Lore wrote:papa~smurf wrote:1it just as valid a way to rank players, as is the way it is done now
1. I think the definition of what rank means is in question here. Rank has always been about stats. Now its being looked at more as activity. I'll explain more later, but because of the "activity" part of it I disagree with the statement.
the whole issue is around rank, and how we are dignifying it. There in becoming a clear split in the game as a whole between those who use there accounts to war and those who use there accounts to grow. Nothing wrong with either of those play of the game(truly a symbiotic relationship), and there is an art to holding income keeping down lose, as much as there is a art to a good massing. However, when we come to the nuts and bolts of "rank", (knowing full well that every one says rank doesn't matter, but can tell u theirs) If rank, for players and alliances stays about stats only, then a whole segment of the community loses out. I have grown my account while in endless war (YA FS) as do a lot of players. The argument that u can't grow in war is null and void at this point. Some players have learn the art of growing this way. They should be shown at the very lest by having there game play awarded, if only by a new ranking system.
2But we are talking whole alliance ME, ME is a good gauge of activity, be slight(raiding and farming) or large (massing). So is it right, that alliances that are active as war alliances (little stats due to return massing) vs alliances filled with barely active accounts share ranks. On that note, hats off DDE, almost always in the top five, almost always at war.
I personally fully disagree with this statement. Let me explain. Who is more active? A mid range account built defense heavy who loggs in every 2 hrs to bank and train, and who crit/nox at night to control his income,,,OR,,,A guy who loggs in before bed 1 time a day to mass anything up and running be it def or MS? Whos more active? Whos has more ME? I see this day after day.
[color=#BF0080]the guy who logs in once a day to mass, will have very little stats to speak of, and if the ME formula was updated to subtract his loses from his gains, i think we would fine that they would drop in rank, and the person who logs in every two hours, and dose all things small account do(nox/crit/raid/farm inactive) would raise in the ranks simply because he would not be having ME subtracted as often.
As for sharing Ranks,,,,,,,,I'm torn. I do see and agree with your point, but also personally think if they are truely inactive, then they will not hold their rank.
As for the hats off, 1 warrior to another, Thank You
[/color]
3Also if u notice, there is a plus/minus at the end of the ME calculations. Don't know if Jason planned on having loses count against your rank when he started it, but I think it's time that happen . ME ranking is inflated right now because they don't take in to account the loses major Massers take from those massing, even if it is in lost Attack supers, or return massing because of there actions. If this would happen, then the ranking of whole alliance ME would change, because we all know the actions of one offen bring lost to all.
I fully 100% agree your losses should count against you. I also think they should be logged, and reset yearly as a Q wave is done as they will soon loss their meaning as an account 1 or 2 yrs old will never be able to compete in ME.
This would be the start...the big rush of updates bring fear and anger from the community at large, a smaller, thought out step by step approach would suit me fine.
