Inactive Rankings

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

  • Inactive Rankings

    I believe there should be a ranking for how often a player goes inactive. A player's ranking starts at 1000. If the player goes inactive, when the game ends his ranking will go down the day the game ended minus the day he went inactive (eg. game ends on day 50 and player when IA on 25, ranking goes down by 25). Alternatively, if the player stays in the game until the end, his ranking does up by the number of day the game lasted divided by 2 (game lasts 20 days, score goes up by 10). A victory brings the score up by 50. Rankings will range between 0-2000 and players can only play other player with their same ranking. This is an incentive for newer players to stick with the game and not go inactive on day two, but it will also make the game more enjoyable for experienced players who could be in rounds where no one goes inactive. There could be maps that apply this principle and ones that mix the groups so that less-experienced players can still gain experience. The ranking system will keep players on all levels engaged with the game because suddenly there is incentive to win beyond gold : access to more difficult rounds.

    Thanks for considering,
    GGBugh
  • GGBugh wrote:

    I believe there should be a ranking for how often a player goes inactive. A player's ranking starts at 1000. If the player goes inactive, when the game ends his ranking will go down the day the game ended minus the day he went inactive (eg. game ends on day 50 and player when IA on 25, ranking goes down by 25). Alternatively, if the player stays in the game until the end, his ranking does up by the number of day the game lasted divided by 2 (game lasts 20 days, score goes up by 10). A victory brings the score up by 50. Rankings will range between 0-2000 and players can only play other player with their same ranking. This is an incentive for newer players to stick with the game and not go inactive on day two, but it will also make the game more enjoyable for experienced players who could be in rounds where no one goes inactive. There could be maps that apply this principle and ones that mix the groups so that less-experienced players can still gain experience. The ranking system will keep players on all levels engaged with the game because suddenly there is incentive to win beyond gold : access to more difficult rounds.

    Thanks for considering,
    GGBugh
    very good idea
    One day there will be no more wars
  • SirMcSquiggles Jr. wrote:

    I cant see any benefit or any possible scenario where developers would take their time to implement this.
    Most likely not, the CoW Ranking system is fine the way it is! Research,Produce, build and,destroy to rank up! I do not think that ranking should be Influenced by Activity and inactivity, It would be unfair to the player who may have other things He/She has to do and can not battle right now, they May have to abandon or archive a game because of Personal,Work or Time issues. What if the player archives the game? The game will still think he/she is active till' day 2 or 4, and if they are demoted for that,that is just silly. Every body goes inactive...Even the most experienced of players. Not a very good idea here :unfair:
    "The Art of war is simple enough,Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can.Strike him as hard as you can,and keep moving on." -US Grant



    "Sometimes by losing a battle, you find a new way to win the war."- Donald Trump

    "Never look back,Instead look forward at the enemy you are about to shatter."- G0DOFWAR44
  • G0DOFWAR44 wrote:

    Most likely not, the CoW Ranking system is fine the way it is! Research,Produce, build and,destroy to rank up! I do not think that ranking should be Influenced by Activity and inactivity, It would be unfair to the player who may have other things He/She has to do and can not battle right now, they May have to abandon or archive a game because of Personal,Work or Time issues. What if the player archives the game? The game will still think he/she is active till' day 2 or 4, and if they are demoted for that,that is just silly. Every body goes inactive...Even the most experienced of players. Not a very good idea here
    And I feel it might cause a witch hunt.... lol
  • I completely disagree with SirMcSquiggles. The idea of some sort of measure of how often a player goes inactive on a map is a great idea. Having introduced several friends to this game, the number one complaint from EVERY SINGLE ONE of them has been how often their coalitions and even enemies go inactive, leaving them with often very undesirable outcomes. Every single one of them has quit.

    You do not see "any benefit?" Well, how about applying a measure of accountability to the players in this game to act responsibly in choosing their games? When you have maps where 80% of the players go inactive by day 4, it contributes to a much less dynamic and enjoyable game experience. It's possible you enjoy playing against the AI. I, for one, do not. I play this game in order to play against other players. I guarantee that this move would be looked on favorably by the vast majority of the player-base.

    Players should be held accountable for going inactive on a map. Something as simple as "average days played per map" would be a simple enough measure to provide information to other players about if you are a trustworthy person to add to a coalition or invest time in. It would also serve to promote good behavior. If a player knows he probably won't have time to complete a map, a statistic like this might prevent him from starting a map. I think that "witch hunts" as you call them would be a GREAT BENEFIT to this. Active players could weed out players who tend to go inactive, coalitions could make informed decisions. And the players themselves would receive feedback about their behavior. They would see that, as bad actors, they are inhibiting their own ability to establish themselves in the community and they would either improve their behavior or not.

