Viceroy's Alliance Grades (In Netgaining Ability)
-------------------------------------------------

=====DISCLAIMER=====

These ranking are based solely upon tangible facts.


=====GRADING=====

Grade points are awarded based on each alliance's finish in a particular category. The Top 25 alliances in each category are awarded points inversely proportional to their finish, meaning a 1st place finish nets 25 grade points, while a 25th place finish garners only 1 point. Further, bonus points are awarded for a Top 5 finish, also inversely proportional to the final rank.

Example: An alliance finishing 1st would earn a total of 30 points (25 points for the rank + 5 bonus points), 5th earns 22 (21+1), and 6th earns 20 (20 from the rank with no bonus points awarded).

In the event of a tie in a category, both alliances recieve the points of the higher placed finish. One man alliances are included for the purposes of scoring, but are treated as null value place holders and are otherwise excluded from these rankings.


=====CATEGORIES=====

These grades are broken down into two catagories, "Pure Netgaining" and "Overall Netgaining." The Pure rankings are a compilation of the Total Networth and Average Networth finishes during the scrutinized period of time. The Overall rankings are a compilation of Total and Average Networth and Membership. In both categories, only the top 25 will be displayed.


=====PEDIGREE=====

Many of you may remember the Ben Raines Alliance Rankings. This is an effort to revive and improve upon his rankings. Why am I worthy of picking up the mantle of the bestest supreme alliance ranker of all time, you may ask. I worked very closely with Ben over the years as members of the same alliances. I remember how popular these rankings were, and I hope to rekindle a little of that excitement to help maintain and grow interest in this game. I am as large a dork as my friend ever was (probably larger), I am capable of being just as long winded as he ever was, and last but not least... nobody else beat me to it.


=====CHANGES=====

As I said, this is an attempt to improve on Ben's rankings. I believe there is a measure of prestige and merit in a Top 5 finish in any category, and the grades attempt to reflect that while not unduly penalizing the other alliances. In the future, I intend to expand the scope of the rankings to include short-term and long-term grades, with short-term probably reflecting the last 5 resets, as it was in Ben's rankings. I will only be documenting resets spent on Earth Empires. New rankings for a new game. Finally, please consider this a Beta Test. This means that hanges are possible as I look to improve my product. It also means that results at this stage should be taken with a grain of salt, as three resets is hardly a representative sample for alliance strength or consistency - though it is a good start.


=====NAME=====

I was going to originally call this "Ben Raines's Excellent Alliance Scoring Total Stratification," but I believe "Viceroy's Alliance Grades (In Netgaining Ability)" was a more accurate description of what product I was attempting to provide.


=====COMPLAINTS=====

Unlike Mr. Raines, I will not flame you if you complain about these rankings. They are based on nothing but tangible facts and do not pretend to be more than they actually are. A common complaint may be that warring alliances are underrepresented. However, a) I have construed this to be more of a netting ranking than Ben ever did, and b) Earth Empires only tracks the three categories, so there's not much I could do even if I did care. Any other complaints anyone may bring up will only make them look foolish, and my flaming them will only make me look more foolish than if I kept my mouth shut. I am open to suggestions for improvement though, and please PLEASE correct when I inevitably fluff something up.


=====RANKINGS=====


PURE
----

1) 170 - Omega
2) 145 - LaFamiglia
3) 142 - Monsters
4) 131 - La Cosa Nostra
5) 116 - EEvil Empire
5) 116 - Evolution
7) 102 - Neofederation
7) 102 - Netters Anonymous
9) 96 - Infernal Council of Nations
9) 96 - Paradigm
11) 93 - The Infernal Elite
12) 92 - Collaboration
13) 88 - Survival of the Fittest
14) 81 - Rage
15) 68 - Sons of Liberty
16) 66 - Elysium
17) 56 - Death Knights
18) 55 - The Fist of Odin
19) 44 - Imaginary Numbers
20) 22 - Givers of Constant Torment
21) 21 - ReGen
22) 18 - Rogue
23) 16 - Sword of Vengeance
24) 13 - Natural Selection
25) 11 - Midnight Riders
26) 2 - Death Before Disco


