Score system is now official in the game.
I think I added it on all necessary pages.
If I missed any, let me know.

You can still also sort by value ofcourse, if that makes you feel better :).
Value might become a little more important in the score than it is now.
I'll see and wait how this goes first.

Secondly:
When you occupy a city, it can't be nuked for 10 minutes.
This is to make sure people with slow connections or computers have a chance atleast to protect their cities.
Had some complains from people saying the city was nuked before the page was even refreshed.

*edit: changed to 1 minute. You should see:
"Because the city was unoccupied until a few minutes ago, your defense system hasn't put the coordinates of the city in yet.
Your nukes will be ready in xx minutes and xx seconds."

10 min?
it's totally different
huge armies invited again! :evil

10 minutes seems a bit long, but a cool down time is still great!

I like the new scoring system too!

Great changes Luke ;clap ;82

5 minutes better?
I started with 5 minutes, but then thought:
Ah what the heck...those extra 5 minutes won't matter then...

Biggest reason is that I found out some players were smart enough to bypass the city page to nuke a city. They just went straight to the nukepage, which then told them the city was unoccupied.
But by simple pressing the refresh button all the time, it would be nuked instantly when someone occupies it.
Not a huge problem before, but now nuke shields dissapear all the time, so we see it happen a lot :p

When nuke shields drop( in the slots, and I'm wondering why they are still up), then you can still nuke instantly.
Anyone still thinks 5 minutes is too long?

I don't think we should have cooling off period. We'll see less nukes now if people are given the time to buy nuke shields.

Less nukes means; less geos being spent, less attacking and more geo hoarding.

Don't like the new scoring system either. What's the point of having cities now? They're practically useless.

We may aswell do away with them and have people send armies to each other's bases and attack there.

Right now, the new scoring system rewards the geo hoarders. The ones who have been saving since November of last year. They have the most geos and can attack the most.

Newbs who start off now have no chance to get high in the rankings.

We either need a reset or the ranking needs to be tweaked big time.

My 2 ;geo worth.

A little bit late NimChief :p
Score system is there already, though I said city value would go up a little.
But I'm not going to repeat the reasons why, neither react to comments about it :p
We've done that over and over. Heard the good points and the bad points.
City value is not a score system. It's just an income to me. But because some wanted, it's also in the score system.
You don't like it, you just sort by value as that's also still in it :).

The cool off period is to overcome slow connections and a sort of 'cheating'(a legal one). If people can give me a good reason why it should be shorter(in a non-nagging way), i'll think about it.

But I'm used to you always saying no to every change(unless it would give you yourself a huge advantage :p) so this comes as no surprise.

i like the 5 minute waiting period. if for nothing else when the server is lagging it becomes a game of mere chance and luck as to who will refresh the page first, the city owner or the one throwing the nuke

i like the 5 minute waiting period. if for nothing else when the server is lagging it becomes a game of mere chance and luck as to who will refresh the page first, the city owner or the one throwing the nuke

Exactly. And those players losing a huge army while there was nothing they could do about it, were frustrated enough to lose interest in the game over.
They put hard work in it, and lost it by chance and unfortune, against people with superfast connections and ways around it.

I think its still too long.
I can understand that some ppl have had/have slow connections or computers and it is unfair to them, but 5 mins is a long time even for slow comps.

1 to 2 mins i think would be a good time frame as it would provide the chance for the unfortunate with slow equipment to buy shields and also prevent the more sly of the gewarriors from nuking the city the second after its occupied.

maybe even, if possible, the time frame could be adapted to the value of the cities. As in that cities with more value have a longer time like 2 mins and lower value cities have 1 min or less

It's a fact if you look at all new features, your name comes up a LOT when disagreeing. So yeah in the end you get a name :p

And I don't mind people giving feedback, but do it in a positive way by giving an idea(or ideas) I can work on... not just: don't like it, let's go back to the old crappy way, as you know upfront that will never happen.

Now back on topic...

As said the formula needs to be tweaked just a little. If city value is in it(I didn't totally like it but users did) then it might as well be worth a little more.
Newbs have less chance in every score way. Also with city value. Atleast from now on we can reset a game by just resetting the score. Would mean you wouldn't have to lose all your geos.

@bavarian: well that might be possible.

i like the 5 minute waiting period. if for nothing else when the server is lagging it becomes a game of mere chance and luck as to who will refresh the page first, the city owner or the one throwing the nuke
And I think it robs the advantage of attacking to drop the nuke shield. It now will just be costing the person Geos to reinstall a nuke shield. Granted people with slower connections were SOL but lots of things like that in the game. It went from giving someone an ability to wipe out a large army with a nuke if they timed it right, back to the advantage of the city holder. This just wiped out something that looking things over had been effective. Sure, some folks lost a city withing 4 seconds. Now, nuke use will drop and it will be nearly like having nuke shields permenant.

imo, 15-20 seconds is more than enough to place a nukeshield, otherwise it's a huge advantage to the attacker

Done: it's now 1 minute. So that's just the backup some on slow connections need to be faster than those refreshing the nuke page.

imo, 15-20 seconds is more than enough to place a nukeshield, otherwise it's a huge advantage to the attacker

Hmmm I disagree. When attacking you need to go through 2 pages to be able to buy a nuke shield. When the server is slow or you are on a slow connection, you might need this time. And the attacker already has to spend enough on the nuke shield.


*And Nimchief...don't even try that...you have had the name for a long time already. As well in posts, helpdesk and PM's. I believe even on your blog, but not sure about that, I'll check.*
*check2: yep, blog also: http://ge-war.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html *
*sorry if you felt attacked...didn't mean it that bad...just said what I thought as I saw the latest reply here was from you and already knew it was going to be a dissing one and I was right.*

OK, that means the 1 minute pause is for occupying and conquering cities?

OK, that means the 1 minute pause is for occupying and conquering cities?

That's it exactly :)

Hmmm I disagree. When attacking you need to go through 2 pages to be able to buy a nuke shield.
Nope, you only have to open a city page and press "buy" link ;)

Ah, 1 minute is certainly better than 5 :)

Nope, you only have to open a city page and press "buy" link ;)

Ah, 1 minute is certainly better than 5 :)

No you first go to attack...then you go to a page saying you won...then you press the 'go to the city link', it opens the city page and then you press the buy link. ;)

And I think it robs the advantage of attacking to drop the nuke shield. It now will just be costing the person Geos to reinstall a nuke shield. Granted people with slower connections were SOL but lots of things like that in the game. It went from giving someone an ability to wipe out a large army with a nuke if they timed it right, back to the advantage of the city holder. This just wiped out something that looking things over had been effective. Sure, some folks lost a city withing 4 seconds. Now, nuke use will drop and it will be nearly like having nuke shields permenant.


i agree this argument. next you can´t attack for 10 minutes after occuping the city, cause the armies that occoupied couldn´t be upfill. And players had larger outside then that guy who occupied.

