View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:00 pm



Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 Resource / Artifact to rank ratio 
Author Message

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:28 pm
Posts: 264
Reply with quote
Crazor wrote:
Rank 602
Taltherian Excavator

Resource ratio: 72.7

Artifact ration: 45.5

My artifact isnt bad, everything else aint great :P

45 planet slots open


Rank 622
Genetarr Explorer

Resource ratio: 76.2

Artifact ratio: 46.6

Nice to know I have gone up whilst not an excavator!

_________________
Image


Mon May 27, 2013 9:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:11 am
Posts: 899
Location: Turn Around
Reply with quote
Topherousenator wrote:
Topherousenator wrote:
Rank 193
Minerals 3811 units / hour
Artifacts 4741 points / hour
Production: 5372 research / hour
Total: 13924 / hour
Total Production / Rank Ratio:
13924 / 193 = 72.15 :D
Artifact Production / Rank Ratio:
4741 / 193 = 24.56 :'(
Open Slots: 6
Oh. Arti will go up as I have like 5 planets ready to invade. :D

This might be considered a necro, but whatevs... :P
Rank 297
Minerals 6332 units / hour
Artifacts 12948 points / hour
Production: 8311 research / hour
Total: 27951 / hour
Total Production / Rank Ratio:
27951 / 297 = 92.898989899
Artifact Production / Rank Ratio:
12948 / 297 = 43.595959596
Open Slots: 0

Rank 316

Minerals 6812 units / hour
Artifacts 15013 points / hour
Production: 8810 research / hour

Total: 30635

Total Production / Rank Ratio:
30635 / 316 = 96.95

Artifact Production / Rank Ratio:
15013 / 316 = 47.51

Open Slots: 0

_________________
Image
Image


Mon May 27, 2013 10:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
JohnMcAuley wrote:
Wolfy Minion wrote:
I am not trolling, I want you to stop trying to ruin everyone's else fun by pointing out the fact it is a pointless stat, because yours is low.
Whether or not people take it serious is up to them, the fact you did and had to justify your shortcomings because it is pathetic. If any others did take it seriously they just went in game and tried to improve their score You just tried to make yourself above it by saying it doesn't matter, but if it really didn't matter you wouldn't have needed to comment and could just accept your style of play results in a lower score and moved on.


I am pointing out that others shouldn't take it seriously, which clearly many *cough cough* do, because it is not the determinant of ship strength, plenty could easily be misled, making the maximising of this stat their main aim (like many do with the Planet Quality Index), when it should be total AP collected. Stating 'I do not value this statistic' in the thread does not mean I take it seriously, lol.



What the AP to rank ratio can be used to assess is your ability to increase your ship strength going into the future. When you say 'it should be total AP collected' you are referring to the past and what a ship has had available to build its strength up so far, but that's not a particularly helpful stat when you have the actual ship strength to go on, and looking at your ship strength to rank ratio (also looking at what has already occurred, it's just a more accurate). But since we don't yet know what our ship strength will be in the future you can only assess the potential for your ship strength grow more rapidly and larger by using your APH and comparing it with others (using a rank ratio so that you can compare your potential with ships that are of a different rank). I'd agree that your Planet Quality Index (PQI) isn't particularly useful and doesn't indicate a greater or lesser potential for growth like your AP to rank ratio does.


Rank 1226

Resource ratio: 137.5

Artifact ratio: 71.26

Ship Strength ratio: 51.08

PQI : 645.39
nb. scientists & excavator bonus deducted and storage worlds incl. - although I don't think they should be!!

_________________
Image


Mon May 27, 2013 11:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 600
Reply with quote
not4use wrote:
What the AP to rank ratio can be used to assess is your ability to increase your ship strength going into the future. When you say 'it should be total AP collected' you are referring to the past and what a ship has had available to build its strength up so far, but that's not a particularly helpful stat when you have the actual ship strength to go on, and looking at your ship strength to rank ratio (also looking at what has already occurred, it's just a more accurate). But since we don't yet know what our ship strength will be in the future you can only assess the potential for your ship strength grow more rapidly and larger by using your APH and comparing it with others (using a rank ratio so that you can compare your potential with ships that are of a different rank). I'd agree that your Planet Quality Index (PQI) isn't particularly useful and doesn't indicate a greater or lesser potential for growth like your AP to rank ratio does.


