Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:00:00 -
[61]
Originally by: marakor
From intel ive seen you atm sticking 150 ships plus caps into sylph space to blob out a nice little 0.0 war in is-.
Your intel is off by nearly a factor of three, but thanks for the well wishes. If you're looking for a 1v1 or small gang combat, contact me in-game and I can happily hook something up.
Didn't mean to troll or flame, Tanx0r; I failed to understand exactly what your ranking system measured.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:02:00 -
[62]
Edited by: marakor on 19/11/2007 23:02:41
Originally by: Garreck
Originally by: marakor
From intel ive seen you atm sticking 150 ships plus caps into sylph space to blob out a nice little 0.0 war in is-.
Your intel is off by nearly a factor of three, but thanks for the well wishes. If you're looking for a 1v1 or small gang combat, contact me in-game and I can happily hook something up.
Didn't mean to troll or flame, Tanx0r; I failed to understand exactly what your ranking system measured.
my intel showed 40ish vs 180+ in local and with you guys having some dreads but it was a while ago last info was about a ms on a gate.
|
Dafuzz
Gallente Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:03:00 -
[63]
See, Marakor didn't deny it.
--
-If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets.. |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:03:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Dafuzz See, Marakor didn't deny it.
deny what?
|
Kai Zion
Amarr The Zion Accounts
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:06:00 -
[65]
Oh marakor...you're not very good at this....
|
sharkyballs
Amarr Priory Of The Lemon R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:07:00 -
[66]
your correct, my situation was hypothetical. so think about it for a second, what does that make your score? reflective of nothing and without a point. i'm trully not trying to flame you and i'm sorry you probably put a lot of time into this oppose to thought, but the numbers have no meaning. how is that useful on any level?
first of all, to get your "total" = ( # systems * average system sov). that number has no meaning because you've already used the # systems to get the average sov. it's just a hugely inflated number that represents what soveerty would be if you combined multiple different soverties of the same alliance. as if for every system an alliance has, it's avg sov is that much more. wtf is that suppose to tell us? nothing.
second, you divide that number by population density. so now we have hugely inflated soverty of how many systems by # people per system.
please explain to me how this shows anything, is of any use, or more importanly, WHAT IT SHOWS?
it sounds to me like a poor and wierd attempt at propagada
|
Dafuzz
Gallente Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:10:00 -
[67]
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: Dafuzz See, Marakor didn't deny it.
deny what?
Xackly my point.
--
-If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets.. |
Hardin
Amarr Madison Industrial Co. Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:16:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Dafuzz See, Marakor didn't deny it.
Why would a CVA alt be smacking the CVA?
@ Marakor
Your info is pretty crap...
There was an MS on a gate but it certainly wasn't anywhere near Sylph space. Indeed it was a separate engagement altogether. We had a trap ready for some BE - an MS pilot logged on and happened to be in local and wanted to participate. We caught Satan's Raven for the cost of a Dictor but unfortunately in typical BE style Rick****, Calmdown and two other BE managed to escape as we put too many points on one target and they MWDed out of bubble and damped our other tacklers - kudos to them for their clever tactics (honed by long experience).
Regarding your whinge about Sylph/CVA if Terra Incognita had done some research they would have realised CVA were allied to Sylph and very likely to assist particularly if they decided to pop down a POS in Sylph's Outpost system... that is kinda what allies do...
If TI had not expected that then I would be very surprised as I was always of the opinion that TI/BE had some of the more intelligent pilots in the galaxy...
I am sorry if that offends your sense of honour but afaik Sylph and TI had not agreed to some kind of 1 vs 1 alliance duel
Sorry for the continued derail in this discussion...
------------------------------
|
NATMav
F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:22:00 -
[69]
Crunch the numbers on how high RISE would have been right before they imploded.
Farham: "Remember, sometimes evolution ends in extinction." |
matty01
Minmatar Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:31:00 -
[70]
we're number 23! we're number 23!
|
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:36:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: Dafuzz See, Marakor didn't deny it.
Why would a CVA alt be smacking the CVA?
@ Marakor
Your info is pretty crap...
There was an MS on a gate but it certainly wasn't anywhere near Sylph space. Indeed it was a separate engagement altogether. We had a trap ready for some BE - an MS pilot logged on and happened to be in local and wanted to participate. We caught Satan's Raven for the cost of a Dictor but unfortunately in typical BE style Rick****, Calmdown and two other BE managed to escape as we put too many points on one target and they MWDed out of bubble and damped our other tacklers - kudos to them for their clever tactics (honed by long experience).
Regarding your whinge about Sylph/CVA if Terra Incognita had done some research they would have realised CVA were allied to Sylph and very likely to assist particularly if they decided to pop down a POS in Sylph's Outpost system... that is kinda what allies do...
If TI had not expected that then I would be very surprised as I was always of the opinion that TI/BE had some of the more intelligent pilots in the galaxy...
I am sorry if that offends your sense of honour but afaik Sylph and TI had not agreed to some kind of 1 vs 1 alliance duel
Sorry for the continued derail in this discussion...
I didnt say it was in sylph space i said it was the last intel i got from TI and BE is part of TI last i checked.
Personaly i think that unless you like some of the best gankers in eve scooting about your space then minding your own business would be advisable but hey it says your some of the best in eve so good luck lol.
|
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:40:00 -
[72]
Originally by: marakor
Personaly i think that unless you like some of the best gankers in eve scooting about your space...
Gee, that would be unprecidented...
|
Hardin
Amarr Madison Industrial Co. Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:42:00 -
[73]
Originally by: marakor
Personaly i think that unless you like some of the best gankers in eve scooting about your space then minding your own business would be advisable but hey it says your some of the best in eve so good luck lol.
I have a lot of respect for BE and their capabilities but if you really think that CVA is not going to help an ally simply because it might mean BE camping our space for a while (as they have done before anyway) then you really do not understand the CVA
------------------------------
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:44:00 -
[74]
Edited by: marakor on 19/11/2007 23:44:41
Originally by: Hardin
Originally by: marakor
Personaly i think that unless you like some of the best gankers in eve scooting about your space then minding your own business would be advisable but hey it says your some of the best in eve so good luck lol.
I have a lot of respect for BE and their capabilities but if you really think that CVA is not going to help an ally simply because it might mean BE camping our space for a while (as they have done before anyway) then you really do not understand the CVA
Please speak up your voice is muffled. Do you have your face pushed against summat?.
shh pet your masters are talking
|
Garreck
Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:47:00 -
[75]
Originally by: marakor
Please speak up your voice is muffled. Do you have your face pushed against summat?.
shh pet your masters are talking
Wow.
You honestly have no idea who Hardin is or why he's currently showing "other-than-CVA" membership...
|
Hrin
Minmatar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 23:58:00 -
[76]
Haven't read the replies.
The average SOV level is a problem. Why? An expanding alliance will have a lower average SOV level as it takes time to crank that up. An alliance that is losing systems will have a much higher average. Systems drop from SOV 3 of the losing alliance to SOV 1 of the victorious alliance.
The average SOV system you have in place right now assumes static borders, thus giving greater weight to entrenched territory. I guess I'm saying that average SOV level is a worthless indicator. What's more important is the number of systems one has SOV over as that indicates logistics and general wealth.
|
Audrea
Veto. Academy Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 00:07:00 -
[77]
To the OP: This is interesting method, what was your intention to show? I mean, rate by what? if its PVP strength and capabilities, its not accurate to say the least.
But if it is meant to show size of territorial claims, logistical capabilities and actual usage of the space, then yea maybe its a close representation... just finding it curious :)
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 00:28:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Tanx0r Edited by: Tanx0r on 19/11/2007 21:59:47
Originally by: sharkyballs
Originally by: zykerx
Originally by: Darko1107 May not be biased, but its a pretty poor rating system imo.