If some players are the opinion to hit with 500k armies the must life with the risk of a nuke. a player who occupy a nuked city must life with attackers outside too.

but maybe it´s still better to withdraw some geos before attacking/occupying if neccessary... :D

i agree this argument. next you can´t attack for 10 minutes after occuping the city, cause the armies that occoupied couldn´t be upfill. And players had larger outside then that guy who occupied.


ehhhh come again?
What???? Why???? I'm confused what that has got to do with anything.

he is trying to say that the next argument will be that ppl will complain that because they have a slow connection or comp that they wont be able to fill up their armies in time aswell before someone outside the city attacks

he is trying to say that the next argument will be that ppl will complain that because they have a slow connection or comp that they wont be able to fill up their armies in time aswell before someone outside the city attacks

That's different. That's just war. They would've been attacked anyway. Beef up the army if you want to be sure.
Here it's different as it meant it's a matter of luck or unfortune whether you actually got the city or it was already nuked.
For some the problem was big enough to actually confront me with it almost every day. So unless anyone has a better solution to this problem, I don't see a big problem with 1 minute.
You'd only really notice it if you were one of those bypassing the city page to nuke someone but just hitting the refresh.
It was rather absurd seeing so many cities being nuked a few seconds after being occupied. The new owner never had a chance. That's not good for attacking and occupying cities either.

yes, I like this 1 minute break.

imo, 15-20 seconds is more than enough to place a nukeshield, otherwise it's a huge advantage to the attacker

I agree. 30sec max. The reson being that you can have 2 city pages open:
One refreshing until you see the occupying link
One refreshing until you see the Buy Nuke Shield link

And I think it robs the advantage of attacking to drop the nuke shield. It now will just be costing the person Geos to reinstall a nuke shield. Granted people with slower connections were SOL but lots of things like that in the game. It went from giving someone an ability to wipe out a large army with a nuke if they timed it right, back to the advantage of the city holder. This just wiped out something that looking things over had been effective. Sure, some folks lost a city withing 4 seconds. Now, nuke use will drop and it will be nearly like having nuke shields permenant.
well, now that it is 1 minute are you happy (i dont have any problems with 1 minute--or even 30 seconds). but sounds like you aren't happy cause it lends favor to one player over another, but the instant nukings were doing the same thing: lending favor to one player over another. seems like luke is trying to find some level of balance. i mean the fact that a nuke is instant, from anywhere in the world, with no travel time does give the nuker some advantage anyways versus a player who waits for his armies to move for a standard attack, so what is wrong with SOME balancing?

Well no it was just because as far as I could remember most things I read about you were always negative :p
But starting from your next post I'll try to forget that and start fresh ok? :p

But again I think people having a problem with 1 minute is far less of a problem than those people losing their hard earned geos to a small failure in the system.
This is merely an artificial patch.
To solve a small hole in the sytem which became a rather big problem these days.

Opposed to the score system which has been in the works for over 6 months.
We really needed a score system, as we didn't have one. We just checked city value, which is rather ridiculous as a score system. Eventually you know the only score you then end up with is 0. People hardly eventually knew what they were doing it for.
You had one certainty: in the end there is always the big 0.

Can you make it 2 minutes (like a 2 minute warning in football)..and go back too the old crappy way...(i love that statement). After i win a city..i like to drink a beer, and with old age its taking about a minute and a half to drink ..so that would still give me 30 seconds to wipe up a spill, and buy a nuke shield.... :D
And dont anyone tell me too get a smaller glass.....lol

Can you make it 2 minutes and go back too the old crappy way...(i love that statement) after i win a city..i like to drink a beer, and with old age its taking about a minute and a half to drink ..so that would still give me 30 seconds to wipe up a spill, and buy a nuke shield.... :D
And dont anyone tell me too get a smaller glass.....lol

yeah, sounds good - especially since I don't drink. you'd be best to do it the other way round :p

Can you make it 2 minutes and go back too the old crappy way...(i love that statement) after i win a city..i like to drink a beer, and with old age its taking about a minute and a half to drink ..so that would still give me 30 seconds to wipe up a spill, and buy a nuke shield.... :D
And dont anyone tell me too get a smaller glass.....lol

Then think how long it took to implement it:
Having to go to the refridgerator after writing a few lines, pouring a beer, drinking it, writing another few lines and back to the beer.
A simple task can take me hours :D

finally 1 minute is much better than 10
... and can we nuke unoccupied city still? :D

hey luke, now that the new scoring system is up, could city taxes be increased? I thought that's what was supposed to happen. I could be wrong though...

hey luke, now that the new scoring system is up, could city taxes be increased? I thought that's what was supposed to happen. I could be wrong though...
You can now increase city taxes yourself, by increasing city value (industry).

Then think how long it took to implement it:
Having to go to the refridgerator after writing a few lines, pouring a beer, drinking it, writing another few lines and back to the beer.
A simple task can take me hours :D

your getting old too..It the old days you would have drank the beer at the refrig. and not poured it!!! :D

it ok..1 minute is betting than No minute.I thank you for seeing that it needed to be changed..... ;i02

You can now increase city taxes yourself, by increasing city value (industry).
oh...so that's what he meant? if so, it's almost pointless to hold cities.

oh...so that's what he meant? if so, it's almost pointless to hold cities.

Well no. Later on I'll reask the question I did before:
What's more important to players....high city tax or high city value in score system?

In other words...highest priority of cities is for your score, or for your geos?
Eventually for the ultra rich, cities will always become less of a goal. What do those 100-300 geos a day extra mean when you already have 200k geos?
And that's good. Means that eventually there might be a point where the rich will go for a high score and battling their enemy more than trying to hang on to each city or town, therefor giving an opening for new players.
Don't know, but will never know unless we try.

Let's see... Ronin and KGB start a campaign of taking BNW cities and then nuking them as soon as they take them back. And lo and behold, this rule change comes into being. Color me shocked.

I still don't like the delay. If have one should be 30 secs tops, INMHO. If keeping a delay I would suggest raising the cost of a nuke shield a bit. Either that or some other way to disable a nuke shield.

The reason I think this is that it seemed to be a balancing act for a "smaller" alliance or less zero's to fight an enemy. The waiting period or even back to permanent nuke shields and folks could just sit back in city. ONly really way to combat was to have nearly equal Geos.

Sorry to PS and other mods for the double post.

The central issue comes down to whether a city owner has a right to quickly defend troops by purchasing a nuke shield. One arguement goes, always. And thus the delay. Others like my self, think there should be no such right. Not sure where the balance is but not in 60 second wait time.

Besides increasing the price of a nuke shield (I never understood why defense is cheaper then attacking in terms of nukes.) Perhaps besides the potential of all nuke shields down that folks who invest in a nuke shield need to spend money daily for upkeep of the defense, much like money to upkeep troops. If did that cost could be same but the upkeep makes it an expensive prospect.

Let's see... Ronin and KGB start a campaign of taking BNW cities and then nuking them as soon as they take them back. And lo and behold, this rule change comes into being. Color me shocked.

lol. :) - that should be colour by the way ;)

peacebringer's idea about upkeep cost for nuke shield has some merit.

lol just noticed the gold stars are gone, boo hoo :(

aha they are back whayhay :)

Let's see... Ronin and KGB start a campaign of taking BNW cities and then nuking them as soon as they take them back. And lo and behold, this rule change comes into being. Color me shocked.

Ehhh...care to explain that?

Besides increasing the price of a nuke shield (I never understood why defense is cheaper then attacking in terms of nukes.) Perhaps besides the potential of all nuke shields down that folks who invest in a nuke shield need to spend money daily for upkeep of the defense, much like money to upkeep troops. If did that cost could be same but the upkeep makes it an expensive prospect.

