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.

    • Ok, very interesting. I played CoW a few years ago, and i kept in mind that you were often drowning in resources :D. I guess it has changed ^^
      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.
    • In a movement that just dawned on me... Its In last day of game (about to go over victory threshold tonight) having extra resources; have been just building useless army bases all over the world. In this ranking system basically get same Rank points for building a army base as killing a enemy unit.

      So Im Bob the builder trying to get to lvl 32 to unlock next tier of Navy Officer. So have added like 20 rank points doing absolutely nothing in game...now that is a good measure of a player ranking system. at 1:30m builds see if can get a useless base in all occupied cities if get enough supplies.
    • Apply Business Analytics KPIs to this game.

      What matters:
      1) Rate of killed units
      2) Rate of damage taken when killing them
      3) Resources income
      4) Tech advancement
      5) Amount of gold used

      By considering all 5, you're going to be able to understand how good a player is. Probably need to weight them, since presence of gold expenditures en masse nullifies everything else. So 50% weight to gold use, rest 4 split evenly.

      If gold wasn't used daily, then consider:
      - player's tactical skill & see how many units did he kill whilst losing how many of his own
      - player's strategic skill & see what's his resources income and tech progress look like compared to average

      Generally that should be enough to evaluate a player properly. BUT, that will only work if developers implement such skill ranking system. If you're a common player & want to see how good someone is...Just play against him. If you're considering a recruit for team, place him in a pool, wait for it to grow & make them fight each other w/o gold
    • Teburu wrote:

      Y'alls mistake is trying to measure skill based on public games
      Not at all. Its different skills you need in Team and public. And one player being good in 1 setup doesnt mean he is good in an other one. So no downgrading of public game performance please.

      But if that is your arguement you could also come up with playing Zombie or Rising tides or whatever...
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • 1) Kill/Loss-Ratio is surely useful, but can also be influenced by gold, in both ways
      2) There is no statistic for sustained damage outside of news paper, though somebody who regularly heals his unit might sustain more damage than somebody who losses them completely
      3) Hardly a good factor, just starting with an huge country like USA, China or India would already give you a huge boost in this statistic
      4) Would be difficult to achieve
      5) Will never happen, I suspect


      Playing challenges surely needs a highter level of skill than playing publics as you are also required to play in a team and your role might change between challenges, so knowing how to play every unit composition is even more important.
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Y'alls mistake is trying to measure skill based on public games
      Not at all. Its different skills you need in Team and public. And one player being good in 1 setup doesnt mean he is good in an other one. So no downgrading of public game performance please.
      But if that is your arguement you could also come up with playing Zombie or Rising tides or whatever...
      My point is that publics arent exactly that much of a competetive environment; so trying to measure skill in a non-competetive environment seems kinda pointless
      just look at cakes stats :D they are neither very good nor bad; he just doesnt give a flying fuck about public games but still is a damn good player ^^
      Help what do i put here
    • Skarbrandus wrote:

      Apply Business Analytics KPIs to this game.

      What matters:
      1) Rate of killed units
      2) Rate of damage taken when killing them
      3) Resources income
      4) Tech advancement
      5) Amount of gold used

      By considering all 5, you're going to be able to understand how good a player is. Probably need to weight them, since presence of gold expenditures en masse nullifies everything else. So 50% weight to gold use, rest 4 split evenly.

      If gold wasn't used daily, then consider:
      - player's tactical skill & see how many units did he kill whilst losing how many of his own
      - player's strategic skill & see what's his resources income and tech progress look like compared to average

      Generally that should be enough to evaluate a player properly. BUT, that will only work if developers implement such skill ranking system. If you're a common player & want to see how good someone is...Just play against him. If you're considering a recruit for team, place him in a pool, wait for it to grow & make them fight each other w/o gold
      1- I think its useful not like 1.476 player is better 1.475 but in general like 2 is better than 1.5 and usually <1 is hardly any good.
      I'd like to add that players using cheaper units will have more deaths so not all units should have the same factor

      2- this is strategy dependent and game dependent if u just have less than half causalities of the enemy u r fine the rare cases of 20 :1 or more means his opponent didn't do it right (e.g. no air defense so he lost every thing to strikes).
      3- I'm not sure abput that mostly not enough experience to know how will this decide how good he is
      4- strategy dependent and game dependent he might get various units or upgrade some units very high. he might delay tech for an early missiles. this is all game dependent.

      5- There is no point in knowing how he really good u just need to know how will he perform in ur matches so gold is not to be considered (100% wins with gold) okay he will still use gold so .... its just his play style.

      Also notice that the more u spend gold the less its value become


      - Players strategical skill is not to be considered if u play with friend u will lead the team 20% of the time only and u might not at all
      = tactical skills this might be considered but idk


      I think overall k/d is a good indications beside win ratio to get an overall view of a player.
    • The only issue I would find with this type of system is how embarrassed I'd be with the new stat listings.

      I like to try tiny weak countries just for kicks. I got Honduras to take a big chunk of land before Mexico realized my evil scheme. I like the challenge. What I would love to see is an accurate number on the list of games that shows nations that exists and not nations that have no player. Then I would know if there is a hiding country just building on some remote island waiting to pounce on a wounded soldier.
    • SodaChill wrote:

      I like to try tiny weak countries just for kicks. I got Honduras to take a big chunk of land before Mexico realized my evil scheme. I like the challenge.
      Right?! I'm the exact same way. I don't start every game trying my hardest to get the best country, get the best stats, or even to win the whole thing. Sometimes I'm just trying stuff out, and sometimes that stuff is utterly ridiculous. I'm currently playing a secondary account with a bunch of self-imposed limitations, and my stats are still WAY better than they are on my main account. Why? Well, because I'm not new anymore and because I'm really trying in every game I start on that account.

      Reading this thread has brought me to one definitive realization on representing player skill: It can't be done. First of all, what even IS "player skill"? Some very good, experienced players argued on here that it can't be measured in public matches because of all the unskilled/uninvested/unexperienced players. While I understand that point of view, I'd also say that you need to possess some skills in public matches that you don't necessarily need in private matches, because there is the element of complete strangers, unknown commitment, etc. I think managing/manipulating players on a public map is a skill in and of itself.

      Even if we agreed on a specific environment in which these stats could be earned, though, you've still seen for yourself that there is controversy about what stats would really reflect "skill" and argument for how those stats could be manipulated/misleading.

      I started a thread about this not long ago, and I've given it a lot of thought. I have to be honest, I cannot really think of any possible way there could be a stat or set of stats that I think would accurately reflect what I would consider "player skill."


      Honestly, the closest we could probably ever come to measure how good a single player is compared to other players would be "solo wins", if that's what everyone was going for. Still, even that may not necessarily reflect what I or others may consider "skill" (because you could still opt to do things not necessarily related to "skill" to gain solo wins).

      The post was edited 1 time, last by PerigeeNil ().