Better Ranking of Alliances

[slyfox]

Right now it seems just how many members a alliance has decides how a alliance is rank in standings. This is greatly misleading about the true strength of a alliance.
It should be based on the total alliance Weapons level, Defense level, Intelligence level, and Security level.
The raking system should add up each member different upgrade levels. Then use the combined average total upgrade level for each of the alliances ranking.

[RandomMe]

I'm not sure if the alliance page is actually ranked at the moment, but rather a list, with the largest alliances at the top for clarity.

If your were going to suggest a change to the rankings I would say that you should add up all the points for each member of the alliance and rank the alliances on their total member points. A large alliance that has a prescence is many areas of the map is a stronger alliance.  But this method would still consider that a member with high upgrades (and inevitabley more settlements/generally stronger) is 10 times more valuable that 10 inactive/lesser players.

By using an out and out average, you as an individual could start an 'alliance' of just youself and be called the strongest alliance as your stats are much higher than the combined average of members in other alliances.

[faxfox]

I think when somebody is looking at an alliance list, they will look at it using different perspectives.  When i was an inexperienced player in other games, I figured that joining the alliance with the largest membership was the best way to go.  Less people attacking you, more peeps to help you, more people to share the workload.  Strong players will obviously look for power as well as size.  The expert players will look purely at power, and how effectively the alliance works together to achieve the groups continuing success.  

Personally I don't really care what ranking system is used.  Slyfox makes good points, and I have no problem with it being setup that way.  It would certainly give a more accurate representaion of an alliances effectiveness in the game.  The dogs with the nastiest bite so to speak.

Our alliance membership is closed so it really does't affect us one way or the other.

[SlowTrekker]

How about a very minor change?

Show the # of settlements controlled column first (sorted), then the column with # of members to the right of it.

# of settlements controlled = power in this game.
An alliance with 10,000 members but only 100 settlements is not even close to an alliance with 100 members and 10,000 settlements.

Sure, it's a vanity thing, but isn't that part of the game?

(and no, my alliance wouldn't move much one way or the other on this change)