Alliance victory conditions

with the new planetary victory conditions in place, I am wondering why there is only one winner adressed. In my oppinion, if you play in a 2-people-alliance, both should be declared the winner. 

The way it is handled right now, even if you are in a trusted alliance you have to make sure that you own more planets than your partner. This prevents everybody from playing real alliance-style (meaning giving planets to your alliance partner if this is suitable, i.e. Sili 99° to the Crystal, Anarchy Planets to the Borg etc). 

Am I the only one that thinks that a forged alliance should win together? Like giving both partners a huge "you win" bonus and factoring in the amount of planets as an additional - but smaller - part of the leaderboard points? 

Cheers,

Rudel

We have detailed statistics on how much stuff you blow up (a totally useless statistic which is somehow immensely important in the current calculus), but almost nothing about wins-losses.

At the absolute minimum, half of all achievement should come from winning.  Honestly, if we had a proper winn-loss-drop stat, I don't know how much I would even care about any of that other stuff when trying to gauge my opponents.

For the umpteenth time, why do we not have this most basic of stats?

My propositions: 

- announce all the winners of the game (alliance) in the mail and on the starting page. This is just for psychological and motivational reasons. If you are in the alliance that won the game and score #2 on the planet count, you simply deserve to be mentioned. It's like the US announcing they've won the WWII all by themselves. 

- make winning a major part of the scores you earn for the leaderboard with the amount of planets count in second (something like 70% of bonus score for winning, 30% for the rank)

- implement a win count in the stats. I'm not sure about losses, because it would severely impact replacements.

I'd really love this. 

2. Alliance games are different than team games. The player with the most planets often contributes more.

3. The first place differential is meaningful. For the winning players, it gives us a chance to play an endgame squeezing out every last planet. There are some fun strategies to try which will have uses in future games. For the losing players it gives them incentive to keep fighting hard. I joined one game late and we are in the countdown. Due to my tenacious fighting I will keep my main attacker from controlling about 10 planets, this will knock him from 1st to second in the alliance. Overall, by continuing to put up stiff resistance, I can make the achievement of costing him 120+ achievement points. For a losing player this is fun. And if you want players to stay in the game when they are losing, you have to make it fun for them. 

4. This discussion is meaningless. The only meaningful ranking system uses head-to-head play, like in 2 player game ranking systems like chess and like in multiplayer game ranking systems like Diplomacy. Any other ranking system will be just as useless, based on the biases of its author and meaningless to many others. However, we have the tools we need to investigate other players:

1. Leader boards

2. Player profiles

3. Completed games

I do agree that team games are totally different and need a different mechanism. There should be a separate "leader board" or "result board" for teams. However, right now we do not have true team games. The team games are really alliance games with little integration and commitment. However, I am confident that within a year we will have a team structure on vgap.nu. Vgap.nu is still young and growing and getting better all the time.

2. Definately NOT correct. A Privateer or Crystal (or any other race.. depending) can decide the outcome of a game DECISIVELY without having the majority of planets. 

3. [Edit] Ok, got it now. This might be a valid point not to give too many points for the victory. But still, the first priority should be to win. If you lose this battle against an alliance, you simply do not deserve to get as many points as them. So a smaller bonus for the win should solve this (so not 70-100%, maybe 30-50%)

4. No its not meaningless, because VGAP games consist of 11 players and not of 2. [Edit] And therefore the scores and the leaderboard need to focus on games with 11 players. 

5. I am little bit drunk but I'm pretty sure that all 4 points above this will stay my oppinion tomorrow. In vino veritas.