new ranking "VP ratio"

I appreciate the time an effort to think this plan out then write it up for the forum and in general agree with the part of the idea of being able to have a functional sort option within the rankings tab would increase player interest.

I would prefer they add Human/AI K/D for players in the rankings. Along with province capture ratio, wins, games played and build stats into the ranking as well. Then create functionality so players can sort list by any of the columns.

This would be a visible display reward for players that played fewer maps but kept impressive ratio's.

The only "New Stat" I would want to see is win percentage.

Hmmm, let me see:

* K/D: Totally agreed, I would also very much like a ranking by K/D against human players - under the following condition: K/D would have to be changed from

"number of units killed / number of units lost"

to

"number of miitary points won (against human players) / number of military points lost (i.e. how much military points did human opponents gain by killing your units)".

Because otherwise, people would start to prefer only the powerful units in order to climb in that ranking. Also changing K/D this way would make it more meaningful anyhow, so I'd be happy to see that figure in the player profile regardless of whether a new ranking is made out of it or not. Either as addition to the current K/D or replacing it.

* Province capture ratio: Agreed, would be nice as an additional column on the new ranking page.

* Wins, games played and win percentage: Not as meaningful as my proposed "VP ratio" figure, since some maps can be won much more easily than others. Depends very much on map size, which country you choose when starting a historic scenario and whether you play solo or in coalition. "VP ratio" would really show who performs best - no matter which scenarios you play, which country you select when starting a historic map and no matter whether you play solo or in coalition. About the latter: Winning solo is much more difficult than winning in coalition. So there should be an incentive for not joining a coalition. Currently there is none and that's a big sickness in this game. "VP ratio" would be that incentive, because as a solo winner you have more VP at end of the game than as a member of the winning coalition.

* Build stats: Not interesting in a ranking, in my opinion.

I very much like your thought of having several columns on the new ranking page and allowing to sort after whatever column you're interested in.

Taking the best out of your proposal and mine: Build a new ranking tab as described in my first post. Have these columns in it and allow to sort after each of them:

* "VP ratio".

* "VP at start" and "VP at end" (these are required to see how much the player played after start of storing the values for the VP ratio, because unfortunately, they for sure cannot be calculated for past games any more).

* K/D (after changing it as decribed above).

* Province capture ratio.

That would be the best, the luxury solution. But I'd say most importantly, a "VP ratio" ranking as in my first post should be done as soon as possible.

These are some very interesting ideas... and I personally really really like them and they would sound very exciting to a player like myself.

A few things I would add/change.

I 100% agree with a method to balance win/loss with 22vs100 maps and solo vs coalition. I mostly just play 100 maps and they are both far harder and take far longer to complete. A player with a 80% win/loss of 22 tutorials is imo likely not as skilled as someone with a 50% win/loss in 100s. So I think a win/loss rank would need to reflect this I also think some way of incorporating a loss into your VP ratio would best reflect ones skill. Win one solo 100 and you are set for rankings, even if you lose 50 other 100 maps, perhaps some sort of - to your VP ratio equation for a defeat. I think it should be significant, but nothing that would end your season (Ill get onto seasons later on this post).

But yeh, I think win/loss is a far better determiner for skill/ranking than military kills and eco buildings. IMO the current ranking means absolutely nothing. A player can play 100 maps and gain HUGE rank, doesn't matter how well they do really as long as they build buildings and kill some troops in them all. They can lose every game and still gain far more rank then someone who wins a solo 100.

I play about 1-3 maps at a time and only started 1.5 years ago. So I have literally 0 method of gaining to the top rank. But a win/loss with VP ratio score one any player could.

I think it would be beneficial to reset this perhaps every 3 months. As otherwise one bad game could ruin your win/loss ranking forever. And perhaps the top 100 players get some sort of achievement they can keep on their stats forever as well.

I think a 3 month or seasonal would give players enough time to play a few maps (100s can take up to 40 days, often 20-30 I find).

I also think perhaps the province ratio and K/D could be multiplied by ones VP ratio score? As again, gaining KD in a 22 tutorial imo is far easier than a 100 map. As one could just play tutorial games and have some HUGE KD but its against really new unskilled players, so its not a good indicator of skill.

I think this would really give something that all players could strive for, a seasonal ranking is something everyone has a chance to rank up in. It would give experienced players something to actually compete and play for and an incentive to play.

I certainly do like the column idea of KD, province ratio etc. But I do think there should be a method of balancing out what maps you play and you KD.

Thanks for describing how insufficient win/loss and K/D are for showing a player's skill (and of course the rank even more so).