    I have never not finished a map I played. Not even once. I value my time too greatly. And consequently, every game I play in is made better for the fact that at least one player is going to be active and make an effort. You don't see a benefit in identifying bad actors and helping active players make an informed decision? That sounds like an opinion based on your own fear.

    I just saw a game completely ruined by this. A clear frontrunner went inactive. The AI declared war on every single one of his allies. They subsequently had to backtrack, recoup lost territory and kill his armies, which were considerable. Consequently, they lost the match. You think this is a good system? Really?

    No. Devs, his is a change that could positively affect the community as a whole and I think is worth the relatively small investment of time. Your game's biggest weakness is the tendency for players to go inactive. you can help solve it simply by reporting a basic stat. Let players be able to judge their friends and enemies accordingly.
  • G0DOFWAR44 wrote:

    "they May have to abandon or archive a game because of Personal,Work or Time issues."


    "Every body goes inactive...Even the most experienced of players. Not a very good idea here :unfair:"
    Then they shouldn't have started the game in the first place. And to be fair, you are right sometimes you have to archive a game and I don't see it being an issue if it happens every so often. Most players will experience this from time to time. And I doubt anyone will look negatively at someone who has to abandon 10-15% of their games.But there are a significant amount of players in this game who a serial quitters. They never finish games and negatively affect every single game they enter. Those players need to be identified and avoided and maybe admonished with a bad statistic. How is it unfair even in the slightest? Only someone who abandons more games than they finish would find such a statistic unfair. Active players make the game better. Anything we can do to motivate players to stay in the game is a win for the community.

    Devs, please think about the positive benefits to a statistic like this. You are constantly looking for ways to make the game more accessible and fun. Well, encouraging players to FINISH games will benefit the community as a whole. And maybe some of those serial quitters will change their behavior as to not hear "Sorry, you can't join our coalition, you quit too many of your games." I would LOVE to be able to see that information. I have considered quitting this game twice over the level of inactivity of the players and it's a constant problem in every single game. This would make people think twice before archiving a game or abandoning it without a word. And that....is a good thing.
  • This provides room for a new form of blacklisting, which is against the Terms of Service agreed to by all of you when you signed up. With an inactive ranking system, a simple way to find names of players that you don’t like would be provided. This is why I am strongly against creating such a ranking.
    DoctorDR1

    Game Operator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


    Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket


    "Commander Cody, the time has come. Execute Order 66." -Sheev Palpatine
  • faunt7 wrote:

    Then they shouldn't have started the game in the first place.
    Okay Bucko, let's get this straight. I want to point out, not everyone can commit six hours a day to CoW...why? Because they're not 30 year old men living in their Mother's basement. You can't just know when something will come up and put a dent in your schedule.People Sometimes have more important things to focus on like their future,education,work and family not a game that is not an important fraction in they're lives except if you are a Moderator or part of the Bytro staff. Stop being delusional about a ranking system just because you're not patient enough to get a higher rank.

    faunt7 wrote:

    Only someone who abandons more games than they fiavnish would find such a statistic unfair.
    I find such a statistic unfair because 1. Like I said above, people don't alway have time for games... 2. You could be a very high rank in game and one day You have multiple games running( Like most do) and have to abandon them because,you broke your device and it'll be a while till' you can repair or get a new one and come back to find out your a private?? 3. Call of war is a game that fits around your schedule...if you have a game running and have to step away from a game for a week, you should not be demoted for it.There are so many reasons why this is a unintelligent idea, these are just a couple Reasons and examples.
    "The Art of war is simple enough,Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can.Strike him as hard as you can,and keep moving on." -US Grant



    "Sometimes by losing a battle, you find a new way to win the war."- Donald Trump

    "Never look back,Instead look forward at the enemy you are about to shatter."- G0DOFWAR44
  • G0DOFWAR44 wrote:

    faunt7 wrote:

    Then they shouldn't have started the game in the first place.
    Okay Bucko, let's get this straight. I want to point out, not everyone can commit six hours a day to CoW...why? Because they're not 30 year old men living in their Mother's basement. You can't just know when something will come up and put a dent in your schedule.People Sometimes have more important things to focus on like their future,education,work and family not a game that is not an important fraction in they're lives except if you are a Moderator or part of the Bytro staff. Stop being delusional about a ranking system just because you're not patient enough to get a higher rank.

    faunt7 wrote:

    Only someone who abandons more games than they fiavnish would find such a statistic unfair.
    I find such a statistic unfair because 1. Like I said above, people don't alway have time for games... 2. You could be a very high rank in game and one day You have multiple games running( Like most do) and have to abandon them because,you broke your device and it'll be a while till' you can repair or get a new one and come back to find out your a private?? 3. Call of war is a game that fits around your schedule...if you have a game running and have to step away from a game for a week, you should not be demoted for it.There are so many reasons why this is a unintelligent idea, these are just a couple Reasons and examples.
    1. I'm delusional about a ranking system? What ranking system am I not patient enough to obtain? You are off the rails, guy. Looking at your stats, you have played a grand total of 2 games? How are you fit to comment on anything here?

