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

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.

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.

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

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.