New Ranking System

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

And so once again, the Community will decide what will happen.

The Ranking System has changed twice already with the Community divided into those who

i) Want only CP to count towards the determination of the rank of a player

and those who

ii) Want something else...

I have no objection to the Community having the last word on that.

Edit: Just to clear something out. Both values will be shown in the Rankings. This is not about which value to show in the Rankings but HOW the rank of a player will be determined.

Posts : 141 Join date : 2013-12-21

on thew other side a new player log into bc and he sees tons of cp and fame he think "ok i am new i will get into top 1 in some time"

and we got 3 options

option 1 cp ranking

he fight and get better and better rank he manage to get to active players and than captial falls everybody rank is rested and evrybody got 0 so he is motivated to play evry inactive aaccout with huge fame and maby huge cp is way down behind him becuse of he is active and do tons of cp

option 2 mixed ranking
he fight and get better and better rank he manage to get to active players and than captial falls everybody rank is rested but he need to go with all those inactive players with huge fame so he got slightly dismotivated fight less he goes lower in ranks dismotivate more and after some time stop playing

option 3 fame ranknig
he fight and get better and better rank he manage to get to active players and than captial falls everybody rank is rested but well its a fame ranking so nothing changes ateher are only for high plyes and if somone would manage to budulit and resarch all he will always be top 1 ang get achers becuse there could be no more fame than hi even if he is inactive is time there will be many plyers with max fame and you wiull have to make more bulidng and resrch lvl

thank you bring back cp ranking or maby cp+fame ranking 1:1 if you want to get all those inactives int top 1 on every reset

Posts : 698 Join date : 2013-08-21

Can we add the lifetime CP somewhere in brackets? Does the info from previous game cycles still exist on the server? Also somehow i favor two different rankings, a lifetime contribution and current cycle.

Posts : 121 Join date : 2013-10-03

What about CP+city score/5? That's what I will like.

And this pool is a bit weird. Let me give an example how it feel like.

Buyer: I want to buy a red pen.
Seller: Oh, we have blue pens. Buy one, it's $1. Buy 2, it's $1.5. 3 are $2.
Buyer: No, I need red one.
Seller: Oh, you can buy 1000 of them in pack only, it's $200.

Posts : 511 Join date : 2013-05-08 Location : Amber Shores

Middle ground always is the best option.

If fame from buildings and tech won't matter then they should be done researching and building instantly. People have invested months and months into building their city and it has to matter. Rankings being 100% from cp only benefits people who have just reached the cp caps and is absolutely one sided. It has to be fair for everybody otherwise there's no point in having the rankings in the first place.

Posts : 451 Join date : 2013-05-26

Piktas, why do you think that pure cp ranking isnt fair for current world?

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

Gentlemen....You can post a hundred times here....I will read all the posts...

In the end...we will go with what the poll will show...

It is the only way to keep my sanity...

You want my 2 cents? The solution always lies in the middle...(some City Score and a lot of CP) which is what we tried to do with the current Rankings...

Let the Community decide....(for better...or for worse..)

Posts : 511 Join date : 2013-05-08 Location : Amber Shores

kuba_ wrote:: Piktas, why do you think that pure cp ranking isnt fair for current world?

Because the only reasoning for it to be pure CP is because people lost progress going to Olympus and basically now people from Olympus want the progress that Erevos players retained to be removed. Douchebag move. You will not find any other game where noobs are equal to veterans. If people have invested time in the game it should mean more than just unlocking new units. The only complaint is "omg people with 0 cp are in the top of the ranks". People who didn't fight were always at the top of the ranks and they always get pushed back EASILY. It's like people are afraid to work their way up. Any similar game you can think of is like this: If you want to compete with someone who has been playing the game for months before you you either have to invest the same amount of time or buy gems. That's what the gems are for people.

Nevertheless, don't get me wrong. CP should be most important but having buildings and tech not matter in the rankings is ludicrous.

Posts : 511 Join date : 2013-05-08 Location : Amber Shores

RuneSlayer wrote:: Gentlemen....You can post a hundred times here....I will read all the posts...

In the end...we will go with what the poll will show...

It is the only way to keep my sanity...

You want my 2 cents? The solution always lies in the middle...(some City Score and a lot of CP) which is what we tried to do with the current Rankings...

Let the Community decide....(for better...or for worse..)

I will make a poll that gems should be removed from the game then. I think non gem users will easily outweigh gem users Very Happy

Point being... you have to go with what is reasonable and fair for everybody not what the mob with the torches and pitch forks rave about.

