EVE Search - Your alliance has been rated

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Your alliance has been rated

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
marakor Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers	Posted - 2007.11.21 16:45:00 - [151] Originally by: Natas Dog Edited by: Natas Dog on 21/11/2007 16:39:12 Originally by: Wraith foc So we have 2 or 3 allies in the top 25... and 15->18 active enemies... Great! Interesting point, considering most of your current allies have been evicted from the space they controlled. Edit: This actually does bring up another point. The scoring system in no way accounts for alliances that rent/share their space with tenant corps/alliances, which is the case for both BoB and RA. This style of landlord/tenant agreement quite heavily skews the density calculation, and renders this scoring system even more useless on an alliance to alliance comparison basis. include naps in the equasion and the fact is that no 0.0 alliance in eve holds space alone so does not qualify for this result.
Natas Dog GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.21 17:04:00 - [152] Edited by: Natas Dog on 21/11/2007 17:13:02 Originally by: marakor include naps in the equasion and the fact is that no 0.0 alliance in eve holds space alone so does not qualify for this result. But in fact it does, as NAPs don't normally entail the use of each other's space for revenue generation. 'non-agression' does not mean 'sharing space'. The alliances I speak of are living out of space controlled by their allies. Some as tenants, some as refugees from a war gone horribly in their opposition's favor. Take a cruise through fountain sometime and tell me what the BoB to Tenant density ratio is, you'll see what I mean. _______________________________________________________________ He who laughs last is usually the one the joke was about.
Dangerously Cheesey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.21 17:07:00 - [153] Originally by: Gloomy Gus Has somebody earlier in the thread already posted that if density is a gauge Goonfleet wins by default? If only they discounted spies we would be much higher.
memphistopheles 911 AND IM IN HEAVEN	Posted - 2007.11.21 17:20:00 - [154] Originally by: Dramaticus look at dat fukken ranking Its this, this is the real rating.
marakor Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers	Posted - 2007.11.21 17:33:00 - [155] Edited by: marakor on 21/11/2007 17:37:02 Originally by: Natas Dog Edited by: Natas Dog on 21/11/2007 17:13:02 Originally by: marakor include naps in the equasion and the fact is that no 0.0 alliance in eve holds space alone so does not qualify for this result. But in fact it does, as NAPs don't normally entail the use of each other's space for revenue generation. 'non-agression' does not mean 'sharing space'. The alliances I speak of are living out of space controlled by their allies. Some as tenants, some as refugees from a war gone horribly in their opposition's favor. Take a cruise through fountain sometime and tell me what the BoB to Tenant density ratio is, you'll see what I mean. I agree with you but the fact is that all the results are off because every 0.0 alliance i can thiink of has a nap/ally/mad or other defence pact with there neighbors to be able to live there. Making a chart about how strong individual alliances are without including a deduction for naps that help them hold/take space or at least stop them from losing it is a waste of time and a totaly inaccurate representation of their true strength. At best this is a who's who of carebearage.
Natas Dog GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.21 18:05:00 - [156] Edited by: Natas Dog on 21/11/2007 18:08:58 Originally by: marakor I agree with you but the fact is that all the results are off because every 0.0 alliance i can thiink of has a nap/ally/mad or other defence pact with there neighbors to be able to live there. Making a chart about how strong individual alliances are without including a deduction for naps that help them hold/take space or at least stop them from losing it is a waste of time and a totaly inaccurate representation of their true strength. At best this is a who's who of carebearage. You and I have very differing views on what makes a strong alliance, I think we can both agree on that. My only point is that this 'ranking' system, by treating a low member to systems count as some kind of strength, is severely flawed. I'm pretty sure we both agree on that point. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make, it looks like you're just trying to push the same agenda you do in every other thread that mentions either Goonswarm or BoB. If you look at the top two alliances by score, it's pretty plain why I'm making my point in this thread about tenant/landlord alliances being unfairly weighted solely because they keep their carebears in an alliance outside the space holding umbrella alliance. Your point is still in question, because neither the OP or my own statements even touch on how capable an alliance is of holding their sovereign space on their own two feet. Mine merely revolves around the negative connotation towards member:system density projected by the scoring system, when it's no secret that even though alliance A owns the space, it's alliance B that's actually using it. Alliance B being an alliance with no sovereign space of their own. Goonswarm by contrast keeps their carebears inside the alliance, more importantly in the parent corporation of that alliance; which reduces the overhead involved in managing a myriad of rental agreements and having to settle disputes over who owns xyz space, who's running who's complexes, etc. There's a flat tax on bounties and refining; leaving the miners, producers, and ratters free to utilize whatever space they see fit; while the corp reaps the benefits in the form of tax income instead of a rental agreement. This of course lowers their score using the OP's calculations, even though the only difference between GS and BoB is that GS isn't afraid of having their carebears share the same alliance ticker as their PvPers, for fear of ruining their K:D ratio or catching some carebear disease by sharing the same corp/alliance chat system. _______________________________________________________________ He who laughs last is usually the one the joke was about.
