Cosmic Supremacy Forum » Suggestions » Relative Skill » Hello Guest [Login|Register]
Last Post | First Unread Post Print Page | Recommend to a Friend | Add Thread to Favorites
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 next » ... last » Post New Thread Post Reply
Go to the bottom of this page Relative Skill
Author
Post « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
packyk Player-Rank: 1 packyk is a male
Hurries Production on Hotdog Stands


images/avatars/avatar-567.gif

Registration Date: 08.02.2008
Posts: 706
Location: Wisconsin

Relative Skill Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

A discution about this was started in the speed galaxy thread, but it is more appropriate for it to be here.

This has been talked about several times and I guess I'll let Gedrin have a break and bring it up myself. Should we have a relative skill based or a system in place like the current fame system? Or perhaps both?

For those of you new to this topic a relative skill system allows your rank to move up and down, based on how you perform in a galaxy. This means that on galaxies where you perform badly your score goes down, but this also works in reverse, if you do well your score will go up based on how well you do. This method would provide a much more effective way of telling one player's skill compared to another. Where as now you have to also take into acount the length of time that player has been playing and how many galaxies they have participated in before trying to compare scores.

Now, I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, that in previous discutions many players have agreed that this would be an effective system, but are unsure of how to set up an equation to calculate this new system. An equation that causes older information to have less baring on the players skill and acounts for the fact that luck is a factor in the game needs to be created. This equasion also must account for the other players in that galaxy, and how well you did compared to them. There has been much difficulty in the process of creating such an equation, but after some tweaking I think I have the start of a new idea. The equation allows old information to 'decay', to use Erwin's term, and acounts for how well you did compared to others along with your individual score. I have tried this equation on several different players, and seem to have come up with some decent results.

So first here is my equasion (please note that galaxies must be calculated in the order in which they were played, otherwise the decay effect is not calculated properly):

These first two equasions determine the base amount of relative score

For the first two galaxies the equation is slightly different
((Fame earned in first gal+(Galaxy Weight Factor of first gal*((Fame earned in second gal-Fame earned in first gal)/10)))+(Fame earned in second gal+(Galaxy Weight Factor of second gal*((Fame earned in first gal-Fame earned in second gal)/10))))/2

After that the equasion is as follows
((Previous base relative score*2)+(Fame earned in this gal+(Galaxy Weight Factor*((Previous base relative score-Fame earned in this gal)/10))))/3

An average is taken of your place in the galaxy(1st, 2nd, ect.) and is used to determine the Galaxy Weight Factor for a specific gal

Absolute value of=Average galaxy placement-placement for this gal
If the Galaxy Weight Factor is higher than ten, then ten is used.

An average original fame is taken and used to determine your final score

(1/(Final base relative score/(Average original fame/Average galaxy placement))))*100

Now to explain each part:

The first equation had to be modified because there is no previous base relative score to use for this part. So what happens is this, first the amount of fame you eaned in the first galaxy is subtracted from the amount of fame you earned in the second galaxy and then is divided by ten, which is then multiplied by the modifier. This means that the further a galaxy is from your average placement the less it counts, thereby eliminating galaxies where noobs with no skill won it all and where players like DarkLStrike get creamed, and removing for a large part the factor of luck. The fame of the first galaxy is then added to it, creating the actual value of this first galaxy. This process is then repeated on the second gal with only one difference, anytime you would use the first galaxy in the original equasion use the second one, and vice versa. This is then divided by two to find an average between them.

For all galaxies after that a slightly diferent process is used. First the previous base relative score is taken and multiplied by two. then the same equation I just explained is added to that, with a few modifications. Instead of using the first galaxy's fame you use the current galaxies fame, and instead of using the second galaxy's fame you use the previous base relative score. This whole thing is then diveded by three, which means that all galaxies previous to the current one count for two thirds of the curent score. So each time a new galaxy is played, which gives the player a chance to improve themselves, all older galaxy's have slightly less of an effect than they did before, and after the fourth galaxy has been played the only galaxy that ever counts for one third or more of the final amount is the most recent galaxy.

The weight factor of a galaxy takes into acount how close this galaxy is to your standard placement. This practicly eliminate the calculation of luck games, which actually count against you slightly until you improve. By taking the absolute value of the difference between your average galaxy placement and your placement in this one and then if this number becomes higher than ten making it ten, you eliminate the effect any galaxy too far off your normal on the base relative score.

To find your actual score first you take your average fame earned per galaxy and divide it by your average galaxy placement, which determines your average fame after it has been altered by the equation. Then you take your final base relative score and divide it by this new number. That gives you an inverted base point, because at this point having a lower score is good. Taking one and dividing it by the inverted base point gives you a non-inverted score. This score is multiplied by one hundred to show the final percent chance of you placing well in a galaxy.

