StarGateWars Forums

Magni wrote:If things like UP, UU etc are only resources then someone with 20mil troops but a low rank is deemed powerless?

I don't understand wher you got that from?

Magni wrote:I think it adds a nice new way of comparing yourself with ppl....I've always wanted a rank for UP (but one that doesn't count towards overall rank) because it is so important.

A rank for UP would tell players who has most UU and therefore where to look for naq/raiding. Additionally Phoenix's idea is to include UP in overall ranking.

I dont like that idea...so hard to apply and meaningless results as said before

Wolf359 wrote:

Magni wrote:If things like UP, UU etc are only resources then someone with 20mil troops but a low rank is deemed powerless?

I don't understand wher you got that from?

Magni wrote:I think it adds a nice new way of comparing yourself with ppl....I've always wanted a rank for UP (but one that doesn't count towards overall rank) because it is so important.

A rank for UP would tell players who has most UU and therefore where to look for naq/raiding. Additionally Phoenix's idea is to include UP in overall ranking.

nah gala is talking about a diffrent ranking system not the one that we have right now

the one gala is talking about is like a resources ranking everything in your account given a set amount of points per what ever you now how it is if you have ascended that gives you a total score and that determins your rank within the "resources rankings" it would'nt mess with the rankings we have now but it would be a nice update becase the ranked one guy does'nt mean he is the strongest (Well it does now) what am trying to say is rank means near nothing i just not long ago massed some one in the top 50 my rank low 12k's

jix your always stiring up trouble, thats what i love about u


and this whole system seems to be implemented because one guy cant climb the ranks as it is and this would seem easier to him, am i wrong?

JIX wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:

Magni wrote:If things like UP, UU etc are only resources then someone with 20mil troops but a low rank is deemed powerless?

I don't understand wher you got that from?

Magni wrote:I think it adds a nice new way of comparing yourself with ppl....I've always wanted a rank for UP (but one that doesn't count towards overall rank) because it is so important.

A rank for UP would tell players who has most UU and therefore where to look for naq/raiding. Additionally Phoenix's idea is to include UP in overall ranking.

nah gala is talking about a diffrent ranking system not the one that we have right now

the one gala is talking about is like a resources ranking everything in your account given a set amount of points per what ever you now how it is if you have ascended that gives you a total score and that determins your rank within the "resources rankings" it would'nt mess with the rankings we have now but it would be a nice update becase the ranked one guy does'nt mean he is the strongest (Well it does now) what am trying to say is rank means near nothing i just not long ago massed some one in the top 50 my rank low 12k's

Thankyou jix, ^^^^ he get's it.

Yah wolfy ya made some good points.. but truth is none of them would ever happen

Wasn't ment to be suggested to replace the current ranking's.. comander rankings & alliance ranking's would remain the same, yet it would be another option.

just would of made a nice twist to the game... that nobody would have a desent reason not to enjoy..

Didn't mean for you all to get into technical friends with weapon thing's... which btw, i didnt understnad..

meh.. Iv explained neough i'll leave this now and see what other's think.

Apophis The Great wrote:I dont like that idea...so hard to apply and meaningless results as said before

So why have comander rankings?, and btw.. it isnt hard to apply

~Phoenix~ wrote:

JIX wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:

Magni wrote:If things like UP, UU etc are only resources then someone with 20mil troops but a low rank is deemed powerless?

I don't understand wher you got that from?

Magni wrote:I think it adds a nice new way of comparing yourself with ppl....I've always wanted a rank for UP (but one that doesn't count towards overall rank) because it is so important.

A rank for UP would tell players who has most UU and therefore where to look for naq/raiding. Additionally Phoenix's idea is to include UP in overall ranking.

nah gala is talking about a diffrent ranking system not the one that we have right now

the one gala is talking about is like a resources ranking everything in your account given a set amount of points per what ever you now how it is if you have ascended that gives you a total score and that determins your rank within the "resources rankings" it would'nt mess with the rankings we have now but it would be a nice update becase the ranked one guy does'nt mean he is the strongest (Well it does now) what am trying to say is rank means near nothing i just not long ago massed some one in the top 50 my rank low 12k's

Thankyou jix, ^^^^ he get's it.

