Here's the first test.
You can see examples here:
www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php (http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php)
www.gewar.net/war/topalliancetest.php (http://www.gewar.net/war/topalliancetest.php)

Don't go spending all your geos right away. Score's will be reset when it's finished(probably in a few days).
What it does:
The game now gives you points for action.
No points are given for holding a city. No need to ask it either. Talked about it and cities already hand out geos which you can use to gain points. Giving points for cities would be overkill.
Most points can be gained for doing a succesfull attack.
Second most points for being attacked and winning.
Third for attacking and losing.
Least points for being attacked and losing.

Why a score system?
People have been complaining since the start that the current rankings are useless. You can be number 1, and then someone can take it away from you in a day and you might never be number 1 again.
Also with the current rankings, those that NAP with everyone and don't fight(play the game) go to the top. It's the game upside down. NAP's belong in the game and also will with the score system, but now NAP'ing with everyone means you miss out on points.

The score system is also tied to the total amount of troops in the game. 90% of the time these are always growing. Meaning that the longer you wait and save your geos, the less points you can receive(or you have to do some amazing battles).
That's the inflation players asked for. Otherwise it wouldn't matter if you just wait 6 months for attacking.

Nuking is the same as attacking. You get points for troops killed(and it now shows how much troops were killed in latest activity after a nuke).

These points can't be taken away from you.
You will keep these. Someone can in time get more than you, but if you play you will always have this buffer.

Example how it was:
You were a great player. Number 1 for a month. Then you went on vacation and when you came back you were number 349 because your cities were taken from you.

Now:
Number 1 and you have a lot of points. Someone takes your cities away but you keep your points. Easier to get back on top. You might have lost some time, but in time most people go on vacation or are away for a few days so time to catch up. Plus you saved up some geos during your vacation for some good attacks.

Points are ofcourse given for the amount of troops your opponent loses, and then calculated by if you were the attacker/defender and if you won/lost.

Probably some details I forgot but I'll add them here later.

I love you Luke! Finally!

I'm glad there's still a random factor aswell....

do the points for attacks only count if you attack a city? cause what if you own a city and attack an army outside the city....do you get points for those attacks as well?

do the points for attacks only count if you attack a city? cause what if you own a city and attack an army outside the city....do you get points for those attacks as well?

Yes.
Attacks in a city, attacks outside a city. If you are outside and attack another army outside. If you are outside a homebase and attack another army outside a homebase.
If you are inside a homebase and attack one outside. For nuking.

Only thing not: Attacking an army inside a homebase. As that is only for satisfaction, I don't want to give points for that. Plus it could become a relative safe place then.

cool beans ;82

Well done!

How do alliance points work?

Lets say I am in Alliance 1 and accumulate a bunch of points.

If I leave and join Alliance 2 does alliance 1 lose those alliance points?

Basically is the alliance simply a sum of all the player points in the alliance or does it just include points aquired by players while they were a member of that alliance?

The alliance points is indeed the same as total value.
If you leave, you take the points with you.

I couldn't see it any other way.
Otherwise you'd have alliances who would just want to have someone in for a minute just for the points.
You'd have people who would actually temporarely switch alliance to up those points.
Players from the alliance are the thing that makes that alliance.
If it falls apart because some good players leave, the alliance clearly lost its strength and therefor has less points.

The alliance points is indeed the same as total value.
If you leave, you take the points with you.

I couldn't see it any other way.
Otherwise you'd have alliances who would just want to have someone in for a minute just for the points.
You'd have people who would actually temporarely switch alliance to up those points.
Players from the alliance are the thing that makes that alliance.
If it falls apart because some good players leave, the alliance clearly lost its strength and therefor has less points.

ok cool. just wanted to know which way it was. i can see arguments for both sides.

Its weird to see 2 separate 1 man alliances higher the AO. Just goes to show just how much fighting some big alliances do.

Luke, can you give the exact amount that is calculated per man killed in a fight, whether on the winning / losing side?

I am just curious so I can make a new formula in my spreadsheet :)

Its weird to see 2 separate 1 man alliances higher the AO. Just goes to show just how much fighting some big alliances do.
not really, since, if i am correct, the stats just started this morning

maybe I missed this: WHen did it start keeping score?

maybe I missed this: WHen did it start keeping score?

This morning(my time).

I'll probably post the formula for the score here later. First to see if it needs finetuning.

Will there be some composite evaluation system in place as well? Both value of real estate and attack scores should be taken into account to really determine overall score - Or at least it seems to me that it should be that way. Otherwise guerrilla warfare is rewarded disproportionate to holding cities. Especially now that city value can be increased for industry, and industry lost if the city is conquered.

For example: 3 columns. One for Score, one for City Value, and a third for Overall Rank.

Will there be some composite evaluation system in place as well? Both value of real estate and attack scores should be taken into account to really determine overall score - Or at least it seems to me that it should be that way. Otherwise guerrilla warfare is rewarded disproportionate to holding cities. Especially now that city value can be increased for industry, and industry lost if the city is conquered.

For example: 3 columns. One for Score, one for City Value, and a third for Overall Rank.

I don't think so. Like explained before, I don't want city value in a score anywhere.
City value is what you get geos for. Increasing industry is more geos also.
We'd just have the same thing again. People not playing but just holding cities would be nr1.
Plus with the geos you get from cities, you can go to war or defend, both earning you points. Having a score system where city value is included would just mean you'd get twice the points for owning cities.

People who want to stick to city value for score can always just look at that.

but luke, the flip side is that those who hold cities also have to worry about defending the city AS WELL AS attacking if they wanna move up in the ranks. that would place them at a distinct disadvantage geo-wise---thus making it harder for them to move up the ranks until late in a round.

maybe something like (on a weighted scale):

troops killed while attacking: 1.5
troops kileld while defending: 1
city value held: .5

otherwise might as well do away with half the cities, cause i wont ever own one---it makes more sense to just attack and bank versus having to attack and defend

I don't think so. Like explained before, I don't want city value in a score anywhere.
City value is what you get geos for. Increasing industry is more geos also.
We'd just have the same thing again. People not playing but just holding cities would be nr1.
Plus with the geos you get from cities, you can go to war or defend, both earning you points. Having a score system where city value is included would just mean you'd get twice the points for owning cities.

People who want to stick to city value for score can always just look at that.

It may be interesting to see the guerilla tactics vs holding. You hold a city you are more likely to get points, as attack and defend and have motivation not to defend lightly.

Whats to stop an alliance just attacking themselves to artificially keep them at the top of the tree?

Whats to stop an alliance just attacking themselves to artificially keep them at the top of the tree?
i sent luke a PM about that this morning

Whats to stop an alliance just attacking themselves to artificially keep them at the top of the tree?
attacks on own alliance should be - for scoring I would think.

It won't really matter.
Cities will always be occupied.

Plus score for cities would be impossible to do.
If done by value, tokyo owner would always be in the top, and townowners would find their towns are useless.
Giving all cityowners the same would be stupid also.

Upgrading city tax is the only thing that makes sense. As people have more money now, the city tax means less. Let cities make more, but keep them out of the score.
City owners are more likely to be richer then and can get a higher score.
Keep your city well defended and you can win the attacks on your city, and therefor gaining some good points.
In other words: it's been discussed for months...and conclusion is cities will never enter the score. Like said before: no need to even ask :).

As for alliances attacking themselves:
Go ahead...you need some good attacks to get to the top in a few days(let alone weeks). That would cost the alliance a fortune.
No need to scrap that. They would just do the same with NAP'ed alliances.
Let em waste the geos.

Like said before: no need to even ask :).

sorry, i had to. i dont read english :commando

nice work luke!

one recommendation, rename the existing and new "Top Players", "Top Alliances" to become:

Top Active Players
Top Active Alliances
Top Value Players
Top Value Alliances

Hey guys,

Vulture is now where we belong... 1st place. uhauhauhahuahua

Rank Alliance Members Cities Owned Current Armies Score Total Value
1 Vulture II 16 3 47 719.86 1,297,202
2 sj 30 107 407 640.86 120,508,616
3 Vulture II Infantry 31 5 85 555.65 429,451

cheers,

roberto.

