StarGateWars Forums

Well, I think some sort of influence ranking system would be better than the current system. Something that measure your strength over a period of time to stop players cutting their rank in a single turn in order to be able to raid the lower accounts.

so you want a time aspect to the power rankings?

No no no no.

Your base idea is good but its wrong.


It SHOULD be:

(You total power) x (your aemy size in millions)%

So say I had 1tril power and 85mil army.

Thats 1tril X 85% making 850bil total power.


And then it would be ranked like that.

If you wanted less rank jsut sell strike or untrain spies or something.

I like rankings how they are at the moment...

But i would love it if there was a tab where you could 'sort by army size' and also 'sort by power'...something like the 'commander rankings' list.

That way the normal ranking system would apply but you could see the top army sizes and powers and therefore look at your growth rate and be able to set goals etc etc.

Ranking by Army Size should be an alternative ranking.

Like Rankings Commander Ranking Alliance Ranking Rankings By Relations

It's not a bad idea to see a top of biggest armies on the game. Not all the players are looking for war power. I said this in many posts: some people (and I'm one of them) are playing "peaceful" - they want to grow up, to build, and not only to attack and/or destroy other.

So... I'm for a new ranking option: Rankings By Army Size

Something to stop the strongest players in the game being able to easily cut rank in order to be able to raid much weaker players. Thus a new ranking system is needed.

keep ranks the way they are..
it about stats, not size imo
do you deserve a high rank for having 50mill miners, getting a nice inome and having no decent (this is of course opinion-based) stats? i say no

The rank should be as it is: ranked by power.

Ranking by army size should be only another way to sort players list. And not to replace actual classification.

ksvisa wrote:The rank should be as it is: ranked by power.

Ranking by army size should be only another way to sort players list. And not to replace actual classification.

thats incorect m8

erm for example look at the commander rankings and you will see my actual power from my commander he has 1 officer me so thats my power.(i belive if not its coincedence cause that is my power from aliance page)

im curently ranked in the 7k area so your first comment about "The rank should be as it is: ranked by power."
is wrong sry not being nasty just pointing out that the ranks atm do not reflect power.

as for showing ranks by army size i disagree.The covert system doesnt alow lower coverts too see our current sizes so why should a rankings place us in an order for lower coverts too see where we are on the sizes ranks.

pheonix preposed using ACTUAL POWER(like the aliance leader sees) and army sizes too create the ranks this would give a much more acurate rankings than it currently is.
it would also prevernt you from having large covert and ms and defence and still being able too drop ranks.


my commander is pheonix btw

Rankings By Army Size should be only a way to order players, and not a way to rank players.


-----------------------------------------------
If someone with 70 millions army size is massed, and he lost all defense and strike, he will continue to be top 100 (let's say) only because he have a big army size (not exactly army, but units) This is not correct. The rank should be the classification by military power. The other classifications should be informative only.

ksvisa wrote:Rankings By Army Size should be only a way to order players, and not a way to rank players.


-----------------------------------------------
If someone with 70 millions army size is massed, and he lost all defense and strike, he will continue to be top 100 (let's say) only because he have a big army size (not exactly army, but units) This is not correct. The rank should be the classification by military power. The other classifications should be informative only.

read up a sugestion was made for

actual power * army size as a % (1mil = 1%)
how would 0 def 0 strike and 0 covert * army size = top 100 ?
0*85 is still 0

I think we lost time speaking about this. It's much better to focus on developing new facilities (the topic "new technologies").

Always someone is bigger than you, always someone can attack you.

I think that not this is the real problem, because (usually) people are raiding inactive accounts!

IF you dont feel like talking about this topic dont post in it

I still feel APP is the most balanced system taking into account every factor of your account, even if it is weighted toward UP which is critical to actual power anyway.