Yah wolfy ya made some good points.. but truth is none of them would ever happen

Wasn't ment to be suggested to replace the current ranking's.. comander rankings & alliance ranking's would remain the same, yet it would be another option.

just would of made a nice twist to the game... that nobody would have a desent reason not to enjoy..

Didn't mean for you all to get into technical friends with weapon thing's... which btw, i didnt understnad..

meh.. Iv explained neough i'll leave this now and see what other's think.

I agree that Commander ranklings are a waste of time.

I think if you had made it clear that this was not to replace the existing ranking system, there wouldn't have been as much of a problem. I, like others, naturally assume that when you said 'Overall Power Rankings' that you meant the existing system.

Sorry if you didn't understand my comparison - it is quite straightforward and is directly comparable to the game - it was just a way of trying to explain the difference of resource stats and power stats.

I'll agree to shut up now as well, especially now that you have said it is not to replace the 'main' ranking system (replace the Commander one with it I say!). Let's see what others think.

Well, I like this idea (or the ideas behind it)

I think it should be changed, but not so that it includes UU or UP or naq.

The whole point is to make the system more balanced!

Why not instead add a fourth ranked element that determines... your... rank... (you know what I mean)

A "Total Power" ranking. You get your power totaled, ranked, and thrown into the mix for determining your rank.

I don't know much about the current ranking system, but I am assuming it averages your attack, def, spy, and ms ranks, then compares that result with everyone else's.

We should also do this: The "Average Rank" ranking too.

Instead of averaging spy, attack, def, ms for your overall rank, those would be averaged for your "average rank" (makes sense? lol), which is then averaged with your "Total Power" rank.

It would be easy to do, and it would be possibly the perfect compromise!

Besides, being ranked below a player even though I have an extra 10% power than him is very unsatisfying. (A player in my alliance... we've been competing for a while) This way, it would not only be less likely, but it would also show your total power for comparison! I would have been winning for a week or two that he was ahead of me!

Thought it'd help
~knightvalor

Er - your power (calculated from your stats) does give you your rank!

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

I specifically remember having an extra 1/8th power than my rival, and he was ranked 200 above me.

Besides, I remember reading something about how "you have to have balanced power to achieve domination" and something about because of an average.

And I remember a friend talking about how they calculated the highest rank you could be without a mothership. If it was your power averaged, there would be no limit. If it was the seperate ranks averaged, then that could be calculated.

I know that your power in one area determines your rank, but does your totalled up power determine your rank? No. (Or am I/is the system completely wack?)

You may have had more power than him, but he was ranked above you because although power updates immediately, the rank does not update until the end of each turn.

And it is your power determined by defence/covert/attack/mothership (i.e. total) that determine your rank - not just one area.

For example - A Tauri who concentrates on building attack will soon get to a point where he finds it difficult to rise in rank any further unless he starts investing in defence too.

It doesn't seem to be 'whacked'.

Good idea Phoenix. I'm inclined to disagree with you wolf. Your analogy of a fight in a dark alley was interesting but it isn't relavent to the reality of a conflict in gate wars. Simply put, the ability to reinforce and increase one's power is power in itself. Any strategically minded person will understand that the ability to outproduce others, in this game in terms of UP is decisive to any longterm conflict. If player A has a strong strike and sabbing force with inferior UP and player B has a comparably weak offensive realm with superior UP the eventual result of the conflict between the two is essentially predetermined. While player A will have an early advantage player B will have larger amounts of UU to sell in order to boost his stats to counterattack eventually negating player A's offensive superiority. B will be able to sab more because his losses can soon be replaced, and purchase weapons at a faster rate than his opponent. Barring any outside intervention into the war player A was doomed from the start providing for the fact that players A and B were equally skilled players. This logically sound train of thought indicates that UP may be more relavent than any of the other stats that contribute to rank.

It's a moot point as Phoenix already stated that this was an additional ranking system that would not replace the existing one.

The point was that UP is important enough to at the very least merit an inclusion in the ranking system. No one ever suggested a complete overhaul.

What about this then =

Say if account 1 has 1000000 turns
and say account 2 has spy level 10, defence of 10 million, and attack of 10 million

Which would you say was better ?

On your new ranking thing account 1 would be better, but those turns are not worth 1 naq unless they are used.

So with your ranking thing an account that has loads of turns but no stats would be better than say JUAN ?

There are loads of old accounts with loads of turns and they would be ranked much higher.

That is why I dont like it