A draw is ok, but can two or more players really draw in this game?.On paper yes but in reality no,one will always out shine another in one way or another.

In football, as you know, a draw works well, but a draw in cricket is so contrived.(this example wont make any sense to most ppl )

Just a thought ..

if one player did better in combat, yet the other player did better with economy (tribute), then who is to say who should win? why would EXP be more valuable than collecting and holding Tribute? Or vice-versa?

Even if the EXP difference was greater than the Tribute difference, that doesnt really mean much. Afterall, part of the gameplay is holding on to Tribute income, which could lead to losing more troops but holding off the enemy. Should that be punished?

Or the otherside, if the opponent gets a head start in Tribute, and even if you beat them in EXP why should they win because they had more tribute than you had more exp?

Its too subjective to just allocate a winner based on some arbitrary forumula. Both players did well, its a draw. That seems fair to me.

My problem is that I agree with you, but it does not feel right not having an out right winner.

If the battle of Lewes was a draw the UK (perhaps the world)would be a very diff place ...

Last Edited : Monday, 19 October 2009 - 01:06

I would like to offer a solution to this problem, I already suggested it to Req in chat but he didn't seem to think much of it!

So with that said, here's my suggestion: have the ranking determined by multiplying the experience score times the tribute score.

This eliminates ties except in extremely rare cases since the product of this multiplication is in the billions.

Rather than produce the figures here I'll say that I did the multiplication for a couple of campaigns and found that using this system kept most players in the same relative positions but with no ties.

Everyone begins the game with an equal opportunity to grab resources and fight others for more. It doesn't matter what the relationship between the two (exp. and trb.) is since everyone has equal chances to have the highest of both.

I think Req didn't like it because he thought that it gave more weight to one skill or the other and would necessitate balancing the two somehow, but I disagree.

I urge anyone to do the table for a campaign by multiplying experience times tribute and see if you don't think it is fair. In one camp I checked, the guy in first had over 7 billion points and the guy in second had almost 4 billion. It was obvious who should be in first.

I believe tribute should only be gained, never lost. Cumulative, in other words, the same as experience.

Also, since this figure is a multiplication, if the units of scores change, like, for instance, you get a different amount of tribute for taking a pile of goodies or owning a type of building after a game change, the players still have the same opportunity to grab that item. It is a variable system that takes change of value between the two types in stride. You'd still need to grab all you could and kill all you could.

On the game rank page you would show experience gained, tribute gained and the product of the two.

i don't like the idea of draws either...

if tribute and experience were both accumulative...you could simply add them together...high score wins! i don't see what is so hard to figure out...
tribute should accumulate... otherwise there is no sense in grabbing anything until games end... which makes no sense at all... if you hold possession of something for a specific amount of turns... you should gain points on it for the same amount of turns...

Multiplying is better than adding, it makes the difference in size of the two types of points irrelevant. Adding means they need to be balanced against each other.

Tribute is accumulative. Why are people making out as though it is not?

Multiplying just makes growth exponential. Once a player is ahead it is even more difficult to catch up because multiplying creates huge gaps.

It also doesnt solve the balancing issue. If EXP is easier to get, then EXP becomes much more valuable since its the quickest way to get massive multipliers.

Why are people so afraid to be ranked equally with someone else? This is normal and fair. Especially in large games where the 2 players have never even met (or met the same foes). How can you say one is better than the other?

I take it that if there is only one player left at game end he/she is the outright winner, if so, i see no problems with as you would like it to be

As I understand it if player A and player B are left at end of game and player A is narrowly ahead and then quits, Player A wins the game.

Sounds to me like you are all splitting hairs,I just finished a camp where we were tied on first and we both got good points ....so whats the problem.
My rank was the second highest in that game before it started but im still happy with the 19 points gained.
Toughen up Princesses
Cheers Angie

for me it is easy, this is a war game not a farmers game, so in case of ties the warrior should get the glory.

heat only needed about 10 turns to finsh zues...

I haven't seen it posted anywhere yet; but Req fixed the ties in Duels issue. Booth players got winning points now in my history.

Thanx again Requiem

(And though I'm not sure how you can tell that from the points laur, I was thinking along the same lines, though he definatly deserved that tie )

What's the problem? just kill everyone else and take their resourses, you win.

and if you tie on first place you will get lot's of points to climb up on the rank.

stop arguing and fight!!!

made you look <8?()

my grandfather was a clown and his face wasn't near that narrow, i think he was the one that gets stuck in the tiny car

Last Edited : Sunday, 25 October 2009 - 06:25

Just a note... anyone who thinks economy does not play a hand in who wins an armed conflict, pull out your world history books and read up!

You cannot field an army, R&D new techs, build buildings without resources and a lot of them. He who has most, has most! Not saying you will still win, but in a one vs one combat, I would much rather have the larger economy.

economy means more money which(during the war) means more troops...so in the end wins the one one who has more troops or a better general. that was my point.
I feel no joy acumulating tribute, do you?
If that tribute could be transformed in money or troops, then we have a different story.
But for now, taking mines and piles is so boring...

I wasn't here when the old system was active. Why did the old tribute system get changed. It seems like that would add alot of strategy to manage resources to build buildings, troops, etc. Tribute really doesn't even come into play in a duel since its normally to the death anyway.

I proposed to Req a while back that instead of having tribute gained from buildings we would instead gain different amounts of gold. (IE: woodmills give so much gold, gemponds give so much gold, ect. ect). It would need to be balanced in order to keep the amounts of gold in the game in check, but it makes sense that an economy would sell its wood or gems to gain gold. This gives us something that matters in the game and makes those buildings more important.

From there every person could be ranked on the amounts of gold they have gained during the game instead of the tribute we have now which is practically meaningless as laur said. It wouldn't be based on how much gold you have on hand, mind you, but rather the totals amounts throughout the game which i feel would reflect an economy score better than most anything else. It would take into account all of the gold techs as well as goldmines and other buildings which is essentially what an economy is besides fluctuating market prices. Using this instead of the tribute score and with the exp score would be a fairly good ranking system. Though we might have to get rid of the gold gained from killing enemy units.

But why was the old system changed? I assume you needed a certain amount of each resource to build a building or unit?