The Measure of a Player

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

    • 1) Knowledge of game

      2) Activity (inlcuding being able to get online within a sec after being notified by allies)

      3) Communication

      4) Obedience - the ability to follow orders (this is less important for public matches, more important for challenges)

      There is no single stat that can measure this, the closest would be K/D. I like to watch players play to "measure" their skill.
    • Personally look at combination of coal and solo wins as pct of games played. used to think high ranked players were all good but seeing ply alot just play alot of games poorly.

      But agree with someones list above about being active; loyal (actually help each other if needed) ; track record of winning; if all just solos and o coal wins probably not a good team player and could flip on you at some point. But some of my best coal partners didnt have great W/L record but where active and fun to play with and followed my suggestions dont like to order people but he realized i knew more than him and he learned alot but one of few teammmates have had that if we were going down we were going down together. some games i enjoy playing with and talking to "enemies" more as strike up conversation with an opposing coalition. Good players can respect their opponents and learn from victory and defeat.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • Right, but the problem with win percentage (based against number of games played) is that it assumes a player is making an earnest attempt to win every or even most games. I'm not saying I'm "good", but I'm much better than my win percentage, because I join a lot of games to experiment, to check on the in-game atmosphere/communications (being a moderator), etc. I've also had to abandon a lot of games due to real life obligations, etc. I'm not actually trying to argue with you; I'm just explaining that I've considered using "win percentage" before, and then I've thought, "Well, my OWN win percentage isn't even an accurate indication of my success level, because there's a lot of games I abandon for real life reasons or where my main goal isn't necessarily to get a win."

      Plus you have players who start new accounts once they are experienced so that their stats look better. Well, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are better now than someone who still has all of their early losses in their stats.
    • True .. thats why I only play 1 game at a time. Win pct isnt everything but when searching for/accept coalition partners or prior to accept look at profile and mix of experience and at least a few coalition wins so know what it takes to win a game. But even then Ive had partners with a handful of wins do nothing on our coalition. And dont like carrying players to a win. So also looked at prov won/lost as next main thing as shows success without quiting (ie - could take 100 prov/cities but if quit and someone reclaims who cares so avoid players with 1:1 ratios or below); K/D ratios skewed a bit as some racked up against AI and or near dormant/depleted countries. So its really a crapshoot to find good playing partners.

      But early on I got intimidated by just someones rank and it doesnt anymore as Ive seen some 86 plus lvl dudes play REALLY bad.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • I regard myself above average player . Joined 34 games won(soon) 11solo+6team games . That will be 50% and i play on larger maps i loved 128 huge dyck measuring map. I have 7 to 1 captured lost provinces(soon 8 to 1) . If you have similar stats and apply to Bulgaria 632AD ,there is great chance not be refused .
      So victories especially solo and province ratio is what i look at .
      Easiest way to join me and see what barbaric cannibal i am is writing to me in български .
      Happy building up a robust team of around average players ,no stress and no demands .
      Was very deadly at Supremacy 1914 too ,was the first guy to win 500map there and crashed the game ,got all 3 podium medals at once )) that was bloody game memory .
      In short province ratio and solo wins is what metters to me .
    • Telerik wrote:

      I regard myself above average player . Joined 34 games won(soon) 11solo+6team games . That will be 50% and i play on larger maps i loved 128 huge dyck measuring map. I have 7 to 1 captured lost provinces(soon 8 to 1) . If you have similar stats and apply to Bulgaria 632AD ,there is great chance not be refused .
      So victories especially solo and province ratio is what i look at .
      Easiest way to join me and see what barbaric cannibal i am is writing to me in български .
      Happy building up a robust team of around average players ,no stress and no demands .
      Was very deadly at Supremacy 1914 too ,was the first guy to win 500map there and crashed the game ,got all 3 podium medals at once )) that was bloody game memory .
      In short province ratio and solo wins is what metters to me .
      will have to play together... I have 7 team and 4 solo in 14 games. 12 to 1 capture rate
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • a few weeks ago i suggested many of these suggestions be added to ranking calcs/promotions and was shot down. someone wouldnt get promoted for just fighting in battles if he lost them all and or most of troops killed every battle.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp