Total outrage

[darkxsaint]

LOL. I truly hope you and Fritz are friends and you're being snarky just for grins. If this isn't the motivation to a comment like this, maybe you should stick to the number crunching because you don't need a masters in social sciences, but rather the entry level of knowledge when it comes to people skills.

Monkey, I don’t play to make friends and my interpersonal skills are outstanding, but there are limits to my patience, when people google stuff and try to make sense of stuff without putting effort in understanding the concepts, if I don’t understand something and sincerely want to know, there is pleasant way of asking for clarification and combative one, your some what right that I got baited by fritz, but when good people don’t act then who will. I am neutral when it comes to fritz as I honestly don’t know him personally, nor through the game, if feelings where hurt, no harm was intended, on an another side note I think you might be looking for the word emotional intelligence, rather than “master of social sciences”. Lol, those in the game who actually know me well might, strongly disagree with your assessment, but to each their own, personally I find it funny that your able to pass judgement based on a discussion post

[monkey]

I guess what I thought to have been a display of superior wordsmith skills went unnoticed. It's all good darkxsaint.

To bring the discussion back to OP, assuming top 100 will be based on trophy count, I would agree that inactive players (those shown in grey) should not be calculated in ranking numbers. Pending they don't get booted, if those players come back to the game, they'll get tallied into the totals again.

Only because I don't know, how long does it take an orphaned account to be purged from the system? Does it ever? If not, then the old Turkish Delight alliance (and others mentioned above) will forever be in top 100? That is unfair to the alliances ranked 101-110. My only objection to alliance ranking being calculated on assist numbers rather than highest trophy count is a selfish one. I honestly don't have a clue where my alliance would be ranked under that system. Would be interesting to see though and would certainly give the active alliances full of low level players a chance to thrive.

[Fritz]

I know I'm just a big ol' dummy when it comes to all these fancy numbers and all. Shucks. I never did go in much fer book learnin'. I wouldn't say I "baited" you. I just have no idea how this particular change to the top 100 would have any impact on estimations. A fair question, I think. Your pompous answer, conveniently, gave absolutely no insights.

I obliviously can’t base my numbers on the full population, but rather based on the sample of the top 100.

Hopefully the following question isn't too childlike. The top 100 alliances have roughly 8500 people in them (sorry if my estimate isn't up to current ASA standards). These 8500 are a sample of players in the game. You base your statistics on this sample. How does lowering the placement of the more inactive alliances change your statistics? You're changing the sample, but it's still a sample of roughly 8500. If anything, the new sample should be MORE accurate since it would be more inclined to include alliances with more active people. When attacking, active people are prioritized so the chance of getting someone in this sample is more likely than in the old sample. The change would make your sample a BETTER representation of the population you will attack.

One final question, if you'll indulge this feeble-minded and dim-witted simpleton. Since you do crunch all those numbers, you should have them at your disposal. I assume you know the range of trophy differential when attacking on easy or normal or whichever you use. I previously estimated 8500 in the top 100 alliances. Of those 8500, how many are actually in your attack range? And of those in your attack range, how many are in the alliances that would likely vanish off the leaderboard like Son Osmali?