Suggestion: Point System

[Juska]

I don't see what's wrong with someone pulling ahead over a year with total points, it means that player was consistently active and consistently good over that time period, if we only do averages someone could show up and play a month and then be deemed the "winner", and seeing that circumstances at one point in the set could be drastically different than circumstances 6 months later in a set, whereas the larger scope gives a more accurate picture.

You could always kill an empire to get ahead of them, or knock them out the top 40.  If you managed to knock an emp out and down it would take approx. how many ticks he was emp for someone to then overtake him as emp.

Obviously, an empire that is created 1 month before the era ends is going to have little to no chance of winning in total points, but if they play well they could easily place top 15. Personally, I would like to reward members of the community who are active over a large time span rather than those who come and go, it would lead to a higher constant playerbase.

But I think me and you have hashed this out far enough and that we need some insight from the rest of the RWL Community.

Do you want a point system of some kind?
Do you favor anything said above?
What do you like?
What do you dislike?

[Blood Wake]

I think once we've figured out exactly how this point system works, whether or not everyone is on board with it, we should test it for an entire Reg round and see the response with the new people. if we have a higher rate of noobies that stay. we should keep it.

unless it causes other kinds of problems of course

[BigRick]

I skimmed through everything everyone else said and here is my suggestion.

If you want to have reg never ending, you still need to have the points based off a time period. IMO a good player isnt made because they are good at netting. The best players are the all around guys.

Make the points system  last as long as you like, but have "checkpoints" which record the current point count. After each check point, the points will be recorded, but then reset for everyone. After the 2nd check point points will be recorded again. You would ofcourse noted who was at the top for the 1st check point, and also record who was on top for the 2nd check point. So you would have winners for each check point, but then a Total winner who wins teh round because they accumulated the most points during the round.

That way you do not leave out the new guys, and they would be able to atleast claim a checkpoint win.

Then based points on maybe different things. Some counting more points than others.
NW (10 points)
Land (5 points)
Builds (most of a certain building type, 1 point each)
Attacks (1 point most attacks)
Attack % (3 points best attacking ratio)
Def
Def %

Just do top 10 for NW, Top 10 for land, Top 3 for attacking and defending, and just the top one for each building type.

Also include things for leaders, most cash, most food, etc.

[Shadow]

This I like. If we do monthly winners it avoids the problem of people getting too far ahead to be caught, and we can keep running totals for each month as well. And yes, land amounts and attacks/defenses should be pointworth as well.

[Juska]

I agree, having checkpoints is a very good idea.

Although, I still favor a weighted tracking of networth/rank at every tick rather than giving points for individual categories.

[Daryn]

This I like. If we do monthly winners it avoids the problem of people getting too far ahead to be caught

i like the winners part

[Shadow]

Well rank would be the biggest point giver, for sure, but there are other ways to be successful. Your defensive clan for example - you will probably not be on top place but you will most likley be dominant in the game if all goes well. So it is probably a good idea to reward people for successes unrelated to their rank if we can figure out how to do it.

If we integrate it into other aspects of the game we could increase participation across the board. For example, you could get a small amount of points for each skiff race win, or for every market sale - that way people would be more inclined to use the market and reseller might actually work ^_^ and could amass points without being on top the whole time.

This could be the way we have been looking for to get underused parts of the game functioning again. There are all kinds of ways a point system could be used to vitalize the game, why limit it to ranks only? Plus if it's ranks only, new people will get discouraged - if we make points appear everywhere, new guys will get enough to be encouraged, and old players will have the edge that ranks get them so they will be ahead anyway.

[BigRick]

Yeah personally i dont think it should be ranks only as some people may be skilled at attacking/defending or killing people and would prefer to go that route instead of going for NW. It would make it where if you really want to win, you'd have to have an overall good empire, not just a high NW.

[Shadow]

Killing should not get points. We are a bit unlike other proms in that sense - nobody gets killed on reg, not without -very- good reason, and we certainly don't want to encourage new players to do it to get points.

[Juska]

If your going to give points for things like markets transactions you might as well give them out for kills too.

I high NW means you have an overall good empire, or if your not so great at netting well then go destroy someone else's NW and get yourself higher that way.