new league system and extras

[DeletedUser13805]

i would love to offer up a new system for the rankings as i believe there a bit stale.

a league type system could used
so the top 100 would be top of the tree and so on down the line ( the figures are open to change, to take into account how many thousands of players there are).
it might also help in the merging process as players could only meet the same players from there league but again this would be open as to the mechanics of things
i believe it would create a bit of excitement for players and give them a goal to push on for trying to advance up the leagues rather than just one huge list of players that we have now.
to be a league champion would be an honor players would aim for and it would stay with them so they would have bragging rights etc and that brings me to the other idea i have
i would love to see a record of achievement page and would love ideas for it
it would hold information like
towers won and date of first win
ranking position
league position
any league titles
i am sure many players would have ideas for what could be recorded and it would be a boost for the stats lovers if it could show grow progress as well etc but like i said i would welcome ideas and i throw it open for you guys to mull it over or not as the case my be

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm thinking about something like this, but how we should ranked players?

If we ranked players on their total points then it will be too similar, because we have already that kind of ranking system.
If we ranked players on their pvp-medals then it will be too similar, because we have already that kind of ranking system.
If we ranked players on their war activity then gaining pvp-medals will be too easy for those players who does not fight more than couple times in week.
If we ranked players on their tech-tree then almost everyone will be the same line, because they have finished tech tree.
If we ranked players on their GB's levels then ranking up will be too slow.
If we ranked players on their coin and/or supplies amount then ranking up will be too slow.
If we ranked players on their population then it will be too artificial.

So how we should ranked players?

 

[DeletedUser13805]

i think the points system need changing
fighting is far more harder than collecting for example so more points should be awarded to pvp players ( yes i am a pvp player )but after spending long hours battling and watching others sit back and collect and earn more points for there minimal effort it needs changing from my points of view and to reward many who also pvp i dont think its unfair when you look at how much effort goes into it
so more points for pvp could take the form of bonus points for postions gained in towers ?
the medal system should go out of the window as its meaningless in its present form like i have said before i am number 7 in my world but also the one who has the most battles won yet i am down in postion 50 in the medals table and players with just a few hundread fights are miles higher than me so its clearly just a case of them gaining medals with castles and thats not what it was there for it wast to show up who was winning the most medals with pvp

in your point about it being to easy for players who pvp that is nonsence you should try and do a hood full of the latest troops and see how many hours a day it takes its far from easy but then if players are goinng to make that sort of commitment then they should be rewarded dont you think?

gb levels will play no part in points
collections would play a part but a smaller part than what it is now as its just not fair at all that players can pop on for 5 mins collect and go off again and gain huge points thats just not a skill at all
population wouldnt gain points either
so in short a revamp of how the points are given out would be needed and the ranks would show up a decent result based on players efforts they put into the game the same way as it is anywhere the more you put in the more you will get out of it

 

[DeletedUser98682]

i rather like the idea of additional points being awarded for winning the pvp's - something akin to the ratios given for medals would would work.
personally i feel points should be given for gb levels - i have seen many players putting a lot time and effort in encouraging ppl to donate to their gb's plus putting their own fp's into them - this should be recognised.
i do rather like the idea of having leagues, though i think these should be based on the tech tree i.e. all players in iron age listed together.
T ;-)

 

[DeletedUser15432]

I also quite like the thought of additional points being awarded for winning a PvP tournament, but also, there should be additional points awarded if you create a new battle record for the world for whichever age toy are competing in (50 additional points), a new overall battle record for the age you are competing in (100 additional points as you are competing against all players in the eight servers) and a new overall tower record for the age you are competing in (500 additional points as this is the hardest to achieve)

 

[DeletedUser]

i do rather like the idea of having leagues, though i think these should be based on the tech tree i.e. all players in iron age listed together.
T ;-)

I like the idea of having rankings based on ages as well. Then you can see how you are doing vs the people at the same place as EMA players have no chance to out rank people of Ind Age. So an age based ranking makes sense to me!

 

[DeletedUser15432]

That is not exactly true, I know for a fact that when my main city was still in EMA, I had as many and more points than some players who were in industrial, the points are accrued from battles, collections and medals, therefore, if you fully develop your city to the maximum for the age, spend a lot of points in great buildings and fight as many battles as possible, you will have more points for your city than a person who accelerates through the ages