Adjust Monthly Expansion Rankings for Shards
-
Keeping the system as is will not encourage multishard empires, it will encourage migration to the fastest shards available to be able to top the charts with the faster tickrates.
Having it be divided by number of ticks is what would encourage multishard as the rankings would be fair no matter what shard your energy was harvested in.
-
@xndo that'll be a self adjusting problem though won't it? The more people who migrate to the "faster" shard the slower it'll get and the faster the one they leave will. That, combined with the overhead of rebooting an empire, could make people drop in rankings instead of go up.
With the system as is the only way to consistently stay high in the rankings without having to respawn all the time will be to spread out to all shards and pump energy into the fastest one.
-
I'm not sure I see the value in being in the charts ?
especially for players that are already high enough GCL.
And ... considering how things are going right now, shard1 does NOT seem to be a place where new players will be able to progress much
-
Yeah I think this is a non-problem.
If you care about the leaderboards and you think another shard offers an advantage, why not respawn?
-
@tedivm Fair enough, I suppose it would balance over time as you say. It will also become less and less relevant as more shards open up and have more similar tickrates rather than the current gap between 0 and 1.
-
@shedletsky my suggestion is not coming from a place of "it's not fair for me". I did exactly that long ago when the shard opened. I just had noticed how far lower I was in comparison to normal and realized why. To me it seemed the data of where I ranked in the leaderboards was not accurately reflecting my true ranking, so I thought of an idea to change what I had perceived as bad data to more accurate data.
-
@xndo for the leaderboards to give you a really good idea of how you are ranking, it would also be nice to be able to filter out people whose GCL is higher than yours. I have no idea how good I am doing given the number of rooms I can control, which is the prime determinant of GCL praising, along with tick rate.
-
@shedletsky I get what you mean, but I kind of like being able to be ranked together with players of differing GCL, it lets you compare to players who are ranked just above and below you on the leaderboard and see what their GCL's are and how you rank up in that sense.
The filter you suggest wouldn't harm that though, it would add to our options and that data would be cool too. I'm sure folks would be fighting to be the best in their GCL if they could easily see that.
I wonder if all this could be done through the web api?
-
@bonzaiferroni said in Adjust Monthly Expansion Rankings for Shards:
I was also wondering if there would be a good way to combine power rankings and expansion rankings. Since it costs 50 energy per each point of power processed, it seems like a simple formula would be this: total = expansion + (power * 50)
It takes a lot more energy to proces 1 power than it is to praise 1 GCL though, so this formula would be very wrong. I do like the idea of combining them though.
-
@dissi Whats wrong with the formula? +50 for each unit of power. Just because it took more to mine it shouldn't be factored imo.
-
I would love a ranking by "Control points over used CPU", or filter the rankings by shards (because the CPU limit of shard3 is the same for everybody). I'm trying to optimize my strategy to generate a maximum of Control points by using a minimum of CPU. It would be fun to compete for the most efficient code. Having the "all shards" option would be the same as it is today (so we would not loose any current feature), but filtering only shard3 would put all the players on a equal footing (because of the 20 CPU limit).