Alliance ranking

[Darkcelt00]

Oooh hell no it isnt
I your allience is so great why dont you attack us one by one
I know
BECAUSE YOUR CHICKEN!

[vanyel]

To be honest, ANY alliance ranking system would be better than not having one at all. Why not leave the old one up while a new one is developed. Right now no one can see how any other alliance is doing because it's all shut down. This is dumb. At least give us something to gauge statistics by. Perhaps if people saw who the 'leaders' were, there would be more wars to catch up or take them down, etc.


The point is, give us ANY system rather than none at all while you're fiddling around with coming up with a new one.

[Kiri]

Ok, my view of the issues so far.

We want a ranking system that:

1:  Doesn't allow for fake wars
2:  Doesn't reward alliances for attacking alliances much weaker than them
3:  Encourages wars throughout the timeframe, not just big wars at the end
4:  Doesn't reward EFAs

So, I propose a notion.  Each alliance starts with a base alliance score.  Say 100, or 1000.
Each war nets an amount equal to 10% of their own or their enemies score, whichever is -lower-, to the winner.
This value is then altered by a coefficient based on the ratio of the 2 alliances scores(to reduce farming on weak alliances).
It is then altered again by a coefficient based in some fashion the damage done to the enemy, or the losses by the alliance itself(uncertain which is better, talk amongst yourselves).  Or possibly the resources garnered?

The loser loses an amount of points calculated the same way, divided by somewhere from 2-4 or so.  Exact value here up for discussion.

This prevents fake wars, because some serious damage must be done to net any points, and must be done to an alliance that actually has a good score, to be of value.

This reduces the value of picking on little alliances, though not based on the respective power of the alliances, but on their respective alliance scores.  If you want to keep your high score, you have to be powerful enough to keep it.

This strongly encourages wars throughout the era, as one can only gain big points if one has big points(remember, 10% of whichever is -lower-).  this means that if you stay out of wars the first 3 months, you only have those base points when you start fighting, and are unlikely to catch up to people who have been battling all era, even those who lose a bit more than they win!

EFAs do not tend to cause much damage on either side.  Although there is net loss due to the fortress itself being smashed, and this -should- add some to the coefficient, it should not be as valuable as a real fight with real losses, or as valuable as cracking a fortress full of resources.

Hopefully there are still folks checking out this thread, I'd appreciate feedback?

[Polymeron]

This is mostly a sound suggestion; the only issues that I could see arising are the creation of fake alliances to create an artificial influx of points into the system - I have a notion or two for fixing that as well, but they'd possibly necessitate some extra development - and it probably encourages ganging up on alliances with a good score. If these flaws can be patched over, this would make a better alliance system than anything we've seen in this game so far.

[badgersluvme!]

Ok, my view of the issues so far.

We want a ranking system that:

1:  Doesn't allow for fake wars
2:  Doesn't reward alliances for attacking alliances much weaker than them
3:  Encourages wars throughout the timeframe, not just big wars at the end
4:  Doesn't reward EFAs

So, I propose a notion.  Each alliance starts with a base alliance score.  Say 100, or 1000.
Each war nets an amount equal to 10% of their own or their enemies score, whichever is -lower-, to the winner.
This value is then altered by a coefficient based on the ratio of the 2 alliances scores(to reduce farming on weak alliances).
It is then altered again by a coefficient based in some fashion the damage done to the enemy, or the losses by the alliance itself(uncertain which is better, talk amongst yourselves).  Or possibly the resources garnered?

The loser loses an amount of points calculated the same way, divided by somewhere from 2-4 or so.  Exact value here up for discussion.

This prevents fake wars, because some serious damage must be done to net any points, and must be done to an alliance that actually has a good score, to be of value.

This reduces the value of picking on little alliances, though not based on the respective power of the alliances, but on their respective alliance scores.  If you want to keep your high score, you have to be powerful enough to keep it.

This strongly encourages wars throughout the era, as one can only gain big points if one has big points(remember, 10% of whichever is -lower-).  this means that if you stay out of wars the first 3 months, you only have those base points when you start fighting, and are unlikely to catch up to people who have been battling all era, even those who lose a bit more than they win!

EFAs do not tend to cause much damage on either side.  Although there is net loss due to the fortress itself being smashed, and this -should- add some to the coefficient, it should not be as valuable as a real fight with real losses, or as valuable as cracking a fortress full of resources.

Hopefully there are still folks checking out this thread, I'd appreciate feedback?

Actually it looks like a good idea. Hope you get someone to hear you. 

[dupecmar]

I'm confused with your efforts to create system that cant be cheated.

It may sound as surprise to some of you but every system can be cheated. I think we are focusing very hard on those that cheat instead of enjoying the game and in that effort we would (most probably) make things too complex that most of us would lose a will (or joy) to play.

Make it simple and everybody enjoy.

I found it crazy to suggest that you HAVE TO fight from beginning so you could have good points. What if somebodies strategy is based on "develop first and than fight".

Everybody have different strategy and not everybody attack from the first day. I don't see any reason to punish those players mostly because in this ecosystem we have more than enough players that would gladly clean you up if they see you have no or poor defense.

This is my first time that i play IO and i quickly learn the basics. IO pushes you to build army, to fight and so far i saw A TON of farmers giving up or becoming fighters.

Current ranking system in realm that i play is fair to great extent. Yes it's possible to cheat it but what's the point. You won't earn money from it, you won't have any real life benefit and after realm is over new one will start. All cheater would have is memory on how they cheat and normal players would remember good fights they had.

So most (if not all) don't have interest to invest HUGE time so they could cheat. All of the players i know enjoy playing so, one more time, stop looking how to prevent cheaters and start enjoying the game.

Life is not fair and as soon as we learn to live with it we would enjoy more.