Rankings in general
 

There has been a lot of debate about the round 20 proposed rankings changes.

So this is a general question on rankings.

Should there be alliance rankings?
Should there be galaxy rankings?
Should there be planet rankings?
Should there be cluster rankings?

Should all rankings be the same i.e. by score, should some be done differently?

What should be the focus of the game? Before alliances were brought inside the game the focus was much more on individual planets and galaxies and thoose alliances that had the most top planets/galaxies were the winners. Could something like that work with alliances in game?

Re: Rankings in general
 

Whatever rankings are retained, please make sure that they're based on the same criterion (score or value). I don't wish to have to choose between my personal goals and those of my galaxy/cluster/alliance (not necessarily in that order). ;)

The downside of basing the rankings on value would be the risk of encouraging "bashing".

I can't say that I'm in favour of "adding" cluster ranking to the list (although these rankings have all been available for a long time from 3rd party sources). Making cluster ranking "officially significant" could have unforeseen results. It might even further encourage self-exiling for personal gain.

It must be possible (and might even be interesting) to calculate a "score" for alliances based on the number of top planets they have. It might be harder to do something similar with galaxies - how would a galaxy be allocated between the alliances that are represented in it?

Re: Rankings in general
 

I really hope planet rankings is done on score or otherwise take out xp completly and just have value listed as score. As well the numbers that are currently listed as Score and xp" wouldnt mean shit.

Re: Rankings in general
 

For me there has to be a universal measure of success, because it gives people more options on how to play and is generally less confusing. If there is XP in the game, then that universal measure must be score. But I think displaying score ranks with value would be beneficial.

Re: Rankings in general
 

All ranks by score in my opinion. like ArcChas said, all rankings must be based on the same.

Re: Rankings in general
 

Should there be alliance rankings?
Yes. The problem with alliances ain't that there is some sort of ranking. Yet the current alliance setup supports is enforcing merging instead of community building. First make alliances smaller (<45) in general and maybe don't use score for comparison - but some points systems with points for fleets launched, allianceless ppl recruited etc etc...not really thought through. But don't just remove the rankings - there needs to be a way to compare performances.

Should there be galaxy rankings?
Definitely - yet the game setup should support some more competitive galaxy system with smaller gals (<15). Yet again - don't just remove it.

Should there be planet rankings?
Yes - no changes here - there needs to be a clear winner - and he either has to have excellent value or xp.

Should there be cluster rankings?
No no no. There shouldn't be clusters at all. All the loyalty a regular player has is soaked up by alliance and gal. The last few times we had clusters it's been a big mess and it'll cause a ton of complications I don't even wanna start about.

The focus of the game...the plans you have for next round - smaller buddypacks and bringing back clusters clearly shows some lack of focus. Making alliances and galaxies weaker for favor of some old PA feature.
I think the game needs a structural downsizing/streamlining. Smaller gals, smaller allies, smaller techtree(tree - not necessarily the current tech wall), shorter rounds, interactive tutorial (aka quests)...

Re: Rankings in general
 

All rankings should be done on score. Showing value would be nice and there can be an additional top100 for value, only for players tho, but thats about it imo.

Re: Rankings in general
 

First of all it is nice to see PA Team doing some feedback collection from parts of its own playerbase again.

However, this thread has several issues...

I am going to start with the biggest mistake every game administration can do in such a feedback survey: Asking what the players think what the game design should be like. PA Team is responsible for development and administration, and as such it is the duty of PA team to come up with a design that suits their vision of a decent game. Thus, the question what we think the game design should be like is just admitting that you guys are not suitable for the job you are doing - even if it's an unpaid one, you still accepted to take the burden of development/administration by your own free will.

The next issue comes with the rankings. It's a tough one, as there are several approaches for it, and every ranking has it's benefits and disadvantages. If you take a look at, for instance, Master of Orion or Civilization you will notice that there is one overall ranking which several different parts of the game influence (described as "score"), as well as multiple small rankings ("Most planets/cities", "Biggest army", "happiest population", "richest culture" etc). This is done to reflect all ways of achievments during the game, without actually forcing the player into a certain way of playing (of course some ways are easier than others, but ultimately almost all ways offer the same chance of victory). Planetarion's problem here is that it has multiple ways to show a players achievments (XP, value), but those are not equally represented inside the scoring system and are pretty much limiting you to your choice of play.