MC at 24th shows that perfectly.
yeah if i make a 1 man alliance and put 10 pos up im the uber number1 on that website :O
you are very correct. this data is crap. wanna know why? 1 man alliance sets up 1 pos in x system, and 1 pos in y system. both achive sov 3.
score = 100 [(# systems * avg. sov) / (average members per system)
so, score = 100 [(2*3) / (.5)]
score = 1200
a 1 man alliance just made it to the # 2 spot. lol, i don't think so. your data makes no sense.
And just how long do you think this "alliance" of yours is going to last?
Not impressed.
Also, you can click any of the other columns to change the rating. But sure, whine on.
Potentially a long time. Lets say I decide to set up a POS jump bridge network to Empire for Atlas and it's various friends. I use that spare alliance + corp I've had sitting around on an alt for standings management purposes, and set up my 4 POS chain. In two of the systems there is no-one claiming Sov, so I claim it for the fuel bonus.
I now have a 1 man corp, protected by the full might of Atlas, SmashKill, Chaos and friends, claiming Sovereignty indefinitely in 2 systems.
Voila, I'm number 2! I'm number 2! I'm number 2! ------
Originally by: CCP Prism X There's no such thing as playing too much EvE! You all obviously need more accounts! |
Galen Darksmith
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 00:33:00 -
[79]
Have to say, don't really see the point behind this. I think the hypothetical 1 man 10 POS alliance proves it. As you hinted yourself, that guy isn't going to last very long. Heck, that guy could be overthrown in a day by any of the bottom ranking alliances on that list. Yet, he would show up as #2 in your ranking.
The thing is, your chart puts too much emphasis on sovereignty. RISE had Sov 4, and we all saw how much good that did them. if this is meant to be a "sov strength" alliance ranking, why then do you care about member density?
|
Viro Melchior
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 00:37:00 -
[80]
The problem with this rating system is:
1) Systems owned is an exponential value. The quickie math to explain:
Alliance A: 100 members, 1 system, Sov 1 Alliance B: 100 members, 2 systems, Sov 1 Alliance C: 100 members, 3 systems, Sov 1 Alliance D: 100 members, 5 systems, Sov 1 Alliance E: 100 members, 10 systems, Sov 1 Alliance F: 200 members, 5 systems, Sov 1 Alliance G: 100 members, 5 systems, Sov 2 Alliances A through C are a simple progression. While you're only doubling one number, the score is rising exponentially based on the incremental increase in systems. Alliance D is the basis to compare D through F to, as I doubled either population, systems, or Sov level for each.
Alliance A: Total=1, Density=100, Score=1 Alliance B: Total=2, Density=50, Score=4 Alliance C: Total=3, Density=33.3, Score=9 Alliance D: Total=5, Density=20, Score=25 Alliance E: Total=10, Density=10, Score=100 Alliance F: Total=5, Density=40, Score=12.5 Alliance G: Total=10, Density=20, Score=50 As you can see, the alliance with more territory quadrupled their score. The alliance with more people lost half their score (wtf? I thought having members meant you were doing *better*), and the alliance that had better sovereignity doubled their score (properly linear).
2) Member count is a penalty. If anything, membership should be a non-factor unless you're trying to measure whether the alliance has enough ratting grounds. And honestly, any alliance with a density under 50 is probably doing just fine, and getting all the way down to 20 or less actually makes your alliance perform worse because you aren't able to defend each other when ratting. Or you just have a lot of claimed space that nobody uses.
3) Outposts aren't considered at all. These are a major factor of the power of an alliance since they provide docking resources, staging grounds, and safe havens for afkers. They save alliances time, and generate additional income (via refine taxes and such).
