Who's the best?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Who's the best?

      The main motivation to play the same online game for a longer time is building up a profile from which you can see you performed well in many matches. Rising in some kind of ranking. Proudly showing you're a good player.
      CoW is lacking this significantly. The ranking shows only who played a lot - not who did it well. The stats actually do tell you how good the player is, but you have to read them for about two minutes (analyzing the military stats and scrolling through the achievements to see what victories the guy has). Extremely hard to compare your own performance with others.

      I have two proposals for a ranking that lists players from good to bad (shouldn't replace the current from-experienced-to-rookie ranking, but should be added). Would make you ADDICTED to this game for years, because you'd be so keen on climbing up in these new rankings:

    • Good idea? 5
      1.  
        Yeees, that would give the game a boost!! (1) 20%
      2.  
        Yes, but not important. (2) 40%
      3.  
        I don't see a benefit, so rather safe the effort. (0) 0%
      4.  
        No, that would even disturb! (2) 40%
      Proposal 1:
      If you divide the military points you gained by killing units of enemy human players by the military points that other human players gained from killing your units, this results in a number. I now want to baptize it "Elo".
      This "Elo" should be displayed in the profile, as it gives much more significant info on the player's skills than the current "K/D Ratio".

      Additionally, a new tab should be added in the Ranking section. The existent tab sorting the players by rank should be kept up and a similar tab sorting players by Elo multiplied with rank be added. I added "multiplied with rank", because otherwise guys who played only once and luckily killed a few enemy units whilst losing none would be on the top places of that list. Whereas (Elo * rank) would show those who played well in many matches on the leading positions.

    • Good idea? 4
      1.  
        Yeees, that would give the game a boost!! (1) 25%
      2.  
        Yes, but not important. (0) 0%
      3.  
        I don't see a benefit, so rather safe the effort. (1) 25%
      4.  
        No, that would even disturb! (2) 50%
      Proposal 2:
      A "Ranking Map" (name may be different, perhaps choose it according to the part of the world that's shown on that map). One of the existing maps could be taken for that, but better if the next new map would become the "Ranking Map".
      In your profile page, you'd get a new figure "victory points on Ranking Map" and "games joined on Ranking Map".

      I propose the map should have the following features:
      * Starts when full.
      * As soon as a round is filled up and starts, the system creates a new one.
      * A player has to wait for 80 days after he has joined a match on the Ranking Map.
      * Country selection random.
      * No coalitions (but that's not important in my eyes).
      * Either Gold spent per Ranking Map game by player is limited to about 50,000 gold, or joining a game on Ranking Map costs about 25,000 and no gold can be spent in-game. If there was no gold limit, people would concentrate their gold spending on Ranking Map games and it wouldn't end up in "Who's the best", but rather in "Who's the richest".
      * Ends when required victory points gained by one player or day xx is reached (xx depends on the size of the map... thinking of about day 60 if it was a 100 player map).

      The player profile then should show "Victory points gained on Ranking Map" (i.e. victory points owned when Ranking Map game ends) and "Games joined on Ranking Map". Additionally, of course, there should be a new tab in the Ranking section sorting players by victory points gained on Ranking Map.