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.
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.
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.