Collecting data for Alliance Rewards Cutoffs in PvP Tourneys

Copps

Wow that is far closer in points to the top than I would have thought although in the crazy rubber banding leading up to the last day I did see us as low as 30th or so as an alliance so I guess it doesn't really surprise me that much. Basically that puts everyone in the top 100 at 17+ people.

Unknown

Copps wrote:

Wow that is far closer in points to the top than I would have thought although in the crazy rubber banding leading up to the last day I did see us as low as 30th or so as an alliance so I guess it doesn't really surprise me that much. Basically that puts everyone in the top 100 at 17+ people.

With the scoring completely messed up in this one, along with the global rubberband, pretty much everyone that played to the end reached within 2-3k of the global points leader without much invested effort.

As a result, the standings highlight the discrepancies in size of alliance rosters. Because a top-tier player could only earn a few thousand more points at most than an average player in this event, size of alliance rosters became the most dominant variable for calculating alliance placement. Quality of play (over the average end-game rubberband score) only really mattered at the top of the leaderboard, where all of the alliances already contain 20 members.

Unknown

Lyrian wrote:

Copps wrote:

Wow that is far closer in points to the top than I would have thought although in the crazy rubber banding leading up to the last day I did see us as low as 30th or so as an alliance so I guess it doesn't really surprise me that much. Basically that puts everyone in the top 100 at 17+ people.

With the scoring completely messed up in this one, along with the global rubberband, pretty much everyone that played to the end reached within 2-3k of the global points leader without much invested effort.

As a result, the standings highlight the discrepancies in size of alliance rosters. Because a top-tier player could only earn a few thousand more points at most than an average player in this event, size of alliance rosters became the most dominant variable for calculating alliance placement. Quality of play (over the average end-game rubberband score) only really mattered at the top of the leaderboard, where all of the alliances already contain 20 members.

Interesting. I do think you are right. Average score of my 13 person alliance would have been about 41k, global leaders were at what 56k?

While we already knew size matters, looking at it as the dominant figure means the leaderboard should be a much closer approximation of alliances arranged in order of size. In the small window we saw there was no alliances over size 17 or below 12th and we came in 207th.

The conclusion I am trying to draw from this is, there are much less than 200 20 man alliances right now. Or if there are more many are way casual. And on the flip side, I would say to break top 250 you will probably want to bring more than 10 people.

Unknown

From here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=6305#p118788

it was like 11500. Good luck for 5-member alliances, even 10 member ones for that matter.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Lyrian wrote:

Copps wrote:

Wow that is far closer in points to the top than I would have thought although in the crazy rubber banding leading up to the last day I did see us as low as 30th or so as an alliance so I guess it doesn't really surprise me that much. Basically that puts everyone in the top 100 at 17+ people.

With the scoring completely messed up in this one, along with the global rubberband, pretty much everyone that played to the end reached within 2-3k of the global points leader without much invested effort.

As a result, the standings highlight the discrepancies in size of alliance rosters. Because a top-tier player could only earn a few thousand more points at most than an average player in this event, size of alliance rosters became the most dominant variable for calculating alliance placement. Quality of play (over the average end-game rubberband score) only really mattered at the top of the leaderboard, where all of the alliances already contain 20 members.

Interesting. I do think you are right. Average score of my 13 person alliance would have been about 41k, global leaders were at what 56k?

While we already knew size matters, looking at it as the dominant figure means the leaderboard should be a much closer approximation of alliances arranged in order of size. In the small window we saw there was no alliances over size 17 or below 12th and we came in 207th.

The conclusion I am trying to draw from this is, there are much less than 200 20 man alliances right now. Or if there are more many are way casual. And on the flip side, I would say to break top 250 you will probably want to bring more than 10 people.

Even with 20 people you have to actively try to break top 250 - our alliance was #266 with 20 people and a score of 8250. That's a ~400 point average.

Unknown

Yeah, unfortunately that post is almost a month old and highly obsolete by now. Every event seems to have a steeper curve than the last as the system continues to push players and alliances towards maximum participation and maximum point gains.