Questionable is also your statement upon the focus of the game. It has not really focussed on an individuals success, it has been pretty much the same with the exception of alliances not being tightly integrated into the game. There was more complexity involved, though, as the individual had to ensure he'd survive in his galaxy / cluster, but there still have been alliances which were struggling for universe domination (success in galaxy rankings to display their tag in the galaxy name because there was no other way of determining success).

Re: Rankings in general
 

Then what about this? I didnt really think it through, it just came up in my mind.
Make different rankings for each aspect such as: Avr Size, Avr Score, Totall Score, Total Size...etc value/xp/more?
Lets say alliance A is #1 in avg score and '#1 totall xp and #7 in avg size, he has a totall of 9 points (1+1+7)
Alliance B is #4 avg score, #2 totall xp and #5 avg size, this brings him to a score of 11 point (2+4+5)

Coming down to the final rankings of:
#1 Alliance-A: 9
#2 Alliance-B: 11

This way you get an overall ranking of the 'best' alliance, while you can also view the alliances which are the 'best' at a specific point.
While the overall rankings reflect the state of the alliance at all points, the specific poitns show some alliance totally own at xp-whoring (and thus combat heavy) while other alliances have a huge fleet (high rankigns in value).
This way it is harder to point out one alliance to be the 'winner' of the round and thus recreating (imo) way more competition.

Re: Rankings in general
 

Interesting starting point, this does actually deserve some pondering. Will do that now.

Re: Rankings in general
 

there are too many stupid hc's already with a simplistic as hell scoring / ranking system without that, though i like the sound of it too. mind you it doesn't really promote a war game still

Re: Rankings in general
 

I'd like to point out the fact that its not just about the avg score/xp/etc but also the totall score/xp/etc which would count in the overall rankings. Obviously

Re: Rankings in general
 

You want a strategy game and as thus this could actually add-in to that just fine. Personally I think that this does promote a nice incentive to go to war, because you can actually start pegging back your enemy by roiding him dry. You don't just get resources for the roids but you do also directly catch up / sail away in the rankings this way, without having to worry too much about whether roids pay off enough or not.

Re: Rankings in general
 

worked out the bit i explained in the earlier post: example of how it could work
http://geocities.com/nitros05/scoresystem.JPG

Re: Rankings in general
 

It is an interesting suggestion. But you should maybe look into having it so that alliances gain points each tick they have a position, in order to prevent constructed wins at end tick etc.

Re: Rankings in general
 

Possibly, but at that point you make it impossible to 'catch up' in the end by starting new wars.
If an alliance has been performing well in teh first 2/3 of the round it will be impossible to catch up with them cause of the bonus points they have gotten each tick.
Especially with blocking, once you get away with it in start, there is no way for people to catch up even if they gather a force double as strong as your own.

Maybe i misunderstood you though, feel free to explain it or give an example :)

Re: Rankings in general
 

Gaining points each tick is also one of the problems with the current system. XP suffers from being unremovable once you won it, while value suffers from being un-recoverable once you lost it.

I'd be interested in your definition of constructed wins, though. I don't think those would be preventable at all, nor am I sure if those should be prevented. If you are unable to construct your own victory in terms of planning and building it you might as well just start a lottery.

Re: Rankings in general
 

Well, if the people know that the enemies gather points from the start maybe they will be more reluctant to allow anyone linger to long in top positions?

Re: Rankings in general
 

I actually think that alliance rankings being done by value and the rest staying the same is probably the right way to go.

Some say that it hurts their play style, but it doesn't really. You have your value players, and you have your xp players. If everyone chooses not to change their play style, you will see the universe still balanced because all alliances will have their value players and their xp players.

At the same time it adds that kink in the system that will make people think more about their attacks than was needed previously.

Re: Rankings in general
 

I doubt that very much.

Some alliances will have their value players and their xp players but the top alliances will only have value players.

Re: Rankings in general
 

I seriously doubt that an alliance that goes strickly for value will be top alliance. Even with the rankings being done by value. You need diversity.

Re: Rankings in general
 

not read much there ^

Alliance rankings? Get rid of them, they have engineered the most petty, pointless and infinitely circular debate and argument that I think has ever been around in the game. A debate about who won a round based on galaxy [tags] and domination of the top 100 planets, and more general influence on a round, was far more enjoyable than watching the official winners ponse about on AD proclaiming everyone else shit, and saying that everyone else obviously wasted their last two months.

