If we look at the powerplay manual it has this to say about the Galactic Standing:
Okay. So, let's see how that pans out in terms of rankings (for each of the criteria). We can ignore turmoil and revolt, as all powers scored equally on that one this cycle.
Influence is the sum of number of controlled and exploited systems. Reach is the sum of number of successful preparations and expansions.
So - my question is this:
If we use influence and reach as the important ranks, why is Hudson (rank 3 and 9) number 1 in the overall standings? Again, we're ignoring turmoil and revolted.
I *like* the idea of providing an easy to understand ranking, but clearly there is something more than just this going on in terms of ranking, and that makes it anything BUT easy to understand. PLEASE - for the love of sanity, tell us how the standings are actually calculated. You CANNOT provide a scoring system and then score us in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. And don't tell us to read the fine manual, because I've read the fine manual, and I've quoted the explanation of the scoring system in all its gory details.
Tell us how it's actually done, and then update the fine manual.
And in case anyone wants the raw numbers for this week, here they are in ; delineated form:
Name;Rating (%);Controlled systems;Exploited Systems;Influence;Preps complete;Expansion complete;Reach;Turmoil;Revolt
A Lavigny-Duval;71;57;739;796;2;0;2;0;0
Aisling Duval;61;44;545;589;9;8;17;0;0
Archon Delaine;33;21;276;297;5;3;8;0;0
Denton Patreus;42;33;399;432;9;2;11;0;0
Edmund Mahon;64;45;687;732;10;10;20;0;0
Felicia Winters;69;46;565;611;5;3;8;0;0
Li Yong-Rui;51;40;551;591;8;7;15;0;0
Pranav Antal;25;15;162;177;7;1;8;0;0
Zachary Hudson;72;47;637;684;3;2;5;0;0
Zemina Torval;62;45;566;611;3;5;8;0;0
The following elements are used to determine galactic standing:
As well as provide an easy to understand ranking, galactic standing has two additional functions:
- Number of controlled and exploited systems (more is better)
- Number of successful preparations and expansions (more is better)
- Number of systems in turmoil (fewer is better)
- Number of systems revolted (fewer is better)
As well as provide an easy to understand ranking, galactic standing has two additional functions:
Okay. So, let's see how that pans out in terms of rankings (for each of the criteria). We can ignore turmoil and revolt, as all powers scored equally on that one this cycle.
Influence is the sum of number of controlled and exploited systems. Reach is the sum of number of successful preparations and expansions.
So - my question is this:
If we use influence and reach as the important ranks, why is Hudson (rank 3 and 9) number 1 in the overall standings? Again, we're ignoring turmoil and revolted.
I *like* the idea of providing an easy to understand ranking, but clearly there is something more than just this going on in terms of ranking, and that makes it anything BUT easy to understand. PLEASE - for the love of sanity, tell us how the standings are actually calculated. You CANNOT provide a scoring system and then score us in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. And don't tell us to read the fine manual, because I've read the fine manual, and I've quoted the explanation of the scoring system in all its gory details.
Tell us how it's actually done, and then update the fine manual.
And in case anyone wants the raw numbers for this week, here they are in ; delineated form:
Name;Rating (%);Controlled systems;Exploited Systems;Influence;Preps complete;Expansion complete;Reach;Turmoil;Revolt
A Lavigny-Duval;71;57;739;796;2;0;2;0;0
Aisling Duval;61;44;545;589;9;8;17;0;0
Archon Delaine;33;21;276;297;5;3;8;0;0
Denton Patreus;42;33;399;432;9;2;11;0;0
Edmund Mahon;64;45;687;732;10;10;20;0;0
Felicia Winters;69;46;565;611;5;3;8;0;0
Li Yong-Rui;51;40;551;591;8;7;15;0;0
Pranav Antal;25;15;162;177;7;1;8;0;0
Zachary Hudson;72;47;637;684;3;2;5;0;0
Zemina Torval;62;45;566;611;3;5;8;0;0