Changes I'd suggest: Reduce the system count to a linear value, not exponential. Add outposts at 30 points each. Create a curved result based on density. Perhaps (DENSITY + 5) / DENSITY = MULTIPLIER. Final result: SCORE = MULTIPLIER * (SYSTEMS * LEVEL + [OUTPOSTS * 9]) Outposts should represent about 1/3 of an alliances score, based on a ratio of 1 per every 6 systems (the best alliances outpost-wise have a 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 ratio and will do better). I say that because an alliance with 50 systems and no outposts increases it's power by 50% if it were to build 8 outposts to stage out of. The multipler will provide a 25% boost to the score of anyone with a density of 20, a 12.5% bonus at density 40, and so on. It won't decide your score as strongly, instead allowing systems and sovereign levels play a proper role. Systems will be linear, so capturing one more system won't make as huge of a ripple except at low system counts (and event hen it's smaller). Outpost value: OUTPOSTS * CONSTANT = 1/2 (SYSTEMS * LEVEL). SYSTEMS = 6. LEVEL = 3. OUTPOSTS = 1. __ 1 * X = .5 (6 * 3) __ X = 9
Results based on alliances #1, #2, #3, #4, #10, #15, and #20 on your list:
Quote: SCORE = MULTIPLIER * (SYSTEMS * LEVEL + [OUTPOSTS * 9])
#1 BoB: MULTIPLIER=1.22, SYSTEMS=123, LEVEL=2.94, OUTPOSTS*9=207 ----693.7 #2 RA: MULTIPLIER=1.24, SYSTEMS=74, LEVEL=2.58, OUTPOSTS*9=171 ----448.78 #3 TCF: MULTIPLIER=1.26, SYSTEMS=67, LEVEL=2.4, OUTPOSTS*9=117 ----350.03 #4 GOON: MULTIPLIER=1.11, SYSTEMS=119, LEVEL=2.25, OUTPOSTS*9=198 ----516.98 #10 DMC: MULTIPLIER=1.14, SYSTEMS=44, LEVEL=2.77, OUTPOSTS*9=36 ----179.98 #15 ULTIMA: MULTIPLIER=1.14, SYSTEMS=35, LEVEL=2.6, OUTPOSTS*9=0 ----103.74 #20 MOSTLY: MULTIPLIER=1.12, SYSTEMS=28, LEVEL=2.71, OUTPOSTS*9=63 ----155.55
|
|
Viro Melchior
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 00:37:00 -
[81]
As you can see, by changing a few things, you no longer have a score that is slanted so far that BoB looks to be 10x the power of almost every other alliance in the game. Sure, I have no problem rating BoB the highest, but I guarantee you that if alliances #16 through #20 got together, they'd be a bigger threat to someone than BoB (without it's allies/pets). So primarily this revision would give alliances a better rating of their strength, as well as factor in outposts (which I tried to keep from being too overwhelming, although it made a big difference for Ultima Ratio and Mostly Harmless (no outposts, and a 1 in 4 ratio). I still don't think it's a perfect rating system, as alliances with a density below 15 begin to see absurd results from the MULTIPLIER. However you could simply use it as a tool only for alliances of at least 100 members, as it's virtually impossible to get a density that low after that point (100 men would need 8 systems to start getting crazy, 500 would need 40, and not until a density below 7 does it become unbalanced). Additionally, I firmly believe that more members = more power. True, there is a point where you reach dead weight, and mass recruitment is going to be bad for an alliance, but a larger alliance DOES have an advantage, and your formula (and my adaption, to a lesser extent) penalize for size while provide rewards for over-stretching (and often pinching your pvp base more by forcing more players to do logistics).
However, I'd be happy with something akin to what I just posted being used to calculate scores, even if it is skewed some. It's a better representation than your exponential systems, divide by members formula.
</walloftext>
|
Tiberius Decius
Daedalus Initiative Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 01:09:00 -
[82]
17 Hydra Alliance 1668 37 2.73 101 45.08 224.04 13.96% 18 Knights Of the Southerncross 3252 50 2.42 121 65.04 186.04 11.59%
soo... by having more dense systems we get ranked worse? even though we have a higher number of systems, a higher number of total systems and almost the same level?
i thought density was a good thing?
|
Fault24x
Minmatar Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 01:12:00 -
[83]
we are last on the list... nice!
|
Moctobot
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 01:28:00 -
[84]
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
|
Viro Melchior
Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 01:43:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Hrin Haven't read the replies.