marakor Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers	Posted - 2007.11.21 19:00:00 - [157] Originally by: Natas Dog Edited by: Natas Dog on 21/11/2007 18:08:58 Originally by: marakor I agree with you but the fact is that all the results are off because every 0.0 alliance i can thiink of has a nap/ally/mad or other defence pact with there neighbors to be able to live there. Making a chart about how strong individual alliances are without including a deduction for naps that help them hold/take space or at least stop them from losing it is a waste of time and a totaly inaccurate representation of their true strength. At best this is a who's who of carebearage. You and I have very differing views on what makes a strong alliance, I think we can both agree on that. My only point is that this 'ranking' system, by treating a low member to systems count as some kind of strength, is severely flawed. I'm pretty sure we both agree on that point. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make, it looks like you're just trying to push the same agenda you do in every other thread that mentions either Goonswarm or BoB. For myself i only recruit skilled pvpers that are at least able to learn basic and then advanced maneuvers with varying ships. And goon swarm although now has some high sp players still relies on the total blobbing and spamming of ships and has no recruiting standards what so ever. Im not sure if you have ever fought 30 vs 60-100 (your side being the 30) and actualy won but the buzz is considerably better than sitting in a pos with 300 other ppl waiting to warp to a gate and either desynch or lag out. My idea of a great alliance is skilled players achieving a victory against the odds But then i enjoy playing the game and flying the ships thats where my joy in eve comes from. But it seems GS idea is to have as many players as possable swamping and breaking the game to take terratory and tbh i can never understand that kind of enjoyment cos its a false positive.
Natas Dog GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.21 19:56:00 - [158] Originally by: marakor For myself i only recruit skilled pvpers that are at least able to learn basic and then advanced maneuvers with varying ships. And goon swarm although now has some high sp players still relies on the total blobbing and spamming of ships and has no recruiting standards what so ever. Im not sure if you have ever fought 30 vs 60-100 (your side being the 30) and actualy won but the buzz is considerably better than sitting in a pos with 300 other ppl waiting to warp to a gate and either desynch or lag out. My idea of a great alliance is skilled players achieving a victory against the odds But then i enjoy playing the game and flying the ships thats where my joy in eve comes from. But it seems GS idea is to have as many players as possable swamping and breaking the game to take terratory and tbh i can never understand that kind of enjoyment cos its a false positive. For as much as you like to smack goonswarm on the forums, it's amazing how little you really know about the alliance. Quite often lately it's our roaming gangs that end up getting outblobbed as we run through enemy territory. And yes winning a PvP battle outnumbered is quite exhilarating, but it also has no bearing on an alliance's ability to hold and maintain space. If you can find me any alliance that is involved in territorial warfare that doesn't end up involved in a massive lagfest at some point, feel free to point them out. If your alliance only focuses on the PvP aspects, you're eventually going to burn out your PvPers with logistics duty due to your lack of carebears when you get involved in territorial conquest. Take a look at the laundry list of PvP-only alliances that have taken and lost space of their own in the last year alone for some good examples. Most of them love to cite the ever famous 'Losing our space has set us free' mantra. It's almost as popular as the 'we didn't want those stations anyway' party line. PvP ability doesn't necessarily equate to an affinity to managing massive spreadsheets and jumping equipment and supplies to and from empire constantly, which is a major part of 0.0 alliance life. On the contrary it's usually quite the opposite, as most dedicated PvPers lack the attention span to handle the mind numbing grind that is maintaining large chunks of space. Anyway, it's pretty obvious this rating system is inaccurate, as the Anti-Lag Forum smackers don't even show up on the list. By your stringent recruiting practices you should be somewhere near the top. I'll give you this though, you're quite adept at derailing topics. Sadly, your PvP ability is something I doubt I'll ever be able to match. _______________________________________________________________ He who laughs last is usually the one the joke was about.
marakor Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers	Posted - 2007.11.21 20:06:00 - [159] This is my forum ***** not one of my mains and the space my alliance holds is caretakered by carebears under a alt allince ticker so we can pwn all we want without getting our station systems blobbed by the deranged victims of our pvpers. The refine tax and other stuff pays for our replacments and as i said we dont get attacked cos the space holding alliance that has the outposts is a differant name to our pvpers.
