Show the real level/skill of a player

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

    • Show the real level/skill of a player

      Today the level of a player depends on the quantity (games he played) put not on the quality of his "play".

      Cant you put in a additional Score depending on different factors like:

      -Time to finish a map
      -Kills/Casualties
      -Maps started/maps active till end/maps won


      A little bit like your ELO but more differentiated...
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • Indeed! Pubs are not a benchmark of skill. They are usually populated with the least challenging circumstances in all of CoN.

      Measure players by how well they play in a team, is what I like to do. This game encourages teamwork and success will usually come to those who work together in an active setting.
      "Any of you *uckin' pricks move, and I'll execute every mother*uckin' last one of ya!" - Honey Bunny
    • - Time to finish a map would not necessarily tell you much, I for example rarely rush to end a map. The more boring a gets, the less active I am and the more time it takes to finalise.
      - Kill/Death-Score already existence, though a high positive can mean two things: good player or hard golder
      - If you end a map via voting, it does not seem to get acknowleged as a win, so the maps played/maps won ratio hardly tells a lot either. Not even sure if alliance challenges even get counted in.
    • Many Challenges players would argue that any stat made in Public games is useless by design.

      And some hardcore elite challenge players would arge that only Elite challenges between two Elite alliances matter in stats.


      Ultimately... we always knew, because it was carried from CoW and Supremacy, that ladder and score are meaningless, and mostly reflect those who have many games at once.

      It's quantitative, as kurt said, but we will never agree anyway on what is "quality".

      one may consider that inf-rush gold-spam that finishes 90% of his flashpoint games in 8-9 days is qualitative.
      Others may disagree, due to being very proficient to kill with ludicrous K/Ds those people.

      Others may consider that K/D is quality.
      Others may disagree. I have 9.6 K/D and you have 7.6 . Can we argue that we reached those K/D by anything but thanks to the raw incompetence of 95% of players ? Is quality proportional, when compared to Caaaake or Kalrakh that only have puny 2 to 4 K/D ? (spoiler : no :D )

      For others, it's province conquered/province lost.
      Other may disagree, especially when they see that the player has killed 90% AI / 10% active player in volume.

      Are we not biased by our own arrogance that "our skill is the true skill", to establish it as an anchor to evaluate all others ?


      Stats are and will remain unreliable whatever the attempt. We can only make educated guess, using our brain to draw correlations between all the elements at disposal. Those correlations may help us to understand a bit better how the player plays, what kind of map he has encountered, what kind of opponent he killed, et caetera...

      It will never be reflective of the skill, or potential, of the player.

      However, i must admit that i WOULD like to see appear some kind of activity rate, to punish a bit through the stats the people that leave games before, say, day 8
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Indeed. Activity will always be the scourge of public games, but if there was some punishment or reward to stick to the games at least a bit.

      I'm not even talking of "i'm losing so goodbye" (even if a player dead-eye said to me "i don't want to fight if it's not easy" ), but people that just... enter and turn dead.

      The worst : they ARE playing... in other maps... why do they even join
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • There are three reasons mostly why players join and churn maps:

      1) they don't like the nation they selected (usually they are already moving some stuff - so instant abandon timer doesn't get them)
      2) they lose an early fight and see no sense in continuing and rather start from scratch (even if this was just the typical 1-2inf + recon)
      3) they hope to be able to tag along and farm gold (don't understand the mechanics - just join 20 maps and something will trickle down - or just keep active by minimally doing something like moving a unit)

      We cannot really do anything against the above scenarios - except possibly showing the nations taken before game-join.
      This we already tried and failed once due to the legacy PHP system handling this part of the game, and we will try again once we are out with mobile.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Germanico wrote:

      There are three reasons mostly why players join and churn maps:

      1) they don't like the nation they selected (usually they are already moving some stuff - so instant abandon timer doesn't get them)
      2) they lose an early fight and see no sense in continuing and rather start from scratch (even if this was just the typical 1-2inf + recon)
      3) they hope to be able to tag along and farm gold (don't understand the mechanics - just join 20 maps and something will trickle down - or just keep active by minimally doing something like moving a unit)

      We cannot really do anything against the above scenarios - except possibly showing the nations taken before game-join.
      This we already tried and failed once due to the legacy PHP system handling this part of the game, and we will try again once we are out with mobile.
      Does that mean I will see that Germany has only 3 cities left and hwo many soldiers there are before I join the game?
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • nope - that we can't do I am afraid. We are already struggling simply showing ANY ingame data outside of the running game in the PHP part of the game (New Game page etc).

      It's really annoying for us as well but we can't change it easily as it's a shared system.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • i migrated because it takes three days in the research branch to get destroyers while it still takes time on here to research destroyers and save resources to build to naval base 3 and then the build time to naval base 3 is significantly better then call of war.

      plus the cost of building on here is half of what it would be on call of war for anything.
      • hello
    • opulan posted, but you produce 3 to 4 times more on CoW, i have to disagree i started comparetively one map on cow and on conflict nations the troops i was was able to produce in a 5 day period on 1x speed maps was astonishing i was able to produce double the troops and resources provided while wont say is double its quite a bit more then call of war plus the price on the stock are half of what call of war asks, i do hope that this doesn't change
      • hello