How about we add a button when cancelling a war declaration. One fam picks "Winner" and the other picks "Loser" and that adjusts score rating as well depending on their rank in size and NW.

Obviously fams may not want to click "loser" but if they dont...they get raped more lol

> God of Legends wrote:

> How about we add a button when cancelling a war declaration. One fam picks "Winner" and the other picks "Loser" and that adjusts score rating as well depending on their rank in size and NW.

Obviously fams may not want to click "loser" but if they dont...they get raped more lol

Decent idea, but I suggest we just use size as the winning metric and be done with it.

"nothing reflects how much better you were at conflict than your final planet count at the end of the round"

Chomp I almost agree with you.  The thing is, size is really just an indicator of acquisition.  Not all planet gains require the same level of skill.  For example:

Player A explores 15 planets.
Player B takes 10 planets from an empire with more NW.
Player C takes 10 planets from an empire with less NW.

By "size is everything" logic, Player A has performed the best.  I don't think that is true.

I think though that your point is valid one: the game is about conflict.  To that end, I think the score should be mostly reflective of conflict type scenarios.  So if conquering a planet is a good indicator of skill, then doing so will get you a lot of points.  Exploring on the other hand, not so much.

In the end, the families who conquer the most will likely still have the best scores.  What this means is that "top fams" will no longer be able to just sit comfortably at the end of the round and nw jump and beat down smaller fams and repeat.  Instead, smaller fams will have a chance to gain in the rankings by continuing their war efforts and even more so if they successfully attack larger families.

What you end up with is fighting to the very end.  Neither nw jumps nor farming for size will do much for anybody.  They will constantly be on the lookout for the best fight.  And if a top fam also has a huge score it means they earned it.

Not at all.  If they fought their way to the top then their score would reflect that and they'd have a secure spot.  However, if they farmed little guys all round and mass explored their score wouldn't be so strong.

I like pie, great idea, but I just know the top fams will just ask for more compensation or take more, seeing the general consensus is taking 10% max (I don't share this).

The top fam will just take more and ask for more compensation, resulting only in longer nap payment times. I wouldn't waste the time & effort on writing such a code/formula as long as the IC (war) limit is taking 50% of ones planets in 48h before pmode

On some bad, rotten, evil IC peeps I even (prolly more or less) purposely postponed pmode so the numbers adjust after 48h and I can take some more because the bar been set on the new 50% limit.

Don't hate the player, .... ... ....!!! =P

I disagree with this.

Yes, Player A has had the easiest route to more planets.  But at the end of the day, it's not just 'size' that matters (like you mentioned, I agree).  But to be able to be in that position to explore more than others, comes down to diplomacy, position, strategy etc.

It's a culmination of all of those that is a factor in it.  Player A has been allowed to do so, so he's played himself into that position.  You can't just say that because Player B has captured planets from a bigger fam, that he should win.

Yes, this game is about conflict.  But you can't have decent conflict without having the things I mentioned, plus things like a good Economy etc.  It's all part and parcel.

That's why size is usually the best indicator.

The only thing that needs to be curtailed somehow, are the fams that 'farm' for size victories.  Perhaps we should be looking at that.

I think you misunderstood my point Torq.  I'm not saying "because Player B has captured planets from a bigger fam, that he should win".  That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying, as that would just be shifting the winning metric around to something else.  That would be the same exact problem with a different face.

The point is, no single factor should determine the winner.  Not size, not smaller players attacking bigger players, not infra, etc.  It should be a combination of factors that each have had their value carefully weighted.

As you say, conflict includes diplomacy, position, strategy, etc.  That's what I'm getting at.  Conflict is not simply attacking nor is it adequately reflected by size.  As such, a measure of skill should be a measure of equally diverse factors.

IMO, that's what our focus should be: figuring out how "skill" is defined in this game and determining a score formula based on those definitions.  Only then can we have an accurate reflection of performance.

Yep agree.  But I didn't miss the point.  What I was eluding to though, is that right now, size does encapsulate the winning components of what is needed from a fam.  Barring the exception I mentioned (fams farming others for size).

The thing we have to realise though - in a game of conflict, where you're needed to attack others, is a game of possession and territory.  Size 'is' that metric.  It's a measure of dominance per se (so long as the farming and stuff is cut out).  We do however need another measure of skill/struggle/competence/whatever, which is what Score needs to be.  Size will always be a telling factor though.

Score doesn't need to replace Size.  We can have two equally weighted rankings.  As it is right now, we have a winner in different categories - no reason that needs to change.

^ Yep, nice idea here.  I love the idea of having a track record of points.  Obviously it wont affect Drafts, but using this to distribute skill for randoming (to an extent) could work really nicely.

Yep, except this is also what i'm talking about:

"however a mid-ranked family who climbed their way to the near-top through repeated successful campaigns throughout the round can arguably be said to have performed better overall."

It shouldn't be.  "Near-top" doesn't mean they performed better overall at all.  It means they might have more skill and have played well, and circumstances haven't allowed them to be Top.  So they should be recognised for that.  Not for 'winning' or performing better.  This isn't a primary school where the tendency is to eliminate winners and give awards to everyone for participation.  Ultimately, there are fams who sita bove them and who control more.

Similarly with:

" If a family hypothetically does awesome throughout the entire round but toward the very end loses everything in a single war, NW and Size as a measure of their round-long performance both fail."

We're saying the same thing here.  Score should reflect their efforts round long and people can appreciate that.  But ultimately, if they've lost the last war, and as a result another fam has taken over them, then they don't "win" either.

In conclusion though, I think we're both saying similar things.  Score needs to be tweaked to be more representative of round-long efforts and performance.  At the same time, different ranking criteria, is a reflection of different things.

this is very interesting, I'll try to find out in my arzhieves the formula i proposed years ago.

also twosideath had a great idea, but I think you should open another thread for it, not this
Individual skoring, attazhed to every player akkount, is something similar to the 'reputation' value I proposed in honor forum, maybe both values kould be direktly related, bekause that's waht IK laks, somewhat rpg values so a player progress kan be seen thru numbers, and not only player history.

The skore for new players starts at 0, but what about vets?? is there a way to set their kurrent skore?? kan we get the info from their player history??  and what about those vets who have lost their old akkounts?? 
It kould be perfekt if we kan set a kurrent skore to all the aktive players nowadays, but I guess its gonna be a hard task