Volarius D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.22 00:25:00 - [160] I approve of this website. Tanx0r rocks monkeytails.
Alty MacAlterson Alt Corporation	Posted - 2007.11.22 03:53:00 - [161] It says BoB is 100, obviously biased garbage
Skraeling Shortbus Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.22 05:04:00 - [162] Originally by: Fred0 Originally by: Skraeling Shortbus We are rated below Razor... we must overthrow our oppressors... and stuff. MWUAHAHAHAHAHA... I tell Koth and Orree every night that you suck donkeyballs. This list just proves my point. Eat RZR dirt RAWR suckers!!! Go suck a phobos! Love to the Assault Frigate!
dastommy79 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 06:30:00 - [163] I say good try but realy not accurate. Its too difficutl to detremin true strength and all that by ccp stats. Its all about how they use its. I driks lot signature removed- Jacques([email protected]) Next mod that nerfs my sig gets a **** punch
Arakk Caldari VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 06:50:00 - [164] Originally by: Viro Melchior Originally by: Muff Joos why is density considered bad in this system? shouldn't you divide density by the total and come up with a percentage score? Density should be considered a strength right? Density is tricky to use as a gauge for score. More density = better protection of space, as you have more people close enough to help. This is augmented with jump bridges, as it allows an entity to sprawl further without increasing the travel time by an equal amount. More density however ALSO is bad, as it crams ratters together, which decreases carebear profits. However, this only applies when density passes approximately 40 players per system, as below that you just don't run into these problems. And even then, problems only occur when the alliance is in serious carebear mode. More density is an advantage again in terms of managing Sov, as more members means more available logistics, as well as increased taxation revenue. More density is a problem again when you factor in target value. If you pack a lot of players into a small area, it's high quality meat for nano gangs. All in all, I don't like using density as a measure for score. Too many arguments about it's value. Well density is just a reflection of your alliance's population. And by Tanzor's original scoreboard equation (which has since been removed and replaced with "potential = pretty cool"), your score was REDUCED with alliance member GROWTH. That was the main problem people were having with the scoreboard, but its no longer an issue. In any case I think its pretty hard to rank an alliance. Other than the way Steele and now Tanxor's rankings work, I think it could be possible to avg an alliance's rank for each category and list them in that order as another category for a better overall picture. Also i think density should be removed as a value, that way you wont have the 1 system alliances cluttering up the category rankings. Just population, systems, stations, avg sov lvl.
Confessor Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.22 10:03:00 - [165] Interesting
Wraith foc Destructive Influence	Posted - 2007.11.22 11:06:00 - [166] Originally by: Natas Dog Edited by: Natas Dog on 21/11/2007 16:39:12 Originally by: Wraith foc So we have 2 or 3 allies in the top 25... and 15->18 active enemies... Great! Interesting point, considering most of your current allies have been evicted from the space they controlled. Edit: This actually does bring up another point. The scoring system in no way accounts for alliances that rent/share their space with tenant corps/alliances, which is the case for both BoB and RA. This style of landlord/tenant agreement quite heavily skews the density calculation, and renders this scoring system even more useless on an alliance to alliance comparison basis. Sorry i had them ranked by number of members, not space controlled.. i was just thinking more targets
FOFOFOF CRAPSTORM	Posted - 2007.11.22 13:58:00 - [167] Originally by: Confessor Interesting Nice to see you're in MC, had a lot of fun with ya back in sparta campaing in fountain... to be on topic: nice try. Density should mean more.
Arkanjuca Caldari The Undertakers Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.22 14:10:00 - [168] Originally by: Confessor Interesting Hi Confessor, still fighting at 50km? nice to see ya in MC, had fun in fountain... to be on topic: OP needs to establish a more evident objective and them crunch in the numbers... -- "Tackling you in the system next door"
Gyle Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.11.22 14:18:00 - [169] right so what does destiny and potential mean and how is it scaled?
Sandman 17 Veni Vidi Vici. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 14:32:00 - [170] We all know an alliance ranking isn't accurate when KOS makes it into the top 10.
Factor Benz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.22 17:09:00 - [171] Originally by: Sandman 17 We all know an alliance ranking isn't accurate when KOS makes it into the top 10. Smash is in the top 20. It would seem you are correct.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: 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.