OVERALL
-------

1) 227 - Omega
2) 225 - LaFamiglia
3) 189 - La Cosa Nostra
4) 185 - Monsters
5) 180 - Netters Anonymous
6) 166 - Collaboration
7) 161 - EEvil Empire
8) 156 - Evolution
9) 150 - Sons of Liberty
10) 146 - Infernal Council of Nations
10) 146 - The Infernal Elite
12) 140 - Survival of the Fittest
13) 139 - Neofederation
14) 136 - Paradigm
15) 133 - Rage
16) 95 - Elysium
17) 82 - Imaginary Numbers
18) 78 - Death Knights
19) 74 - The Fist of Odin
20) 35 - Givers of Constant Torment
21) 27 - ReGen
22) 25 - Rogue
23) 22 - Natural Selection
24) 21 - Sword of Vengeance
25) 12 - Midnight Riders
26) 5 - Death Before Disco

something's definitely wrong with your model...
how can Imag have a positive score for netting
=P

"Viceroy's Alliance Grades (In Netgaining Ability)"

I get it...

which reset/resets does it cover? Does it count TNW as points?

I find it hilarious how LaF is #2 to Omega when we seriously dominated top 100 for 2 resets in a row.

What is this? LaF hating rankings now?

PDM is ranked too high...

Srsly, we can't net.

Imag should soon drop out of teh top 25 if the game would hurry up and grow.

how many sets did you use?

GO DBD!
And of course GO MONSTERS!
:)

you didn't specify the "scrutinized period of time"

Haha yeah.. as much as I love seeing Omega on the top for both.. was this for the last 5 resets or something which Omega netted for all of them and LaF probably warred for 1-2 of them?

See? I told you I'd fluff up somehow! Sorry.

I scrutinized the last three resets, resets one through three of Earth Empires.

Both the Pure and the Overall incorporate TNW into their respective equations. The only difference is Overall includes Membership stats.


And Forgotten, I was surprised by LaF's ranking as well. Part of it is Omega, who hasn't finished lower than 2nd in either TNW or ANW yet. But Reset One really brought down LaF's grade. That's one thing I had in mind when I tried to downplay these a little by calling it a Beta Test and why I mentioned we should take these with a grain of salt. One war or subpar reset has a disproportionately large effect on the results. Ideally, LaF's reset one results would be diluted by four other resets, not just two.

If the numbers make me an "LaF Hater," then I apologize, but I still stand by the numbers. The only blatant and intentional manipulation of the numbers in this is my posting of the Top 26 instead of the advertised Top 25. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go cash ViLSE's check. :-)

EE doesn't have enough resets to have any "all time" rankings or anything -- we need a larger sample :p

all the statisticians will be around to confirm

if alliances a, b, c and d war for 10 resets, leaving the only other remaining alliance, alliance e, to win tnw/anw every reset, does that make alliance e good?

answer, no.

it does when alliance e still finishes #1 or #2 consistently when facing a,b,c or d :p

I'm not opposed to such rankings, but you can't really do a netting ranking yet, since most of the traditional netting alliances were stuck in war for a long time

No one in laf should be mad/sad/complaining though... I'm expecting that LaF will be #1 after this set on that rankings list and probably going to expand the lead for at least a bit. But that doesn't mean LaF's finishes are especially great either, using SS's logic, LaF hasn't netted against all that many of our traditional netting rivals either.... NA (who is a normal challenger for TNW) and Evo (who is a normal challenger for ANW) were normally not netting, or at best, were being maimed...

So overall, we don't have enough sets played to draw conclusions from things like this, other than very broad ones -- such as LaF and Omega both being top-tier netters, along with about 3 more alliances


++fair and balanced :p

imag hasn't netted since ............

I was hoping you were going to say yes, but then I scrolled down :(

17) 82 - Imaginary Numbers

BAM!

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

FOXangaea!

Off with his head!

yeah no worries LaF, i'm sure you'll pass up Omega after this reset.

DBD has been playing???? LOL
Imag is ranked too high!

I like em, they're obviously somewhat premature after just 3 sets but it's a good place to start. They will even out eventually.

Well then each reset it will become more accurate ;)

i dont see trolling earth watcher. Shush

o.O

yeah this is how ben raines rankings worked too i think

will be more 'accurate' after more sets of data for sure

using a scoring formula method like that is inherently biased.
Not to mention that the level of competition declined over the years and so it becomes easier to get rank 50 with fewer countries than before.
Also to say that placing 50th 50 times is the same as placing 1st once is a bit of a stretch:P

As I mentioned to ben raines when he did this, this is still nonbiased since you are arbitrarily picking a scoring formula (why 50 and not 100) and it isn't really a measure of the relative degree of difficulty in obtaining each rank.

