[ok] Alliance Scoring

[JumboShrimp]

Alliance score will be updated soon, and will be made much simpler than before.

Alliance score will be the average airline score of all airlines in the alliance. No variable and cumulative elements, no age bonuses, no minus points etc. Since the airline score itself is a very good overall representation of the system, it's not worth making the alliance scoring any more complicated than this. Everyone can easily see what they contribute to the alliance score too.

Sounds great, simple and straight forward.  This way, one airline going on strike, for example, will not doom the entire alliance for the next 50 years.

Could this be made so that only top 90% (or some number) of airlines will be considered?

This way, the alliances would still have a few slots for newb players, without affecting the alliance score too negatively.

Update will affect GW#2 and GW#4 since they have 18 and 8 months to go, and all new games too.


The alliance rating is the main tool on which virtual passengers base their decisions. The score is simply a good overall representation of the members of the alliance and to be used for comparison.

Can you give us some idea to quantify the difference between 80% and 90% rated alliance?

[DanDan]

Sounds great, simple and straight forward.  This way, one airline going on strike, for example, will not doom the entire alliance for the next 50 years.

Could this be made so that only top 90% (or some number) of airlines will be considered?

This way, the alliances would still have a few slots for newb players, without affecting the alliance score too negatively.

Can you give us some idea to quantify the difference between 80% and 90% rated alliance?

Before a GW is over, alliances will be kicking out all those underperformers! 

[[ATA] Frimp]

Alliance score will be updated soon, and will be made much simpler than before.

Alliance score will be the average airline score of all airlines in the alliance. No variable and cumulative elements, no age bonuses, no minus points etc. Since the airline score itself is a very good overall representation of the system, it's not worth making the alliance scoring any more complicated than this. Everyone can easily see what they contribute to the alliance score too.

Update would affect GW#2, GW#3 and GW#4 since they have >4 months to go, and all new games too.


The alliance rating is the main tool on which virtual passengers base their decisions. The score is simply a good overall representation of the members of the alliance and to be used for comparison.

It sounds a bit too simple - you can just see players being ejected from alliances at the end of the year to boost up the average score which I wouldn't like to see.
A bit more thought may need to be taken into consideration how it's calculated..
Also there is no benefit to how alliance has performed through entire gameworld. Just a snapshot at the end based on the stats which can be manipulated pretty strongly imo.

look forward to hear what other alliances think about this.

[groundbum2]

maybe part of an alliance score should be based on whether they have a mix of small/medium/large airlines? So lets say the ideal mix is considered 33/33/33. The closest to the ideal gets a 1.0 multiplier to their alliance score, the most mismatched alliance gets a multiplier of say 0.75 to their score..

Simon

[[ATA] selvala]

I agree with the earlier posts. In my opinion, it should not be a percentage, it should be a flat amount of players. Average of top 15-20 for instance. That way, an alliance can't just be a handful of good players, it actually has to have a decent amount, but past that number they're free to take on players who aren't as good yet. There's also going to have to be a mechanism to incentivize not being below the cutoff point, maybe a slight penalty or a cap on your score if you're below the cutoff of members, or exclude alliances with not enough members from the scoring system altogether.

A percentage cutoff in my opinion is better than a flat one, but still flawed. For instance in the current GW2, whichever the percentage cutoff, A-Team would benefit from culling everyone who's doing poorly and leaving only the best of the best, and making a second alliance for the people doing poorly, which doesn't strike me as an intended game mechanic. Even if you don't do that until the end of the game to get on leaderboards, it still strikes me as gamey.

There's also a point to be made about adding a historical component. If alliance score is to be based on airline score, I propose tracking a new metric, per airline: 10 year rolling average of game score of that airline, and then making the top 15-20/etc. in this new metric give the airline score. This does not just reward gaming the system to get as high score as possible at game end, but consistently doing well.

[JumboShrimp]

Alliance score will be the average airline score of all airlines in the alliance. No variable and cumulative elements, no age bonuses, no minus points etc. Since the airline score itself is a very good overall representation of the system, it's not worth making the alliance scoring any more complicated than

How about a small change.  Not average of player scores, but sum of player scores?  Then, no player will be a liability, and the scoring would not encourage a boutique alliance of a handful of highly successful airlines.

[[ATA] Frimp]

How about a small change.  Not average of player scores, but sum of player scores?  Then, no player will be a liability, and the scoring would not encourage a boutique alliance of a handful of highly successful airlines.

that could work if perhaps only top 100 players were taken into account..
it gives an incentive to majority of players in an alliance to improve and for those who are not in the top 100 they can push to get into top 100 and make sure their score contributes..
also it gives an incentive to have a larger alliance but it will only make a difference if those players are in the top 100.

if average score isn't considered, then that way alliances wouldn't need to necessarily look at removing people..

[Johan87]

What i like about alliances is that can help eachother and make eachother stronger.
All alliances have a base of standard joined players and they add new players to grow there alliance fast,maybe here is a point to look at if an alliance is trying to be the best performing alliance?

I have been in Both ATA and Phoenix and both alliances try to gett the same achievement but at a different way.
I cannot say anything about Elite,Sky or other alliances as i have not(only my gf was) in the alliance.

Maybe wisely to spread the base standard players across the globe to gett part of the alliance score for network.
deleting players out of an alliance just for score goes a little too far as if i am correctly Sami had written it does not matter if have 20 or 35 members,if i am correct.
And add players to the alliance a little later then instead of day 1 if there score is important.
This way you know what you gett into house.

Not all alliances are after being best scoring alliance but looking for a group working together and have fun,so it will be also for newer members good to think in which type off alliance they like to join.