Posts : 121 Join date : 2013-10-03

+1 to all Piktas posts

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

tommarkc wrote:: +1 to all Piktas posts

tommarkc wrote:: And Rune, just for the case, here's the all explonation. In case you didn't saw, just to be sure. Wanna explain what you have to tell on Andy's post?

Anduin wrote:
RuneSlayer wrote:
Taters....the system was just CP, everybody complained.

The system became fairer, as I explained above...everybody complains.

How is this more fair? Who complained? I didn't hear any complaints before - I do now though.

The older players who have more developed cities reap the benefits of their efforts by generating more CP per battle and having tons of GLs. Fame in this case acts as an additional modifier to keep lazy players on top of more active players who play your game.

Those of us who have less developed cities and unmaxed armies already have to work harder to generate the same amount of CP. Why penalize us further?

Rankings should be decided by how much effort players put into the war.

Why should a lazy vet automatically be placed ahead of a very active player who is actively generating tons of CP?

And what are you doing it right now is adding Olympus to Erevos, not merging 2 worlds. I'm clapping, sarcastic.

Completely baffled......*sigh*

As I said Piktas....I am not going to lose my sanity over the rankings....

Posts : 511 Join date : 2013-05-08 Location : Amber Shores

RuneSlayer wrote:: As I said Piktas....I am not going to lose my sanity over the rankings....

Leave it as it is then Razz

Posts : 451 Join date : 2013-05-26

As i said before it should be option to sort by fame/city score too, however i do not see reason to awards older players just becuase they started playing earlier.

You may disagree with me but Cp is everything and players should be rewarded for CP (still older players have easier since they can make 160 CP with one fight).

For example look at guilds previous ranking showed true power of guilds. You can saw for example that Fallen is ... well not so strong and it was visible in ranking, now they appear second dark the most powerfull guild. With players is similar with current ranking relatively new player (with fame 2k-3k) who is able to do NM for 100 cp, will never (few months) be able to reach even 100 place in ranking even playing non stop.

I agree that fame/ city score should be visible too and players should have option to sort it, propably all time cp ranking should be avalible too, however for CURRENT world, only CP ranking should be main ranking.

Posts : 131 Join date : 2013-11-10

Piktas wrote:

kuba_ wrote:: Piktas, why do you think that pure cp ranking isnt fair for current world?

Because the only reasoning for it to be pure CP is because people lost progress going to Olympus and basically now people from Olympus want the progress that Erevos players retained to be removed. Douchebag move. You will not find any other game where noobs are equal to veterans. If people have invested time in the game it should mean more than just unlocking new units. The only complaint is "omg people with 0 cp are in the top of the ranks". People who didn't fight were always at the top of the ranks and they always get pushed back EASILY. It's like people are afraid to work their way up. Any similar game you can think of is like this: If you want to compete with someone who has been playing the game for months before you you either have to invest the same amount of time or buy gems. That's what the gems are for people.

Nevertheless, don't get me wrong. CP should be most important but having buildings and tech not matter in the rankings is ludicrous.

I will be honest, if you compensate the players from olympus in such a way, that they feel like they are at the right spot/same spot regarding developement as their erevos counterparts, these rankings could have backed more ground, and I personally wouldnt mind seeing such rankings. But at this moment, you cannot have straight rankings on hades if you involve fame that has been corrupted by the olympus-transfer. In the end, it seems that the chances of compensation are just as big as those in for rankings based upon city fame.

Posts : 141 Join date : 2013-12-21

if you put cp ranking plyers who ply lkonge got an advatage in toops (higher lvl) and gear they can do suesides so they make more cp so they are higher in cp ranking but newbies can still do 3 hards istead of 1 suesirde to catch top fame players andi think its fair you pleyd longer so do more cp in particular time than a newbie

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

Just to clear something out. Both values will be shown in the Rankings. This is not about which value to show in the Rankings but HOW the rank of a player will be determined.

Posts : 32 Join date : 2013-12-10

What I want, at a minimum, is a compensation on the absurdly higher cost for research and buildings we had to pay in Olympus when we could have been paying low costs in Erevos and get much higher building and research levels.

Posts : 74 Join date : 2014-01-01 Location : France

A man with 10k fame put more CPs/battle than me...