I'm not against upkeep for shields. Shields themselves are pretty high now already.
Remember they have to be bought over and over again.
They used to be 250 geos.
Making it higher would really make owning a city useless. It would become too expensive.
ps: I already know that if I introduce upkeep for shields, a LOT will be complaining. I'll forward the complains to you then :)

I'm not against upkeep for shields. Shields themselves are pretty high now already.
Remember they have to be bought over and over again.
They used to be 250 geos.
Making it higher would really make owning a city useless. It would become too expensive.
ps: I already know that if I introduce upkeep for shields, a LOT will be complaining. I'll forward the complains to you then :)
Luke, there will always be complaints. You got to go with what is good for the game. It is a tough balance. 1000 geos for a shield is nothing, unless you are a non-donator. And I disagree that Nuke Shield up keep makes owning a city useless, unless the only purpose of owning a city is to sit back, not act and try and make money. The other option would be for the "EMP" idea where you can purchase it and disable a nuke shield. That idea is probably better then shield upkeep. But right now nuke shields are most advantageous to bigger alliances and those who sit and save. Thus I think Friend's complaint where it seems like because BNW was doing a lot of complaining, you accomodated their request to allow them to "always" be able to throw up a nuke shield when getting a city.

They used to be 250 geos.


250-500 is good

1000 is too expensive ;nuke

I hope for Friend's sake he didn't really mean that. That wouldn't be 'bright' to say. So still waiting for his explanation!!!!
1 person from BNW I know off complained, and with reason.
If there is a hole in the game, that is being abused, then it needs to be patched.
Right now it's what Brendo calls Hotlinking.
Not using the link in the city page, but using a link that shouldn't be yours to use, but because of it being a webgame is.
Therefor causing huge frustration among players, a lot of unnecessary webtraffic because of the constant refreshing....etc.
Throw in the fact that players with slower internet connections have less chance in the game, and you have a formula for a patch.
Throw in the fact sometimes the server lags and it's faster to nuke, and you have a conclusion.

Those that complained had every good right to complain. It shouldn't ever have been possible, but was.
Especially now that nuke shields are also more expensive and more importantly Nuke's are much cheaper. That's because I myself like a good nuke fest.
But the most important thing for me is to try and get the most frustrating things out of the game.
If you can't nuke someone(as soon as used to), it might be a bummer...would've been fun.
But if you are the one constantly nuked because you have a disadvantage this might frustrate you to a point where you leave the game while you are the one who is right.

Try to look at it objective.
I have no objections against weapons or saboteurs that might destroy a nuke shield however. Could add to the strategy.

250-500 is good

1000 is too expensive ;nuke your kidding me right.

Well no. Later on I'll reask the question I did before:
What's more important to players....high city tax or high city value in score system?

In other words...highest priority of cities is for your score, or for your geos?
Eventually for the ultra rich, cities will always become less of a goal. What do those 100-300 geos a day extra mean when you already have 200k geos?
And that's good. Means that eventually there might be a point where the rich will go for a high score and battling their enemy more than trying to hang on to each city or town, therefor giving an opening for new players.
Don't know, but will never know unless we try.
well, atm, value doesnt mean **** and we get nothing from the cities. therefore, owning cities is pointless. either we raise the city taxes (industry is not enough) or we increase the value of owning cities in the score. its stupid atm.

Let's see... Ronin and KGB start a campaign of taking BNW cities and then nuking them as soon as they take them back. And lo and behold, this rule change comes into being. Color me shocked.

Yeah, just like BNW hits number one and the nuke shields go down. Or BNW gets number one a second time and nuke shield rules change so you can essentially cheat the system. Take off the tin foil hat there, buddy.

EDIT: Luke, it sounds to me like Friend here was implying that these changes were because of BNW complaining or your being "in bed" with BNW, as it were.

My scenarios are those that seem to be purposely designed to inhibit our chances to get a star, but I am 99% sure that they are mere coincidences.

well, atm, value doesnt mean **** and we get nothing from the cities. therefore, owning cities is pointless. either we raise the city taxes (industry is not enough) or we increase the value of owning cities in the score. its stupid atm.

That's why I said it isn't ready :p.
It's always work in progress...but because I didn't get anymore feedback on testing the score, the best way to test it is bring it to the game.

Yeah, just like BNW hits number one and the nuke shields go down. Or BNW gets number one a second time and nuke shield rules change so you can essentially cheat the system. Take off the tin foil hat there, buddy.

Ah it's probably me. Before I was probably helping another alliance, and now the crew is probably on the side of BNW :p. I gotta keep trace of all the alliances we seem to be helping...or wait...I think it's easier to keep trace of those we apparantly don't help as I think I've been accused of helping 99% of the alliances already.
I think even the random attack messages in the latest activity was me helping some alliance back then :p
I think the only way for me not to get accused is never do anything on gewar anymore, and never show my face around here anymore....and even then...

Ah it's probably me. Before I was probably helping another alliance, and now the crew is probably on the side of BNW :p. I gotta keep trace of all the alliances we seem to be helping...or wait...I think it's easier to keep trace of those we apparantly don't help as I think I've been accused of helping 99% of the alliances already.
I think even the random attack messages in the latest activity was me helping some alliance back then :p
I think the only way for me not to get accused is never do anything on gewar anymore, and never show my face around here anymore....and even then...

Yeah, I edited my last message. I agree, someone will always think the changes are designed to inhibit their chances, but in fact are just coincidental. As were the changes that negatively affected BNW, coincidences that just came at a bad time for us, thats all.

EDIT: And as one of those who benefits from this particular change, THANKS! It was needed to balance things out, IMO.

That's why I said it isn't ready :p.
It's always work in progress...but because I didn't get anymore feedback on testing the score, the best way to test it is bring it to the game.

That's cool, but you said you'd raise the city tax, but the indsutry simply isn't enough. Value doesn't mean anything and the industry is mostly being used for the value (I mean, sometimes you get 1.5 geos/day....) so if we're gonna use the new system, city taxes have to be raised considerably IMO. Holding cities is pointless. Look at the top players list: Helo is number one (and he's earned that), but he has no city. If city value is not gonna counted in the rankings, city taxes should go way up.

That's cool, but you said you'd raise the city tax, but the indsutry simply isn't enough. Value doesn't mean anything and the industry is mostly being used for the value (I mean, sometimes you get 1.5 geos/day....) so if we're gonna use the new system, city taxes have to be raised considerably IMO. Holding cities is pointless. Look at the top players list: Helo is number one (and he's earned that), but he has no city. If city value is not gonna counted in the rankings, city taxes should go way up.
the ranking definitely need tweaking. Cities mean next to nothing at the moment, and the forumala really should provide some balance. I think tweaking rating is better then just jaking city taxes.

the ranking definitely need tweaking. Cities mean next to nothing at the moment, and the forumala really should provide some balance. I think tweaking rating is better then just jaking city taxes.
Oh, I definetely agree but we don't have a formula to incorporate city value so in the meantime city taxes should go up.

We do have a formula.
And 2 guys have been working on that for a few days. You probably know who.
Just waiting for them to contact me.
They know their math....so thought it was better to let them do it instead of experimenting with it myself.

We do have a formula.
And 2 guys have been working on that for a few days. You probably know who.
Just waiting for them to contact me.
They know their math....so thought it was better to let them do it instead of experimenting with it myself.
Oh, nice. I thought the formulas weren't working (or else they'd be in the game) but if the current rankings are subject to change, all is good. ;clap

the ranking definitely need tweaking. Cities mean next to nothing at the moment, and the forumala really should provide some balance. I think tweaking rating is better then just jaking city taxes.
Yes, cities mean next to nothing at the moment, but there's another unbalanced parameter which complicates things.
The interest rate is really high(1.5% a day means 22500% a year), and this makes it less convenient to fight and impossible for the new players to recover the gap.
I think we should decrease the interest rate, for instance 1% for the first 2500 geos, then 0.01% for the remaining amount.
And perhaps we can increase resources, so we'll have a linear increase of geos instead of an exponential one.

Oh, nice. I thought the formulas weren't working (or else they'd be in the game) but if the current rankings are subject to change, all is good. ;clap

They are working actually. City value is counted into the score, but just for a very very small part. Very small.

