DeletedUser4379
Guest
Yes - Reno. Tested and verified, Server EN.
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
Feedback [Feedback] New Rankings
- Thread starter Sovereign
- Start date
DeletedUser5149
Guest
Does that mean the ranking points go up, or just the happiness?
Sovereign
Inhouse Community Manager
Hey guys, I realised today with the live release I'd forgotten to post the old ranking top 25, so here it is:
https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/new-ranking.5463/#post-28977
https://forum.beta.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/new-ranking.5463/#post-28977
DeletedUser4379
Guest
Ranking points as well (Ref:Forum EN).
DeletedUser6740
Guest
Some simple suggestions for a more balanced ranking :
- reduce combats points from 2% to 1%
- give back points for gathering gold and supplies
That way, farmers should be less disavantaged...
- reduce combats points from 2% to 1%
- give back points for gathering gold and supplies
That way, farmers should be less disavantaged...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser5254
Guest
More like reduce fighting % by half. And get rid of all the sector farming.
DeletedUser2752
Guest
2% to 1% is half
DeletedUser
Guest
obviously not
only 3 things give points: fighting, using goods (not trading) & buildings (including GB)
DeletedUser
Guest
Radical "solutions" for radical mistakes, that's the way I see how Innogames makes decisions.
All started with a radical idea, which is, to give absurd points to Great Buildings in higher levels.
Result: Lots of complaints because the strategy of the game switched to Great Building boosting.
Radical solution: no only lower the points for GBs (which was the correct fix), but in addition give no more points for coins and supplies.
Results: Lots of complaints from customers who are not focused on war.
How hard is it to understand that this game attracts players with different interests, and that when Innogames decides to make a radical move that pleases a certain segment of customer, it loses other segments of customers? And a game like this to be successful needs critical mass.
An who said that warriors only like to battle? The most successful players I know enjoy applying a mix of strategies, not only focus on one.
What I'm trying to say is that the secret here is to learn how to balance the multiple interests from multiple types of customers, and radical moves have proved not to work, neither in the recent past, nor in the present.
For now I propose a boycott ... those who prefer a more balanced strategy game stop buying diamonds.
Regards
All started with a radical idea, which is, to give absurd points to Great Buildings in higher levels.
Result: Lots of complaints because the strategy of the game switched to Great Building boosting.
Radical solution: no only lower the points for GBs (which was the correct fix), but in addition give no more points for coins and supplies.
Results: Lots of complaints from customers who are not focused on war.
How hard is it to understand that this game attracts players with different interests, and that when Innogames decides to make a radical move that pleases a certain segment of customer, it loses other segments of customers? And a game like this to be successful needs critical mass.
An who said that warriors only like to battle? The most successful players I know enjoy applying a mix of strategies, not only focus on one.
What I'm trying to say is that the secret here is to learn how to balance the multiple interests from multiple types of customers, and radical moves have proved not to work, neither in the recent past, nor in the present.
For now I propose a boycott ... those who prefer a more balanced strategy game stop buying diamonds.
Regards
Lady M.
Steward
Ive now worked with the new ranking system for a bit, and here's what I see. Far too many one man guilds popping up and hitting GvG map landing zones just for points. That's not what GvG was intended to be I don't think. A lot more releasing and retaking sectors at calc, again for points. GvG used to be all about teamwork and building morale within the guild. It's now become "all about me" as in singular, to see how many points one can get. GvG is taking a definite turn and not for the better. The amount of points one loses or gains depending on the age of the buildings in your city is ridiculous. My points can drop 1,000 or more just by taking one FE building down. People are no longer willing to take high age buildings down in order to put lower age ones up for treasury goods for GvG. The new "Free for All" map may help with the first issue but not the buildings issue. Yes some points are awarded for treasury donations but not tons. The biggest hit to points depends on the buildings in one's city. Either make that hit smaller, or add coins and supplies back into the equation. Yes in theory you can trade for goods but in cases of say, CE goods where everyone is hoarding them or PE goods to make CE goods, that just doesn't happen. I believe rebalancing the high level GB's was a good move, but in some cases this has gone to far the other way now.