I don't see the need for a strict official winner: 90% of the time people will know who won without some statistic telling them. It also 'tends' to generate this 'missionrisk' attitude where everyone starts to gang up on certain alliances as a result of published information (that's terribly oversimplified but true).

Planet and Galaxy rank should be based on score. I don't care whether XP is illiminated or not, but if you have it, then it has to mean something in terms of score. Alternatively you can have 2 winners of the round, one who gets the most XP and one who gets the most value (that would probably be interesting).

Cluster rank? Don't care, it will be on Pilkara whether or not it's on the game.

Re: Rankings in general
 

Planet ranking: of course, it should even be split by race.
Galaxy ranking: yes (maybe with the score of GC and Ministers counting twice)
Alliance rankings: would be interesting to do a round without it (or at least to hide it until the final days). Might solve some of the problems with alliances.
Cluster rankings: no, it would kill the idea of incluster attacks

Re: Rankings in general
 

galaxy rankings are watered down as long as ppl can exile their way into strong galaxies. If your going to rank galaxies, give ppl a private group of 6-8 players, then add up to 7-9 randoms and kill the exile crap. Then they may actually mean something. Cap galaxies at 15 planets. Anything else is pointless to highlight.

Planet rankings won't go away, and it is part of the game to go for #1 on a planet level, it always has been and that should never change.

Alliance rankings seem to be what the PA crew are trying to overshadow with the proposed changes. Alliances are part of PA, have always been part of PA, and should continue to be part of PA. The sub communities are the life blood of PA.

Cluster rankings pointless, who cares. When you had 10k players or more in a particular round, it may have been worth following. Now, it's rediculous to think that clusters would actually mean anything... it's just real estate, an address, and it's impossible to have anything meaningful come from it.

Quit trying to take the importance of alliance play out of PA

Re: Rankings in general
 

Something I don't understand, and perhaps people can help me on this, is why would not having a ranking for say alliances destroy alliances? I mean in the olden days there was no ranking in game and alliances seemed to do ok, why can't that happen again?

Re: Rankings in general
 

I think it will seriously improve loyalty in alliances, once their members care more about the organisation, and not whether they're officially 4th or 8th.

Re: Rankings in general
 

I suggest you write an e-mail to spinner asking him why the alliance system was introduced in the first place.

If you want to remove the alliance system completely, feel free to do it, but don't start with another series of half-assed attempts to fix something that ain't broken.

Re: Rankings in general
 

In terms of alliance rankings i think they are far to open for everyone to see, and that can generally make the game boring. I personally would be more interested in a alliance ranking (based on score, value + XP) where alliances are ranked for their total score, but only the average score and roids of their members is visible. The total members, roids and score remains invisible. This would allow you to see where you are at in the overall ranking, but without exactly knowing what you might be facing (and how much you are behind or infront of your competition), since you can't see the exact details/totals of your opponents.

Re: Rankings in general
 

I disagree, all this secrecy stuff is a reason why new players have a hard time getting into the game and community.

Re: Rankings in general
 

I'm not to sure about that. The alliance ranking would still have the leading alliance (the one with most total score) on top, hence they can still see which alliance is the strongest and decide on the average where they think they might fit. Average might even be a better indicator there than the total score of an alliance as it shows more about an alliance overall performance than the total score does. A higher average score most likely means a higher player standard than a lower average score, eventhough the lower average alliance might be higher ranked.

A more secret alliance ranking makes it less needed to fake your identity since there is no fixed ranking which gained intel can be easily compared with (apart from the average). This means that it will be easier for new ppl to get in touch with 'real' players in their galaxy instead of facing alot of faking (and idling) players. With that new players can be guided into the community by their galaxy and that way get into contact with alliances and the lot.

Re: Rankings in general
 

You still need to fakenick because you still don't want to be associated to the given alliance, which ultimately is the reason why people fakenick. Hiding certain other information about alliances almost makes it impossible for alliances not-so-gifted in terms of gathering intel to even try to start a war - no matter which scoring system is actually used for the ranks.

I do personally think that displaying alliance tags next to a planet's coordinates is the only way to get rid of fakenicks, and that any more secrecy harms those people which are not in the know or have a hard time to collect intel.