They are working actually. City value is counted into the score, but just for a very very small part. Very small.
Would it be complicated to bring it up?

Would it be complicated to bring it up?

Nah, probably would take me 2-3 minutes to bring city value up...but that doesn't mean it would be balanced at all :p.
Would be several attempts...so I just thought there was no rush and I'd just wait to see if the real math people come up with something better.

Nah, probably would take me 2-3 minutes to bring city value up...but that doesn't mean it would be balanced at all :p.
Would be several attempts...so I just thought there was no rush and I'd just wait to see if the real math people come up with something better.
Yeah, there's definetely no rush but why not balance things out a little bit until our mathematicians find something else. I mean, I just captured Mumbai (19M) and my score went up .01.....

haha, that´s really not much.
Luke, is that city value part of the score formula constant or will it get bigger in time?

Yeah, there's definetely no rush but why not balance things out a little bit until our mathematicians find something else. I mean, I just captured Mumbai (19M) and my score went up .01.....
Heheh, I sent 40k to a city but didn't get it, and my score went up 0.53........

that´s no miracle, Mumbay was defended by 64 troops! :D

haha, that´s really not much.
Luke, is that city value part of the score formula constant or will it get bigger in time?

If it was upto me value would have no part at all in the score, but would just have bigger city tax :p
But the players decided to have value in the score instead of higher city tax so I'll just go by that :).
It's pretty steady though, meaning that someone succesfully attacking a lot may eventually surpass someone owning a lot of cities, while himself even owning none.
Incorporating it in the score system mearly means that if you do as good as your opponent, you will always be higher in the ranking when owning some good cities.

When looking at it from the players point of view, I thought city tax would be more important than value/score. As someone with an enormous score will still be higher, and in the near future they will be, so it's just a matter of time....but I guess players didn't think like this so we'll go by the score way.

yeah, but my question was meant in a different way:
will a city owner get a small bunch of score every day/hour/whatever for holding a city?

OK, so this whole "owning a city is worthless" battle has been raging for quite some time. Let me try to put it into perspective.
With the exception of the resource cities, the amount of city taxes really has no bearing on whether or not the city is intrinsically 'valuable'.
There are many reasons why people/alliances own cities.
Maybe its because it is their hometown, or that it is in a geographical location that they are trying to control, or a host of other reasons.
Because the old ranking system relied solely on the population value, more times than not, the person who owned Tokyo was the king of the mountain.
Lets be real here people, probably the top 100 wealthiest players currently get more in interest in an hour than the owner of Tokyo gets in city taxes for the day. And furthermore, probably 60 of those players have not attacked, or been attacked in a week or more.
That system of score keeping does not necessarily reward the best players of the game with a spot at the top of the heap.
We have gone around and around trying to figure out a way to make the scoring of top player/alliance more representative of the spirit of the game (can you say WAR? I knew that you could!)
So, what has been devised is a system whereby the people that are actively attacking, and/or defending cities are rewarded with recognition of their actions, a real scoring system that shows who amongst us are the true warriors.
The geos/day that any given city pays out has nothing to do with its true value, its true value is the amount of geos/troops that someone is willing to spend to either to take or defend that city, for whatever reason.
I can remember many moons ago when Alert, Canada made 5 geos/day, there were constant battles, and literally 100's of thousands of troops would perish there every single day. It boggled the mind to see the amounts of troops that were expended there. But it was quite simple, whomever owned it at the time was willing to defend that city, at whatever cost, for whatever the reason. The population value of the city, nor the amount of geos/day that it brought in, had any bearing on what that player did to defend that little piece of real estate. Had this scoring system been in place back then, that player would have undoubtedly been the top of the pops!
And that my friends is what the game is all about.

well said. :)

OK, so this whole "owning a city is worthless" battle has been raging for quite some time. Let me try to put it into perspective.
With the exception of the resource cities, the amount of city taxes really has no bearing on whether or not the city is intrinsically 'valuable'.
There are many reasons why people/alliances own cities.
Maybe its because it is their hometown, or that it is in a geographical location that they are trying to control, or a host of other reasons.
Because the old ranking system relied solely on the population value, more times than not, the person who owned Tokyo was the king of the mountain.
Lets be real here people, probably the top 100 wealthiest players currently get more in interest in an hour than the owner of Tokyo gets in city taxes for the day. And furthermore, probably 60 of those players have not attacked, or been attacked in a week or more.
That system of score keeping does not necessarily reward the best players of the game with a spot at the top of the heap.
We have gone around and around trying to figure out a way to make the scoring of top player/alliance more representative of the spirit of the game (can you say WAR? I knew that you could!)
So, what has been devised is a system whereby the people that are actively attacking, and/or defending cities are rewarded with recognition of their actions, a real scoring system that shows who amongst us are the true warriors.
The geos/day that any given city pays out has nothing to do with its true value, its true value is the amount of geos/troops that someone is willing to spend to either to take or defend that city, for whatever reason.
I can remember many moons ago when Alert, Canada made 5 geos/day, there were constant battles, and literally 100's of thousands of troops would perish there every single day. It boggled the mind to see the amounts of troops that were expended there. But it was quite simple, whomever owned it at the time was willing to defend that city, at whatever cost, for whatever the reason. The population value of the city, nor the amount of geos/day that it brought in, had any bearing on what that player did to defend that little piece of real estate. Had this scoring system been in place back then, that player would have undoubtedly been the top of the pops!
And that my friends is what the game is all about.


PREACH ON!!!!!!!!!!!! ;punch

For those complaining about the cooldown time, I've really got one thing to say. This wouldn't happen if you don't hotlink and slow down the servers.

If you want an alternate system, I think one that works would be you can launch nukes into one that's not yet available, and be able to occupy radioactive cities, the latter resulting in the waste of a nuke (as it won't do anything, not even lengthen the radiation time) and the latter the immediate destruction of the occupying army. This would make hotlinking useless as it's more of a risk than a reward, and also allow for a more even playing ground as everyone will have to deal with the slow server speed resulting in slow refresh of the city page.

Secondly add a confirm launch nuke page after the clicking on "nuke city" with a 5 second countdown timer (so the nuker can't just stay on that page until the city become occupied) that either launches the nuke when "confirm" is clicked or the timer runs down.

If we have this system, then the system of nuking an occupied city would truly depend on timing, rather than whoever refreshes first. Same goes for actually occupying a nuked city.

As Luke said, it doesn't make sense to have a player be punished just because they're unlucky...by the same token the nuker didn't deserve the satisfaction of nuking your victim because all you did was refresh a page that automatically launches a nuke for you...which doesn't require any skill anyway. As it stands the current system without the cooldown simply puts more emphasis on luck rather than skill.

Anyway, regarding score, I've got a question. Say a city has 5 armies, if you attacked and killed 4 armies, would that be regarded as 4 victories and a defeat, or just one outright defeat?

hum...let the battle begin...bring it on people!!! The scoring system is good... I ll kill you all ;)

can you say WAR? I knew that you could!


WRA.....crap


RAW......dangit


ARW....grrrrrrrr



give me a minute, i'll get it :rock

ps: the only thing that will change is how an average of attack points and value is done. As you might know cities don't give points, but the Total Score is an average of attack points and value.
Therefor as the attack points calculation never changed, and people played like they used to, the attack score doesn't need to be reset.

In the future small resets can be done now:
I think the most painless way is then to reset the score. You keep your resources and geos but only score is reset and a winner announced.
Though if you have any reason why it should be the other way around(geos and resources reset, not score) then please say so.

so if you attack a free standing army you dont get any points for that?

so if you attack a free standing army you dont get any points for that?