I have begun putting some players' galaxy achievements into this equation and here is what has come out the other end.

chicken - 1.30%

Mustachio - 2.01%

Megawolf - 2.53%

Brennan - 2.90%

Bernel - 4.44%

azazel - 4.71%

jackjack - 5.33%

kickthecat75 - 6.62%

Packyk - 6.68%

clhannah - 6.90%

HeruFeanor - 8.83%

DarkLStrike - 9.00%

stabby - 9.47%

TPG [Deleted] - 11.01%

Skinnyloser - 11.12%

Minkis - 11.99%

Pukito - 12.06%

quickstrike - 12.09%

Erwin [CS] - 12.42%

Ceejay9 - 12.63%

Cerrynity - 13.00%

Ruger - 13.39%

bob_ninja - 13.79%

diglis - 13.85%

The Asgard - 13.93%

Lost Cause - 14.27%

Deleted Player - 14.88%

Trantor - 14.92%

chrisadamley - 14.93%

The Phantom - 15.55%

Nongolf - 16.44%

Rismagi - 16.77%

Halburn - 18.86%

NoDMoD - 19.16%

Kazagistar - 19.78%

Xiiro - 20.48%

darksage008 - 20.52%

River Reaper - 21.11%

Astax2 & Skylimit - 22.22% (not accurate, only two gals)

uncountednose - 23.62%

Keln - 24.69%

Karakzon - 24.62%

Gedrin - 26.06%

Pratap - 35.81%

|Odi| - 37.58%

gingerbill - 60.98%

Arcady - 65.73%

Earendel & TerraNova - 66.67 (not accurate, only two gals)

SL1m'as - 81.24%

I also would like to propose a second ranking system based on these results.

0% - Hopeless

0.01-10% - Bad

10.01-15% - Average

15.01-25% - Good

25.01-75% - Exelent

75.01-100% - Holy Shit

Thank you for reading this far please post any comments, ideas, criticisms, corrections, rants, complaints, suggestions, or responses below.

__________________
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - Fear of long words

This post has been edited 6 time(s), it was last edited by packyk: 15.07.2009 03:33.

14.07.2009 04:11 packyk is offline Send an Email to packyk Search for Posts by packyk Add packyk to your Buddy List
Arcady Player-Rank: 3 Arcady is a male
Uses citizens as Ablative Armor


images/avatars/avatar-1313.gif

Registration Date: 13.09.2008
Posts: 1,804
Location: Mount Pleasant, MI

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

I think I would have to see that with more accurate input. It's hard to determine (for me) if it works well with old data. The first few galaxies with rank aren't very indicative of current player standings, at least in my case.

__________________




--<Emma Gonzalez for President>--

14.07.2009 04:21 Arcady is offline Send an Email to Arcady Search for Posts by Arcady Add Arcady to your Buddy List
packyk Player-Rank: 1 packyk is a male
Hurries Production on Hotdog Stands


images/avatars/avatar-567.gif

Registration Date: 08.02.2008
Posts: 706
Location: Wisconsin

Thread Starter Thread Started by packyk
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

quote:
Originally posted by Arcady
I think I would have to see that with more accurate input. It's hard to determine (for me) if it works well with old data. The first few galaxies with rank aren't very indicative of current player standings, at least in my case.


Ah, but that old data counts for alot less than the new data. Plus if it took you a few galaxies to get adjusted to the game, and then started doing way better, then those galaxies won't be held against you nearly as much if you were just plain doing horable.

__________________
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - Fear of long words
14.07.2009 04:25 packyk is offline Send an Email to packyk Search for Posts by packyk Add packyk to your Buddy List
Arcady Player-Rank: 3 Arcady is a male
Uses citizens as Ablative Armor


images/avatars/avatar-1313.gif

Registration Date: 13.09.2008
Posts: 1,804
Location: Mount Pleasant, MI

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

Just looking at the output data, it just seems odd to have players in the decimal range and players above 200. That's just a really big gap. I guess I
don't understand if this is the final output, or will be used as a modifier for another part.

quote:
I guess I don't understand if this is the final output, or will be used as a modifier for another part.


Ok, so nevermind that, but that's still a really big gap.

__________________




--<Emma Gonzalez for President>--

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Arcady: 14.07.2009 04:51.