Hey guys,

Vulture is now where we belong... 1st place. uhauhauhahuahua

Rank Alliance Members Cities Owned Current Armies Score Total Value
1 Vulture II 16 3 47 719.86 1,297,202
2 sj 30 107 407 640.86 120,508,616
3 Vulture II Infantry 31 5 85 555.65 429,451

cheers,

roberto.
I will make sure that changes today. :bang

Hey guys,

Vulture is now where we belong... 1st place. uhauhauhahuahua

Rank Alliance Members Cities Owned Current Armies Score Total Value
1 Vulture II 16 3 47 719.86 1,297,202
2 sj 30 107 407 640.86 120,508,616
3 Vulture II Infantry 31 5 85 555.65 429,451

cheers,

roberto.

It'll all be gone in like 3 days when Luke resets the scoring log.

so, holding cities is left out of the rankings, becasue they "earn geos", at the same time that the city income is decreased and army upkeep increased so that cities are no longer a source of income.

So what is the point in holding cities again?

so, holding cities is left out of the rankings, becasue they "earn geos", at the same time that the city income is decreased and army upkeep increased so that cities are no longer a source of income.

So what is the point in holding cities again?

Read back some posts ;).
I said I was going to upgrade city tax because of the score system.

ps: for the next poster(as it has happened a few times in this thread already) read all posts first.

*one more time: giving points for cities would also be impossible. wouldn't know how. can't do it by value, can't give em all the same*

Yes.
Attacks in a city, attacks outside a city. If you are outside and attack another army outside. If you are outside a homebase and attack another army outside a homebase.
If you are inside a homebase and attack one outside. For nuking.

Only thing not: Attacking an army inside a homebase. As that is only for satisfaction, I don't want to give points for that. Plus it could become a relative safe place then.


If you get Nuked you get points for troop losses as if you were normally attacked?

If yes, where i can see how many points i got?

tks.

If you get Nuked you get points for troop losses as if you were normally attacked?

If yes, where i can see how many points i got?

tks.

Ah well....you can only see how many points you got at the moment in www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php (http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php)
As the link already explains why you can't see it anywhere else(test).

Ah well....you can only see how many points you got at the moment in www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php (http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php)
As the link already explains why you can't see it anywhere else(test).
He had gotten 10 I think, because I had gotten 25 for the nuke

so, holding cities is left out of the rankings, becasue they "earn geos", at the same time that the city income is decreased and army upkeep increased so that cities are no longer a source of income.

So what is the point in holding cities again?

City income will be increased, not decreased, and I didn't see any mention of increasing troop upkeep. If you are holding a city with a small force to maximize your earnings from it, and it is attacked, you will gain points on the troops killed, plus lose your source of income. So there is a balancing act that will now need to be done (income vs ranking).

And the point of holding cities hasn't changed.
1. Income
2. Investment
3. Ability to purchase nukes
4. Value

Added to the equation now is the points you can gain by being involved in a conflict either by attacking or defending a city.

City income will be increased, not decreased, and I didn't see any mention of increasing troop upkeep. If you are holding a city with a small force to maximize your earnings from it, and it is attacked, you will gain points on the troops killed, plus lose your source of income. So there is a balancing act that will now need to be done (income vs ranking).

And the point of holding cities hasn't changed.
1. Income
2. Investment
3. Ability to purchase nukes
4. Value

Added to the equation now is the points you can gain by being involved in a conflict either by attacking or defending a city.
actually bob, the way the rankings were, value generally is #1.

Is there a way for scores to decrease? If not, how will newbies, or even players joining 2 weeks into the reset catch up?

Is there a way for scores to decrease? If not, how will newbies, or even players joining 2 weeks into the reset catch up?

That's the only thing we were still wrestling with. And still are.
With every ranking system.
The one called Power Ranking had the same problem.
If that included geos, then how could a newbie ever get to the top?
I don't have an answer to that yet.

Is there a way for scores to decrease? If not, how will newbies, or even players joining 2 weeks into the reset catch up?
I would say probably would need to have that factored in some how. Perhaps factors by month. Ranked by time entered game? So prorating based on score-

That's the only thing we were still wrestling with. And still are.
With every ranking system.
The one called Power Ranking had the same problem.
If that included geos, then how could a newbie ever get to the top?
I don't have an answer to that yet.


you have answered the question Luke, to get to the top you won't be a newbie. the game still has to be played over a long period of time.

Won't this also discourage people from hitting the top players? Why would I attack the person at the top, so his/her gets more points and carries them away from me? Much easier to attack those below me.

you have answered the question Luke, to get to the top you won't be a newbie. the game still has to be played over a long period of time.

Most probably yes.
It was the big problem now.
It is kinda honest though. We usually have atleast 2 resets every year(though this time perhaps only 1). For the rest you have to fight for a place in the rankings.

Won't this also discourage people from hitting the top players? Why would I attack the person at the top, so his/her gets more points and carries them away from me? Much easier to attack those below me.

No idea if that would really happen. We'd have to find out.
It were users who came up with good reasons why the defender also has to receive points.
Otherwise you'd have to be online 24hours a day. In order to make sure you attack first.

Every score system has it's flaws. It's always better than what we have now: no score system.

That's the only thing we were still wrestling with. And still are.
With every ranking system.
The one called Power Ranking had the same problem.
If that included geos, then how could a newbie ever get to the top?
I don't have an answer to that yet.


Could you have a 3 month window? basically the scores off the back fall off as you move along.


ETA: Or just reset the score every 6 months.

Could you have a 3 month window? basically the scores off the back fall off as you move along.


ETA: Or just reset the score every 6 months.

Why not just go into a full game reset every 6 months, or would that take to much trouble?

Why not just go into a full game reset every 6 months, or would that take to much trouble?

Well if you are referring trouble with players: then yes :p

Im really happy with all the new additions to this game. I hope more come. Also any idea on the next reset? And will that reset be the one to enter us in to he new game?

Im really happy with all the new additions to this game. I hope more come. Also any idea on the next reset? And will that reset be the one to enter us in to he new game?

No idea on new reset yet.
And it would only take us to the new game if the players say it's good enough as it is.
And I was planning on doing more features these days.

On list:
1) Armies outside a city die when a city is nuked.
2) You can blow up your own city(self-nuke it) for the same prize. Armies outside it also die. Not most usefull but can be just clean fun for those occupying a resource city and after a few attacks being left with a small army, and knowing there are some huge armies outside.
3) Gotta get through that list.

No idea on new reset yet.
And it would only take us to the new game if the players say it's good enough as it is.
And I was planning on doing more features these days.

On list:
1) Armies outside a city die when a city is nuked.
2) You can blow up your own city(self-nuke it) for the same prize. Armies outside it also die. Not most usefull but can be just clean fun for those occupying a resource city and after a few attacks being left with a small army, and knowing there are some huge armies outside.
3) Gotta get through that list.


Yeah I agree the radiation will kill the armies outside and also this makes it harder to re occupy. Maybe you can put in that no armies can even stay idle outside the city while the radiation is in the air.... Maybe it wont kill the armies instantaneously but maybe they die out gradually from the radiation.


Also what happened to the hospital and the sickness idea? That could be brought back if it is fixed up. The diseases could be obtained if an army is idle for long periods of time.

Also anyhow we can bring back natural disasters and get Rabban back in the spot light.

Those are just some ideas that have already been made. Plus once this ideas merge with the features in the donator game it could make out for a more really actioned pack game instead of saving.

Well the deseases I never really thought of :p.
That was just an april fools.

Rabban will be back. He's taking a break. I wanted to get him back if we could get something into the storyline again.

And natural disasters was also on my mind.
Just didn't know if they had to go straight to the new game, or here also.

Armies dying when there is still radiation is a pretty neat idea :).
That would stop a few bugs when people enter the city right when the radiation is over. Could help in the frustration level.

Well the deseases I never really thought of :p.
That was just an april fools.

Rabban will be back. He's taking a break. I wanted to get him back if we could get something into the storyline again.

And natural disasters was also on my mind.
Just didn't know if they had to go straight to the new game, or here also.

Armies dying when there is still radiation is a pretty neat idea :).
That would stop a few bugs when people enter the city right when the radiation is over. Could help in the frustration level.


cool

http://www.gewar.net/forums/showpost.php?p=96299&postcount=28

Thats a story line I just made.... MAybe it will help.

Tell me what you think

Rabban will be back. He's taking a break. I wanted to get him back if we could get something into the storyline again.


Will Rabban have any new friends joining? I think it'd be interesting to see several other people join him other than his current friends.

I think cities should give a fixed amount of temporary points. So if you hold a city it gives you a certain amount of points, but if you lose the city, you lose the points and the person who took the city now has the points. It would also create a lot more incentive to go after the big cities come reset time.