You get points for:
1) taking over a city after an attack.
2) defeating an army outside a city(whether you are inside the city or ouside yourself)
3) defeating an army outside a homebase(whether you are inside or outside)
4) nuking a city

Did I miss any?
Ofcourse in case 1-3 you also get points for losing the battle, but much less.
If player 1 has 3 armies inside a city and players 2 attack and defeats only 2 out of 3, the game sees that as a defeat and counts the 3 total armies as 1.
You get loser-points for total defeated troops then.

but the Total Score is an average of attack points and value.

thats not true. when I captured Mumbai yesterday my score went up .01. And that was likely due to the dozens of troops killed. value is not influencing the score at all at the moment.

I checked, but you can see that some with attack points are lower than others.
That's because total cities and value was calculated in it...but in a way that makes it so minimal.
That was what was going to be tweaked...but I have no rush at all in doing that :)
Rather have it good in 1 shot, then for the scores to look messy for days.

I checked, but you can see that some with attack points are lower than others.
That's because total cities and value was calculated in it...but in a way that makes it so minimal.
That was what was going to be tweaked...but I have no rush at all in doing that :)
Rather have it good in 1 shot, then for the scores to look messy for days.Heh...

10 Bisbicos 15 58 1,279.14 47,293,301 38.55
11 THEOtheGREAT 5 15 1,226.75 5,574,618 36.96

That's the only example on the first page and that means that 42M gives you less than 2 points (Number 9th ranked player has 40.56 points and no city). Just making the city value worth 25% of the score would make the rankings better and not messy.

Well if you reread this thread you'll find me saying lots of times it's incorrect now...so I don't really know what you want from me by keep repeating what we all already know :confused:
Like said: it's going to be changed...just not today, and not by me as my math is just a few years too long ago.

Well if you reread this thread you'll find me saying lots of times it's incorrect now...so I don't really know what you want from me by keep repeating what we all already know :confused:
Like said: it's going to be changed...just not today, and not by me as my math is just a few years too long ago.Ok...yesterday you said it'd take 2-3 minutes so even though it wouldn't be perfect, I don't see why we wouldn't make the current rankings better. Oh well....I'll wait.

Ok...yesterday you said it'd take 2-3 minutes so even though it wouldn't be perfect, I don't see why we wouldn't make the current rankings better. Oh well....I'll wait.

Well I said it would take 2-3 minutes but also said I wouldn't :p
Reason is it could and probably would be messy. Changing it up and down...waiting for people to do something so I can see the difference, having the score board all messed up and probably in the end take me a long time to actually see the difference and see what's best as I would just be playing with numbers.
Changing it: 2-3 minutes.
Finding the good balance: way more time than I have.

Therefor leaving it to people who know their math is better(in this case at least).

I think the scoring system is a very good idea. It makes perfect, logical sense. If you are at the top and loose all of your cities, you wouldn't like to see yourself at the bottom after months of hard work. One idea could possibly be to let your score increase every day (by a VERY small amount) for holding a city of a certain value. Note: the score generated by the city must be very small. This way your score won't go down when loosing a city, and your score will slowly rise every day for your hard work of defending it. Players will become more desperate to get their hands on cities (almost like they would to get there hands on a higher city value), and there will be a sufficient amount of battles everywhere. If this gets worked into the scoring system, it would combine another important aspect of the game into this system. Think of it, your cities will then generate score and geos everyday.

Now one argument could possibly be that it would be devastating for newbies (and it probably would, just an idea). But then again, I said the increase must be quite small every day. And if players will battle over their cities more, it may make space for newbies to join in on the game.

As for the shield upkeep idea, I'd be willing to pay, but then there should be a nuke upkeep too, meaning that you should nuke after you have bought it. A shield is not the opposite (or defence) for attacking troops (with upkeep). Instead it is the defence against nukes and should not have upkeep (but I'd still be willing to pay). That's all from me!!

nice post fear4future, and i totally agree with you. It is hard work defending a city. So we should get a SMALL reward for it. its needs to be very small like 1.0-2.0 per day even that is to big. Something like 0.1 - 0.7 depending on city size

nice post fear4future, and i totally agree with you. It is hard work defending a city. So we should get a SMALL reward for it. its needs to be very small like 1.0-2.0 per day even that is to big. Something like 0.1 - 0.7 depending on city size

Yes, something like 0.1 - 0.7 (or even 0.01 for the smallest cities). Some people disagree with the scoring system, and this might suite them. So this might suite all sides (I hope, but there will always be someone who disagrees).

I'm just moving out of my newbie phase, and I think it's a good idea. I believe that it won't be too bad for newbies (although they might be far behind when it comes to score.. But really, that's their problem, and they will be far behind anyway!!). People will have battles (because of the whole scoring system), so it will suite those who don't believe in naps with everyone. It will suite those who believe power lies in their cities, and it will be so since the city will generate a score. Doesn't that sound good Luke? (it's just an idea).

I agreed with the scoring system from the beginning, but some posts I read lead me to think that it would be unneccesary to have more than one city, and if the city generates a daily score, rather than give a fixed score (however small), it will keep things going so it should suite the others as well.

its suit not suite(thats a couch)


from now on good means bad and bad means good(by posting here you accept this ... lol)

Hahaha, I repeat, haha.. cOUCH
My english failed me!!! Thanx for correcting me!!!
Hopefully my spelling will be more suite (sweet) from now on.. Never mind.. :growse this is getting disguisting..

Hmm... can't wait to get that "No, this is a bad idea" from Luke..

No, this is a bad idea

ohhh, this is good luke, finally you argree with us

p.s - i case you are confused look at the small print in my last post ...... lol


pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease can we have this, luke

I just read the thread about the score system (not really, just glanced at it). You have a point. It would be overkill to give score for holding a city. But don't you think it is a bit more useless now, holding a city and all? It's quite complicated (or actually just as complicated as we make it). Maybe we should get more geos from the cities then (I feel that the industry doesn't provide enough for this, as I have a overall loss because of buying industry every 36 hours.. It costs me more than I get from it). But then again, it would not be fair (or much fun) if a city gets too much geos for holding it. I'd still say that a city has to give some sort of score, but never mind. Your vote over rules our votes ;), that's the good part about being the administrator!! So I won't complain too much.. Besides, I only have 1 cheap city, was just trying to think logically (didn't work well!!)

We (or at least I) understand your position and accept your decision :'( (what a heart-warming speech).. So can we get rewarded for the cities now? (what am I thinking? I will rarely get a reward for my lil city.. I retract all my statements!!)

Woohoo!! Go Luke.. The scoring systems rocks!!


PS, nice reply
No, this is a bad idea

Did you realize you caught Luke with your small print? He said, No, this is a bad idea.. Meaning that it's actually good. You're a genius (I didn't even realize it). Well, even so, that won't be enough to change his mind.. I still agree that it might make the game more interesting, but I won't be benefitted by it, so I'm just gonna keep my trap shut..(Maybe I should unplug the keyboard)

Perhaps Maverick can post the formula he just PM'ed me.
As I'm no math-genius, and don't know exactly what he means though he said he'll explain it in chat, perhaps others can point out good and bad points to it as it's kind of a whole new way.

Maverick if you please :)


ps: no he didn't catch me with his smallprint...he edited his post after my post...that's sooooooooo 1992 :confused:

ok, new scoring system:

its not drastically different. you still have your basic three scores.

AS = attack score, it remains unchanged in how its calculated.
NC = number of cities
V = value of all your cities.

AS keeps increasing, it can never decrease, you just keep getting points as you play the game for every attack by or on you.