Torpedo28000 wrote:

I also think some way of incorporating a loss into your VP ratio would best reflect ones skill. Win one solo 100 and you are set for rankings, even if you lose 50 other 100 maps, perhaps some sort of - to your VP ratio equation for a defeat.

To give an example:

* Player A joins three 100p maps. Let's say he wins one and ends it with about 2000 VP, but is defeated or went inactive in the other two. So his "VP ratio" is 2000 / (3 * 50) = 13.4

* Player B joins three 22p maps. Let's say he wins all three of them and ends each of them with about 400 VP. His VP ratio is (3 * 400) / (3 * 50) = 8

=> Player A has the higher "VP ratio", because he indeed showed the more impressive performance.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

I play about 1-3 maps at a time and only started 1.5 years ago. So I have literally 0 method of gaining to the top rank.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

I think it would be beneficial to reset this perhaps every 3 months. [...] And perhaps the top 100 players get some sort of achievement they can keep on their stats forever as well.

Torpedo28000 wrote:

A player with a 80% win/loss of 22 tutorials is imo likely not as skilled as [...]

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Not sure how you mean this, but "VP ratio" as outlined in my previous posts would incorporate the different difficulty of winning a larger map and would also incorporate losses at a reasonable degree.

To give an example:

* Player A joins three 100p maps. Let's say he wins one and ends it with about 2000 VP, but is defeated or went inactive in the other two. So his "VP ratio" is 2000 / (3 * 50) = 13.4

* Player B joins three 22p maps. Let's say he wins all three of them and ends each of them with about 400 VP. His VP ratio is (3 * 400) / (3 * 50) = 8

=> Player A has the higher "VP ratio", because he indeed showed the more impressive performance.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

"VP ratio" I wouldn't like to be reset. An additional ranking page showing who performed best in the current period (e.g. within the current three months interval) like in Supremacy1914 or SupremacyOne would also be nice, agreed. But I'd see that as a separate suggestion and as being not as important as having the "VP ratio" ranking.

I really do think the current ranking system is outdated and does not represent the best players at all. Like not even a tiny bit. No disrespect for those in the top spot meant. But realistically anyone who has the time to play 20+ maps at a time could be #1, although not really if you are a newer player as you are too far behind. Which for new competitive players is not enjoyable to see.

In addition, I know there are lots of mixed reviews about 1.5. And most of the negatives come from the more experienced players. This new ranking system could be a lovely carrot to keep them incentivised. And if you're not in the carrot game, its still a far far far superior method than what we currently have. I do think having a proper ranking system that anyone can strive for would be a HUGE value add. After someone reaches lvl 40, really they could try to push for a top spot IMO. And that is something that keeps ppl motivated to play and spend the occasional $ to ensure they don't drop a win.

I have a question: for the VP ratio, it is based on how many VPs captured. However, what if you're a player who has recently fought a grueling war and came up top, only for your opponent's lands to be captured by another superpower? The VP ratio wouldn't do you any justice on that.

Little Racoon wrote:

I have a question: for the VP ratio, it is based on how many VPs captured. However, what if you're a player who has recently fought a grueling war and came up top, only for your opponent's lands to be captured by another superpower? The VP ratio wouldn't do you any justice on that.

So instead of a basic win/loss which favours those who play smaller 22 maps, it would be fair for all maps as the 100 maps take longer and are far harder to win.

I agree the 100 maps take longer but I don't think they are the most difficult. I believe the beta 22's are the most competitive maps I play. I have played and won them all at one point or another and they each present their own unique challenges to win without golding.

Also if you could finish three 100 maps in the time another player finished three 22 maps I could see how that would work to bolster a ranking. Some of us could finish nine 22 maps in the time it takes others to finish three 100 maps. So the VP ranking would be closer to a rating of 24.2 with 22 maps and a 100 map players would be a rating of 13.4.

Also from a winning gold point of view. A good 22 map player can win at least six of the nine 22 maps (Thats a conservative guess). Lets say 5 coalition wins and 1 solo. So that player would win 9000 gold from the coalition wins and at least 3000 gold from the solo win, for a total of 12,000 gold won. If a player won two of three 100 maps as a coalition member they would win 8000 total gold. So the 22 player has a +3000 gold won advantage.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Build stats: Not interesting in a ranking, in my opinion.

I think the best would be a victory ratio per map ...

Why? each map has its own difficulty and it is not good to generalize all the maps in a single victory ratio.

I would like to see my own statistics in a separate tab, as well as see the achievements, and see: "Hey I have won 50% of the times I have played on the map of 100 !, but 0% on the map of 25 of Europe, I must be pretty good on that map .... "etc etc ..

Hans A. Pils wrote:

If you say this would overload the player profiles, remove the display of desktop/mobile usage, because nobody really is interested in that.