The average SOV level is a problem. Why? An expanding alliance will have a lower average SOV level as it takes time to crank that up. An alliance that is losing systems will have a much higher average. Systems drop from SOV 3 of the losing alliance to SOV 1 of the victorious alliance.
The average SOV system you have in place right now assumes static borders, thus giving greater weight to entrenched territory. I guess I'm saying that average SOV level is a worthless indicator. What's more important is the number of systems one has SOV over as that indicates logistics and general wealth.
Honestly this is fine. If your alliance has 15 Sov 3 systems, and adds 2 more at Sov 1, and 300 pilots, these are your values: Before: (systems) 15 * (sov) 3 / (density) 20 * 100 = 225 After: (system) 17 * (sov) 2.76 / (density) 17.64 * 100 = 266
Of course, my prior point about squaring the system count is the reason it spikes so fast. With just (systems) * (sov avg), your before and after are 45 and 46.92. Still an increase. In fact, you actually can't lose points no matter what you do.
1 system sov 3 = 3 points. Add a new one sov 1 = 4 points. Add 15 new ones = 18 points (16 systems, average sov 1.125). 15 systems sov 3 = 45 points. Add a new one sov 1 = 46 points (16 * 2.875). Add 10 new ones = 55 points.
You're making the mistake of looking at only the surface of the math. When he multiplies system count by average sov level, he's REALLY just adding all the sov levels together. If you have 3/2/2/1 for sov, the average is 2. 4 sytems * 2 = 8. 3+2+2+1=8. Hmmm....
So actually this method of counting sov IS the best, since your score goes up even as average sov drops, and then it goes up MORE as you reach higher levels of sov again.
|
Darknesss
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 01:58:00 -
[86]
Obviously a bit of work went into this, but im not so sure theres a market for this sort of information.
Serenity Steele's for example sticks to basic numbers, its informative but doesnt really rate an alliance other than how many stations it has.
I believe the mistake here is that the figures dont really show much information at all, other than an alliance losing space will have a much higer ranking than an alliance gaining space.
All in all, i appreciate the effort but its not really relevant enough for me to use or check up on. What the people really want is some sort of logical number crunching that shows an alliances power, but im not sure such a list could ever exist.
Dark
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) |
Farham
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 02:05:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Farham on 20/11/2007 02:05:40 "23Intrepid Crossing926242.385738.58147.739.2% 24Mercenary Coalition5691634835.56134.978.41%"
Yea, I love having a top 30 alliance in something and we are trying like hell to grow and get better but...uhmm, No.
Intrepid Crossing Diplomat and All Around Major Idiot |
Idaeus
Gallente Earned In Blood Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 02:18:00 -
[88]
Looking at this list, I see BSC's main/alt ratio just tilted even more in the favor of the alts (where the hell did all those extra members come from? Last I knew we had like, 45 people). Also, lol at our ranking. 67!? We should be at 100 (at most) on this list of 89.
God we suck. Please take us off this thing.
IOI - Earned In Blood |
lilly cain
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 03:08:00 -
[89]
how much more inaccurate can u get ? seriously
so apparently constellation soverentiy has no effect whatsoever on this ridiculous table
since theres only 3 alliance in the eintire game with 2 constellation capitals bob, goonswarm, and Morsus Mihi ? - according to the ingame map
theres about 9 other alliance that have one constellation capital
so to get a constellation capital u need at least 3 outposts in one constellation - in most cases these constellations will ahve 1 maybe 2 conquerable outposts, and teh other 1-2 dependsing on which way it goes are built by the alliance in question
so bob GS and MM, have conquered / built at least 6 outposts or more to claim 2 constellations yet this apprarently has no effect whatsoever contributing towards teh territorial power of said alliances ?
ur chart is a joke and lacks many realistic numbers
the guy from roadkill looks like he could do a much better one, based on sound mathmatical procedures, rather than ur slapped together crap
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 03:13:00 -
[90]
Originally by: lilly cain
the guy from roadkill looks like he could do a much better one, based on sound mathmatical procedures, rather than ur slapped together crap
I guess you aren't the alt of an alliance diplomate.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |