Online Airline Management Simulation

My Account
E-mail:
Edit account
» Achievements
» Logout
Game Credits
Credit balance: 0 Cr
» Credit history
» Credits FAQ

### Author Topic: Alliance rating  (Read 2111 times)

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Alliance rating
« on: October 03, 2012, 10:29:24 AM »
I just want to narrow down main part of the feature request here:
http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,42064.0.html

With the calculation as is, at the end of a long game (such as MT worlds), there will be ~5 alliances rated 100%.  I don't think it is realistic, and the formula shold be fine tuned.

I would break it down into 3 components:

1. Membership.  Max 25 of 100 points
1 for each member

2. Longevity.  Max 25 of 100 points
1 point per game year in 25 year game or appropriate fractions
Or, perhaps, alliance could achieve max in first 1/2 of the game

3. Alliance Marketing.  1/2 of the score, Max 50 of 100 points
The alliance with highest total alliance marketing budget would receive full 50 points
The other alliance would be awarded points proportionally to the alliance with highest spending.

For example if the alliance with highest spending spends collects and spends \$50 million per week on marketing (and is awarded 50 points),
and number 2 alliance  spends \$40 million on marketing, it shuld be rated at 40 points.

Here is an example of how the current calculation is less than ideal:
Just a couple of days ago, there was an alliance with 2 airlines.  Total aircraft was 75.  The alliance rating was 42
At the same time, the highest rated alliance had 25 airlines, > 6000 aircraft.  The alliance rating was 97

Under my proposed rating, the number 1 alliance would now have about ~40 points for membership/longevity and 50 points for marketing for total of 90
The 2 member alliance would probably have ~10 points for membership/longevity and ~5 points for marketing for total of 15 points

So while we would still have maybe 5 alliance at the end of the game with full 50 points for membership/longevity, there would still be some differences between these top 5 allainces...
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 10:34:34 AM by JumboShrimp »

#### CUR\$E - God of AirwaySim

• Members
• Posts: 4028

The person who likes this post:
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2012, 10:34:42 AM »
I don't think the number of players should count this much. It gives small alliances (Canada only, Soviet only, bunch of friends etc.) disadvantages they can't cover somehow else.

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2012, 10:36:48 AM »
I don't think the number of players should count this much. It gives small alliances (Canada only, Soviet only, bunch of friends etc.) disadvantages they can't cover somehow else.

Well, right now, membership and logevity can get you to almost 100% regardless of the alliance marketing (fees)...

PS: I edited my original post

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2012, 10:47:03 AM »
Another advantage of this is that this calculation can be adopted anytime in the game.  The calculation is a snapshot, it does not need to be aware of what happened before.  All the variables needed are present:
1. Alliance membership
2. Alliance formation date
3. Alliance spending

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2012, 10:15:28 PM »
I just wanted to refresh this topic, because what I expected has happened.

As some point in the mid game, all alliance become rated 100% (as in MT7 now), so the alliance rating loses its meaning.

As the Syndrome said in The Incredibles: "If everyone is super, no one is".

Also, in RW, there are only so many airline alliances, and not all of them are seen in the market as perfect.

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2012, 06:41:21 AM »
I love you, you love me We're a happy family With a great big hug and a kiss from me to you Won't you say you love me too?

« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 06:53:38 AM by JumboShrimp »

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2012, 06:47:10 AM »
Well, not quite there yet, but soon, we will be all perfect and happy:

#### brique

• Former member

The person who likes this post:
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2012, 10:27:53 AM »
We are trying! But 92% is pretty respectable for a bunch of little-bird flyers...

brique : assistant deputy director to the manager of cleaning supply procurement and disbursement (temp) : Little Bird Alliance.

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2013, 03:02:33 AM »
As the MT world is ending, I just want to re-iterate that the alliance rating should distinguish more between alliances.  The average rating between the 9 alliances is 96.33 out of 100, which is just a rounding error, and every surviving alliance has basically rating of 100.

If every alliance has rating of 100, then there is not much point to it.  It is not a differentiator between alliances, it is a differentiator between being in an alliance and not being in an alliance...

Maybe the change above:

http://www.airwaysim.com/forum/index.php/topic,43363.msg236515.html#msg236515

could revive some alliance competition...
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 03:05:35 AM by JumboShrimp »

#### dmoose42

• Members
• Posts: 1264
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2013, 10:39:34 PM »
I agree with this request.  More should be done to differentiate alliance benefits and how the rating is calculated.  I like Jumbo's general approach (although it can definitely be tweaked), but also suggest a more transparent explanation of the impact of the Alliance Rating on CI/RI.

The challenge is that the biggest alliances would always have the best rating even if other alliances may have better performance (i.e. fewer delays, etc) that greatly impact customer satisfaction.  This is because years in existence and number of airlines typically aren't key determinators.  As a result, I propose the following adjustment.

1. Alliance membership - 20 points (.8 per airline)
2. Alliance creation date - 20 points (.8 per year)
3. Alliance Spending - 30 points (top alliance 30, next alliance 25, and so forth)
4. Alliance Delays/Cancellations - 30 points (best record 30, next alliance 25, and so forth)

This tweak allows alliances with fewer delays to counteract the effects of having less spending.

Cheers,

Ben

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2013, 04:01:30 PM »
Just wanted to re-fresh this subject.  Looking at the alliance ratings in MT9, there are 2 alliance with the leading - equal score of 73.  Yet one of the 2 alliances has 2x aircraft, 2x routes, I guess 2x revenue = 2x alliance contribution (spending), 3 more member airlines.  There is not a single measure by which these 2 alliances are equal, so the ratings should not be equal.

Since this rating actually affects game play, I think it would be a good idea if it was meaningful.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 04:43:16 PM by JumboShrimp »

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2015, 10:39:13 PM »
Just looking at the alliance ratings in current GW3, and again, all the alliances that were started early on in the game are pretty much tied:
1. 95%
2. 94%
3. 94%
4. 93%
5. 91%
6. 89%

Since the member airlines are spending so much money on Alliance Marketing - 1% of revenue - it should have some effect.  If the #1 alliance is spending > 3.3x the #3 alliance, the difference in alliance rating should be more than 1% difference.

Here is my estimate of annual alliance fee spending:
#1 alliance: \$4.5bn per year
#3 alliance: \$1.3bn per year

The result of this huge difference in alliance marketing spending (more than 3x difference) is less than a margin of error.

IMO, this rating just needs to be completely revamped.  And since this is just a formula (calculation), it should be one of the easiest features (corrections) to implement.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2015, 10:42:03 PM by JumboShrimp »

#### Sami

• Members
• Posts: 14579
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2016, 03:22:14 PM »

#### gazzz0x2z

• Members
• Posts: 1445
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2016, 09:26:25 AM »
Don't know. On one hand, JumboShrimp' position is the realistic one. On the other hand, it would give the big boys an even bigger level to crush smaller opposition than they already have. Because a few alliances tend to clutter all the big boys, and as soon as you're a little smaller, you in a smaller alliance, that gives you a lower rating, and there is no fun.

A very good player does not need that boost, to be honest, but not all players are very good, and if being part of a smaller alliance helps them being not too overwhelmed by the big boys, why not? And if a good player is alone in a smaller alliance, he should have a chance. Like today. In current GW3, number 1 in terms of income is in a much smaller alliance than number 2. That's quite fair, I'd say. Even if not totally realistic(which is JumboShrimpexcellent point).

At the end, it's a gameplay choice. Place for everyone, or winner takes all.

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2016, 03:14:36 PM »
I (obviously) think that the proposal at the top of the thread would be the best approach.

Additionally, the other category, Alliance Score should be normalized.

The score is now scaled by the number of players in the game.  Meaning, early on, when the game world is full, the variable score (total of variable scores of all alliances) is a large number.  This number shrinks as the number of players decline.  As a result, by the end of the game world, when there are only some 100 players, the variable score becomes so small compared to the cumulative score that it becomes almost irrelevant.

The way to combat this is to award a fixed number of points, that is independent of number of players.  For example:
#1 alliance player - 25 points in the scoring category
#2 alliance player - 24 points etc.

#### JumboShrimp

• Members
• Posts: 6063
##### Re: Alliance rating
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2016, 08:55:57 PM »
Common Global Team.  We are just 6 points from achieving Universal Perfection.

WARNING! This website is not compatible with the old version of Internet Explorer you are using.