It'll place a higher value on cites as well, because with the current system you could technically win the game holding an isolated island as long as you kill enough troops. Or you could win through hit and runs and not have to really ever hold a city. There needs to be incentive for going after city value as well other than like 50 geos of tax.

The city of Napier-Hastings was nuked by MARS. 1 defending army(16255 troops) was vaporized in the battle. Gwyndal lost the city.

Can you make it so that it looks like the normal messages.

The city of Napier-Hastings was nuked by MARS. 1 defending army(16255 troops) was vaporized in the battle. Gwyndal lost the city. ( City Nuked)

Just helps out when it comes to calculating it with the troop counter thing i made.

haha, why is my name in bold? :)



:world :world :world ;woop ;woop ;woop ;woop ;woop

wow, i must have missed this in my reading, but it also shows your points earned for attacking an army out side of a home base!!!!


BRAVO LUKE!

So when will this go into effect? Durning this game? Or will you reset the game first then put this in effect?

I think cities should give a fixed amount of temporary points. So if you hold a city it gives you a certain amount of points, but if you lose the city, you lose the points and the person who took the city now has the points. It would also create a lot more incentive to go after the big cities come reset time.

It'll place a higher value on cites as well, because with the current system you could technically win the game holding an isolated island as long as you kill enough troops. Or you could win through hit and runs and not have to really ever hold a city. There needs to be incentive for going after city value as well other than like 50 geos of tax.

Great work Luke! ;90 I do agree with doedoe though. I dont think we want the pendulum to fall back so far the other direction that holding a city is completely meaningless except for the Geos it earns you. Or maybe we do. :growse My opinion is that a cities value should somehow add to your overall point total. I think my suggestion now would be to add (city value / 1 million) to the total each hour. That means Tokyo would earn an additional 36 points per hour to its owner. Any city below 1 would earn 1. Then it is still important to hold Tokyo for Geos and points, but not so much that it still outweighs attacking. Thoughts???

I have a thought: how about no :).
That would just unbalance everything.
The big sleeping alliances that are NAP'ed with everyone would still earn enough points to stay high, while this score is merely an actionscore.
You see, we have only a few cities that are worth THAT much.
They give out a lot, the rest remains worthless.

Ofcourse if someone comes up with a good idea on city value versus points, I'm willing to listen.
But it's one way or the other:
Either higher city tax or points.
Right now I was going with higher city tax, but if someone comes up with a great calculation I can change my opinion.

It's not that I hate giving out points for cities, I just can't think of a good calculation yet.
Giving all cities under 1 million the same points doesn't sound fair.

I have a thought: how about no :).
That would just unbalance everything.

LOL!

Then change it to calculate the points randomly once a day, or twice a day. That way whoever holds the city when the job runs gets the points. Not a lot of points like if it was calculated hourly but still something for holding the city. Otherwise what is the incentive to hold a city now other than Geos? Isnt the overall goal still to attack and hold cities (to try and take over the world, right?). Now I can not own a city and still be number one. I think that flips everything backwards from where it is today. It is a much better step but I still see some of the same issues.

Where's blitz when I need him???

p.s. Dont get me wrong. I'm not complaining! This is much better than where it is today. I love it! But always room to keep improving right???

Sure, that's why it's still being tested.
But what do you mean with random scores?
YOu mean like a town could suddenly randomly make more points than Tokyo?

What the incentive is for holding a city?
Well if city tax really go up, then ofcourse the geos.

Look...I'm willing to also give score for it, but I need something good solid first.
We need a mathematician(a what?).
And the score should be low for cities. What's the use if you can earn your points by still doing nothing?

Luke, I really don't see a fair way to calculate the amount of points so that someone owning Tokyo would make the same as someone owning Alert.

//edit not meaning the same, but making it so that someone who just sits and nits with several large cities with no attacking stays on top as compared to someone who attacks a lot and it isn't shown for.

But here is something I came up with for a total score calculation.
VC = Value of City
TD = Total Daily attack points

((VC*0.0024)/1000)) + (TD*2)

VC would only be calculated once every 24 hours and not every hour.

Tokyo = 89.356 points per day
Alert = 0.000012 points per day

Would still make owning a city worthless.

Yeah it would only help for a couple of cities. Only the huge cities.
For the other cities you wouldn't even notice the score.
Giving the same isn't fair either.

At this point the only fair thing I can think of is to really upper the city tax.
I can't think of a calculation that would do the score system justice.
Only of those that wouldn't be noticed, or would unbalance it again.

Ofcourse users can still see both rankings. Both by score and value.

Ofcourse users can still see both rankings. Both by score and value.

I don't see a problem with how it is now, as the Attack Score only calibrates the willingness of a player to defend their cities or spend their money.

I don't see a problem with how it is now, as the Attack Score only calibrates the willingness of a player to defend their cities or spend their money.

I totally agree.
Now if all cities had the same(or almost same) value, it wouldn't be that hard to give out a ew measly points.
But if a town would give 1 point a day, tokyo would give more than a hundred.
Times 30 days is 3000 points for holding a city. You don't even need to attack anymore then. Just defend it well and you'll win the attacks on Tokyo and receive more points.
You'd again be on top for doing nothing.

But if we can't get that into the score, I can still make a lot of players happy by changing the city tax to something that is still valuable today. :)

Putting the min city tax back to 50 or making the industry build time 24 hours instead of 36 would make me happy.

So as long as you hold the city, you also hold the points. Once you lose the city your ranking plummets and the victor skyrockets. Just like it is now... ;ranting

Eh doedoe....isn't that a score system based on what you are holding at that moment?

Isn't that what we have now? Because the current one didn't work.

So as long as you hold the city, you also hold the points. Once you lose the city your ranking plummets and the victor skyrockets. Just like it is now... ;ranting

I apologize if I missed this earlier with all the calculations and such :) , but possibly make it so you get the points if you hold the city for X hours or days.

This way you would have to hold the city to get the value (kind of like the test server) and if you lose the city the points go back down.

Actually we only own one of those cities. The rest are in BNW's hands or something :)
No but seriously, even if my alliance had nothing it'd still be a decent scoring system. Because what I'm kind of getting at is if I had no cities all I would do is hit and run and my could end up winning not having held even 5 million in value.

"So as long as you hold the city, you also hold the points. Once you lose the city your ranking plummets and the victor skyrockets. Just like it is now..."

But you'd make the points low enough that they wouldn't have that high of an impact of the scoring. Just enough for a reason to attacking a big city.

You'd need a lot of huge hit and run attacks then.
How long can you do that if city tax goes up and city owners earn a lot more?

But I'm not really fond of temporary points I must say. It's what we have now and was frustrating a lot of people.
You go up, you plummet down...all in a few hours.

Well I guess you have a valid point as well, since it is highly inconsistent. Hey out of curiousity how exactly do the points work or have you already mentioned this?

Like per troop killed how many points do you get?

Honestly I think this is great....I had my doubts but I would like to see how this impacts the game before I totally decide. More fighting = more fun so......this should get some things going.

Honestly I feel that the Personal Scoring system should take the following into account when determining a victor;

1. Total Troop Loss
2. Amount of Activity
3. City Value, self explainatory.
4. Wealth

The system should be weighted when making an average like that (meaning the order of the list, Wealth maybe not). However, making a proper formula to reflect City Value would be difficult. I will work on it once I get done at work.

Alliance wise could go the same, but meh.

Wealth can't really be in it.
If it would add to your score, people would just save as much as they can.
If it means you score less, lots would create fake accounts for it plus start sending me bomb-PM's because it wouldn't be fair to them.

But I'm open for suggestions on the city value, as long (believe said it before) doesn't unbalance it by giving too much points or having too much difference between cities(or too less).

Wealth can't really be in it.
If it would add to your score, people would just save as much as they can.
If it means you score less, lots would create fake accounts for it plus start sending me -PM's because it wouldn't be fair to them.

But I'm open for suggestions on the city value, as long (believe said it before) doesn't unbalance it by giving too much points or having too much difference between cities(or too less).

See, it will have a lot of difference between a 36million value city and a 5 value city.

I am wondering if using a similar formula to what the city tax production would be could help.