    2. I am a busy professional with a family that values my time. Not a 30 year old man living in my parents basement. The fact that you are resorting to personal attacks belies your weak arguments. Working 50-60 hours a week in a career that I am quite satisfied with I still manage to almost never archive a game. I have my priorities and still manage to not be a detriment to the game. It sounds to me that this is hitting too close to home. Again, you personally attacking me for my argument is ridiculous. If you knew anything about my personal life, you'd feel pretty foolish in your statements.

    3. Again, it is fair. If you don't have time for a game, don't start one. And if you are a serial quitter you are being unfair to the players around you. This statistic is about as fair as one can be. Everyone has things going on in their lives. We all have projects and deadlines. This game requires dedication to finish. If you aren't capable of managing your personal life and a game, then you shouldn't be starting games and then later failing to finish. It is inconsiderate.

    4. Your example about breaking a device doesn't hold water. We are talking about people with a track record of being quitters. Everyone is going to have to archive a game now and then. Your comment about having to step out for a week again doesn't hold water. There are two scenarios: One, you knew you were going to be busy but started a game anyway, in which case you are inconsiderate. Two, you didn't know and you have to step away for something urgent. The first scenario would fit the person we are talking about who would be affected by this stat. They would have a long track record of quitting, The second scenario is somewhat rare and everyone would understand having a few games unfinished. And who the heck is talking about being demoted? I said there should be a statistic that can be viewed. Why are you creating "straw men" and arguing against a something I never said?

    Weak bro. All your arguments are weak. You are basically in favor of people being inconsiderate and irresponsible.
  • DoctorDR1 wrote:

    This provides room for a new form of blacklisting, which is against the Terms of Service agreed to by all of you when you signed up. With an inactive ranking system, a simple way to find names of players that you don’t like would be provided. This is why I am strongly against creating such a ranking.Sir.
    Sir. Players already use stats to make informed decisions about who they want to form coalitions with. This stat would really just be an extension of that. How many players do you see with a 100 games played and not even a coalition win? Tons. Those are serial quitters. Now, maybe they are just really bad at the game, but it's likely the former. So, my question to you is: How is it any different? My other question is, how is this any more a step to a "blacklist" to what already exists with k/d ratios and win/loss stats? With an inactive ranking, I would surely be able to avoid players just like I do currently, only with better information.

    And frankly sir, serial quitters deserve to be avoided.
  • cycle9 wrote:

    How exactly would a ranking based on activity result in fewer players going inactive?
    If they don't care or cannot continue the game, it is very unlikely that they are in the least concerned with
    any kind of ranking, much less one based solely on activity.
    Some players genuinely want to play but start tons and tons of games haphazardly in order to find the scenario or situation they want. They don't realize that they are inadvertently changing every single game they touch by introducing an inactive player to every game they don't play. If they were ranked low on activity, they would probably be more selective in their game choices. I certainly would be. Such a stat would change the way i play even now. If I am up against a huge pay to win user, I will sometimes just archive. That might not be the best course of action frankly.

    It's hard to imagine anyone being in favor of some of the mostly empty games we seem to find ourselves in. I haven't played a Clash of Nations where more than 5-6 people made it to the last days of the game in ages. On world maps, its usually 8-10 players.

    So, anything to motive players to stick with it is only a good thing for the community.
  • SirMcSquiggles Jr. wrote:

    faunt7 wrote:

    I am frankly amazed that anyone would find fault with this. My guess is that those opposed are inexperienced players?
    Nope, been here on and off since 2015. Ive seen plenty of blacklisting here already.
    Not inviting to someone to a coalition because their stats are bad isn't blacklisting, sir. It happens in every single game.

    However, show me evidence of a single "blacklist." I'll wait.
  • SirMcSquiggles Jr. wrote:

    faunt7 wrote:

    I am frankly amazed that anyone would find fault with this. My guess is that those opposed are inexperienced players?
    Nope, been here on and off since 2015. Ive seen plenty of blacklisting here already.
    [TAHQ] SirMcSquiggles Jr. Technician Fourth Grade



    5 Games joined.

    Since 2015? Tell me more about all the stuff you have seen in your 5 games.

    It's as I said. Those opposed aren't active, experienced players.