Posts : 511 Join date : 2013-05-08 Location : Amber Shores

Wave_Rida wrote:: I will be honest, if you compensate the players from olympus in such a way, that they feel like they are at the right spot/same spot regarding developement as their erevos counterparts, these rankings could have backed more ground, and I personally wouldnt mind seeing such rankings. But at this moment, you cannot have straight rankings on hades if you involve fame that has been corrupted by the olympus-transfer. In the end, it seems that the chances of compensation are just as big as those in for rankings based upon city fame.

I would be all for compensations. Smth like a few weeks of faster research times and buildings times as well as all that stuff being a lot cheaper so they could get back some of their lost progress. Rankings, on the other hand, have nothing to do with it. No need to corrupt the rankings for this. Or are we going to change the rankings anytime a new player joins the game to accommodate him/her so he wouldn't feel too powerless vs old players?

the rankings and people losing progress by going to olympus are separate issues imo.

The Restless Posts : 445 Join date : 2013-11-24

I think the fame for buildings/tech was changed...but if city score is that old fame/2 then:

I think that city score (or old fame/2) + CP/5 is fine and fair.¹

However I would like to add a CP minimum per war cycle to qualify for Aether rewards (something small like 3K CP).

The "builder" doesn't even want the current reward, since they don't benefit from it and it takes away from a person that could have used it. If a "builder" falls below 3K CP perhaps they should be rewarded in another way...but that is another discussion...

^{1: I say that knowing that it does not work in my favor, but also believing that there is merit to the case that "builders" tend to assist the faction in other ways, those efforts should be rewarded}

Posts : 22 Join date : 2014-03-06

RuneSlayer wrote:: Just to clear something out. Both values will be shown in the Rankings. This is not about which value to show in the Rankings but HOW the rank of a player will be determined.

I hope showing both numbers applies to the Guild Member screen rankings someday, as well.

Posts : 124 Join date : 2013-11-10

Let's see, on one hand we have players who believe that ranking should be determined based on effort. The people who get aether and rank will be the ones who fought the fiercest.

...and on the other hand we have players who feel entitled to rank simply because they're older players.

The choice is pretty clear for me, I voted for CP generation.

There can be no compromise here, do what is right.

Posts : 124 Join date : 2013-11-10

Piktas wrote:: Because the only reasoning for it to be pure CP is because people lost progress going to Olympus and basically now people from Olympus want the progress that Erevos players retained to be removed. Douchebag move. You will not find any other game where noobs are equal to veterans.

Noobs are nowhere near equal to veterans. Veterans already rake in more CP per battle, and have GLs to make battles quicker/easier. In a pure CP system, the veterans will still have every advantage.

A CP system would however rank a noob who puts tremendous effort higher than a vet who plays casually, which I think is absolutely fair.

This is not an Olympus versus Erevos thing. Anybody who has lower city fame who works very hard would be better off with CP generation. Some of the lazier vets would benefit more from a fame based system.

I believe that ranking should be based on effort, not seniority.

Posts : 511 Join date : 2013-05-08 Location : Amber Shores

Valmeijar wrote:: What I want, at a minimum, is a compensation on the absurdly higher cost for research and buildings we had to pay in Olympus when we could have been paying low costs in Erevos and get much higher building and research levels.

This is the core issue ^

Vmomo wrote:: A man with 10k fame put more CPs/battle than me...

Another point to consider. People got their big cities by fighting a lot. It is not like they never fought. There are only a handful of such individual with big cities who have never fought.

Anduin wrote:: Let's see, on one hand we have players who believe that ranking should be determined based on effort. The people who get aether and rank will be the ones who fought the fiercest.

...and on the other hand we have players who feel entitled to rank simply because they're older players.

The choice is pretty clear for me, I voted for CP generation.

There can be no compromise here, do what is right.

Way to miss the point entirely. CP should be the most important factor that is unquestionable. But denying the EFFORT people have put in to build up their cities is no where close to honest and reasonable rankings. Also not to mention that an active player will always outrun a casual vet. No one will see the capitals fall anytime soon so you will have plenty of time to change the rankings with actual effort that you speak of.

Posts : 121 Join date : 2013-10-03

RuneSlayer wrote:: Completely baffled......*sigh*

rankings should be more than 50% based on CP (I will do with 60-90%), while other percents goes to fame.
Playing for a long time will be rewarded, while the it should be mostly based on CP.

To not confuse you, I won't explain in details Smile

I voted for CP only, because it's small evil against big ones.

» Ranking system
» Ranking bug.
» CP Ranking
» Bring back cp ranking
» Top100 CP Ranking