New Ranking System

RuneSlayer wrote:

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.

It seems to me that a majority want the something else. There should be a new poll among the city + CP/? ratio, by splitting the city and CP it pretty much throws a larger majority under the bus. Granted, there will be more sorting methods in the rankings, but city fame already was nerfed in half, it is not unreasonable to earn CP to make up the difference anymore.

This is an unfortunate turn of events.

Somehow i lack the will to make a proper sophisticated post, point out how much the community really loses if we go to purely CP ranking. In terms of goals, casual gameplay, elitism, iconic models, motivation longterm and so on. Dont really feel like standing up to the blinded and selfish mob anymore and get crucified for apparently representing the majority of the community. I probably dont need to say that i havent been less happy with any of Runes decisions until now. I also am rather leaning towards that he did not give it a long thought and just wants the community to shut up and let him to the important stuff that has been piling up. I am also pretty confident in a year the whole community will cry for another ranking system, which we could avoid here and now. You have my opinion, not my approval.

Also a hint to those who misinterpret my posts, i have more aether than average without any need for it, i personally care very little about my interests apart of someday reaching lvl 20 army and rather want a fair and ballanced game. The majority of my actions and reasoning are supporting a casual type of player that is being overlooked very often, yet for a flash game like this is a crucial element for success.

You want to compare yourself looking at Fame? There is a way...click on Fame.

You want to compare yourself looking at CP? There is a way...click on CP.

You want to earn Aether? Play the game...

i) New players have to do a lot of battles, since they have low CP generation.

ii) Veteran players have the luxury to do less battles and gain more CP, which is only fair since they are of a higher lvl.

Win win for all...

The rest is just history.....

Ah right, i better go off before i fall to the temptation to click on reset and say GG Rune, good luck with your game.

Tibr wrote:

Ah right, i better go off before i fall to the temptation to click on reset and say GG Rune, good luck with your game.

What is your objection Tibr? I don't understand...

Which one of those ranking systems is going to be the primary? A big reason people voted for "something else" is because the primary ranking method desired was a conglomeration of both city score and CP to equal Fame. We didn't vote for an argument on the sorting, we voted for the determination of the rankings.

Metalsiagon wrote:

Which one of those ranking systems is going to be the primary? A big reason people voted for "something else" is because the primary ranking method desired was a conglomeration of both city score and CP to equal Fame. We didn't vote for an argument on the sorting, we voted for the determination of the rankings.

There exists no primary ranking system. You can sort Rankings as you wish. When Prestige is introduced, you will be able to sort by Prestige as well.

However, there needs to be a default..something to show when the Rankings open. That will be CP, but that doesn't mean that CP is the primary value which determines the rank of a player.

As for the Aether rewards, the req is strictly CP.

I honestly have no idea why anyone is complaining about this system.
You can sort the rankings by fame or CP, and the aether rewards are based solely on CP. Why should long-term players want fame to contribute to aether rewards, even though they already have the advantage to do less battles than newer players?

My eyes hurt, why did you make me read?!

1) Sortable, selectable rankings just make the most sense. I like being able to manage my data sets, and rankings are mostly just a data set by which to compare your character to others.

2) There does exist a primary ranking system as long as Aether is awarded based on CP. It's CP. That seems pretty fundamental to me. It also seems correct. Aether should be earned solely by fighting, it should be harder for new players to get (a goal is always good...) and even veterans should have to remain active to earn more.

3) I think a problem that's mostly ignored is; why upgrade your city? Past certain points it makes more sense to just play the market for a bit and craft items. ie; A player reachs barracks 14. They can now run NM solos, maybe get cav (if they're not a dwarf ;P) and should feel pretty good about reaching this point. But to run NM solos they're going to want more rare gear. The best way to get it is to stop building and just fight. The problem is even worse at level 17 or 20, after you can run suicides the extra army slot for upgrading is kinda... meh.

I understand that the devs don't WANT us doing everything all at once, and I agree (I don't like it, but different story hahaha) it's valid for the health of the game long term. My point here is that if players had something to shoot for with building that was a bit more interesting, city score would matter more.

I chose the barracks because (imho) it and the warehouse are the only buildings that matter after you finish the starting quests. There is no reasonable ROI on resource buildings or resource research. Smith buildings top out at (iirc) 17 as well when they stop being pre-reqs for military researches. Research lab is only upgraded when it falls too far behind. Market is pretty much just completely ignored. CC is useless except as a pre-req.... See the pattern? Introduce more high-end (past level ten) functionality for the city itself and city score will actually matter. This could be added by increasing the % gains for higher level buildings, adding new researches (actually like a research to allow you an increase on your % gains for higher level buildings hahaha...), changing the pre-requisite structure (I hate this idea, btw), or adding combat based bonuses that lower level cities simply do not get. ie; past level 15 or something your hero monument upgrade gains you +2%xp for heroes.

The amount of time and resources required to get to level 25 buildings should still be prohibitive enough that something more can be added to cities without removing the focus from combat. I am all about the focus on combat; but people work hard on their cities (minus the gemmers, but time = money so I guess them too! ) and deserve to be rewarded for them. My 2 cents...

LSLarry wrote:

Past level 15 or something your hero monument upgrade gains you +2%xp for heroes.

This, pretty much summarizes what would be the benefit of upgrading.

As well, maybe a certain amount of city score could increase max CP gained from a battle.

Meowr wrote:

LSLarry wrote:

Past level 15 or something your hero monument upgrade gains you +2%xp for heroes.

This, pretty much summarizes what would be the benefit of upgrading.

As well, maybe a certain amount of city score could increase max CP gained from a battle.