Like there is a set minimum, and you could only add onto it for cities between 5 and say 200,000? Because that is where the huge curve is in comparison between a small city vs a large.

but there should be a huge difference between having a 36MILLION value city, and a 5 value city. if city value isnt in the standings somehow, whats the point of holding it? so i can get some geos? the city income-troops needed to defend brings that tax down a hell of a lot, so the geos u get simply go into the troops.

ii have 6 mil in value, and i am only getting 200 geos a day from that. how much do those geos REALLY help me?

the taxes would have to be raised A LOT for that to be all you get from holding a city.

but there should be a huge difference between having a 36MILLION value city, and a 5 value city. if city value isnt in the standings somehow, whats the point of holding it? so i can get some geos? the city income-troops needed to defend brings that tax down a hell of a lot, so the geos u get simply go into the troops.

ii have 6 mil in value, and i am only getting 200 geos a day from that. how much do those geos REALLY help me?

the taxes would have to be raised A LOT for that to be all you get from holding a city.
Good posting.

Damn the only thing I asked is being asked over and over :p
Ok please only ask it if you have a solution :p.

Not just: It needs to be in it, because that doesn't solve it.

For months this was talked over, and most agreed we'd have a problem if cities gave points. The reasons are obvious.

If you want it in, give me one hell of a formula to make sure tokyo doesn't give too much, and a town practically nothing, and that it doesn't cause people to be able to NAP with everyone in order to get to the top.
Action is the key. So when you come up with a formula, make sure it's not too much.
If a city gives enough points, players will soon find out it's easier to just make sure you are never attacked and befriend everyone.
You'd just have the same problem.
And also make it objective, and not just for your personal gain. Remember what you gain, your enemy does also. And also keep the poor newbies in mind. They will already have more trouble with a score system no matter how that score system works...we don't want to double set them back.

And by adding cities to the score systems I will ofcourse not upgrade the city tax :). That would be doubling the value.

Have been watching this battle rage on for a couple of days now, and I think that we need to define the difference between value and points. Up until now, value has been the only way that we have been able to see who was 'winning'. With a points system, we can now determine who is winning by actual gamesmanship rather than who can NAP with the most different groups, or has the ability to save more than the other guy.

With a point system in place, value of a city only determines the amount of geos/day that the current person occupying a city gets, which has raised the question, what is the point of holding cities.

So here is my proposal, each city has a point value of one. This makes each city, regardless of how much it pays out, inherently valuable. Every day that a person occupies a city, the value raises by one. (day 1=1, day2=2, day3=3, etc.) So after 10 days of occupying any city, you have amassed 55 points plus any other points you have gotten by either defending said city or attacking other cities or armies.

This will make people look long and hard at someone that has been occupying any city for to long, since the points gained could get very large over time. This will encourage more attacks to stop groups or individuals from holding cities or large blocks of cities without attack for months at a time.

Don't kill the messenger its just an idea... ;)

the solution? make city taxes A LOT higher than they are now.

makes it WORTH having a city, and will make people WANT to have the city. i would care less about having a city if i wasnt trying to get to the number one spot. if this new way of ranking happens (which i like) then having a city means nothing but nukes. so if my alliance has 2 cities, we can pass the cities around whenever somebody wants to buy nukes (i have done this before when i didnt have a city).

hit and runs will be the way to get to the top, and those going for global domination (no longer the goal of the game) will have the cities. in the end, it wont be the city value that makes you number one, but instead the amount that you attacked. and if i have a city, i wont be attacking as much as i am defending. therefore i cant win the game

posted after bob, i like his idea (as long as you keep the points you get) but maybe instead of every city being worth 1, how about cities under 1mil are 1, between 1.1mil and lets say 10mil are 2, and keep going on like that, so the bigger the city, the bigger the reward (but it still doesnt get insane points)

not sure on values, but im sure u get the idea

Right, but bob, this will just make people form NAPs. If it is for the better to hold on to the city, then they will just make sure noone attacks them, like what is happening now. Think about it. At day 20, it's 210 points (for only one city, mind you). At day 30, it's 465. It's exponential.

No, I think we need to spur attacking cities, and making people not hold on to them. Perhaps this: The amount of points for capturing a city depends on how long a city has been held. The quicker a city is attacked, the more points it yields. This makes for lots of warfare, as people want the most points. This also, instead of rewarding the owner of a NAPing Alliance, just takes back from enemies (though it still doesn't stop them from attacking). What do you think? Promotes warfare, doesn't promote NAPing, and just makes sense.

Luke, i don't see why this is so difficult.

you can decide how important you want cities should be. and normalize by that.

say holding tokyo (37mil value) = a battle involving 100000 troop loss.
and holding city x (5 value) = a battle involving 100 troops.

anything in between is scaled (linearly or exponentially (linear in the log domain)).

and then you add that to each player's score.

the value of cities can never increase, but by attacks can. they simply will add a fixed pool of points people can fight for, but will become increasingly irrelevant with more and more attacks, unless you scale them up (again, your choice).

Hey bob, what about a decrease in the amount of points one would earn per day depending upon the amount of cities owned?

Say 5-10% per city?

Because someone who owns more than 5 would definitely get an advantage

Hey bob, what about a decrease in the amount of points one would earn per day depending upon the amount of cities owned?

Say 5-10% per city?

Because someone who owns more than 5 would definitely get an advantage


Not sure that we want to penalize anyone for trying to dominate a game about global domination...

I guess that would be up to the other players to make sure that one person didn't have 'to much'. ;)

You see, with combining your system with the value and attacks it would still outweigh someone who sits and NAPs with everyone as compared to someone who fights.

I am still working on something. Keep coming up on blanks though.

I think it would be best to use keep City owning out of the formula, and increase city tax.

Keep both leader boards separate. Why? Because they are completely different.
The Value Leaderboard shows who has the diplomacy skills.
The Attack Leaderboard shows who is willing beat the living **** out of you.

I like the Attack board. It is a good intimidation factor.

Right, but bob, this will just make people form NAPs. If it is for the better to hold on to the city, then they will just make sure noone attacks them, like what is happening now. Think about it. At day 20, it's 210 points (for only one city, mind you). At day 30, it's 465. It's exponential.

No, I think we need to spur attacking cities, and making people not hold on to them. Perhaps this: The amount of points for capturing a city depends on how long a city has been held. The quicker a city is attacked, the more points it yields. This makes for lots of warfare, as people want the most points. This also, instead of rewarding the owner of a NAPing Alliance, just takes back from enemies (though it still doesn't stop them from attacking). What do you think? Promotes warfare, doesn't promote NAPing, and just makes sense.Yes, but currently. Value can be removed in a day or two so people aren't afraid to see someone climb, but with bob's idea (that I really like), someone can see if an other alliance is getting too many points so other alliances will be FORCED to attack it instead of trying to gain value elsewhere.

mAverik, perhaps some sort of that is possible in the new game.
Right now, perhaps also because of the hour, I don't fully understand what you mean.

Bob: No can do. That would just improve the amount of NAP'ers.

I also like Helo's idea: The diplomacy ranking and action ranking.

Alright here is what I have gotten to. This will rank a player between 0.000 to 25.00 (possibly higher)

It is about the most equal formula I can get to that involves both Attacking, Owning a set amount of cities and Value of the cities.

AS = Attack Strength
AC = Amount of Cities
V = Value

(((AS*3) + (AC*2) + ( V * 0.000024)) / 100)

Sample 1; completely random numbers
AS = 100
AC = 1
V = 37,667,549
(((100*3) + (1*2) + ( 37,667,549 * 0.000024)) / 100)
= 12.060


Sample 2; jokosr #1 on value board.
AS = 0
AC = 3
V = 64,559,429
(((0*3) + (3*2) + ( 64559429 * 0.000024)) / 100)
= 15.554

Sample 3; me
AS= 485.49
AC= 26
V = 5,616,471
(((485.49*3) + (26*2) + ( 5616471 * 0.000024)) / 100)
= 16.433

Alright here is what I have gotten to. This will rank a player between 0.000 to 25.00 (possibly higher)

It is about the most equal formula I can get to that involves both Attacking, Owning a set amount of cities and Value of the cities.

