This topic is closed

A NEW SCORING PARAMETER?

5 Replies
boisdejustice
3 May, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

Currently players accumulate Experience points and Dominion points which in turn lead to Player and Dominion Levels. The two go hand-in-hand and always go up. Is this enough to justify and encourage game activity?  Does it reflect player’s actual ability or just the amount of time he has spent on the game?

I would propose a NEW third parameter that I would call “morale” or “reputation”


This parameter would be started as neutral with a value ZERO and either go positive or negative depending on in-game activities.

Associated with it would be a bonus or penalty on all offensive/defensive unit stats maybe in the range +/- 20%

This is a realistic feature as real winning armies had high morale and armies with high morale would typically over-perform while defeated armies had low morale and would tend to under-perform.  


Scoring/losing points:

Losing a player-vs-player battle or having one’s city sacked or besieged would cost morale/reputation points.   

Winning a player-vs-player battle, sacking or besieging enemy cities would add morale/reputation points.   

To make it very difficult to cheat the +/- points assigned would be a function of the player’s relative levels.  High level player would gain nothing by raiding puny neighbors and puny neighbors would lose nothing if raided by much higher level players.

However low level player managing to defeat a much higher level player would gain a lot.  The relative strengths of the forces and total size of the battle should also be used in the equation, for example raiding a nearly undefended city would yield very few points as would smashing 2 swordsmen against 2000 defenders.  Big battles of near equal forces between same level opponents would yield the largest point shifts. It would also be designed to turn off bonuses for inactive players to prevent abuse.


Some fine tuning touches like gaining/losing points gradually for the duration of a siege and losing points for “treachery” (Attacking an Allie, using Assassin units etc.), gaining points for “Valor” (defending city of lower level player, breaking sieges) could be added to make the feature even more interesting.


I have always thought some incentive to win battles and hold cities against attackers should exist.  


The points could be represented as a Legion Standard on a special screen (Yes I know it is Roman but there is already plenty of historical inaccuracies in the game).  As points go up features are added to the Standard like tassels and gold eagles or crossed swords on the other hand when morale/reputation drops below ZERO the Standard starts to deteriorate, holes are torn in the banner, rust appears on the metal etc.


What do you think?
MIKALOSOS
UTC -5:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
5 May, 2016, 9:54 AM UTC

Thank you for this suggestion. I would like to know if other players support this idea.

Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
boisdejustice
5 May, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

Why do I think this new scoring mechanism is needed?

I realized that there was a flaw in the game a few days ago when I took a risk and cleared a Emporium held by a similar level player with about 250 low to mid-level units.

I sent an overwhelming force of Horsemen and Promachos and knocked out all the units from the Emporium.

Then I looked at the results… I lost 2-3 Horsemen and about 5 Promachos but for what?  I gained nearly nothing, no PVP points because no tourney was on, no resources, just a little experience.

It was just a random victory taken because I could, against a sitting duck defender.  Both of us lost units, both of us gained similar amounts of experience points and nothing else… I lost 6000 offense points that I will have to replace.

Was it worth it? From a drachma-based perspective, absolutely not.  Trading expensive units for a few experience points is not justifiable especially since your opponent gets about as many as you.  Are you trying get ahead or just move forward with the flock of sheep?

There is no real winner/loser scoring in this game, Plarium rewards time, activity and money invested in the game, but  individual strategy and success on the field, not as much.

The new scoring system would allow players to rank themselves on a real scale of success in the game since every morale/reputation point that is gained is taken from another player through a true victory not by the wallet or time spent clicking “divine quest” buttons ad infinitum.

This would be a true test of whether Plarium sees Sparta as a strategy game (with Winners and losers) or a mechanism for making everybody feel good by awarding “participation” trophies in exchange for payments.

I would like other active players to weigh in on this idea... please.

MIKALOSOS
UTC -5:00
boisdejustice
12 May, 2016, 9:59 PM UTC

Yes I'm replying to myself... Just hoping for SWOE players to make an assessment of why they are playing the game and what their "goal" is. I see a lot of players - even in my own coalition - just hoarding units... why?  Because after playing this game for a while they have realized that there is nothing to be gained by attacking other players.  

When I manage to capture a strongly defended city what I have I gained?  The satisfaction of "winning" a battle?  The "right" to repurchase all my fallen units from Plarium with hard cash?  A handful of PVP points that I will trade in for a fraction of the units I lost?  Winning PVP battles does not advance your position in the game any more than trading in your units on the PP roulette table.

Good strategy and sound play does not affect your ranking or strength in the game.  If anything it weakens you by bleeding off expensive units.  The strongest players in my coalition - beside the coiners - are those who risk little, participate little, contribute little and just hoard their units.  The very active players that take risks are rewarded by being the weakest. 

Plarium rewards only two things: spending your time and spending your money.  I am approaching level 70 and getting very bored with this game.  I just execute the "required" tasks to stay active.  I have stopped doing PPs and participating in PVP events beyond the bare minimum because both just drain you without rewards. I also stopped spending my REAL money because I don't need to.  Since I don't lose units I don't need to replace them.  My army grows and stacks up in the Acropolis. Plarium should be concerned about that :)

This game needs more tangible goals and more contrast between good and bad players, otherwise it is not the strategy game that Plarium is advertising just an expensive addiction disguised as a wargame.

Look at my suggested ranking/point system described above.



MIKALOSOS
UTC -5:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
13 May, 2016, 8:14 AM UTC

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that there should always be some incentive to compete, fight, dominate, and so on. 

I would still like to know what do other players think of your suggestion
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at plrm.me/Support_Plarium
UTC +2:00
boisdejustice
24 May, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC
Sandeep,

Apparently you do not understand what I am proposing… It actually is a rating/ranking factor that cannot be purchased or manipulated via dual accounts or farm cities so it will be possible for coiners/money players with huge Drachma resources to have low rankings in this system.

The points are only transferred between players - never created in a vacuum.  You can only gain points by taking them from someone else.  If player A gains 3 points player B loses 3 points.
The idea is that everyone starts at zero (neutral) and either wins or loses points depending on success in the game. The points represent something like “Valor” or “Morale”
I proposed some basic guidelines for what allows points to transfer between players.
1.    Players that are offline for more than 24 (or 48) hours cannot lose points (ie others cannot gain points) by raiding or besieging abandoned cities.
2.    Players can only lose points when defeated by players of lower, equal or slightly higher (+5?) level – Mega players cannot increase their rating by picking on “little guys” - They need to fight their equals to advance.
3.    Since “farm-cities” are typically a lot lower level than a multi-account player’s main city he cannot gain points by defeating his own alter-egos.
4.    Lost/won points are proportional to number/value of troops lost by the defeated side (Defeating weak defenses or raiding an empty city does not allow you to gain a lot of points)
5.    Lost/won points are proportional to the ratio of winner’s to the loser’s losses.  Winning a close battle is worth more points than crushing an enemy with overwhelming numbers.
6.    Lost/won points are proportional to the ratio of loser’s level to the winner’s level.  Defeating a higher level player is worth more points than defeating a lower level player.
7.    PA units are KIA therefore technically “defeated” unless they kill all the defenders present – Therefore the PA user loses points and the victim gains points.
I believe this feature could help Plarium retain more “free players” longer and keep them engaged.  The game suffers from a very high attrition rate from what I see and keeping more people engaged is better for the game.

MIKALOSOS
UTC -5:00
1721592 users registered; 42507 topics; 271432 posts; our newest member:gloory2