Warfare Ranking
-
@wtfrank all good points. The issue was touched on briefly earlier in the thread.
Technically it's 600 squares (Claim lifetime was increased about a year ago).
I actually am not bothered by the case you describe where player A knocks down 100m and then player B comes in. In most PVP, it's called a kill steal. Of course, nothing is stopping player A from then hunting down player B.
You are correct that this is not an ideal metric, but it is a simple place to start and we won't be able to define or identify an ideal metric to measure warfare. You can spend the next year debating the "right" formula and creating exceptions on top of exceptions to cover every case and you will end up with something not usable. The advantage of this formula is that it builds into an easily identifiable and quantifiable mechanic of the game that is present now.
The fact that attacking controllers is currently a small subset of warfare does not mean it would remain so if such a ranking is introduced. It's likely that people would build various strategies around the limitation of creep claim. I can certainly imagine someone building a small forward base with the exclusive purpose of spawning necessary claim parts to stake their claim to killed rooms in an area. Warfare is likely to evolve around the established "reward".
-
Isn't it better to wait until we launch Screeps Arena? It looks like a much better fit for such a rating.
-
Agreed.
There's been a fair number of ideas bouncing around, but we don't seem to be converging on a clear solution yet.
There's enough going on with all the other changes and initiatives.
