the rating system now gives more incentive to venture out and conquer... i think its the best change you've made yet req...

and it's bumped me up to 1st position! (Well OK, maybe that was the big fight to take over a castle)

I'm glad you finally decided to change rankings to this system. I have one thing that i wish could be including still which is the amount of tribute per turn to be displayed. It was nice to know if you were gaining tribute faster than other players and being able to calculate how long it would take you to be able to catch up to other people's tribute scores. Anyway we could still have that shown someplace in the games?

maybe as part of the spynetwork?

Maybe i guess, but it just seems like it's more of a convenience than anything to know the amount of tribute per turn for each player. I could take the time to figure it out for myself based on the previous turn's numbers being subtracted from this turn's numbers. It's pretty simple to do, but I'd rather not have to do it every time i was curious since it doesn't really matter all that much to the game and isn't worth spending gold to find out. If you put it back in i'd be happy, but i can definitely live without it.

I agree with Coop, this would be helpful to see how much tribute per turn you are accumlating.

i have a better idea. HIDE the tribute and only show it on spy missions this would effectively give someone a reason to spy

i wouldn't waste my gold for a stat...

How about you only get the "X has taken over Y's castle" etc messages, and the casualty summaries if you have bought spy network..

The losses per player are quite useful tactically - as Princess pointed out, you can add up the exp to work out the gold value of all troops players have lost and from this infer the possible size of other players' armies. I don't think this info should be available without a spy network.

i don't see why you shuld need a spy to see what you are gaining or losing...

if there is a way you could put the data(losses, exp, and tribute) for someone in their own military tab in the game window and take it off of the rankings page that would keep you from having to have a spy network to see your own stats. Then you could hide others stats unless you spy on them. The spy network could tell you how much land they have and then make it to where the more important stats(losses, exp, and tribute) of other players can only be seen if you spy on them.

Sorry to interupt the conversation here; but about that Ranking update....

I just played a Duel with a buddy
-he had most tribute
-I had most exp

so we booth "ranked" 3, and the rankings page showed a "tie"
unfortunatly for me, his name was the one on top, and he won 25 points while I lost 25 points, for a tie...

any comments on that?
(Duel_18438)

Thats what i was trying to explain to req earlier but i guess he didn't realize that duels have a turn limit and tribute accumulation too...

It appears the duels are still based on how many buildings you own at the end of the duel. IE: castles=50 gemponds=20, etc.

I love the new system for the camps though. Put me in first where i should be in one of them and knocked me back to second to last in one where i have just waited to attack

Last Edited : Friday, 16 October 2009 - 01:13

Yeah, love the new raking system for campaigns. Just one minor tweak - can we divide the rank by 2 so that the overall ranking is the average of the ranks for exp and tribute?
This will make the best possible rank 1 and worst the same as teh number of players. This makes more sense, I think.

the duel actually ranked both of you as 1st, just the points system picked 1 over the other. i'll have to add in a draw system.

with halving ranks, i dont know what that would achieve?
its easy to see totals now (1st + 4th = 5). If i had halved values, i'd have 2.5. But what does that mean?

one thing i had thought of was averaged positions.
if 3 ppl are in 1st place for example, you'd have 1,1,1,4,5,6,etc. 3 players ranked in 1st spot then the next player would be 4th.
If you averaged the positions, it would actually mean the top 3 players would be ranked 2nd (1+2+3/3 = 2).
This is fairer since you dont get 3 or more people occupying the highest rank, with noone taking up the lower rank.

Other than the duel flaw I posted about, I do REALLY love the new ranking system;

I am in this campaign where i was in 2nd, and apparently the 3rd place guys a friend of the 1st place guy. Well, if they don't go and try to make 3rd place dude 2nd, and gang me.

Bad news for them, is I've now been propelled rather rapidly into a 1st place tie, and I'm not sure they realize why LOL

This new system is rewarding me for fighting on multiple fronts, while they can only now fight each other, to correct the situation

All-in-all, I'm pretty sure this will make ganging up a thing of the past

Glad to hear that Heat

What did you think of Averaged positions?
It really only effects larger games where there are 3 or more players in the same position.

eg, 3-4 players in 1st would mean they all are counted as 2nd.
5-6 players in 1st would mean they are all counted as 3rd.

In larger games I've seen this more in the middle and bottom of tables. To have 12 people in 9th seems unfair to the person in 21st, considering the 20th person (ranked 9th) will get points for being 9th. It shifts all points awarded upwards.

In all honesty, I think two(or more) people tied for a position will want that position, not a lower one; it's also how it's 'usually' done.

BUT, on the other side of the coin;

if two people are in first in a "War game", then they obviously haven't done thier job. Maybe you should have to fight those you are tied with to try and EARN those first place points(?) so the averageing would be better.

(also, in reference to my last post, it would be cool if one of the guys teaming up on me actually lost rank instead of me gainning it, then he would really think twice about helping out another player in the future)

What about a `count back` of some kind, ie if two players tie then the one with most troops left wins

why? whats wrong with a draw?