PDA

View Full Version : What measurement do people use to decide which alliance 'wins' an age?



Brandonito
22nd December 2015, 04:20 AM
So, I have a question. What measurement do people use to decide which alliance 'wins' an age?

source
22nd December 2015, 09:04 AM
the temptation to respond to this question in the wrong way is just too hard
some might the one with the biggest penor wins
others might say that it depends on if an account with the highest value can actually hold all of it when the age ends

ghoulavenger
22nd December 2015, 03:21 PM
So, I have a question. What measurement do people use to decide which alliance 'wins' an age?
I believe the technical measurement is which alliance has the most points, which are determined by highest average rankings. However it could be argued that the person who took number 1's alliance "wins". Beyond that though is just alliance goals and has no bearing on anyone actually winning.

ROTTENSOUL
22nd December 2015, 04:32 PM
I believe the technical measurement is which alliance has the most points, which are determined by highest average rankings. However it could be argued that the person who took number 1's alliance "wins". Beyond that though is just alliance goals and has no bearing on anyone actually winning.

I agree with you, but it's winning at something a part of the game is not playing for.

Brandonito
23rd December 2015, 03:49 AM
I believe the technical measurement is which alliance has the most points, which are determined by highest average rankings. However it could be argued that the person who took number 1's alliance "wins". Beyond that though is just alliance goals and has no bearing on anyone actually winning.

That's two ways though... Are you telling me after all these years there's no definitive way for an alliance to 'prove' they won an age? For example, TGF could easily win this age via sells, or a short countdown that she's better able to take advantage of, but LaCN would never win in alliance points. Who won the age?

ROTTENSOUL
23rd December 2015, 07:14 AM
That's two ways though... Are you telling me after all these years there's no definitive way for an alliance to 'prove' they won an age? For example, TGF could easily win this age via sells, or a short countdown that she's better able to take advantage of, but LaCN would never win in alliance points. Who won the age?

A main can become rank 1 but I don't see why it would mean his alliance won the age. An alliance wins in alliance points, if an alliance can make one of their members rank 1 it's nice they can say one of their members ended with rank 1 but in the end it's only a individual, not his alliance that became rank 1.

ghoulavenger
23rd December 2015, 10:53 AM
That's two ways though... Are you telling me after all these years there's no definitive way for an alliance to 'prove' they won an age? For example, TGF could easily win this age via sells, or a short countdown that she's better able to take advantage of, but LaCN would never win in alliance points. Who won the age?
I believe the technical measurement is in alliance points. This is what is recorded on the final alliance stats page. So yes, you can definitively prove it. But winning the age is also recorded and often the objective of these alliances to begin with. Either one of these objectives could be considered "winning". If we had more ladders we might consider top sabbers etc too.

BRC
23rd December 2015, 12:38 PM
And if we were to have a top sabbers list, what metric would we use for that? Total value? Successful missions? Total missions? They all require different types of work.

Realistically, only stuff that matters is what is put on the homepage, or what the community actually feels like competing on. Achievements and titles are worthless if no one else cares.

ghoulavenger
23rd December 2015, 02:08 PM
And if we were to have a top sabbers list, what metric would we use for that? Total value? Successful missions? Total missions? They all require different types of work.

Realistically, only stuff that matters is what is put on the homepage, or what the community actually feels like competing on. Achievements and titles are worthless if no one else cares.
I assume that a top sabbers list, much like the typical ranking would probably be based on total value destroyed. Total missions and successful missions can be accumulated purely through fakesabbing, without destroying any weapons. But if you wanted to develop an entirely different ladder system, you could just use the same ranking system and rank each stat throughout. E.g. your sab rank is an average of all your total missions, total value destroyed etc. The only thing different about this ladder than the standard ranking ladder, is that you really can't *lose* mission count, destroyed weapons etc. while you can lose value. To rank an alliance you could use the same points system, having many top ranked sabbers would put you in the running. You could also do such a ladder for slaying -- too bad that the total value stolen portion would be rigged a bit because of sells -- but then we could also see just who got the sells more clearly as well -- not that we really needed much help in that category.

ROTTENSOUL
23rd December 2015, 04:54 PM
I assume that a top sabbers list, much like the typical ranking would probably be based on total value destroyed. Total missions and successful missions can be accumulated purely through fakesabbing, without destroying any weapons. But if you wanted to develop an entirely different ladder system, you could just use the same ranking system and rank each stat throughout. E.g. your sab rank is an average of all your total missions, total value destroyed etc. The only thing different about this ladder than the standard ranking ladder, is that you really can't *lose* mission count, destroyed weapons etc. while you can lose value. To rank an alliance you could use the same points system, having many top ranked sabbers would put you in the running. You could also do such a ladder for slaying -- too bad that the total value stolen portion would be rigged a bit because of sells -- but then we could also see just who got the sells more clearly as well -- not that we really needed much help in that category.

