Players ranking REVOLUTION - economy points balancing (for building the buildings)

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Players ranking REVOLUTION - economy points balancing (for building the buildings)

      If You check the player number one in the ranking - damiannapoleonn, he has 97+% of his ranking points from economy/buildings.

      And 68+% of his economy points come from one type of infrastructure - the military logistics, which is one of the most useless infrastructures in the game, used mainly by those who want to have more economy points in the ranking.

      Why? Military logistics gives the most ranking points, per resources used. It gives 2 points to ranking, for using 750 resources of just 3 kinds. So it's cheapes and the fastest way to get a high ranking.

      So the ranking is built way to promote NOT GOOD PLAYERS but those who will click the most in building and destroying and repeating this millions of times.

      It's total nonsense.


      Player #1 actually built almost 2 000 000 of those military logistics and this is the way he got #1 position.


      Is it the proper metric to show who is the best in the game??? Really???

      For me it's nonsense.


      Much better metrics are:

      - % of won games, especially the solo wins

      - the proportion of killed to lost troops, especially against active players

      - the better if the player plays more of the big maps, in comparison to small maps like Battleground or Flashpoint, where are lots of newbies and inactive accounts

      - the proportion of gained lands compared to lost ones

      A number of maps played, or troops killed, says something too, but more about being experienced, than a good strategist/warrior, but for God's sake... not the number of pointless clicks to build pointless infrastructure, spending many days on this useless clicking....


      My propositions are:


      1) to nerf ranking points from military logistics and from the pontoon (it also gives 2 ranking points from some nonsense reason) at least to 1, or to 0,5 in best case.

      2) to add 'warrior/strategist' ranking, which would be based on 3 the metrics I pointed as better ones.
      And to make it better to compare among players, I would add there 'number of maps played' factor, so we could see general ranking of all players but also see it just for the players who played:
      - maximum of 20 games

      - maximum of 100 games

      - maximum of 500 games

      - maximum of 2000 games

      - maximum of 10000 games


      3) there might be a bug to change too. On maps in newspaper it shows that maps give ranking point maximum until 120th day of the map (in-game days), but this #1 player has only 3, much older maps (1200+ days) and still it shows that his economy ranking points grow, so it counts point for him, even further after 120 days. Either it's a bug or for older maps the rule does not work. Whatever reasong there is, it seems that 120 days rule should work for all the maps, old and new and actually to make the ranking making more sense it would be better if some factors of players playing actively on the map would be used instead of 120 days.


      I know there is also a rule that points to ranking are counted a maximum 14 days after just 1 active player stays on the map, but it's easy to get over it, when playing with some friend on the same map. So let's say the real fight finished on 20th day of the map... if we have a friend who is still loged in with us, we can just click for the next 100 days to get the ranking points, just by pointless building and erasing buildings to get higher on the rankings.


      I guess its not a point of the ranking to show who is better in SimCity 'who clicks the most' strategy, but to show who is better player.


      4) as there is in alliances ranking - the more points you get, when you win with better alliances. Some kind of this rule could be applied to 'warrior/strategist' players ranking too. If you play with newbies with bad stats, you get fewer points than if you play with experienced players with good stats.

      So then if You have a player who wins a lot of maps, while playing with experienced good players, losing not many of their own troops in ratio to killed ones against active players, who played quite a number of games, winning not only in coalition but also solo, and not only small maps, having a good ratio of gained lands compared to lost ones... you know he is a good player.

      The number of built military logistics, should not be #1 factor to be #1 player in the whole CoN ranking. It's pure nonsense.




      Like the thread if You agree that changes in ranking would be good. It shows the developers that players care about the thing and that they want the changes. They look at the number of likes and comments. Thanks for that :thumbsup:

    • First you're going to need to convince readers that having an accurate ranking system is important, then convince them that one is possible (what several important player-characteristics can be measured, and what decisions will readers take based on that information), then describe how those characteristics will be accurately measured, and finally describe how the measurements will be combined into a single rank value that actually makes sense.

      I see some parts of these three things in what you wrote, but not a complete product.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      First you're going to need to convince readers that having an accurate ranking system is important, then convince them that one is possible (what several important player-characteristics can be measured, and what decisions will readers take based on that information), then describe how those characteristics will be accurately measured, and finally describe how the measurements will be combined into a single rank value that actually makes sense.

      I see some parts of these three things in what you wrote, but not a complete product.
      Hell what so you expect?
      First of all even If you Provider a complete Product.than Dorado would Not implement IT - they never did so far with any suggestion so why even bother?

      Second ITS Not His Job to Provide a complete concept to Dorado. ITS called suggestions and Not "ready to implement concepts"

      Third I think you dont need to convince Somebody. Every strategy Player loves Highscore. Thats why you play.that Game. I know my score Rocks (Alltough I am only ranked 1558). But Nobody will notice cause I dont Play either 10 Games simulatabously or exploit the Ranking Point system with 3 4x Games.

      I Always laugh my Ass of when I ready the end If the seasons Message about the top 3 Players and their achievements.

      Sometimes i Pick These Players and search thema.in Games Just to kick their Ass and See If they are really good at all or Just Fake...
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

    • Current military ranking mostly shows how much a player did play. The more maps he played, he killed more troops more or less.

      It's not a quality ranking, but quantity ranking.

      I propose to add quality ranking from the current data available and to end some of pathology which is abused by some - mainly much too much points for military logistics and pontoons.

      This actually promotes and motivates people to join multiple maps and play #(@*# there, instead of more quality playing.

      One of the effects is that you rarely find players who actually do play well the game. Probably its not the main reason for that, but one of the reasons.

      If playing badly on a map would influence more the ranking (quality ranking) maybe more players would actually care to play well.

    • Actually I would add rule that economic points cannot be bigger than military points, cause its a war game, not a simcity.

      So if a player for example has 100 000 military points and 250 000 economic points, only 100 000 of economic counts, so he has 200 000 points in ranking.

      Not to make mess, ranks would count as current way, but ranking should be adjusted to changes.