You also can't use a uniform distribution in that way and get something meaningful:P

That is all

++martian
thy fluff and master

I never said this ranking wasn't biased. I said it was based on tangible facts. I believe it is impossible to have an unbiased alliance ranking, because any system will be influenced by the poster's opinions. What I have tried hard to do is made the bias transparent by basing it on documented facts. If you don't like the numbers I used to produce these results, then create your own with your own numbers. What you don't see here is an arbitrary ranking where the analysis is the only clue of the poster's bias. Personally, I have plenty of other ways to waste my time than to read schlock like "i hEaRt SoF cuz dey r l33t n r0xxx0rrrzzz j00 b0xxx0rrrzzz!!1!"

You also mention how this doesn't take into account the "relative degree of difficulty in obtaining each rank." I personally believe that this is impossible to accomplish because there is no way to measure it. From one reset to the next, the final rankings are heavily influenced by everything from changing market dynamics to wars to rules changes. The fact that (example) Omega and LaF war one reset may mean that LCN had a relatively easier time obtaining #1 ANW, but there is no way to reflect that in these rankings without being completely arbitrary. One way I have tried to improve over Ben's rankings in this regard is to add bonus points for finishing in the top 5 in any category, though this is to represent the prestige of the finish, not the difficulty in obtaining it.

In short (Too Late!), I do not mind that you disagree with these rankings. I hope you don't mind when I disagree with most of your presumptions.

well the best netters will still end up at the top few spots even with some war. Laf takes over first next set anyways. Give a heavier weight to top 10 finishers and then a diff. one for 11-25 and last a smaller one for 26-50. It shouldnt be hard to do however you do your scoring.


But keep going. People here just whine

I just like to poke holes in any ranking that ranks netters:P

Of course it's based on facts. You could also rate alliances based solely on how often they get rank 42 or how many countries have fluff in the title. Still based on facts. Doesn't necessarily mean it's gonna make sense:P

Let me suggest an improvement on your methodology
If you are going to score imo you should make brackets and base those brackets on the total number of players in the game during that set.

So for example
10 points for each country in the top 1%'ile
5 points for the top 10% ile

So in a set with 10,000 people
everyone in the top 10 gets the same score
In a set with 1,000 people only rank 1 gets that score.

So you are adjusting for # of players.
Of course you can't adjust for the other factors that happen in a set very well (wars, bots, acts of mehul or rule sets).

I would argue that rule set changes are fair game because people should be able to adapt.

What I suggest is points is something more like.
1st percentile 5 points
1-2 3 points
2-5 2 points
5-10 1 point

To get a good idea how the alliance as a whole behaves (in terms of netting skill.
And no this won't raise sof in your rankings:P

And it has nothing to do with what tag you hate.
:P

though that kindof favours big tags =/

how will you exclude all those restarts Martian? its quite a high number...

sol is ranked too high

and spawn is gay

LOL @ mathfail

takes a one one to know one :)

pfft. I'm amazed that bobby is the only one to notice the math error:P
decimals.. pffft. I blame the metric system:P

You rank based on alive countries at end of set spawn.

Any scoring system would favor large tags though.
Any averaging system would favor small tags and/or people who boot 1/2 their membership to inflate their stats.. YAH THAT'S YOU EVO!

boot half our membership?

a) we have a policy of no booting members in the last like 3 weeks

b) ... How many members do you think we HAVE?? we never have very many members starting or finishing! lol... unless you're suggesting we booted them before the set started....

you mean Monks Martian...

So I don't have to post the old rankings again for those who might want to compare.

eh you posting new ones now id assume? or am i missing something as to where i compare ;)

Yeah, one moment. Thought they were good to go, but keep remembering stuff I should address.

Remember, I have to keep up Ben's tradition of an overly long preamble :-)

Meh, if LaF and Evo isn't 1st and 2nd in any random order, then the netting alliance grade must be wrong :p

Looking at monsters ranks above evo - while monsters have never even came close to 10m anw below us while we both net, and we are in the about same size too - is hilarious.

anyway, hello viceroy :p

*waves hello*


You aren't going to like these then... :-D

random? :P laf>> evo! :P

meh, here cometh the locketubs :/

anyway I just realized that this is based on every set's performance regardless of the alliance warring or not.. lol.