Verified:

koonfasa

Member
124

Apr 8th 2011, 21:03:53

Hey qzjul, can I email you something?
It's an excel spreadsheet. You too toma...


Edited By: koonfasa on Apr 8th 2011, 21:07:45. Reason: because...
See Original Post

Twist Game profile

Member
31

May 9th 2011, 22:19:11

Maybe you already figured something out.... But wouldn't the simple math be: amount of NW destoyed/number of turns used to do so ?
Now, this number would ofcourse be on a clan scale of things, not individual players. Ofcourse this also wont take into consideration that a large clan would have more turns to screw over a smaller clan, and thus hampering their ability to actually do any damage to the larger clans infra structure if a war drags on for an entire set (or two, or three)

case in point: I remember a war back on swirve, where a large clan was nearly untouchable by this measuring standard, because they had 3-4 players way out of range of the clan(s) they were fighting. They could FA their clans mates to breaker status without even breaking a stride in their NW gaining.

So presumably a "good" number would have to consider the number of players in the clan as well as their NW. Say one clan is 3 times the NW of the other, In that case the smaller clan would need to have some sort of multiplier to offset their inability to permanently cripple their opponents infrastructure or ability to strike back.


Scenario: Assume a clan of 30 people (avg. networth 3 mil totalling 90 mil NW) save up turns and go FS a clan of 60 people (avg networth of 4 mil totalling 240 mil NW). They spend 3000 turns in the first 24 hours dropping their own NW to 80 mil, and their opponents to say.... 160 mil.
A size diff of 2:1 in members and 2,5:1 in NW.

Example of a calc could be something to the effect of:
(ownNWloss-nmeNWloss*someconstant)/num_turns_spent ^ memberratio ^ sizeratio

Now, the above would favor smaller clans FS'ing on larger clans and trying to end the war quickly. But if short, organized wars are what we want, that wont be so bad. Constants could be moved around to favor one or another preference. Larger clans would also have to commit more resources to score an equal amount of points to the smaller clan, so a war against a smaller target cannot be left-handed work.

QiXiongMao Game profile

Member
64

Jul 30th 2011, 6:02:13

These all are way too complicated.

It's quite simple. Take number of hits done by an alliance and average it by the high point number of members. Take number of defends and average it by the high point number of members.

Get kills, get deaths at the end of the set.

This takes into account restarting, stonewalling, activity, killing efficiency. What else matters?

To ensure that stats padding by way of hitting netgaining or overly small alliances can't take place track who said alliance is killing and stop tracking if their opponent doesn't fight back to some degree.

Rockman Game profile

Member
3388

Jul 30th 2011, 6:08:13

What else matters is the quality of the countries you've killed.

Padding stats by taking the easy kills, rather than killing the dangerous opponents should not be rewarded by a warring score formula.

QiXiongMao Game profile

Member
64

Jul 30th 2011, 11:45:50

Calculate it as part of the hit. Have a pool of bonus points. So each hit on a country that is closer to the top of networth in that alliance gives bonus points. I would suggest you do the same for countries based on activity.

So performing hits on the largest and most active countries gives you bonus points depending how much networth they have compared to the rest of the alliance or how active they are compared to the rest of the alliance. So hitting the country with least networth and least activity gives you no bonus points.

Once you bring quality into it we step beyond the ability to have indisputable numbers via programming.

To focus on choosing high networth targets over active targets to be the only means of judging quality is also something that I think is unacceptable.

None of this stops a big alliance from flattening an alliance of restarts or a small alliance. It would be upto the ones hit if they want to fight back and give the big alliance points.

Detmer Game profile

Member
4280

Jul 31st 2011, 7:23:43

Originally posted by Rockman:
What else matters is the quality of the countries you've killed.

Padding stats by taking the easy kills, rather than killing the dangerous opponents should not be rewarded by a warring score formula.


I think it should be, but only to a limited extent. Killing small countries is better than killing no countries.

Rockman Game profile

Member
3388

Jul 31st 2011, 18:09:50

Originally posted by Detmer:
Originally posted by Rockman:
What else matters is the quality of the countries you've killed.

Padding stats by taking the easy kills, rather than killing the dangerous opponents should not be rewarded by a warring score formula.


I think it should be, but only to a limited extent. Killing small countries is better than killing no countries.


LaF's philosophy is that farming small countries is better than killing them.

When you kill small countries, you give them the ability to restart and hide, whereas if you let them live, you can follow their progress and kill them if they ever get close to being threatening. Some people can make dangerous restarts pretty fast even while being farmed, but a lot of players are incapable of doing any damage if you merely farm them constantly.

It takes both skill and motivation for a restart to build up a powerful enough army to do some damage to a much bigger opponent. There's really no reason to kill countries which lack either the skill or motivation to become a threat.

Cerberus Game profile

Member
EE Patron
3849

Aug 16th 2011, 12:17:43

How about using a formula based on networth changes. You know that everyone recognizes the Netgaining system, how about a similar "Wargaining" system. There are players who progress during war, and they should be recognized.

You can use before and after attack networth values to come up with a number, perhaps rated by factors of ten.

Good Luck, this is a good idea.

Edited By: Cerberus on Aug 16th 2011, 12:32:06
See Original Post
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

Cerberus Game profile

Member
EE Patron
3849

Aug 16th 2011, 12:25:27

Originally posted by iZarcon:
Hmm. Even if there isn't some amazing coefficient made to rate war performance, what's stopping EE having weekly medals of some sort for different categories related to gameplay, like most money made off market sales, best land grabber or best grab, most successful attacks, most successful defends, even the highest networth. Could even have some that were still given out weekly but were based on whole set averages like defense or attack win percentages on either land based or warbased attacks .

Calculating winners on a weekly basis would take very little resources but would give every player something to strive for other than winning top networth. These could be done on both a clan basis and individual basis.

Stuff like this will keep new players playing far more than an amazing coefficient for war performance would, as much as it pains me to say that.

Basically saying, it would be great for the developers to find a way to rank war clans as they do netters, but why stop there?


They used to have a system like this a long time ago, it was called "Fame" and countries were listed by various factors of gameplay, such as most civs killed, most buildings destroyed, largest landgrab, etc.

You could make a lot of people happy by bringing this back again.
I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

mikedowd

New Member
5

Aug 28th 2011, 18:24:56

what

silviorm Game profile

New Member
3

Sep 1st 2011, 13:46:20

very interesting

Grimm Game profile

Member
175

Sep 3rd 2011, 23:47:17

Having a way to track unused stock destroyed would be a good thing as well, if possibly tricky.

silviorm Game profile

New Member
3

Sep 13th 2011, 21:10:02

thanks for the info!

quimm_17 Game profile

New Member
14

Jan 23rd 2012, 6:52:13

ok

Duna Game profile

Member
787

Mar 13th 2012, 7:24:57

Some suggestions:
1) War rank should be like nw: war rank for each country and alliance war rank is summ of all war ranks (and average war rank is total war rank/members).
2) Each attack (as option each attack not SS/PS) should add some for war rank. And it should be based on def str of country.
3) Also war rank may be based on attack result. And maybe some extra rank for kill.
4) To prevent late FS vs early FS, multiply rank for each attack on 1-turns_played/max_turns_for_reset

Edited By: Duna on Mar 13th 2012, 7:27:17
See Original Post

CC Game profile

Member
135

Apr 25th 2012, 4:22:56

Hit per Kill [activity/efficiency]

(% change in NW) + (% change in no of countries)
Canterbury Crusader (CC)
Evolution

Serpentor Game profile

Member
2800

Oct 24th 2013, 1:05:21

I just died because of captcha!!!!
The EEVIL Empire

ZIP Game profile

Member
3222

Nov 2nd 2013, 12:55:07

w no one has come up with something in over 2 years?

keep it simple /

a point system i would use,
every kill = 50 points
every 100k civs = 10 points
every 50k buildings = 10 points
etc...

then the one with more points wins - then use countries/ total points and look at avg countrys points for th " pound for pound " argument.

no need to add these wacky formulas to make it so complex.
fluff your 300 Spartans fool - i have 32 of the biggest fluffed mother fluffers made of titanium !!
A brigade from Blackstreetboyz (#91) has invaded your lands! Your defenses held against the invaders and forced them away! Your military lost:1 Troops

masterfu Game profile

Member
81

Dec 17th 2013, 13:36:36

2

archaic Game profile

Member
7014

Jan 28th 2014, 15:42:17

A lot of what makes war fighters good or great is hard to scale, like target selection and chat-running (both of which depend on a 'kill based' war system).

Another metric that is measurable is total activity. What % of turns for an alliance is used on attacks and spy-ops, how quickly and frequently do they restart?

How do you reward a small alliance that preps manically, goes balzout in their FS, restarts like crazy, kills fast and efficiently, and still gets creamed because they are fighting against an alliance twice their size?

Sadly, EE war - much like figure skating, 'Hawt or Not' polls, and married sex - may be a sport that will never escape the subjective judgement of peers as its defining metric.
Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

justtaint

Member
664

May 2nd 2014, 1:51:01

I was thinking about this the other day in regards to my alliance's over reliance on hits as our war rank.

Instead of determining a point value for individual statistics, why not leave it up to the alliance or even the individual.

This would require boxcar to keep track of past countries (in the event you get killed and restart), but basically track each individual category:

attacks (GS/BR/AB/Missiles)
civs killed
kills
buildings destroyed
food stolen/burnt
Grabs
FA sent
Etc.

Allow the individual/alliance to assign point values to each action.

If that's implemented, it would be nice if spy ops were tracked as well(even if at the end of the reset)
SlashMD

Detmer Game profile

Member
4280

May 2nd 2014, 20:27:46

This would be detrimental to the game. It should not be worked on further.

gehoff Game profile

New Member
2

Jun 17th 2015, 19:37:12

soundsgood

Stryke Game profile

Member
2068

Jun 6th 2016, 3:45:48

Jazz & Stuff, LLC.
SOTA (President/HFA) • Elders • Darkness
http://sota.ghqnet.com

a.k.a. NightShade
Originally posted by kemo:
this dudes either a great troll or a seriously stupid fluff. the kind that takes the pepsi challenge and chooses jiff