Rank 1226

Resource ratio: 137.5

Artifact ratio: 71.26

Ship Strength ratio: 51.08

PQI : 645.39
nb. scientists & excavator bonus deducted and storage worlds incl. - although I don't think they should be!!


'Total AP collected' is the main determinant of ship stats. It is not solely a retrospective measure as claimed, making note of the current AP incomes/hr will give you an accurate prediction of how your total AP collected and, as a result, your ship stats will change in relation to others you are measuring. Involving rank as a divisor worsens this prediction as already stated, because rank only adjusts the ships targetable from the BT (with the range being an encompassing 60% of rank minimum anyway), it has no effect on alerts, legion wars or planet invasions. As a result, it isn't that useful a statistic, and would be misleading to those who narrow in on it, capping their ranking (and planet slots) in order just to increase this. There really shouldn't be any more that needs to be said, I'll leave it at that.


Mon May 27, 2013 11:54 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
Except that what you're saying is incorrect. AP collected is solely retrospective and also completely unnecessary when you have the actual growth of your ship strength to look at and use in a comparison. You're also confusing absolute values with why someone would be wanting to use a ratio. When it comes to legion alerts or any of the instances you cited then it's only absolute values that are relevant, whatever your attack and/or defence is versus your opponent's and no-one is trying to suggest otherwise. But that has nothing to do with using a ratio for comparison between ships, dividing by rank gives you a common denominator that is all. You could use something other than rank as the common denominator, like time played or ship size it really doesn't matter what common factor is so long as it is common to all ships it can be used to compare the position of your ship with that of any other ship. Ship strength ratio being the retrospective assessment of your current position (what you have been able to build with each unit of the common denominator, which is each rank for these ratios), and AP ratio to assess your potential to grow (how much you will have available to build your ship in each of the upcoming units of comparison, the unit we choose to use here is rank). It is only a means of comparing one ship with another by establishing a common denominator, so that a ship which has only had 54 units of the common factor can be compared with another ship which may have had 1362 units of the common factor. Again, we use rank as the common factor to determine an "all things being equal' comparison but you could just as easily divide by number of decks or days played if you thought they were better determinants in making both sides equal.

_________________
Image


Tue May 28, 2013 1:17 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am
Posts: 3472
Reply with quote
not4use wrote:
Except that what you're saying is incorrect. AP collected is solely retrospective and also completely unnecessary when you have the actual growth of your ship strength to look at and use in a comparison. You're also confusing absolute values with why someone would be wanting to use a ratio. When it comes to legion alerts or any of the instances you cited then it's only absolute values that are relevant, whatever your attack and/or defence is versus your opponent's and no-one is trying to suggest otherwise. But that has nothing to do with using a ratio for comparison between ships, dividing by rank gives you a common denominator that is all. You could use something other than rank as the common denominator, like time played or ship size it really doesn't matter what common factor is so long as it is common to all ships it can be used to compare the position of your ship with that of any other ship. Ship strength ratio being the retrospective assessment of your current position (what you have been able to build with each unit of the common denominator, which is each rank for these ratios), and AP ratio to assess your potential to grow (how much you will have available to build your ship in each of the upcoming units of comparison, the unit we choose to use here is rank). It is only a means of comparing one ship with another by establishing a common denominator, so that a ship which has only had 54 units of the common factor can be compared with another ship which may have had 1362 units of the common factor. Again, we use rank as the common factor to determine an "all things being equal' comparison but you could just as easily divide by number of decks or days played if you thought they were better determinants in making both sides equal.


this is a great rebuttal to John.

plus, rank is directly correlated with planet slots. so this is actually trying to track resource / artifact to planets (assuming full planet slots). not everyone at low rank has access to great planets. hence, as people rank up, you can see a noticeable improvement in AP / rank. excluding rank makes this relation disappear.

someone could have scanned 3 natural dysons before rank 100 and rifted them all. their stats on these charts would be outstanding. the rest of us have to slog to get up there. increasing planet slots willy nilly and taking crappy planets hurts your AP/rank score, making you relatively weaker compared to others of your rank.