NC can change drastically as you can be zeroed or you can have 40 cities.

V can also change drastically, but even without attacking or defending, thanks to Luke's new industry, it can slowly increase.

The problem will all of this is, how do you keep their relative contributions in the game constant. As you guys may have noticed, attacking totally outstripped the other two, such that AO with over 500 million in value, is no longer even close to being number one.

So, we normalize the three components independently.
max(AS) means the top Attacking Score.
max(NC) means the highest number of cities currently being held by one person
max(V) means the highest value held by one player.

Total score = 20*(AS/max(AS)) + 5*(NC/max(NC)) + 10*(V/max(V))

the numbers 20, 5 and 10 represent the importance of each factor, Attacking, holding lots of cities, and holding high value. That is something you guys can decide and change, maybe even vote on, i leave that to others to decide.

What is important, is that now, in each type of play, you will have a top player who will get max points (set by the importance or scaling factor), and everyone else will get something between zero and that value.

for example, the top attacker will get 20 points from attacking, (doedoe right now with 4100 AS). the second highest will get a scaled version of that (helo with 2500 AS will get 20*(2500/4100) = 12.2 points). and a person who has never attacked will get zero.

similarly, the person with the most number of cities will get 5 points, and everyone else will get between 0 and 5.

and the person with top value (cardhu? with 65million) will get 10 points, and everyone else will scale between 0 and 10.

(note: i have removed the logarithmic calculation of value score which i had proposed and is currently in use, because of Luke's new industry thing. The industry makes all cities have a potential value in the millions, thus levelling the playing field, and making a linear use of value fair again.)

so everyone can compete in their own way, or in all three ways, and get a maximum score of 20+5+10 (again, you can set this to anything you decide upon). but now, while the attack component will remain with you forever, it will never threaten to swamp the other two and make them completely irrelevant (unless you give them very low scaling factors), since they independently saturate at fixed values.

Alliance score i think should be average score, not total score. Due to the normalization, it might not be fair otherwise. i'll think about that...

That formula will definitely work. Some players will probably say that they city value should be more than 10, but you can change that as you said. This will ensure that no 1 will have a rediculously high score, but if someone is the best player, he will have the highest score.. I wouldn't have thought of it (or not very quickly ;)) That's a very good system.

I agree with you that the alliance score should be an average. That's how I felt about it from the beginning. It will make everything fair, and encourage all members to be active in some kind of activity!! Good idea Maverick!

I will not call myself a math genius, but i know a thing or two and i think this formula by mArerik is brilliant.

Brilliant. Am I allowed to post other crap (is crap bad language?) here? Nah, guess not, but here goes. How do you change that title under your name? (Like I'm cannonfoder. I thought it had something to do with posts, but grotman doesn't have lots of posts, and he isn't just cannonfoder)

By the way: Grotman, are you from SA? You are afrikaans hey?

SA I see. (this was hopefully my last post to this thread)

Oh I see.. Donator..

(Response on post below: )
Good idea Ghetto bob, I'll use the edit button from now on!!
Although I do want to get my posts up for a different title, that's a reason for sending many random posts!!

And note, if that arrow is susposed to point at an edit button, it doesn't.. I can't edit someone else's posts, so there is no button for me to click on on your post..

Fear4Future...

Triple posts=NOT COOL



Use the Edit button in the future============================================ ============>

:thumbsup: maverick.

i think this also will provide incentive to attack the top players/alliances because lowering the top player's city value and # of cities will increase your score.

wowsers...that took a few minutes to read and get caught up....

Luke-i still think that a full reset will be needed from time to time. I think that will be needed until bank interest is eliminated. I like the idea of some "soft" resets but eventually the balance of money gets toooo far out of whack

Scoring system-I love it!!!! I still think that city value shouldn't play a part..maybe a tiny tiny part but not much of one...but I agree something has to make owning cities more "profitable". I've always thought that if you successfully defend then you get the most points. That would make having a bunch of cities better..maybe...

all in all wonderful changes...It's nice seeing the game develop and grow....even if you don't "love" the changes..it's nice seeing the game develop...

I've been a proponent from the beginning of combining some sort of aggression score with city value. All for what Maverick has proposed. Very nice work. Though I'm not sure the average for the alliance works. Invividual scores should be somehow totaled for the alliance. But I have no solutions as straight math is not my forte. Again, very nice work!!!

I've been a proponent from the beginning of combining some sort of aggression score with city value. All for what Maverick has proposed. Very nice work. Though I'm not sure the average for the alliance works. Invividual scores should be somehow totaled for the alliance. But I have no solutions as straight math is not my forte. Again, very nice work!!!

thanks all.

and yes, i am not yet sure as well about the alliance score, let me think about it for a while.

wowsers...that took a few minutes to read and get caught up....

Luke-i still think that a full reset will be needed from time to time. I think that will be needed until bank interest is eliminated. I like the idea of some "soft" resets but eventually the balance of money gets toooo far out of whack

Scoring system-I love it!!!! I still think that city value shouldn't play a part..maybe a tiny tiny part but not much of one...but I agree something has to make owning cities more "profitable". I've always thought that if you successfully defend then you get the most points. That would make having a bunch of cities better..maybe...

all in all wonderful changes...It's nice seeing the game develop and grow....even if you don't "love" the changes..it's nice seeing the game develop...


but what if i have a cit ythat never gets attacked? is that my fault?

but what if i have a cit ythat never gets attacked? is that my fault?

Yeah make more enemies on the forums :D

Anyway...I didn't have much time yet(not until tomorrowevening), so I haven't really had the chance to look at the ups and downs.
Looks good...I do have a question:
Don't we have a maximum of attack score then?
If so then what? You did some great attacks and you've got it...you don't need to attack anymore?
Or did I miss something in my speed for reading due to some lack of time and energy today?

Yeah make more enemies on the forums :D

Anyway...I didn't have much time yet(not until tomorrowevening), so I haven't really had the chance to look at the ups and downs.
Looks good...I do have a question:
Don't we have a maximum of attack score then?
If so then what? You did some great attacks and you've got it...you don't need to attack anymore?
Or did I miss something in my speed for reading due to some lack of time and energy today?

you don't need to do anything until other people attack as much as you do and cross you. yes. you can sit back until the rest of gewar catches up with you, and they will, since the attack score never decreases. its your reward for that massive series of attacking that got you the top spot, you can rest, if you want.

when someone crosses you, they become the number one attacker and get the 20 points, and you get a fraction (calculated the same way) of that. you can always be overtaken by others, in any of the scores. only one person (unless two people have identical attack scores, extremely unlikely) can hold that 20 points at one time.

So say eventually we have 10 people who have an attack score of 18000?
Rest is down to 3000.

They had some lucky nukes let's say.
Value is not great, but good enough and they have a lot of NAP's.
What would stop them from NAP'ing more?
Don't they want to make sure they also hang onto their city value then?
So therefor start NAP'ing with everyone?
Because they already have their attack score...what's important now is not attacking then but city value...

They already surpassed the maximum by a long shot right?
So what if someone comes along after them...it would take that player much longer as with each day, the score you get for attacking becomes less.
They attack now, and in a few months can someone still catch up with them then?
They sat back and enjoyed their showers of geos...

Just testing your idea.

@james galu and the deleted post: my statement wasn't about your post, it was about you saying 'what if you don't get attacked...what now? answer: make more enemies and you will be...problem solved :)'

So say eventually we have 10 people who have an attack score of 18000?
Rest is down to 3000.

They had some lucky nukes let's say.
Value is not great, but good enough and they have a lot of NAP's.
What would stop them from NAP'ing more?
Don't they want to make sure they also hang onto their city value then?
So therefor start NAP'ing with everyone?
Because they already have their attack score...what's important now is not attacking then but city value...

They already surpassed the maximum by a long shot right?
So what if someone comes along after them...it would take that player much longer as with each day, the score you get for attacking becomes less.
They attack now, and in a few months can someone still catch up with them then?
They sat back and enjoyed their showers of geos...

Just testing your idea.

@james galu and the deleted post: my statement wasn't about your post, it was about you saying 'what if you don't get attacked...what now? answer: make more enemies and you will be...problem solved :)'luke don't think there is a "maximum"

luke don't think there is a "maximum"

Ok that was what I understood in the PM...that otherwise people could gain points forever and never be toppled(is that a word?).

anyone can still attack other people, and get more attack points. if no one attacks them, their score can't increase. and if they attack others, then they are playing the game, not sitting still, and they deserve to keep their higher score.

take helo for example, he made so many attacks, and gained so much attack score and got to the top spot in attack score. 2500 seemed high, until doedoe went and crossed that. does that mean others can't catch up? unless doedoe keeps attacking (since defending doesn't give you as many points), he can't hold that lead. already other people are creeping upto 3000 and have crossed helo. sitting still according to your own formula doesnt work for attack score. and since attack score will be worth more than cities or value (if you choose the scaling factors i have chosen), it will eventually surpass a guy sitting still with value.

i don't understand what you mean by saying for each day, your attack score keeps decreasing, your formula doesn't depend on when the attack is made. they will keep adding to their attack score the same way. its only their total attack score that is used to calculate the points, and that total will keep increasing as you keep attacking. if what you meant is that the fractional increase with each day will decrease, then you are right.

for that, i propose a time dependent attack score.

ASreset = attack score through entire reset.
ASmonth = attack score from the last month.

TS = 10*(ASreset/max(ASreset)) + 10*(ASmonth/max(ASmonth)) + 5*(NC/max(NC)) + 10*(V/max(V))

So people can't sit still for too long. you can even make that ASweek if you want. half of their attack score points will come only from the last month. so they have to keep attacking. and also, then the fractional increase will be significant for other players. They can catch up with the ASmonth score much quicker.

What I meant with decreasing:
If you attack now you get more points than when you attack in a month.
It's what was asked for.
It's tied to the total troops in the game, which almost always keeps rising.

So if you have probably more troops in the game in a month, people will get less points for an attack.
It's not much, but let's see it over a long period.
I think we need to chat over the score system as I don't think I totally got it.
Though as said didn't get the time to think about it yet as well.

oh ok, i get it. the denominator was total troops in the entire gewar!!.

i see what you're saying, and i'll think about it more.

look at the month attack score thing i added though, it might solve this problem as well.

I like this whole attacking equals rewards in the rankings formula, but if I may play Devil's advocate: What's to stop an alliance from running dummy attacks on each other, say a 1000 troop army per day attack, in order to boost their attacking points? After all attacking is now the most heavily weighted factor so wouldn't that encourage this? Perhaps encoding the formula to not count attacks within an alliance is possible. Codemonkeys are you out there?

attacking each other will give you points, but the number of points depend on the number of troops involved. so you are wasting your geos if you attack your own alliance. you don't need to control for that.

also, i don't know how difficult this is, but by checking the affiliation of the attacker and defender, can you simply not count points for those from the same alliance?

attacking each other will give you points, but the number of points depend on the number of troops involved. so you are wasting your geos if you attack your own alliance. you don't need to control for that.

also, i don't know how difficult this is, but by checking the affiliation of the attacker and defender, can you simply not count points for those from the same alliance?
that wouldnt stop it. then people who are napped with each other will do it.

i dont think it is something you need to worry about.

the gewar home page does not have the updated scores on it..its still shows the old leaders..

TOP PLAYERS

1. cardhu67
2. Sandgroper
3. cartunesguy
4. nativ
5. dic101


TOP ALLIANCES

1. Alpha and Omega
2. Brave New World
3. Commandos
4. Brave New Warriors
5. United Nations

not correct...http://www.gewar.net/

Brilliant. Am I allowed to post other crap (is crap bad language?) here? Nah, guess not, but here goes. How do you change that title under your name? (Like I'm cannonfoder. I thought it had something to do with posts, but grotman doesn't have lots of posts, and he isn't just cannonfoder)

By the way: Grotman, are you from SA? You are afrikaans hey?


Yes I am from SA and yes I am Afrikaans. You change that inscription on the UserCP, Edit Profile.

Grotman

Yes I am from SA and yes I am Afrikaans. You change that inscription on the UserCP, Edit Profile.

Grotman

Only if you are a donator.

What I meant with decreasing:
If you attack now you get more points than when you attack in a month.
It's what was asked for.
It's tied to the total troops in the game, which almost always keeps rising.

So if you have probably more troops in the game in a month, people will get less points for an attack.
It's not much, but let's see it over a long period.
I think we need to chat over the score system as I don't think I totally got it.
Though as said didn't get the time to think about it yet as well.
I think that's an excellent idea !!
The more peaceful the world is (= lower global troops) the more it's worth attacking. There will never be peace again ;94
What about making the instant score multiplier public? We could call it the global War-Peace gauge... (reminds me of someone :rolleyes: )

How come it says I've gained 9 points but it only give you 1 point? Is there something I missed or is it screwed up?

How come it says I've gained 9 points but it only give you 1 point? Is there something I missed or is it screwed up?Attacker gets more I believe. But if you were the defender there you've got a problem :D

What if abandoning a city made you lose points....force people to stand and fight more? Just a thought.

Is anyone really caring about this new system? i dont think too many.....when you look at it the persons who lost all there cities are the ones with the most points kinda makes you think the system is no better than before....maybe it is time to reset the game and begin with different strategy ....cause i dont think it is fair the way you change one system and put in another in the middle of the game.....

Nah not a reset yet.
First what is needed is to test this scoresystem.
As said before it's out there for you guys to test, even though it isn't finished yet.
If they lost all their cities and are on top it means 2 things:
1) It's obvious I didn't try out the new formula yet due to lack of time. Will do shortly.
2) Perhaps they belong on top. Perhaps they fought so much and deserved the points.

But what do you mean this score system is no better than before?
We never had a score system before. It's what I've been hammered to create by players ever since we started. That what the game lacked was a score system.
Well we are creating one now.
But please keep the negativity until it's done. You can't force me to do something when at this very moment I just don't have the time.

Guys, cut Luke and the admins some slack. They work hard on this to make this a good experience for all. If he was out to make it crappy for us, by means of some crappy scoring system, then I could bet you he wouldn't spend time on gewar at all. And if he wants to make it crappy, let him, coz he is in command of it!! (and Luke, I'm not saying it's crappy. I'm for it). I can imagine they have some hard work.. so just be patient, it will trun up whenever it should.. Thanx guys (admins of gewar)

Just a thought here, Suicidal brought up an interesting point (not on the thread before you go searching) that large alliances are still able to beat out smaller ones due to having more people to make attacks and earn points.

So why not an average for alliance value? Or perhaps a set scale for 20 members = total score / 25 and 40 members = total score / 50 or something like that

That way there's a larger penalty for having more people together, since an average still doesn't quite work since in an alliance you have more than just more money, but also teamwork and threats and all those alliance things.

But just an idea for when it's all settled down some more :)

that would be another way to punish big alliances.

I think it sounds like a plan! Average value per member would be best, but the only downfall I can think of is if one awesome player has an alliance with just him, it would seem unfair to big alliances with many players. Although actually, maybe it would show how alliances help out each individual player in the alliance.

