Re: Reforming Rank: What does it mean to win?

We were discussing this in a MW PvC thread: What is the "official" winning metric, and does it matter if people ignore it for something else?

Many people consider size to be the end-all decider of who wins a round.  It makes sense for a game that is war-focused that size be the end goal.  However, Networth is arguably more important in that the word itself literally means the ending value.

And then there's score, which was added to the game later.

This is confusing.  A game should have a singular, definitive metric to determine winner.  We should be able to answer the question "What family won Milky Way round 51?" by stating a family name.  Not saying "Fam A won size but Fam B won nw.  However Fam C won score".

Score was supposed to fix this, but apparently people are reluctant to accept it.  It isn't clear why.

What are your thoughts on rank and what it means to "win" in this game?  It's within our power to change things if the current system doesn't make sense.  We just need to figure it out.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

Re: Reforming Rank: What does it mean to win?

Score is still not fixed and if someone leaves you lose their contribution to it so even if you win size and nw, you could lose in score still.

Networth is important during round as it is somewhat relative to the families economy and growth as a family but at the end of the round it more often than not shows the players who did not fight and just saved for 3 weeks.

Size however shows progression through the whole round and accomplishments through growth and expansion in a game of conflict.

You have now been infected with Bird flu. Good day.


~Testudinae~

Re: Reforming Rank: What does it mean to win?

I wasn't aware that you lose score from players that leave.  That makes no sense to me but I wasn't part of the its design.

I agree with NW as a problem.  I hate hate hate EOR networth jumps, and especially the end of the round saving that goes along with them.  In my opinion, the fact that the end of the round often means people stop playing because they want to only save is a sign that the focus is wrong.

Size to me makes the most sense, but even then you could potentially have a large player delete and screw your family over on what should have been a winning round.

I think the correct solution would be to change score so that you can't lose score points, and change the formula to place more emphasis on planet acquisition with gains determined by the size of the target.  That is, attacking a larger player and/or family will gain you lots of score but farming a smaller family will gain you minimal.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

Re: Reforming Rank: What does it mean to win?

Yes but if you have a large player delete you generally should have enough expos stocked up to cover that loss.  In terms of Score, you can't salvage the loss.

The changing the formula for score could work if done correctly and not losing score when players leave.

You have now been infected with Bird flu. Good day.


~Testudinae~

Re: Reforming Rank: What does it mean to win?

Changing the Formula will definitely work.  It's not been a good representation thus far.
Another option is a new measure.

Hence my Ideas thread -> http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=179173

Got limited response though.

Re: Reforming Rank: What does it mean to win?

Agreed.  Losing players should not negatively impact a family's score.  That seems incredibly unfair.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

Re: Reforming Rank: What does it mean to win?

Torq I didn't know that thread existed.

I'm going to go ahead and close this one and continue discussion there.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!