It's also worth noting that the number of merits in and of itself only tells part of the story. Even though we have by far the most systems, we don't have the highest merit requirement to fortify 100%. While we're number two on that list, we're still more than 100k merits short of Hudson in that regard.
It's also worth noting that the number of merits in and of itself only tells part of the story. Even though we have by far the most systems, we don't have the highest merit requirement to fortify 100%. While we're number two on that list, we're still more than 100k merits short of Hudson in that regard.
My answer to that is to take the outcome approach and base it on the CC generated. For example, if you fully fortified a system that reduced the upkeep by 23 CC, then those 5000 or so merits earn 23 CC. If it was cancelled, then the 5000 or so merits fortification ensured there wasn't a loss of (the base income + upkeep * 2) CC.
It would require effectiveness to be measured and divided by control spheres before totalling and averaging to get an effectiveness percentage.
This should allow one to produce a weighting that can be applied to all powers and thus allow them to be compared.
Last edited:
Not a good metric either. For example, Mahon regularly fortifies lots of systems that aren't undermined, because we're guarding against possible snipes and building up CC to spend on hostile take-overs in Hudson's and Winters' areas. Alternatively look at Antal, Aisling and ALD. Even if they aren't undermined at all, they still have to fortify systems to avoid turmoil.
This makes it quite difficult to compare merits across powers, because they all have different reasons and requirements in terms of their ecosystems.
That could give weird results too - what if Torval had also been in the same situation as Hudson? Neither expansion goes through, because if it did, the other expansion (which didn't go through) would have caused turmoil if it had gone through.
If that's the case, then neither party should get the expansions.
The point of metric i'm suggesting is that measuring from merits ensures we don't take into account the power's deficit.
Oh we'll definitely miss out on tactical effectiveness... But what else can we do from the outside looking in? Unless all powers are willing to divulge old plans it's not likely to happen.
We are working with what we got. We can still say whether they managed to effectively fortify or cancel a system. It, i agree will not be the full picture but it will share some insight as to how the merits have been spent. I think we'd expect that strong powers despite having to just fortify would still show a higher effectiveness ranking using this metric.
I don't see how having a starting deficit would somehow make a power be more likely to have more or less effective merits.
All the effective chart really shows is the willingness of each powers players to fortify after a system is already fortified.
I'm saying the same thing. It won't show us that, it's not something we take into account because we don't have to to say, your second point, or towards a weighted effectiveness point.