVES. WHEN CONFRONTED BY ANYTHING CLOSE TO A SUPERIOR FORCE THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY WORTHLESS. I CANNOT THINK OF A POWER RANKING SYSTEM THAT WOULD CALL EITHER ENTITY POWERFUL WHEN THE SPACE THEY OWN AND ITS DEFENSE IS MAINTAINED BY ANOTHER ENTITY.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |