new ranking victory points per game

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

    • new ranking victory points per game

      The current ranking only shows how much people have played and not how well they performed. This is not very motivating and even leads to some players joining games without any ambition to succeed in them but just for farming ranking points.

      Improvement:
      Rename current "Players" tab in the "Ranking" section to "Rank". Then add a new tab "Success" or "Honors" which sorts players by victory points per game. It should always filter for a certain rank, that can be selected in a listbox on the top. By default, when opening the tab, your rank is selected. Say if you for example have rank 22 (Corporal), when opening the new tab you see all Corporals sorted by victory points per game and on bottom your own position in that list.

      Counted for the "victory points per game" figure should be the victory points you have the moment a ranked game ends. This divided by the number of ranked games you joined since release date of the new ranking results in "victory points per game".
      Additionally, "victory points per game" should also be displayed in the player profile, but that's not so important.

      The new ranking would motivate to both do your best in every match AND also to play a lot - because real honor would be to be amongst the best players of a high rank and not to be amongst the best of the rookies... also is easier to reach the top positions if having a high rank, because not so many others have a high rank - less competitors there.
      It would even motivate to continue and to still try to achieve the best for your country even when you realize you cannot win the map. In other words would reduce inactivity. Currently many players quit the map the moment they see they have low chances to win. The new ranking would give an incentive to try to hold on till the end and to finish with at least a few victory points.

      This change would go particularly well with my suggestion to start the historic world map with "starts when full" and random country selection - see --> this post <--.
    • This "ranking" system it's been the same since they released their first game back in 2009 and in all these years they didnt seem to give much importance to it.

      In their oldest game, they even have ribbons, a Hall of Fame, medals for those that reach the Top of the Week or Top of the Month. As you can see, that's all gone in CoW and it doesnt seem like they are going to introduce any of it here.

      Since I joined their games in 2012, I thought that they should change their "ranking" as it's simply useless. Never thought too much about it, however I don't like your suggestion for it either.

      Their focus is the gameplay, that's all they care about, they used to care a bit about details in the past, they dont anymore.
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • i like this idea, but not sure if its going to change the drop out when they see that they cant win. think about it, they make a huge stack, a nuclear bomb erase that, the enemy is free to move as they please. they arent gonna stick around and fight back..... unless maybe its a timed event and is close to the end


      but i agree that the system should be fix in some way
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • It has its both ways. The base idea works, but not fully, even in theory. Some players want to have a hard time and a challenge, while some are tryhards. Here's how: imagine a scenario in comparing player x vs player y. Lets say they both join the 73p map 3 times. Player x wants a challenge and joins with Cuba, Liberia and Luxemburg, while player y wants to win badly and joins with USSR, British and Japan. X is a good player and puts up a fight, but resources and manpower do their thing. Y is a not so good player and won once because he was lucky he was with inactive players. According to you, Y is the better player because he averages more VP. So i think it shouldnt be implemented. Anyways it is foolish to predict your enemy's skills according to a few statistics anyway, my tip is to not underestimate anyone and keep 6 eyes open at all times.
    • Spiffolo wrote:

      think about it, they make a huge stack, a nuclear bomb erase that, the enemy is free to move as they please. they arent gonna stick around and fight back...
      Sure, if you're in a desperate position in a war, then my proposal doesn't change anything for you. But now sometimes people quit their current game even while not fighting a human opponent when they see their country developed too slowly and they're not in one of the pole positions for the victory. In that case, the new ranking would give them a reason to nevertheless continue with the map.
      Also diplomatic agreements with a stronger neighbour like "you let me survive and I'll help you gain the overall victory on the map in return" would make sense more often if there was the "victory points per game" ranking.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      hakijaa your objection is correct, which is why I wrote
      "This change would go particularly well with my suggestion to start the historic world map with "starts when full" and random country selection - see --> this post <-- (and the discussion following it)."
      This wouldn't change anything either, because you start on a wrong premise: you compare unequal things. Instead of reinventing the wheel, there is already a method to score these cases in a real-life game.

      You compare each player only with the result of the country he is playing: from MAX (winning points) to 0 (wiped out). If there are n players, they are ranked according to this. The best you can do is MAX point, which is awarded 2n-2 points, and the last position takes 0 points. Then, the percentage of player's performance is the ratio x/(2n-2), which is a number from 0% to 100% (I will not bother you with the details of the math for the ties...)

      Then one player will have at the end 65%, another 64% and this number will mean really something.
    • Have to admit I didn't understand the above idea immediately, but atreas1 explained to me (in a private message). I hope I sum it up correctly:
      Let's say for example you play Italy on the historical world map. Assuming so far only 5 historical world map games finished so far and the victory points achieved by the Italy players were 674, 210, 0, 0, 0.
      Now you finish with for example 400 victory points. You're then being compared to the list of previous Italy players which shows 20% were better, 80% were worse.
      So "80%" is the figure that describes your performance in that game in the best possible way.
    • Thinking about this made me come to my new favourite solution:

      "VP ratio" = victory games at end / victory points at start.

      Whenever you join a ranked game (or a game you're in becomes ranked), the victory points you have at that moment are added to your "victory points at start" counter. And whenever a ranked game ends, the victory points you have at that moment are added to your "victory points at end" counter.
      Then all still needed would be a new ranking tab in the "Ranking" section that sorts players by "VP ratio" as I described in my first post in this thread.

      This wouldn't be as perfectly accurate as the solution mentioned by atreas1, but accurate enough.
      It also wouldn't require the non-balanced maps to be started with random country selection.
      It would be intuitive / easy to understand for everyone and should be rather easy to implement, I suppose.
      To sum it up, would be great .