_________________
Rank 3950 Litheor Governor 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26
_____________Image
PvP leaderboards: 70212 raids: #1; 40852 kills: #1; 96377 hacks: #3;


Tue May 28, 2013 2:24 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:08 am
Posts: 3142
Reply with quote
senatorhung wrote:
not4use wrote:
Except that what you're saying is incorrect. AP collected is solely retrospective and also completely unnecessary when you have the actual growth of your ship strength to look at and use in a comparison. You're also confusing absolute values with why someone would be wanting to use a ratio. When it comes to legion alerts or any of the instances you cited then it's only absolute values that are relevant, whatever your attack and/or defence is versus your opponent's and no-one is trying to suggest otherwise. But that has nothing to do with using a ratio for comparison between ships, dividing by rank gives you a common denominator that is all. You could use something other than rank as the common denominator, like time played or ship size it really doesn't matter what common factor is so long as it is common to all ships it can be used to compare the position of your ship with that of any other ship. Ship strength ratio being the retrospective assessment of your current position (what you have been able to build with each unit of the common denominator, which is each rank for these ratios), and AP ratio to assess your potential to grow (how much you will have available to build your ship in each of the upcoming units of comparison, the unit we choose to use here is rank). It is only a means of comparing one ship with another by establishing a common denominator, so that a ship which has only had 54 units of the common factor can be compared with another ship which may have had 1362 units of the common factor. Again, we use rank as the common factor to determine an "all things being equal' comparison but you could just as easily divide by number of decks or days played if you thought they were better determinants in making both sides equal.


this is a great rebuttal to John.

plus, rank is directly correlated with planet slots. so this is actually trying to track resource / artifact to planets (assuming full planet slots). not everyone at low rank has access to great planets. hence, as people rank up, you can see a noticeable improvement in AP / rank. excluding rank makes this relation disappear.

someone could have scanned 3 natural dysons before rank 100 and rifted them all. their stats on these charts would be outstanding. the rest of us have to slog to get up there. increasing planet slots willy nilly and taking crappy planets hurts your AP/rank score, making you relatively weaker compared to others of your rank.


This.
Not to mention that ap/h is a horrible reflection on total ap collected, as it its generally a far from linear growth.(or any pattern for that matter)

_________________
Image
http://www.universegenesis.com/bonus.php?id=7704&rofl=1f1616039121f25&lol=72141855&boss=SteelWolverine


ICBLF wrote:
to be honest, I was rooting for you even while eating KVTs


Tue May 28, 2013 2:38 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 600
Reply with quote
not4use wrote:
Except that what you're saying is incorrect. AP collected is solely retrospective and also completely unnecessary when you have the actual growth of your ship strength to look at and use in a comparison. You're also confusing absolute values with why someone would be wanting to use a ratio. When it comes to legion alerts or any of the instances you cited then it's only absolute values that are relevant, whatever your attack and/or defence is versus your opponent's and no-one is trying to suggest otherwise. But that has nothing to do with using a ratio for comparison between ships, dividing by rank gives you a common denominator that is all. You could use something other than rank as the common denominator, like time played or ship size it really doesn't matter what common factor is so long as it is common to all ships it can be used to compare the position of your ship with that of any other ship. Ship strength ratio being the retrospective assessment of your current position (what you have been able to build with each unit of the common denominator, which is each rank for these ratios), and AP ratio to assess your potential to grow (how much you will have available to build your ship in each of the upcoming units of comparison, the unit we choose to use here is rank). It is only a means of comparing one ship with another by establishing a common denominator, so that a ship which has only had 54 units of the common factor can be compared with another ship which may have had 1362 units of the common factor. Again, we use rank as the common factor to determine an "all things being equal' comparison but you could just as easily divide by number of decks or days played if you thought they were better determinants in making both sides equal.


Firstly, you keep referring to ship strength (attack + defense). Note that this neglects the majority of combat related ship stats (hull, shields and total crew, including engineers and scientists), so it is certainly not a better overall measure of how tough a ship is.

And again, my point is that 'X/rank' is not a useful comparison since any rank of ship can encounter any other through some of the core elements of the game and ship growth (AP/hr) makes no note of rank whatsoever. (I shouldn't have to say this this but...!) I am not critising ratios as a general tool of comparison, it is the rank denominator specifically that biases. If you are looking for a useful ratio, ship size is a *much* better one.


Tue May 28, 2013 7:07 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
Yeah, I'd agree with pretty much all of that. Ship strength does neglect all of the other areas which contribute to how "tough" your ship is, so you pick the ship stat which you feel is most representative of the whole. The same can be said for which figure is used as the common denominator, and arguments made for and against using any one of the options. I can understand why ship strength, aph and rank have become the standard used in GL, but perhaps there is an alternative which would provide a better or more complete representation of where your ship is at as a whole. I'd definitely have an issue if PQI had become the standard means of comparison between ships and not just an indication of your planets' awesomeness, and if you feel that using ship strength to rank ratio and aph to rank ratio are really misrepresentative then put together an alternative combination and see what others think of using your ratio instead. It seems to me that the kind of person which enjoys playing a game like GL also seems to enjoy figuring out these sorts of things about where their ship stands in comparison with others and will adopt whatever alternative is providing them with the best analysis.