AS = Attack Strength
AC = Amount of Cities
V = Value

(((AS*3) + (AC*2) + ( V * 0.000024)) / 100)

Sample 1; completely random numbers
AS = 100
AC = 1
V = 37,667,549
(((100*3) + (1*2) + ( 37,667,549 * 0.000024)) / 100)
= 12.060


Sample 2; jokosr #1 on value board.
AS = 0
AC = 3
V = 64,559,429
(((0*3) + (3*2) + ( 64559429 * 0.000024)) / 100)
= 15.554

Sample 3; me
AS= 485.49
AC= 26
V = 5,616,471
(((485.49*3) + (26*2) + ( 5616471 * 0.000024)) / 100)
= 16.433
That looks to be a decent formula. Face it, the game really needs a US constition type of compromise that works on all levels. Helo's forumula seems to work well. Heck you could have a value/diplomacy, attack, and power ranking scale. Thus giving the possibility of more the one style of play being successful. You could sit back a little bit and try and dip to top but someone can attack there way to top. It looks to have a good balance. And to have the game not broken, what is needed is balance.

for once, i will say that i agree with helo!

seems to work, balancing having cities with attacking

and i like what peace is saying, maybe a blend of the two?

yes, nice one helo.

the 0.000024 is the linear scaling value i mentioned for the value.

the only alternative i would suggest is that we use log(value) instead so that there is not TOO DRASTIC a variation between cities. right now, the difference is from 0 to around 8 for cities varying from value close to zero to the value of 37million, with most cities clustered below the value of one (in fact, a 1mil city gives you only 0.24)

so the result is that only the top 10-20 cities give you any worth in the city value factor.

if you take the log of city value instead, you get a more smooth variation in how much you get from cities.

now use ln(V)/2 (natural log) instead of V*0.000024, and you roughly the same range, from 0.8 to 8.5, but the variation is smoother, with a city of 1 million now giving you around 6.5

you play with it, you can choose other scaling factors within the log etc to vary this to behave like you want it to. i leave that to you.

yes, nice one helo.

the 0.000024 is the linear scaling value i mentioned for the value.

the only alternative i would suggest is that we use log(value) instead so that there is not TOO DRASTIC a variation between cities. right now, the difference is from 0 to around 8 for cities varying from value close to zero to the value of 37million, with most cities clustered below the value of one (in fact, a 1mil city gives you only 0.24)

so the result is that only the top 10-20 cities give you any worth in the city value factor.

if you take the log of city value instead, you get a more smooth variation in how much you get from cities.

now use ln(V)/2 (natural log) instead of V*0.000024, and you roughly the same range, from 0.8 to 8.5, but the variation is smoother, with a city of 1 million now giving you around 6.5

you play with it, you can choose other scaling factors within the log etc to vary this to behave like you want it to. i leave that to you.

Hmm see I didn't think about using log. Yeah, see I was having problems with calculating the city value in to making it more even between cities owned and attack strength.

I'll crunch some numbers in with ln(V)/2 and take a look at how that goes in comparison.

See Luke should be happy he has a couple engineers playing this game :)

ahh I figured out why I didn't use ln. ln(V) when V = 0 equals an error.

The only difference I saw between the two though was an increase in it. I will look at some other equations though.

Rather than using ln, sin will work better inplace of ln(V)/2

so formula should be

(((AS*3)+(AC*2)+((sin(V))/2))/100

Ok I"m not sure I totally understand.
That formula is for when attacking isn't it?
You've stepped away from a daily bonus for city owners?

Ok I"m not sure I totally understand.
That formula is for when attacking isn't it?
You've stepped away from a daily bonus for city owners?

No, It combines all three wanted values when determining a full calibration of a player based upon Attack Strength, Amount of Cities owned, and Total Value.

hehehe, I like this (@Servertime: 14:29 - June 9th, 2007):

Top 10 alliances... A/O helping RD to be at 2nd...:
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j110/hhmira/topalliances.png

Top 5 players... 3 A/O members. Congrats!!
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j110/hhmira/topplayers.png

No, It combines all three wanted values when determining a full calibration of a player based upon Attack Strength, Amount of Cities owned, and Total Value.

AHhhhhhhhh ok now I understand. That wasn't to hand out points, but to calculate a ranking.
I was thinking in the wrong direction.

AHhhhhhhhh ok now I understand. That wasn't to hand out points, but to calculate a ranking.
I was thinking in the wrong direction.

Yes, I don't know how you could give out say "bonus" points for owning a city. That doesn't make sense to me. A city owner already gets geos from owning the city and value, why more?

But the formula I have come to is a near perfect balance, meaning someone who is active but has little to no cities can still rank high as someone who NAPs and doesn't attack much.

I would actually be interested in seeing how this would change the game.

PS hhmira, I'm right in the middle of you guys ;)
PPS Luke do I get an orange title now? lol j/k

Helo, I've been going through your formula, and I've got to say, I really like it. I really lets people decide which tactic they want to use, yet it still encourages fighting. Superb idea!

Well check if it's done correctly.
If you don't see your score, then do an acitivity in the game.
It doesn't get updated until you do(same counts for alliances).
www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php (http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php)

ahh I figured out why I didn't use ln. ln(V) when V = 0 equals an error.

The only difference I saw between the two though was an increase in it. I will look at some other equations though.

Rather than using ln, sin will work better inplace of ln(V)/2

so formula should be

(((AS*3)+(AC*2)+((sin(V))/2))/100

i hope you realize that using sin(v) will make it cycle periodically. :D it means that your points will not increase monotonically with value, they will go up and down.
but the value of the sine function can work, as long as you use

sin( pi/2 * V / max(V) ) * k

max(V) = value of Tokyo. so the value sin(...) will vary from 0 to 1.
and the value of k, is the importance you assign to city value. (it sets the
maximum value since you are multiplying a number between 0 and 1, with k).

this however doesn't solve the problem of drastic change, as tokyo gives you a value of 1, while a city of 1 million in value gives you close to zero again. so its still too dramatic a benefit for tokyo.

sorry to do this, but going back to the natural log,

use 0.5*ln(V + 1) instead

ln(1) = 0. so people with no cities get zero, and everyone else get ~ 0.5*ln(V) since V >> 1 for all cities.

Ok listen up:
It's saturday...I had a drink yesterday...it's hot...I"m not Einstein.

And now thanks to these posts I have a headache :p

Ok listen up:
It's saturday...I had a drink yesterday...it's hot...I"m not Einstein.

And now thanks to these posts I have a headache :p

heh, to summarize

use

(((AS*3)+(AC*2)+((ln(V+1))/2))/100

and you can call this the helo-mAv scoring system (royalties can be delivered to my bank account, i only accept 1million geo donations ;) ).

Now tell me why the remix(in your post) would be better then?

*ps: darn it...had a 950,000 geo donation ready but I see you don't accept it. I'll just give it to a newbie*

Because using sin will make it go up and down. The way that sin works is cyclical. As sin approaches pi/2 the value increases, but as it approaches pi, it decreases. Using ln makes sure that it always increases, and isn't cyclical.

so sin(V) will go from 0 to 1 to 0 between V=0 to 3.14. and then go negative for the next 3.14 and then positive again.

so the bonus you get for cities will almost be random and not increase continuously with increasing value of cities.

my variation makes the increase one-directional. the points you get will be more for more value in cities.

at the same time, using that function ln(V) makes it such that the variation is not too drastic for cities like tokyo which are much much bigger in value if take a purely linear approach.

and finally ln(v + 1) makes sure that you don't get the error that helo was talking about, and people with zero value, get zero points for cities value.

having said all of this, give me another day, and i'll give you something even better after looking at the values of the cities in gewar.

hmm. Maverik is always looking to complicate my stuff.

The reasoning I went into using sin was because value will be a constant swing in this game, as there is only a set amount one can own (IE: total amount of value of all cities which is what, about 2billion?)

Will look into log functions more, this is really helping me with my Cal :) (have to take Cal 2 next semester and I haven't taken a math course in a year and a half)

my last math course was about 13 years ago.
I never liked sin/asin/cos/in anyway :D.

*ps: darn it...had a 950,000 geo donation ready but I see you don't accept it. I'll just give it to a newbie*
Thanks Luke!
15:54:07 - June 9th, 2007 950,000.00 Geos were deposited into the Suicidal account by Luke.
Notes: There you go

/edit nevermind.

I'm only asking this because I can not find a ln function for php without making a long checksum using log(V+1).

can I have a portion of that 950k too ? :)

First of all, props to you guys on getting a log-based system. I tried yesterday aftenoon to briefly set something up, but I had to run before I finished . . . and this works better than anything I would have thought of, anyway . . .


Yes, it works just as well. The numbers are just noticeably smaller at higher values because of the base e aspect of ln (compared to the base 10 for regular logs). Though I don't think you're working the coding for an ln function correctly, it would be more complicated regardless . . . and when a log-based system provides the same result, why waste the time?