You can't really make ladder system to compare sabbers.
I myself sabbed over a trillion gold in roughly 27k missions, but can sab one guy that raided and do more damage in gold value than me sabbing our entire warlist.
Also If I would go rogue for a day now I might do more damage in sabs than I did in a entire war early on in the age with much less missions. There simply is no fair way to make a list for top sabbers.

All that matters for top ranks are the alliance that has most points and the player that ends on top. Some players and alliances will try to compete for this and others won't.

ghoulavenger
23rd December 2015, 07:23 PM
You can't really make ladder system to compare sabbers.
I myself sabbed over a trillion gold in roughly 27k missions, but can sab one guy that raided and do more damage in gold value than me sabbing our entire warlist.
Also If I would go rogue for a day now I might do more damage in sabs than I did in a entire war early on in the age with much less missions. There simply is no fair way to make a list for top sabbers.

I just told you how. You're complaining that you're sabbing the wrong targets not that it isn't possible to sab higher. You seem to be too restricted to the idea that war is the only appropriate time to sab. You can sab whenever you want, for whatever reason you want.

ROTTENSOUL
23rd December 2015, 08:40 PM
I just told you how. You're complaining that you're sabbing the wrong targets not that it isn't possible to sab higher. You seem to be too restricted to the idea that war is the only appropriate time to sab. You can sab whenever you want, for whatever reason you want.

Spoke the LGC member to the FoD member.

Like I tried to explain you, it's not just who you sab, it's when you sab. If I want I could right now sab just you for roughly 8 billion. Early in the age a very active sabber might not even reach such a total sabbing a entire chain. I don't think it's fair to judge a sabber on just sabtotal and missioncount would be abused by fakesabbers.. Maybe you think someone that is going rogue in the last 2 weeks of the age would deserve a better "sab rank" than someone that wars the first few months of the age but I don't. The whole idea of a sab rank doesn't work. You might say they could both go rogue in the last two weeks, but if one of the 2 actually played the age like a sabber he won't nearly have a simular account as the big account that did nothing the rest of the age. Also the sabber would despite him maybe having a smaller sabtotal have impacted the growth (when it mattered most) and rankings of much more players. That impact a player has is much more important than his sabtotal.

ghoulavenger
23rd December 2015, 09:55 PM
Spoke the LGC member to the FoD member.

The irony here is tantamount, you should be speaking this way to me, not the other way around.


Like I tried to explain you, it's not just who you sab, it's when you sab. If I want I could right now sab just you for roughly 8 billion. Early in the age a very active sabber might not even reach such a total sabbing a entire chain. I don't think it's fair to judge a sabber on just sabtotal and missioncount would be abused by fakesabbers..

Sab totals gain 0 from fakesabbers, mission count can go either way (fakesabs do have to be successful to be missions no?). If you're using more than one metric, you can easily outrank the fakesabbers. When you sab is very important for getting high sab totals, but so is getting a lot of value. The two go hand in hand. What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?


Maybe you think someone that is going rogue in the last 2 weeks of the age would deserve a better "sab rank" than someone that wars the first few months of the age but I don't. The whole idea of a sab rank doesn't work. You might say they could both go rogue in the last two weeks, but if one of the 2 actually played the age like a sabber he won't nearly have a simular account as the big account that did nothing the rest of the age.

Okay, now here I can pick up. Mission count can be inflated from someone fakesabbing or sabbing minimally, and they could theoretically go all out in the last two weeks and potentially have a higher sab total than someone that sabbed the whole age. But if someone wanted to sab people for actual sab stats purely, it shouldn't matter what time of the age it is. You're neglecting that war targets are not the only valid sab targets. There is nothing to say you can't go ham in the last two weeks like the other guy, and you'd have a strict advantage over him.


Also the sabber would despite him maybe having a smaller sabtotal have impacted the growth (when it mattered most) and rankings of much more players. That impact a player has is much more important than his sabtotal.
This is something that can only be measured by self satisfaction. I would agree that this couldn't be on any leaderboard, but I also think its importance is solely reliant on strategy within the game itself. Like you making that pact with SR never to war them. Any subsequent wars would only benefit SR, regardless of which chain you went after. This is a strategic choice, and not one that has any relevance to a sabtotal or sab ranking. If you wanted to get the higher sab totals and sab ranks at this point you would go after SR instead, being the largest and most available source of things to sab. Is there a problem with this thinking? That's what I'm getting from you, that it isn't right to just go sab somebody because you want to. I'm not saying that you have to, but there is nothing wrong with sabbing people, anybody, for any reason. That's just part of the game.

MFnBonsai
24th December 2015, 01:38 AM
Since this has taken over TRD I have moved the posts here....