It does, it lets you build the bigger armies and better guild to fight the bigger battles for more cp

Actually all buildings provide something for every level to the player with the exception being the Market.

why'd you steal all the fame I had from quests? :[[[[[[

Piktas wrote:

why'd you steal all the fame I had from quests? :[[[[[[

I knew it was wrong, but I could not help myself....

ysosad wrote:

Piktas wrote:

why'd you steal all the fame I had from quests? :[[[[[[

I knew it was wrong, but I could not help myself....

nvm.. me thinks it's my bad probably cuz fame from buildings was decreased... which right now was totally unnecessary lol carry on.

i can see why some people will be instantly upset, it is not pleasant to have the tables turned so completely. seems a bit knee jerk tho would of prefered a poll in a weeks time after cp had a chance to make a real effect on the rankings
this is an aspect where we all have to bear in mind that there are a lot of people who contribute to this game and we all have different aims and methods of doing so
ranking purely by cp is as unfair as ranking purely by build/research
it is to each faction and each team's own advantage to support a strong guild structure and the benefits which come from that
being able to see the pure cp rankings should allow bragging rights and also to be able to compete with each other
if we are really going to be building lifetime armies and contributions then that should be demonstrated
we can all reroll if needs be when there is a win
pure build should not be rewarded alone but lets not forget some of the people who have had the most impact on this game and have bought in 100's of folk who have earnt 1k cp or more are not cp day by day earners (although they turn battles when they decide to)
do we all really wish to exclude them from our game?
it would be only to our own detriment

I suddenly got a special interest when I saw Faers reply. And it's a good one, + 1

RuneSlayer wrote:

Actually all buildings provide something for every level to the player with the exception being the Market.

The problem isn't that they don't provide anything. The problem is diminishing returns. Up to a point in the game players upgrade their buildings for an actual advantage in the field (CC, WH, Barracks for new units, smiths and laboratory for the researches/units) and then they just.... stop. They still provide an incremental increase in something (ie build time for CC) but the fact of the matter is players don't care about those. As far as I can tell people are more motivated by the titles they can earn for having level 20 buildings than the % increase / level.

Return on investment is just too low for high level buildings; there is no reason for players to build them, especially if they don't contribute 'ranking' anymore in the form of fame.

LSLarry wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Actually all buildings provide something for every level to the player with the exception being the Market.

The problem isn't that they don't provide anything.  The problem is diminishing returns.  Up to a point in the game players upgrade their buildings for an actual advantage in the field (CC, WH, Barracks for new units, smiths and laboratory for the researches/units) and then they just.... stop.  They still provide an incremental increase in something (ie build time for CC) but the fact of the matter is players don't care about those.  As far as I can tell people are more motivated by the titles they can earn for having level 20 buildings than the % increase / level.

Return on investment is just too low for high level buildings; there is no reason for players to build them, especially if they don't contribute 'ranking' anymore in the form of fame.

Yep. And I think this is something that should be looked at pretty hard once a lot of the current tough stuff is done. I understand that it shouldn't be such a priority now, but it really is something that would make the game feel much more "complete" and rewarding in the long run.

Bobba wrote:

LSLarry wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Actually all buildings provide something for every level to the player with the exception being the Market.

The problem isn't that they don't provide anything.  The problem is diminishing returns.  Up to a point in the game players upgrade their buildings for an actual advantage in the field (CC, WH, Barracks for new units, smiths and laboratory for the researches/units) and then they just.... stop.  They still provide an incremental increase in something (ie build time for CC) but the fact of the matter is players don't care about those.  As far as I can tell people are more motivated by the titles they can earn for having level 20 buildings than the % increase / level.

Return on investment is just too low for high level buildings; there is no reason for players to build them, especially if they don't contribute 'ranking' anymore in the form of fame.

Yep. And I think this is something that should be looked at pretty hard once a lot of the current tough stuff is done. I understand that it shouldn't be such a priority now, but it really is something that would make the game feel much more "complete" and rewarding in the long run.

At least completing the story quest would be nice. If I remember correctly you are left hanging on what happens to the Archmage in the story.

I definitely agree that Rate of Return (or Return on Investment) is incredibly low for higher level buildings.

My Timber camp is still level 18, and that is with 2-3 upgrades recently because I was unable to deposit the resources to the guild.

The resource increase at the upper end needs to be higher to justify the ever rising costs of upgrades. I remember sitting on level 15 resource buildings for AGES, as I only ever focused on upgrading my barracks to get more AP out of it.

THEN (finally) the barracks AP limit was raised, and I had more AP than I knew what to do with.

I disagree.

In a game which never resets the progression of a player, the passive bonuses derived by buildings are there forever, which means that the player keeps accumulating resources, has lower crafting times, lower hero healing times, etc. for the rest of his gameplay life.

To be fair, only in the last few months was it truely revealed that 'player progression would never be reset'.

I'm not sure its true that you always intended this to be the case? The game just developed that way recently due to various circumstances and mobs with pitchforks

XViper wrote:

To be fair, only in the last few months was it truely revealed that 'player progression would never be reset'.

I'm not sure its true that you always intended this to be the case? The game just developed that way recently due to various circumstances and mobs with pitchforks

It wasn't intended to be the case. Too many things have been done which were not part of the plan...

Let's just say that with our next game..things will be a lot different.

With the rewards as they are, ressource buildings are useless. I'm a player who gives much on long term investment, but with that return payback I doubt I will go further than lvl 15.
Making the ressource building costs from Erevos it might be worth giving progress into ressource builings, even it is long-term. But now, it's just too much.