All I know is that my blistering 645.39 PQI makes my planets (and by association - me!) pretty bloody awesome. If it wasn't for that pesky Squishy Minion I'd be awesomely close to becoming the arbiter of awesomeness for the galaxy! So... um..., yeah. :shock:

_________________
Image


Tue May 28, 2013 8:27 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 600
Reply with quote
not4use wrote:
Yeah, I'd agree with pretty much all of that. Ship strength does neglect all of the other areas which contribute to how "tough" your ship is, so you pick the ship stat which you feel is most representative of the whole. The same can be said for which figure is used as the common denominator, and arguments made for and against using any one of the options. I can understand why ship strength, aph and rank have become the standard used in GL, but perhaps there is an alternative which would provide a better or more complete representation of where your ship is at as a whole. I'd definitely have an issue if PQI had become the standard means of comparison between ships and not just an indication of your planets' awesomeness, and if you feel that using ship strength to rank ratio and aph to rank ratio are really misrepresentative then put together an alternative combination and see what others think of using your ratio instead. It seems to me that the kind of person which enjoys playing a game like GL also seems to enjoy figuring out these sorts of things about where their ship stands in comparison with others and will adopt whatever alternative is providing them with the best analysis.

All I know is that my blistering 645.39 PQI makes my planets (and by association - me!) pretty bloody awesome. If it wasn't for that pesky Squishy Minion I'd be awesomely close to becoming the arbiter of awesomeness for the galaxy! So... um..., yeah. :shock:


Well we could go around in circles and then end it on an equivocating 'each comparison has their pros and cons' but that'd defeat the main aim of the posting.

For players looking forward, the total AP collected is the main determinant of the parameters of your ship, therefore to increase those as quickly as possible your focus should be purely on AP/hr building, involving rank or quality of planets is highly likely to hamper this growth. So, no saying 'I don't get it, my AP/rank was over 80 for two years and this guy who's been playing for nine months took me out while buffed in under a minute' because it's been made pretty clear (several times!).


Tue May 28, 2013 8:59 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
You need to be consistent with how the two ships were being compared. To say initially that you have a high AP to rank ratio and then be surprised when you compared how long each of you had been playing does not maintain a common denominator. So you are comparing your ship with theirs on two entirely different grounds. The problem is not that the AP to rank ratio comparison is a poor indicator but that it has not been used in the example you just gave.

_________________
Image


Tue May 28, 2013 10:40 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
Using an AP to days played ratio is possible if that's what you are trying to make a case for here. In your hypothetical the guy who's ship was disabled in under a minute is surprised that the attacker had not been playing GL as long as himself. So any comparison you want to make needs to keep that common denominator consistent. So any comparison between the two ships would need to be in terms of their AP to number of days played because that is what has apparently been surprising to this guy.

Or alternatively, tell us what the AP to rank ratio was of the attacker and keep the comparison consistent by using their rank as the common denominator. Either way, your example really highlights why there needs to be a common denominator used to compare ships and how a lot of confusion and inconsistent accounts can be avoided when everyone uses the same standard as the means to assess each ship.

_________________
Image


Last edited by not4use on Tue May 28, 2013 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue May 28, 2013 10:58 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 600
Reply with quote
not4use wrote:
You need to be consistent with how the two ships were being compared. To say initially that you have a high AP to rank ratio and then be surprised when you compared how long each of you had been playing does not maintain a common denominator. So you are comparing your ship with theirs on two entirely different grounds. The problem is not that the AP to rank ratio comparison is a poor indicator but that it has not been used in the example you just gave.


That's implied in the quote, since 80 AP/rank would be seen as a high value for that stat, but to make it completely clear (again, it shouldn't be necessary): So, no saying, ''I don't get it, my AP/rank was over 80 for two years and this guy who's been playing for nine months with an AP/rank of 45 took me out while buffed in under a minute''. That should deal with the technicality that you're continuing this discussion on, the principle of misleading ratios is exactly the same.