Luke, can you put up another test.php page that will show the attack strength calculations? I need this so I can make sure that it will work out evenly with someone whose active vs someone whose more diplomatic.

Luke, can you put up another test.php page that will show the attack strength calculations? I need this so I can make sure that it will work out evenly with someone whose active vs someone whose more diplomatic.

Sure.
There it is: http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php

edit: Now I see the plain score, I think something is wrong.
edit2: yep....it's not doing anything with the city value. I think the calculation is correct, but you can't just do it like that in php. And I'm no expert in sin/in and other mathematical highnotes.

Sure.
There it is: http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php

edit: Now I see the plain score, I think something is wrong.
edit2: yep....it's not doing anything with the city value. I think the calculation is correct, but you can't just do it like that in php. And I'm no expert in sin/in and other mathematical highnotes.

Yes, it is not working properly. This is why sin(V) won't work, as it is circular (doh! what can I say, I blank out at times)
I will see if I can talk to some php coders about making the current formula
(((AS*3)+(AC*2)+((log(V+1))/2))/100 into a proper formula.

Look at page two, notably Gwyndal's score. It says he has 0.00 as the HM Score though by my hand calculation he has 10.38.

Look at page two, notably Gwyndal's score. It says he has 0.00 as the HM Score though by my hand calculation he has 10.38.

That's because he hasn't done anything yet. He needs one activity to update his score again.
It only shows score's for people who have been active in the last 2 hours.

Hey AO, nuke gwyndal for testing purposes. :)

Only kidding. We'll have to wait a day or two to see how this works. It would be great for the next round though.

This is Lukes brain :confused:
This is Lukes brain on math :focus

Any questions??

(don't sweat it Luke, I am a bit confused now too with all of the variations that have been thrown out there)

This is Lukes brain :confused:
This is Lukes brain on math :focus

Any questions??

(don't sweat it Luke, I am a bit confused now too with all of the variations that have been thrown out there)

Well, I think we have gotten it to work in PHP now using log10() (which is the variation of ln since natural log is the base 10 of log)

Just need to get some people who should be above me to get active (namely AO members) so that people won't think it's weighted for my advantage.

Basically all they need to do is just convert a resource...send an army somewhere...anything that will cause the script to update their database(which includes the score).

Luke, can you make all 3 columns sortable? This way you can see the ranking 3 different ways.

Luke, can you make all 3 columns sortable? This way you can see the ranking 3 different ways.

Ofcourse it will be that way. Now it's a simple testpage that gets changed a lot.

if you can do log10, you can do loge (or natural log or Ln).

Ln(1 + V) = log10(1+V) * Ln(10)

so Ln(1+V) ~= 2.3 * log10(1+V)

that should solve your problem in php or whatever.

its basically only a scaling problem. you can use a log of any base you want, it will only be a scaling of the natural log, which is why log10 works fine as well. you just scale it to be in the range you want it to be.

okay this thread as turned into math nerd central--

okay this thread as turned into math nerd central--

Even for me :p

Even for me :p
I have an image of guys breaking out paper and chalk boards and crunching complicated math formulas like the guy in the CBS US Television program numb3rs

I have an image of guys breaking out paper and chalk boards and crunching complicated math formulas like the guy in the CBS US Television program numb3rs

http://www.maa.org/editorial/mathgames/numb3rsbowca3.jpg

Some people think better this way.

We may need to lessen the dependency of the Attack Strength as it is beginning to look like the top attackers are taking more spots than people who have a lot of value.

It should be more of a mixture of the two and not one or the other.

I'll pull out my "chalk board" (lol guppy) and take a look at a revision.

It's a lot different than I in visioned when it's in real time.

i just lost 400k in troops and the new system only brought me up a few points....i also had over 60k in value..think some more tweeking is needed..yes..

i just lost 400k in troops and the new system only brought me up a few points....i also had over 60k in value..think some more tweeking is needed..yes..

Did you lose the fight with 400k troops? Because then it's normal.
If you won it should be about 1.7 points for every 1000 troops you killed.
So also keep in mind the ratio of killed/getting killed.
I think that score is alright. Only thing would be the city value indeed.

*edit: just saw you lost that fight. So that wouldn't be a lot of points because of that. Still some for comfort*

so they way its set up is for the people who attack the most, city value and being attacked means nothing, right?

you get points for being attacked.. but the winner of the attack (either the attacker or the defender), gets more points

In the HM system, I think we need to tone down how much is weighted towards attacking.

Possibly change AS*3 to AS*2 because I intended on the HM scoring system to be more for both playing styles (bash your teeth in or quiet lion).

In the HM system, I think we need to tone down how much is weighted towards attacking.

Possibly change AS*3 to AS*2 because I intended on the HM scoring system to be more for both playing styles (bash your teeth in or quiet lion).

well if its all toward attacking then thats what i will do...but cant you some how balance it to attacking, defending and city value...i had more city value than 3/4s of the alliances with 800k plus troops and was being attack some but was like in 80th place...i think that is wrong...iam not saying i should have been in first place ..but not 80th..more balance.

that's why it's a test scoring system and not the deciding factor. Just like I didn't figure the scoring system would go over 50, but that happened. I achieved it today by nuking xmen_oz.

well i attacked and was attacked today for a total of over 1 million troops and it brought me up to 8th place from 50th so it does move you up ...

well i attacked and was attacked today for a total of over 1 million troops and it brought me up to 8th place from 50th so it does move you up ...
...over 1 milion troops... like me 1 week ago :sad

As request by hi141
如果仅仅是为了排名，并不能激励更多的人为此而战，如果高的经验值能在交战中提高消灭对方军队 的比率，也许 更公平，消耗goes 能得到更好的战斗力

不过要对新手做出特别规定，如果高经验的人主动攻击新兵，军队的胜负按照正常设定：经验值高， 胜率高，但是 经验值 不增加反而减少，建议减少部分归被打的新兵；如果新兵主动打经验值高的，胜率低，但是经验值增 加多，此时的 被攻击者经验值正常增加。

经验值可以无限制的增加，但是攻击的胜率增长越来越慢，如同银行的利率

新兵的界定：注册50天，也就是相当于按时种完棉花的日期，如果50天内，新兵的经验值超过议 定数值，此待 遇取消，当然reset后50天内，任何人无此待遇。

If the points system are just for ranking, it will not be that encouraging to bring the players into battle. If a high pointers can have a better ratio in the battle, then it will look more fair game as spending the geos will get you better battle experiences.

But, we also need to protect the newbies with some rules. Eg, if a high pointer attacks a noob, they will have better chances of winning but will not increase in points or even a decrease...... if a lower pointer attacks a high pointer, they will gain more points although they are on the losing side in the battle.

The points can keep on increasing but the battle ratio will increase lesser and lesser as you grow,.... just like the bank interest.

A grace period of 50 days for noobs... which means if the noobs reach the appointed experience points, their benefits will be remove. But in the case of a reset... this will not take effect.

The "ranking" wouldn't effect ability to succeed in attack, but rather "rates" who is doing well in the game. It seems it is being asked the better attacker, the better chances. I think that would actually also unbalance the game. The goal here is for a scoring system that creates balanced play.

As to new player protection, I think that is what training alliances are sort of for.

Scoring is basically something you get to keep, and to reward active players.
Though as said before it's still in testing.
Some tweaking had to be done for city value.

For losing battles I don't think you should get more. Someone made a good valid point that you might not want to attack the enemy that has almost as high points or higher than you....you don't want to give points away.

For losing battles I don't think you should get more. Someone made a good valid point that you might not want to attack the enemy that has almost as high points or higher than you....you don't want to give points away.

Agreed, just make sure that you send a big enough army to ensure that you win the battle to get the lions share of the points. ;punch
If you try to peck away with many smaller armies, your opponent is the one that will benefit.
I.E. 90K defending and 100K attacking, chances are pretty good that the 100K will win the battle (of course theres always bad rolls). If the same attack is carried out with 4X 25K armies, the opponent will have 3 victor shares of the available points while the eventual city winner will only gain 1/4 of what was available.

I am not sure there is a solve for this but lets say I have 2 50k armies.

I attack with the first one and lose, but kill a 60k of the troops in the city.
I then attack with the second one and my 50k troops kill the remaining 1k of troops in the city.

In this scenario the defender would end up with a lot more points than the attacker because the first attack had a lot more dead troops in it.

Like I said, I am not sure there is a solve for this scenario, but I thought I would bring it up.