ROTTENSOUL
24th December 2015, 07:54 AM
Thanks Bon, but I don't plan to get into one of these lengthy discussions with Ghoul.

I say there is no way to properly meassure if someone is a better sabber than another player.
If ghoul thinks there should be some ladder where some big account successfully fakesabbing all age and going rogue at age end should get a high spot on such a sab ladder that pretty much shows me why it doesn't work.

krieper
24th December 2015, 08:34 AM
I guess it depends on how you value sabbing overall.

I don't generally think it's something worth fighting over, so to me I'd go for the easy route and claim 'top sabber' with most sabbed value. Considering, in the end, this is a numbers game and the amount of tools sabbed does count for something i guess. However, being very active in early age wars, and wars overall is ofcourse something a good sabber would do, but I guess it's up for grabs more if the end of age sabspurts count. Being a good sabber isn't just pressing the sab button the most (as then we might as well put a top banker ladder for those than bank the most gold/press buy the most times in an age, lol) It's also maintaining a good spy and being able to sab your targets (whoever those may be). For example, I think mid accounts who manage to sab main accounts of their opponents are better sabbers than main accounts who sab a lot... There isn't a clear definition of 'top sabber', because this game doesn't keep track of sabs, hence it's a non-discussion.

ghoulavenger
24th December 2015, 08:52 AM
If ghoul thinks there should be some ladder where some big account successfully fakesabbing all age and going rogue at age end should get a high spot on such a sab ladder that pretty much shows me why it doesn't work.
Why should they? You're making the assumption that the game has to be played in a very particular way. War targets are the only valid sab targets. I've tried to drive this point home. If people want to be highly ranked on a sab ladder, they sab where the value is. If you sab where the value is, the values are universally lower, thus it becomes more difficult for someone to go ham at the last two weeks and monopolize the board. It's very much how you choose to play the game. Because the way you choose to play the game doesn't fit the sab ladder doesn't mean that the sab ladder is invalid. It simply means that you don't sab for the ladder. I mean you're basically making the argument that playing the ranking ladder is pointless because people get end of age sells, they're pretty much equivocal.

ROTTENSOUL
24th December 2015, 11:42 AM
Why should they? You're making the assumption that the game has to be played in a very particular way. War targets are the only valid sab targets. I've tried to drive this point home. If people want to be highly ranked on a sab ladder, they sab where the value is. If you sab where the value is, the values are universally lower, thus it becomes more difficult for someone to go ham at the last two weeks and monopolize the board. It's very much how you choose to play the game. Because the way you choose to play the game doesn't fit the sab ladder doesn't mean that the sab ladder is invalid. It simply means that you don't sab for the ladder. I mean you're basically making the argument that playing the ranking ladder is pointless because people get end of age sells, they're pretty much equivocal.

I don't make the assumption the game has to be played in a very particular way or that I can only sab in wars. Again, it's not just who you sab it's mainly when you sab. If you fake sab all age for mission count and peaefully rank an entire year besides the last two weeks that does not make you a good sabber.


Your spies successfully enter ignatius's armory undetected, and destroy 9277 of the enemy's Chariot stockpile. Your spies all return safely to your camp.
Your spies successfully enter ignatius's armory undetected, and destroy 9254 of the enemy's Chariot stockpile. Your spies all return safely to your camp.

See, just climbing the value sabbed ladder. At age start I would need to chain an entire alliance to get a simular total. Just a high total does not make someone a good sabber, such a list would be pretty meaningless for me.

ghoulavenger
24th December 2015, 12:37 PM
I don't make the assumption the game has to be played in a very particular way or that I can only sab in wars. Again, it's not just who you sab it's mainly when you sab. If you fake sab all age for mission count and peaefully rank an entire year besides the last two weeks that does not make you a good sabber.

Nor did I say that it would, nor would a ladder reflect someone being a good sabber. That is entirely subjective.



Your spies successfully enter ignatius's armory undetected, and destroy 9277 of the enemy's Chariot stockpile. Your spies all return safely to your camp.
Your spies successfully enter ignatius's armory undetected, and destroy 9254 of the enemy's Chariot stockpile. Your spies all return safely to your camp.

See, just climbing the value sabbed ladder. At age start I would need to chain an entire alliance to get a simular total. Just a high total does not make someone a good sabber, such a list would be pretty meaningless for me.
Maybe, but I don't think of terms in the scope of individual players. A sab ladder would also be pretty meaningless to me because I don't sab very often. A sab ladder could however encourage players to sab more often. And if they all decided to rack up high sab totals at the end of the age, predicting how the age ends from the third or fourth month out would be much more difficult. And that is assuming that they don't pursue high sab totals all age, and thus lower the value of everyone. A ladder only would do what it is meant to do, record the math involved and allow people to sab competitively.