ranking system in R4

[Hiske]

well... they are working on it; that's for sure... and I think in a couple of weeks it will be implemented and tested in GIO and after that it'll be implemented in IO... but it could take some time I'm a afraid...

[Reaccão]

Because killing 10k elites is much harder than killing 10k light units (in the same period of era, not 10k lights in the beginning and 10k elites after half an era)

I suggested that you get alliance ranking points for losing soldiers, and comparing it to the current military net worth.

Empty fortresses should not count for alliance ranking points, never ever! Empty fortresses when the enemy is on it's block, is no big deal, but the biggest problem is that fixed wars are too easy to set up when noone loses anything on the attacks. Please, I don't know how to be more emphatic about this, empty fortresses noooooo!

Alliance ranking points for killing soldiers is also OK, I suppose, but if the winning alliance has to sacrifice something to get higher points it will be more balanced, therefore the losing soldiers idea.

[Hiske]

fixed wars are too easy to set up when noone loses anything on the attacks.

what if there needs to be a minumum number of points scored in that war? then you avoid those fixed wars...

btw; I moved this to serious discussion cause it seems we are actually able to have one 

[Reaccão]

what if there needs to be a minumum number of points scored in that war? then you avoid those fixed wars...

btw; I moved this to serious discussion cause it seems we are actually able to have one 

Oh, you are such an optimist... I like that

A minimum number of points won't stop fixed wars, they will only be bigger fixed wars with empty fortresses. There is still no cost involved for the losing alliance, and very little for the winning alliance. Furthermore, a points limit will anull a lot of real wars.

 

[Hiske]

A minimum number of points won't stop fixed wars, they will only be bigger fixed wars with empty fortresses. There is still no cost involved for the losing alliance, and very little for the winning alliance. Furthermore, a points limit will anull a lot of real wars.

fixed wars can always be achieved... I mean; killing 50 would be enough to make the war count... but IMHO there should be a minimum number of points to be scored in each war and empty fort attacks should count... but it's ok to have a different opinion of course

[Reaccão]

fixed wars can always be achieved... I mean; killing 50 would be enough to make the war count... but IMHO there should be a minimum number of points to be scored in each war and empty fort attacks should count... but it's ok to have a different opinion of course

I agree that a war can always be fixed, but it must come with a price. A fixed war with 2000-1900 points of soldiers killed CAN be made, but it is more difficult to get several fixed wars like this, if both parts have to lose a lot of soldiers, it comes with a cost. A 5-player alliance can get 1500 points only on army saves on emtpy fortresses every night in a fixed war. These wars should not count.

Wars with soldiers lost/killed would force the agressor to catch armysaves... to confront the enemy... a lot more fun than empty fortresses.

I still want the empty fortresses to count for determining the winner, just not for alliance ranking points.

lllllllll v/s Wildcats for example_ how fun was it to pound on Swampie and Tugboat? Once we figured out their offline times, there was no challenge, was there? It all came down to who had the smallest fortresses...

[Hiske]

but now you're talking about losing a lot of soldiers... that's a different thing... I mean; in the beginning of the era it's hard to get a certain amount of points or loss of soldiers... and if you kill 1 enemy army on the first day of the war; the only thing you have to do is keep your armies save and you'll win... with a lot of empty fort attacks the defending alliance could get a chance to get the lost points back... so both alliances have to keep on fighting! I think the lllllllll v/s Wildcats war isn't a good example because that war could and should have been a completely different war... I think that everyone in the game likes it the most to kill armies so therefore in almost every war there'll be soldiers killed... but attacking empty forts is also a good strategy... but maybe we should think about reducing the amount of points for an empty fort... so for example a level 5 fort is 5 points, a level 6 fort is 8 points and a level 7 fort is 15 points... smth like that... that'll balance the game more I think

[Reaccão]

Like I said, empty fortresses should still count to determine the winner, but not for alliance ranking points.

If you are talking about your army and Tristan and stuff, I understand, but as the war actually turned out, it was only about who had the smallest fortresses.

So in your example of taking out 1 army in the beginning of the war, well it won't give that alliance much alliance ranking points if they win, so they will have to take out more armies.

We have taken out armies in 90+ % of our wars, from the very beginning, so I can't say it is difficult to get alliance ranking points like that even in the beginning of the era (it must of course be compared to the net army of the alliance).

[Hiske]

aha ok... I misunderstood you... I still don't agree with you cause I think the total points scored in a war should be reflected in the alliance ranking...

and no; I wasn't talking about tristan (and artemis) ... I was refering to the lack of motivation of myself and also (some of) my alliance members during that war... such a pity... that war should've been so much better...

Anyway; this is a very interesting subject to discuss I think... cause for me the only ranking that matters is the alliance ranking so it should be a lot better than it is now

and no... I absolutely don't prefer empty fort attacks during war! 

[Reaccão]

Oh yeah, we weren't motivated either, we were much less motivated than you...

How do you suggest taking care of the fixed wars?

[Hiske]

How do you suggest taking care of the fixed wars?

I think it's impossible to completely avoid fixed wars... but I think that the rule of scoring a certain number of points during a war will help at least a bit... let's say that the 2 alliances together should score 300 points at least... that's a lot of empty forts (especially if you agree with my suggestion to reduce the number of points scored for the 'big' forts...) I know that it's still easy to achieve these 300 points, but this is only a suggestion... maybe this number should be higher; but then we have a problem with the wars during the beginning of the era...

[Reaccão]

Not only those wars, but also wars where the defender simply doesn't attack back. Those wars would also be anulled.

With empty fortresses, it is just toooooo easy to fix wars. It has to involve some cost for both, to make it more difficult.

With a system that considers soldiers lost, there is a limit for how much you can fix a war.

With a system that considers killing soldiers, the losing alliances can split their armies and give away tons of alliance ranking points... so an alliance with a few friendly alliances (or their own multiaccount alliances) can win the race in the last week.

cause for me the only ranking that matters is the alliance ranking so it should be a lot better than it is now

Yesterday you were only interested in Net Worth ranking... 

I know a lot of players don't give a chitt about this ranking, real good players, but for me it is by far the most important... military ranking is OK, but it still too much of a farmers ranking. Net worth... cool but winning that is not worth more than a medal 

[Radooo]

Not only those wars, but also wars where the defender simply doesn't attack back. Those wars would also be anulled.

So if you declare war against an alliance and they never attack back, the war shouldn't count?

[Reaccão]

So if you declare war against an alliance and they never attack back, the war shouldn't count?

It was Hiske that proposed that, I didn't. I am against it.

Edit: completely, utterly and emphatically...

[Radooo]

Maybe I miss something when I read because I didn't see when Hiske proposed that