I am not sure there is a solve for this but lets say I have 2 50k armies.

I attack with the first one and lose, but kill a 60k of the troops in the city.
I then attack with the second one and my 50k troops kill the remaining 1k of troops in the city.

In this scenario the defender would end up with a lot more points than the attacker because the first attack had a lot more dead troops in it.

Like I said, I am not sure there is a solve for this scenario, but I thought I would bring it up.

goodposting

...and more
one army (1000) killed 10 armies (100 each) but didn't took a city... it makes tactical sence sometimes but not "scoring " :D

goodposting

...and more
one army (1000) killed 10 armies (100 each) but didn't took a city... it makes tactical sence sometimes but not "scoring " :D

It doesn't work that way. It checks whether you actually won the city or not.
Not if you destroyed just an army.

I don't think I missed this, but what is Total Score vs. Plain Score?

Thanks!

I think U should get points for zeroing people also. when u do it should show how many bonds they lost because of it

I don't think I missed this, but what is Total Score vs. Plain Score?

Thanks!
Total score is the HM Formula, Includes Attack Strength, Amount of cities owned, and value.

Plain Score is your Attack Strength

is there a link somewhere for the highest scoring players?

Well check if it's done correctly.
If you don't see your score, then do an acitivity in the game.
It doesn't get updated until you do(same counts for alliances).
www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php (http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php)
bump for bibiscious.

Luke may want to add this link to 1st post.

Luke may want to add this link to 1st post.

I went to add it, but it was already there

www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php (http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php)
(http://www.gewar.net/war/toptest.php)www.gewar.net/war/topalliancetest.php (http://www.gewar.net/war/topalliancetest.php)

I went to add it, but it was already there
I am a noted skimmer, and didn't double check myself. My apologies.

As I don't see anyone bringing better formulas or another way of doing it, I'll slowly start working on implementing this into the game.

As I don't see anyone bringing better formulas or another way of doing it, I'll slowly start working on implementing this into the game.


The change looks cool, one thing that I was thinking about for a while - Troups only die if you don't have sufficient cash geos - there are no troups retired or dying of natural cause.

There should be something that troups start dying or to retire after a certain time period... That should make it more difficult to those who have real big and invincible armies and lots of cities because they would have to buy new and fresh troups once in a while...

KaraBinNemsi

I am not sure there is a solve for this but lets say I have 2 50k armies.

I attack with the first one and lose, but kill a 60k of the troops in the city.
I then attack with the second one and my 50k troops kill the remaining 1k of troops in the city.

In this scenario the defender would end up with a lot more points than the attacker because the first attack had a lot more dead troops in it.

Like I said, I am not sure there is a solve for this scenario, but I thought I would bring it up.

Maybe taking the troops killed ratio into effect as a multiplier would help? Somethng along the lines of theirs/yours * score, where theirs/yours >=1 in all situations? To kind of balance out the scoring for bad rolls, you get a little something extra if you killed more troops than you attacked with, but won't get penalized for the other guy losing less than you.

Of course, their would be points where that multiplier would come out to a value over 3, and that's a bit excessive . . . maybe (theirs/yours)*.75, while only applying when value>=1? That would only reward you if the the other guy lost over 50% more what you did . . . i.e. those rare, but quite profitable rolls? A *.5 multiplier might be even more balancing, though harder to come by . . .

On the other hand, the first formula might be useful if the "yours" side had their army die, like nderouch said. Hence someone who would be on the losing end of the battle and normally get a lower score would be somewhat rewarded for having a somewhat lucky roll, despite losing.

has the score formula been published yet?

cheers

I haven’t been particularly active lately as I have other commitments but I do like this new point scoring system.

I have a half idea that may be worth discussing.....

Could this new system be used to control who a player can attack?

A player can attack any other player providing:

1. The other player has more points then themselves
2. The other player has less points then themselves but within a certain points window of there current point value.
3. The other player attacked them within a certain time frame.

Number 2 will protect the new players from being attacked by the advance players. Not sure about the size of the window maybe a percentage or something….
For example: If the window is, say, 20% then if you have a score of 100 you can attack anyone with a score of 80 or above.

Number 3 is there to allow an advanced player to attack another player who is below them and outside of there range attack range but had the cheek to be attacked by them.
They would have to retaliate within a certain time frame, say 24 hours, before the opportunity passes.

Like I said it’s a half idea but thought I would share it.

Rank Alliance Members Cities Owned Current Armies Total Value Score
1 3rd Army 20 0 52 0 1,268.19


Just thought I'd mention that the score system is dumb.

No offense to 3rd, theyve really stepped up and taken advantage of the idea, but this isn't the game it was when i joined so shortly ago. It's not Risk on GE anymore, its basically battle of the rolls. No one can catch 3rd if they own no cities, so the rest of the world is basically screwed.

Make the score based on value that inflates the longer you hold it please. Donator-esque, isnt that what the test server is for anyway?

Rank Alliance Members Cities Owned Current Armies Total Value Score
1 3rd Army 20 0 52 0 1,268.19


Just thought I'd mention that the score system is dumb.

No offense to 3rd, theyve really stepped up and taken advantage of the idea, but this isn't the game it was when i joined so shortly ago. It's not Risk on GE anymore, its basically battle of the rolls. No one can catch 3rd if they own no cities, so the rest of the world is basically screwed.

Make the score based on value that inflates the longer you hold it please. Donator-esque, isnt that what the test server is for anyway?

How much have you read Rosso, seriously.

3rd is in #1 because they had a lot of Geos and attacked by federation. If you compare federation total score compared to 3rd you see attack value favoring Fed. The system is currently flawed and recognized and will be tweaked.

Value will have more important role in score, and the industry increases value the longer you hold a city. Please do try and read up Rosso.

No offense to 3rd, theyve really stepped up and taken advantage of the idea

we aren't taking advantage of it, we are in a war, and because of this, we are doing a lot of attacking. we are very sorry if this bothers/ offends anyone

3rd is in #1 because they had a lot of Geos and attacked by federation. If you compare federation total score compared to 3rd you see attack value favoring Fed.

i don't seem to follow your logic. the way i see it, as a whole, 3rd army (infantry included) has 1857.72 points. The Feds (sj, Ukraine, Mother & Father No) have 2243.05 points. now i admit that it appears the feds would be winning, but when you factor in the number of players on each side, its a different story.

the federation has 109 players
3rd army has 45 players

the feds have an average of 20.57 points per player
3rd army has an average of 41.28 points per player

you tell me who you think is winning in terms of points ;)




oh and btw, don't assume that we HAD alot of geos, we still got more fight in us, it seems to be you guys whose attacks are dying down.

pps, the reason we have so much money is because luke is funding us, so thanks for that latest mil dude, i really appreciate it

we aren't taking advantage of it, we are in a war, and because of this, we are doing a lot of attacking. we are very sorry if this bothers/ offends anyone



i don't seem to follow your logic. the way i see it, as a whole, 3rd army (infantry included) has 1857.72 points. The Feds (sj, Ukraine, Mother & Father No) have 2243.05 points. now i admit that it appears the feds would be winning, but when you factor in the number of players on each side, its a different story.

the federation has 109 players
3rd army has 45 players

the feds have an average of 20.57 points per player
3rd army has an average of 41.28 points per player

you tell me who you think is winning in terms of points ;)




oh and btw, don't assume that we HAD alot of geos, we still got more fight in us, it seems to be you guys whose attacks are dying down.

pps, the reason we have so much money is because luke is funding us, so thanks for that latest mil dude, i really appreciate itit was because you were sitting on atlanta for awhile.

How much have you read Rosso, seriously.

3rd is in #1 because they had a lot of Geos and attacked by federation. If you compare federation total score compared to 3rd you see attack value favoring Fed. The system is currently flawed and recognized and will be tweaked.

Value will have more important role in score, and the industry increases value the longer you hold a city. Please do try and read up Rosso.

Totally true. Every part of it, including the system being flawed.
As I said before, but some don't take the time to read it and just post:
It's NOT finished. A few features were done here to entertain, and might also make it to the new game. But this one isn't finished but just due to the upcoming vacation didn't have the time to finish it.
Sort by total value in the meantime.