Tue May 28, 2013 11:03 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
No, you just need to read what I said. You're still using two different denominators; rank AND number of days played. Try using only one, so there is a common denominator in your comparison.

_________________
Image


Tue May 28, 2013 11:23 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 600
Reply with quote
not4use wrote:
No, you just need to read what I said. You're still using two different denominators; rank AND number of days played. Try using only one, so there is a common denominator in your comparison.


Another pointless technicality... The timeperiods (deliberately) mentioned in the quote would give a distinct advantage to the defender, accentuating how misleading ratios (in this context, AP/rank) can be. If you want it to be as base as possible, here it is: So no saying, ''I don't get it, my AP/rank was over 80 and this guy with an AP/rank of 45 took me out while buffed in under a minute''. That of course strips most of the context such complaints originate from. Again, the principles are exactly the same.


Tue May 28, 2013 11:37 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
I thought it was worthwhile going into quite some detail about why Ship Strength ratios and AP ratio were used and exactly what they are describing but I just don't see the point of going into the same amount of detail discussing an example of how problematic it can be when there aren't these sorts of standard ratios being used. It seems like the earlier suggestions that you are simply here to try and undermine using these ratios because it would benefit you personally must be true. I don't have anything to add to that discussion, it's all yours. ;)

_________________
Image


Tue May 28, 2013 12:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 600
Reply with quote
not4use wrote:
I thought it was worthwhile going into quite some detail about why Ship Strength ratios and AP ratio were used and exactly what they are describing but I just don't see the point of going into the same amount of detail discussing an example of how problematic it can be when there aren't these sorts of standard ratios being used. It seems like the earlier suggestions that you are simply here to try and undermine using these ratios because it would benefit you personally must be true. I don't have anything to add to that discussion, it's all yours. ;)


Well firstly, your 'detail' did miss the original point of the post, which then had to be repeated. Secondly, feel free to dismiss it because I haven't focused on this stat, hopefully others will see the Catch-22 that that is (if they don't actually weigh up the facts themselves, that is).


Tue May 28, 2013 12:22 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 5:09 am
Posts: 3472
Reply with quote
not4use wrote:
Using an AP to days played ratio is possible if that's what you are trying to make a case for here. In your hypothetical the guy who's ship was disabled in under a minute is surprised that the attacker had not been playing GL as long as himself. So any comparison you want to make needs to keep that common denominator consistent. So any comparison between the two ships would need to be in terms of their AP to number of days played because that is what has apparently been surprising to this guy.

Or alternatively, tell us what the AP to rank ratio was of the attacker and keep the comparison consistent by using their rank as the common denominator. Either way, your example really highlights why there needs to be a common denominator used to compare ships and how a lot of confusion and inconsistent accounts can be avoided when everyone uses the same standard as the means to assess each ship.


i already tried to incorporate both rank and days played in the ship log showdown. perhaps it could be done better, but to date,no one has offered me a better model for comparison. by using days played on the x axis, you can determine whether an increase in AP/rank is due to slow.ranking (while improving planets), speed-ranking (to increase the total number of planets) or just time played. which model you choose to get to a higher AP/rank is a matter of preference.

edit: i'll be updating the charts this week to incorporate data from the last month.

_________________
Rank 3950 Litheor Governor 100% DCR r385-r2200 GL Marauder #26
_____________Image
PvP leaderboards: 70212 raids: #1; 40852 kills: #1; 96377 hacks: #3;


Tue May 28, 2013 2:05 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:01 pm
Posts: 970
Reply with quote
Minerals 13,986 units / hour
Artifacts 28,729 points / hour
Research 25,961 research / hour

Total resources 68,676 / hour

Rank 855

Total Resource Ratio
68,676 / 855 = 80.3

Artifact Ratio
28,729 / 855 = 33.6

_________________
Image

Yung's Trading Post


Tue May 28, 2013 3:19 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
senatorhung wrote:
i already tried to incorporate both rank and days played in the ship log showdown. perhaps it could be done better, but to date,no one has offered me a better model for comparison. by using days played on the x axis, you can determine whether an increase in AP/rank is due to slow.ranking (while improving planets), speed-ranking (to increase the total number of planets) or just time played. which model you choose to get to a higher AP/rank is a matter of preference.

edit: i'll be updating the charts this week to incorporate data from the last month.
[/quote]

That's cool, Senator. I wish I'd done something like that. ;)

_________________
Image


Wed May 29, 2013 10:11 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.