Re: Rankings in general
 

I like the idea of bringing back alliance tags and not showing an alliance rankings until the end of the round.

Re: Rankings in general
 

LOL

Bringing back tags (a good idea IMHO) would mean that alliance rankings could be generated easily and accurately at any time.

Re: Rankings in general
 

The alliance system was introduced to "govern" alliances' actions in-game, and largely due to uncontrolled blocking.

Some of this is now (imo) irrelevant...people seem to have gotten the point--however, some of this has proven useful, and of substantial benefit to the game.

(I would know, I helped create it ;))

Re: Rankings in general
 

Dito. However, I assume Kal rather listens to Spinner than to the average forum users we are ;-)

I do, however, disagree on the blocking bit. It's rather likely that it will return as soon as a certain group of players sees an advantage in it. (Please PA team, do NOT suggest to have multihunters control that too, keep it hard-coded).

Re: Rankings in general
 

As you said on one of your previous posts, PA Team have taken the responsibility of developing the game and administration of it. However there is never anything wrong with getting the opinions of those paying to play the game which we are providing. Heartless, you also mentioned that we should be following our own vision for the future of Planetarion but our vision needs to stick within what the players want too. That was my first point.

Secondly, I do not want to see blocking returning to Planetarion and as a coder my favourite way of controlling it is keeping it hard-coded. However, there is nothing wrong in discussing other ways to change the way alliances are involved in the game.

I would like to see the alliance rankings kept away until the end of the round to make it more interesting. It needs to be said that we are not trying to push alliances out of the game, we are attempting to improve the current system. I like the idea of tags showing next to everyones planet but that would certainly make new planets without alliances or friends to help them very vulnerable.

Re: Rankings in general
 

I do fully agree that there is nothing wrong with getting the opinions of those paying to play the game - except for that you should also get the other peoples opinions. It is generally a nice thing to see PA Team asking for feedback.
However, the biggest mistake PA Team is once again making is trying to cater for everyone. That is not possible. Never. Instead of trying to create something that everybody likes you should focus on doing the right thing, a proper game design based upon the current game. Define what kind of game you expect and compare it with what you have. Then identify what could be changed and try to outline how certain changes would affect the gameplay. Do that until you found a combination that delivers you a gameplay one could expect. If nobody enjoys the game then, well, tough luck: you must keep on refining the game design until you managed attract a market (and sometimes you won't make that without recreating everything from the ground).
No it ain't easy to design a game, but asking all forum members what the focus of the game should be is just as bad as designing a game without actually being enthusiastic about the yourself.

Agreed, but one could also just look at what happened so far and draw his own conclusions from history. There's no use when we all discuss something and the suggestion which got yelled most far by the forum users gets implemented and ruins the game.
You can see at this point how important it is that the people responsible for reviving the game must have a vision first before they go out asking everyone about the existing game, otherwise they will really just implement what was screamed most for and not something that would actually make sense - users of this forum are just a very, very tiny fragment of the overall market available.

Why would it make things more interesting? Imho it would make things a lot more boring, as nobody would go to war with anyone (except for holding grudges), thus everyone would just go for the easiest roids; and yes in such a scenario, the alliances known to be weak and players which appear weak due to no alliance, are really going to suffer.
About showing tags: I don't think it would really change that much for those people concerned. In fact, they are getting roided anyway unless they managed to make some strong friends.

Re: Rankings in general
 

I found this post fairly interesting, but I'm going to split my reply in two.

These two first points are closely tied together. My advice to PAteam is to make a game you would enjoy playing. This is much more important than sticking with what players want. You will always find players opposed to any proposed change, therefore their input will never be important in itself. The time and energy spent weeding out what input is well-reasoned and justified isn't worth it. Apply feedback to balance and quality issues, not to fundamental features.

This applies to things like hard-coding control of play. You can't both accept player control of the game, and wish to hard-code conduct in play. In my opinion, attempts to control blocking through hard-coded implements are wasted effort. But that aside, if you wish to implement something that overbearing, you must gain conviction that it is the right thing to do. You do not do this by continually doing as whiners say. And there will always be whiners.

You say 'to make it more interesting'. More interesting for whom? For people with good intel, it would change little. For people without intel it would provide some excitement during the last few days in return for confusion the rest of the round. Will that make the game more or less interesting for those who don't have the intel?

As for having a public tag system, why not let people fake-tag?