PDA

View Full Version : Rankings



RONIN
05-19-2012, 07:17 PM
How are the rankings applied..Is it solely based on money generation, army size and strength, or a combination? ( The reason I ask, is that I am being beaten by someone ranked almost 100 lvls less than me.), I appreciate your busy, but this seems ....odd. Thanks, RONIN.

Machiavelli
05-19-2012, 09:56 PM
hmmmm... that is a good question. I'd like to know too

RONIN
05-24-2012, 04:20 PM
Hmm, all I hear is crickets....So, I've had two questions, neither answered....Starting to get that old W@W feeling, You know, ignored and abandoned......

Arne Hansen
05-26-2012, 05:24 AM
Hmm, all I hear is crickets....So, I've had two questions, neither answered....Starting to get that old W@W feeling, You know, ignored and abandoned......

There is one ranking for experience, one for money, one for battles won, and one for sanctions.

RONIN
05-26-2012, 07:58 PM
There is one ranking for experience, one for money, one for battles won, and one for sanctions.

Not the leader boards....The # on your profile...

admin
05-27-2012, 07:51 AM
Hi RONIN,

We're sorry for the delay,
The Profile Rank # is based solely on all-time experience (level). It doesn't reflect other stats like attack / defense power, number of fights won or available cash. Thus, a higher rank player does not necessarily mean that you can't win if you battle them.

Machiavelli
05-27-2012, 04:33 PM
Good point there, I've beaten many a player higher up in the rankings... they're all wussies, (except for Sneaky Little Fox, Shut Up and Fight Biatch, and some player named "Mona" with a Paulie, Paulie, Paulie shirt for his/her pic).

Machiavelli

p.s. yes Turd Rifle, that means you are in the "Wussie" camp.

Anthony Brito
06-06-2012, 06:36 PM
replying to what the admin said about winning against higher ranked players.. take out the 20% boost and see how many can win then, what i see is the 20% boost thats helps those players win..I would like to see the 20% removed, in W@W it was building your armies to the fullest and that was a great war game, i would like to see this go that way as well.. rankings doesnt mean your the toughest, building your army and fighting another player reguardless of there rankings or lvl.. thats where the fight is at..and then these low lvl players who do hit u and when u go to hit them back u cant.. so where is the fairness there? if u hit bigger players then the bigger players should be able to hit u back..

AtticGeneral
06-07-2012, 09:20 AM
i see the polls were in favour of removing the 20% bonus. are the devs gonna remove it? if so, hurry up, please :)

RONIN
06-07-2012, 05:55 PM
replying to what the admin said about winning against higher ranked players.. take out the 20% boost and see how many can win then, what i see is the 20% boost thats helps those players win..I would like to see the 20% removed, in W@W it was building your armies to the fullest and that was a great war game, i would like to see this go that way as well.. rankings doesnt mean your the toughest, building your army and fighting another player reguardless of there rankings or lvl.. thats where the fight is at..and then these low lvl players who do hit u and when u go to hit them back u cant.. so where is the fairness there? if u hit bigger players then the bigger players should be able to hit u back..
As long as it doesn't finish the same way.......I,too, am in favor of the free for all scenario. And, this thread did get answered, it's solely based on your level

Anthony Brito
06-07-2012, 06:47 PM
RONIN i would have to agree with you \"just as long as it doesnt end up like what happened to W@W, but there should be something done to improve the game for everyone.. it can just favor 1 side and not the other.. Admins.. you all have a great game , i know it can be way better.. but there needs some improvements done to where it favors both sides not just another.. im sure alot of people would agree and im sure others wouldnt.. im just looking as to where it is fair on both ends not just one..

EGF RONIN
06-07-2012, 07:27 PM
I am all in Favor of removing the 20% bonus,if my opinion matters:)

Anthony Brito
06-08-2012, 02:12 PM
your opinion does matter... :) i do miss the good old days of W@W now we have WZ lets see if it can be better.. so far so good.. but needs some improvements.. :)

EGF RONIN
06-08-2012, 10:08 PM
Well,the Devs seem to listen and are willing to work with us,this could be better than the good old days of W@W.I am looking forward to it.

admin
06-12-2012, 08:47 AM
Actually, the strategy poll votes were quite balanced. The final results were:
- 31.4% (Keep strategies like they are now)
- 23.6% (Keep strategies, but lower their impact)
- 45.0% (Remove strategies)

This is a tough call, we haven't decided what to do yet, we will probably opt for keeping them, but lowering their impact (from 20% to 15% or maybe 10%).

anthony
06-12-2012, 10:00 AM
it is a tough call, but then again when u look at it 45% of the players were in favor of having it removed.. lowering it to a 10% would be a 2nd option to consider..
i believe removing it out completely, this way those players who rely on the 20% boost would actually have to work at building there armies to peak performance, wow that would be something of a challage to some of them, as to many of us who have been playing these types of war games know the true meaning of building your armies.. we have to work hard to have a good attack and defense :a balance" so why shouldn't the other do the same.
maybe increasing the money out put say by 10% would help everyone ia little bit more as well , building armies up is very costly....

AtticGeneral
06-15-2012, 03:49 AM
you asked we replied . 45% to remove is more than 31.4% to stay.
dont see the problem, we voted to remove it, so remove it.
if you are going to do these polls and ignore the winner, people wont answer the next poll as we would then believe that you wouldnt change reguardless.

why o why do you need a bonus in the first place??????
like all wars, the toughest should win, not the weakest with a boost

Machiavelli
06-15-2012, 03:22 PM
ahhhh, but there is always "Chance" in war. A tire goes flat, the scout doesn't detect the enemy movements in time, and you're caught flatfooted with half your armored column without enough fuel because the enemy wiped out your supply line thanks to the flat tire.
I support the chance percentage. Otherwise, it's strictly who can buy the most, (or set up a money collecting program to buy the most while your not playing, (seen that in several games)), and it's strictly numbers, no roll of the dice.
It's the "Chance" that makes it a challenge, an unknown, a gamble. There is a reason that Las Vegas is popular...

Machiavelli

p.s. it's only when players are neck and neck in military strength that the chance ever causes an unusual or random outcome. There are many players out there where chance, no matter how great, favors the stronger and not the weaker opponent. And even when you have two players that are close, you have a 33% chance of gaining a bonus, 33% chance of getting no bonus for either side and it's strictly you verses them, and 33% chance of your opponent gaining the bonus. For a well thought out player with a good attack strength and army, that means that you are still going to have an advantage 2/3rds of the time.
If you can't win either in attacking or defending with a two-thirds bonus or plain out you verses them, then you're doing poorly on your strategy.

admin
06-24-2012, 10:36 AM
We're not ignoring the results, but you can also read them this way:
- 45% to remove
- 55% to keep or keep but lower the impact
This is why we're probably not going to opt for removing them, because those 45% don't make the majority.