I think it sounds like a plan! Average value per member would be best, but the only downfall I can think of is if one awesome player has an alliance with just him, it would seem unfair to big alliances with many players. Although actually, maybe it would show how alliances help out each individual player in the alliance.

I tried that before. Power Ranking for alliances.
But indeed what happened was an alliance of 1 or 2 great players was on top.
I don't know how to handle this.
I think a big alliance will always be higher than a small one.
But is this something we should handle? Is it realistic?
In real life when you have 40 good fighters against 5 great fighters, all with guns... won't the 40 still have a better chance?

Anyway...I don't know if I can fix the score system before my vacation, so I might just add both score systems in the links. Both the old value ranking, as the score ranking. Atleast there won't be anything to miss until we finish this.

But what do you mean this score system is no better than before?
We never had a score system before. It's what I've been hammered to create by players ever since we started. That what the game lacked was a score system.
Well we are creating one now.
But please keep the negativity until it's done. You can't force me to do something when at this very moment I just don't have the time.

We had a score system call city value...and the alliance that had the most was #1 and if you stayed #1 for i think 30 days you got a star...That was you scoring system...Now its not about city value its about attacks....and i just think with this scoring system that a reset is needed...that would also break up some of the naps all the alliances have going and start fresh..

to stay on top in this current scoring system you would need to continually fight, hence why since I was gone I dropped quite a bit from my original standing.

However, I think the attack strength needs to be toned down some, and will discuss this more with maverik soon.

IDK though

Luke, 5 fighters in this game could take on 40. It is all about the ROI and EV in the attacks, plus who is willing to give it their all. Some people aren't afraid to toss everything they have into armies just to be the **** out of someone. Some don't want to spend over 200k in 30 minutes. It's just basic microeconomics dependency on a persons background.

The easy way to get around the 1-2 player "alliances" winning in the score is divided by members is to use a formula based on what Genny just said (gave me a spark of inspiration). Basically my concept is to use an if statement and formula based on members.


Logically:

IF an alliance has <20 members, THEN aggregate score of individual members = the alliance's score.

IF an alliance has >20 members, THEN aggregate score of individual members * (20/number of members in the alliance) = the alliance's score.

That way every alliance's total score is averaged out to an alliance of about 20 size. Single player alliance can't dominate the alliance ranks still, but active 20 man alliances can still feature prominantly and it's not just a game of 40 man alliances.

It will play that an alliance of 21 players will only see their score get slightly adjusted (20/21), a 30 man alliance will get adjusted by 33% of their aggregate score (20/30, 2/3) and a 40 man alliance will get adjusted by half of their aggregate (20/40, 1/2)

4 alliances all have 1000 points aggregate over their members

Alliance1 has 20 members = 1000 points on the score board
Alliance2 has 21 members = 952 weighted points on the score board
Alliance3 has 30 members = 666 weighted points on the score board
Alliance4 has 40 members = 500 weighted points on the score board

Remember if Alliance4's players are all on average more active than Alliance1, then they will still be beating them in the score, for example, if the all players in Alliance1 have individually 50 points, they will have an aggregate of 1000 points. If Alliance4's players all have individually 60 points, then they will have an aggregate of 2400 and a weighted score of 1200.

20 players is my idea of a good base to set the calculations on. It is not about punishing large alliances, it's about making the fairest game possible for all. A large active alliance can be compared directly with a medium sized active alliance instead of the medium sized alliance having to work double as hard to compete.

The reason I wouldn't do a reset now is because if the score system gets tweaked, people would complain again.
Let's first get this right before going there.
And city value wasn't a score system. It just showed who owns most cities(value).
Not really a score system. It was also the biggest complain on the game.
You can't base someones score on that. The best player could then be the lowest player. He would've fought good and hard, but would've made the most enemies and therefor could not hold a city.
City value as score system would only promote 'not' fighting. To bring peace and make sure no action occurs in the game.

Maveriks formula sounds good and could bring balance. Just didn't have a chance to do it yet. It would change what we have now: all about attacking, not owning cities.
A balance.

I'll leave it at that as now it's all about attacking and we know it isn't good etc, but no time to change it yet so no chance to see what is best.
Also don't see the urgency as people can still rank by value when they want to.
After my vacation we'll get to that.

ok...so maybe i read all this wrong and thought it was a done deal, but after reading your replies you are still tweaking it...ok...sorry..thought it was a done deal the way it is now..

So, I did a few attacks - supposedly I earned 15-20 points from the attack log, but I appear to only have 6 total points. Does it take a while to update?

The reason I wouldn't do a reset now is because if the score system gets tweaked, people would complain again.
Let's first get this right before going there.
And city value wasn't a score system. It just showed who owns most cities(value).
Not really a score system. It was also the biggest complain on the game.
You can't base someones score on that. The best player could then be the lowest player. He would've fought good and hard, but would've made the most enemies and therefor could not hold a city.
City value as score system would only promote 'not' fighting. To bring peace and make sure no action occurs in the game.

Maveriks formula sounds good and could bring balance. Just didn't have a chance to do it yet. It would change what we have now: all about attacking, not owning cities.
A balance.

I'll leave it at that as now it's all about attacking and we know it isn't good etc, but no time to change it yet so no chance to see what is best.
Also don't see the urgency as people can still rank by value when they want to.
After my vacation we'll get to that.

I tend to agree, we don't want multiple resets, and another reset followed by another scoring tweak would suck.

I do think once we have system that most are happy with and reflects a good balance we should do a reset though.

It seems that it gives you a special attack score (just look at the top players), then that score combined somewhat with your city value calculates what your score is.
But I am quite sure that I'm wrong, so please, someone correct me...

It seems that it gives you a special attack score (just look at the top players), then that score combined somewhat with your city value calculates what your score is.
But I am quite sure that I'm wrong, so please, someone correct me...

correct.

Score = [3*(Attack Score) + 2*(Cities Owned) + 2.3*log10(Total Value)]/100

as of now, factor 2 and 3, (Cities Owned) and (Total Value) are irrelevant and have been swamped by Attack Score. So NOW, for all practical purposes,

Score = 0.03*(Attack Score)

until Luke tries my new formula.

Notes about alliance sizes and scoring:

just to reiterate (so that you don't have to go searching for it), my new scoring formula is

TS = 10*(AS/max(AS)) + 10*(ASmonth/max(ASmonth) + 5*(CO/max(CO)) + 10*(TV/max(TV))
where
AS = Attack Score
ASmonth = Attack Score from the last 30 days
CO = Cities Owned
TV = Total Value
max(X) = the AS/CO/TV of the top player in each of the categories.
So you have one top player in each category.

1. Concern one was about early attacking swamping the attacking score. I have sorted that out with the ASmonth factor that requires constant attacking, and is a transient score.

2. Concern two, which is the unaddressed one, is about alliance score. as of now, averaging the score makes 1-2 man alliances automatically win. taking the total score favours big gargantuan alliances that are not necessarily good for the game (point for debate of course, but please let it be for now).

So why not just have a similar, but tailored calculation of alliance score:

Alliance Score = (Average points from attacking) + (Total points from cities) + (Total points from value).

Only average the attacking score, total the rest. This works beautifully. the smallest alliances will get most of their score from attacking. And megazord alliances will get almost nothing unless all their players were very active. But to compensate, their numbers will quickly add up points in cities and value while a 1-2 man alliance will get ZERO since they won't be able to hold cities.

I don't have time right now, otherwise i would plug the numbers in to give you examples, maybe later today or tomorrow (or someone else?)