Regardless of what the scores and rankings say now, it will all change very soon. War was declared on the 3rd the day before the new scoring system was implemented... So don't accuse us of using this to our own advantage. We had no idea, and were simply at war. The numbers just show how much attacking has been done in the past two weeks, and since we were the only alliances at war during the change over, we instantly got points. Once other alliances start to battle, their scores will go up as well, and eventually everything will even out a little better. Please don't go off and think that the members of the 3rd did this because of the new scoring system. Like everyone else, we didn't know if and/or when Luke would finalize it. Our war started before it anyways... Your accusations Rosso have no justification or logic.



No offense to 3rd, theyve really stepped up and taken advantage of the idea, but this isn't the game it was when i joined so shortly ago. It's not Risk on GE anymore, its basically battle of the rolls. No one can catch 3rd if they own no cities, so the rest of the world is basically screwed.


Do you honestly believe that no other war will break out in the next month or two and that no one else is capable of earning 1000+ points? Its looks like one broke out today... If those alliances continued to fight for the next few weeks, they easily could earn 1000 points in ranking.

Come on now Rosso... it was just implemented into the game.. Of course we are so far ahead in points... The new system rewards those who attack, not those who team up with 3 other alliances in an effort to take over one. Clearly we have more points, we are fighting alone! If each alliance in the federation realized that they are only giving us more points for attacking us, and that they are only battling each other in the ranking, maybe they will learn to fight their own war instead of relying on someone else for help. The system doesn't reward those alliances who work well together and this "Federation" showed exactly how NAPs won't be rewarded.

So, maybe a few of us in the 3rd did sit back today and realize we are still number one in the game, without holding a city. I have to say, it felt pretty damn good and monumental. Both of my alliances have been fighting very hard and even though they have 3x the amount of players we have, the new scoring system shows everyone watching just how much we are doing... even without holding a city. We could even sit back another day and see we are still number one, no matter what you do to us. We fought hard as one alliance and the alliance rankings show this.

We fought hard as one alliance and the alliance rankings show this.
pff, I know a good recipe of how to get a huge score for one or two players, it's expensive but the scores are really good - you buy one (or more) 500K+ army and walk through some territory attacking every city and leaving it the very same second :) Can't blame you though.

For those that simply can't wait for the new scoresystem to be finished, while they have no other choice as I'm about to go on vacation, check inside the game.
Both systems are out there now in the left bar.
The old value based system, and the attack score system(which is not finished).
So there you can choose to rank by activity or value.

we aren't taking advantage of it, we are in a war, and because of this, we are doing a lot of attacking. we are very sorry if this bothers/ offends anyone



i don't seem to follow your logic. the way i see it, as a whole, 3rd army (infantry included) has 1857.72 points. The Feds (sj, Ukraine, Mother & Father No) have 2243.05 points. now i admit that it appears the feds would be winning, but when you factor in the number of players on each side, its a different story.

the federation has 109 players
3rd army has 45 players

the feds have an average of 20.57 points per player
3rd army has an average of 41.28 points per player

you tell me who you think is winning in terms of points ;)




oh and btw, don't assume that we HAD alot of geos, we still got more fight in us, it seems to be you guys whose attacks are dying down.

pps, the reason we have so much money is because luke is funding us, so thanks for that latest mil dude, i really appreciate it3rd army was zeroed yesterday, so even if our attacks are slowing down, yours are too.

Totally true. Every part of it, including the system being flawed.
As I said before, but some don't take the time to read it and just post:
It's NOT finished. A few features were done here to entertain, and might also make it to the new game. But this one isn't finished but just due to the upcoming vacation didn't have the time to finish it.
Sort by total value in the meantime.

Luke, maverik sent you a newer formula that would rank on a linear scale taking the top players Attack Strength and dividing that by however many points a certain person has earned on a 10-1 scale. Is it not possible to implement that, or would it take to much time?

As soon as I get my apache box up and running I've been conversing with Lenin to make a page that'll do it for testing purposes.

it was because you were sitting on atlanta for awhile.

then why didn't you do something about it. haha this is hilarious, "oh you guys are winning because you have a lot of money"

of course we are.

did you expect anything less from 3rd Army?

then why didn't you do something about it. haha this is hilarious, "oh you guys are winning because you have a lot of money"

of course we are.

did you expect anything less from 3rd Army?
cause we liked you guys- no one said we had any problem-

then why didn't you do something about it. haha this is hilarious, "oh you guys are winning because you have a lot of money"

of course we are.

did you expect anything less from 3rd Army?huh? 3rd is winning? you guys are zeroed, you are definetely not winning.

I'm still pretty sure we need a player average for the score system.

Also, the score system makes it even harder for a n00b to make it big. With inflation, it would be impossible for a n00b to get a score as big as any long-term player.

And I think aswell that there should be some way of losing score.

It would be best if you got points for attacking, more points for attacking & taking, points for holding a city and defending successfully but you lose points for losing a city.

Just my ;genny2!

I'm still pretty sure we need a player average for the score system.

Also, the score system makes it even harder for a n00b to make it big. With inflation, it would be impossible for a n00b to get a score as big as any long-term player.

!

i know we need new players, but we also cant just have everything go toward a new player..a new player has to understand some have been playing for almost 2 years and they cant just come in and be the ranking best player in a few weeks or even months...sometimes i get tired of reading about the newbies and want to see more for the players who have made this game over the YEARS, not the person who comes in a plays a month or 2 and leaves..this is a long term game not a over night game....

i know we need new players, but we also cant just have everything go toward a new player..a new player has to understand some have been playing for almost 2 years and they cant just come in and be the ranking best player in a few weeks or even months...sometimes i get tired of reading about the newbies and want to see more for the players who have made this game over the YEARS, not the person who comes in a plays a month or 2 and leaves..this is a long term game not a over night game....

Yes, joko, the score system should be made in a way that you can only get much points when you play gewar for a longer period of time.

luke, i did read, but im entitled, so dont hurt my feelings

={


but 3rd can definitely win if they go out and kill every roving army waiting outside a base or just attack every city they can find and abandon it. No one can attack back if the armies keep moving.

Luke, I don't understand why you are taking the score system away again so suddenly :'(

bad joke from me

Edit: I would've edited it myself, but thanx for doing it for me (no, really. Saves me a lot of effort, or not, coz I'm editing it again now)

what? when did he say to stop score system? I missed that!

i dont see that post either

is that a bad joke of Fear4Future?

Jip. Sorry guys. Very bad joke. But look under my message, i have some white text saying it's a joke. Never trust anything i say on first sight

Nooo!! :crazy :girl_were

That was really not funny!

That was a really bad joke indeed.
Need to censor that as some people wouldn't understand.
Please don't use jokes on that...what happens is that people start PM'ing me because they think it's serious. Please...what for you is a joke, just causes a lot of work for me. I know it was just a joke...

Next:
I agree with Jokosr a little.
Longtime players should have earned the right to be higher on the list than newbies.
We'll see what happens when it's finished.

Next:
I agree with Jokosr a little.
Longtime players should have earned the right to be higher on the list than newbies.
We'll see what happens when it's finished.
Thats not really what i meant, what i meant was there are always posts about "what about the new player", how are they going to catch up and bla bla bla...they need to know that this is a long playing game and you cant catch up in a few weeks or sometimes a month because others have lot more time at it...but if they put in alot of time they will catch up..i dont think just because i have been playing from the start should be ranked high on the list, but someone that starts today should not be told or think they can be ranked #1 in just a couple days or even a few weeks... also LUKE...you need to remind everyone, and it just really sunk in with me the other day, this game is still in beta....so its just a test game like the donor game and changes whether we like them or not will happen...
hope you enjoy your vacation luke, you sound like you need to get away from us for awhile..enjoy it...

pff, I know a good recipe of how to get a huge score for one or two players, it's expensive but the scores are really good - you buy one (or more) 500K+ army and walk through some territory attacking every city and leaving it the very same second :) Can't blame you though.

Of course, it gives you an advantage (same amount of geos but more points)
now tactics become flat and poor

...but only in short-time period I think
one big reason for holding city still left - it's 4 M value :cool:

So this score system, would you say the person who makes the most geos to attack will be the high score winner? Isnt this it in a nut shell..get the most geos..then use them to attack....

So this score system, would you say the person who makes the most geos to attack will be the high score winner? Isnt this iit n a nut shell..get the most geos..then use them to attack....

I thought Luke was going to implement maverik's newest scoring formula when the reset occurred. Maybe he has and I haven't noticed though?

shouldnt the points be given for individual army attacks, not the complete outcome?, such as you would get point for defeating 3 armys but you wouldnt get many for the other army that you didnt defeat?