14.07.2009 04:43 Arcady is offline Send an Email to Arcady Search for Posts by Arcady Add Arcady to your Buddy List
packyk Player-Rank: 1 packyk is a male
Hurries Production on Hotdog Stands


images/avatars/avatar-567.gif

Registration Date: 08.02.2008
Posts: 706
Location: Wisconsin

Thread Starter Thread Started by packyk
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

What you are seeing here is the final output, but what it is is the amount of average fame per galaxy taking into account how that player usually places in a galaxy and the fact that older galaxies are not as relevant as newer galaxies. In other words, SL1m'as would probobly score about 237 on an average round. If you take that and divide it by his actual average fame per round you get about .81 which could be listed as a percentage for their relative skill.

Wow, I just realized how useless that last multiplying by thier average is. I probably should remove it, but I don't have time right now. I'll do it in the morning.

__________________
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - Fear of long words
14.07.2009 04:53 packyk is offline Send an Email to packyk Search for Posts by packyk Add packyk to your Buddy List
Arcady Player-Rank: 3 Arcady is a male
Uses citizens as Ablative Armor


images/avatars/avatar-1313.gif

Registration Date: 13.09.2008
Posts: 1,804
Location: Mount Pleasant, MI

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

I'm gonna have to play with that myself for a bit to see anything really useful, but won't have it done till tomorrow sometime.

There's no way I'd place second compared to that list of players. I realize the data you have produces that result, but I'd have to see it with actual data somehow. Myself, I think the idea is sound, so that you would have to continually do well to maintain a high rank.

What about connecting it to the number of galaxies you've played, so that older players with more galaxies have a slower decay/increase rate? Does this make sense to anyone? Bascially saying if he's done 30 galaxies, did really well for 25, but lost the last 5, he's not down to nothing. Maybe it does that already, but I didn't see it. It's late. I'll Excel it tomorrow, unless maybe your sheet is small enough to include as an attachment, that would be great.

I understand there are some other formulas including the current one, maybe we could setup up a comparison chart? Still hard to compare with that data though.

__________________




--<Emma Gonzalez for President>--

14.07.2009 05:15 Arcady is offline Send an Email to Arcady Search for Posts by Arcady Add Arcady to your Buddy List
DarkLStrike Player-Rank: 3
Assigns Gov Schwarzenegger to all Planets


images/avatars/avatar-1237.jpg

Registration Date: 14.01.2007
Posts: 925

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

Also, don't forget to elimate the galaxies where the player was rewarded 0 fame. These are caused by the fact that the player signed up but did not play or that the galaxy was unfamed to begin with. Either way, they wouldn't be good indicators of the player's skill level since it is impossible to try and get 0 fame (barring current team gals but I'm sure Erwin will change that soon.)

__________________

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by DarkLStrike: 14.07.2009 06:44.

14.07.2009 06:43 DarkLStrike is offline Send an Email to DarkLStrike Search for Posts by DarkLStrike Add DarkLStrike to your Buddy List
Kasim Player-Rank: 3
Scouts his own Systems


Registration Date: 12.06.2007
Posts: 51

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

I suppose someone like me who's been inactive would be ranked very low. I really don't have a a huge issue with decaying your rank but I also like the feeling that you can earn points which stay with you. I've never been a fan of decay systems in any game. Maybe some sort of hybrid system where you add together two numbers to get your rank. You could add a permanant award to a floating award to get the total. I'll leave the formulas up to you guys but it's just a thought.

I don't mind being downranked at all. Having a higher rank pretty much gets you nothing but a bullseye on your head.
14.07.2009 07:52 Kasim is offline Send an Email to Kasim Search for Posts by Kasim Add Kasim to your Buddy List
uncountednose Player-Rank: 3 uncountednose is a male
Master Beta-Tester Extraordinaire


images/avatars/avatar-892.gif

Registration Date: 01.02.2007
Posts: 1,991
Location: Bryan, Texas

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

not in favor of decay. i am actually fine with the current system. if a relative system must be used then i would say a system where the amount of fame you get per galaxy is based upon how well you did in the galaxy modified by the average fame per galaxy of the other players in the galaxy(or maybe the top 10 players). making the score work that way would create a very interdependant system where players position could go up or down even when they are not in a galaxy which may not be desirable. also could be interdependancy conflicts in the formula itself. not adverse to throwing out 0 fame galaxies.

__________________
"...uncounted! He's a legend!!"

-Erwin [CS]

This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by uncountednose: 14.07.2009 08:31.

14.07.2009 08:30 uncountednose is offline Send an Email to uncountednose Search for Posts by uncountednose Add uncountednose to your Buddy List
Erwin [CS] Player-Rank: 2 Erwin [CS] is a male
Admiral Moo


images/avatars/avatar-124.gif

Registration Date: 26.12.2004
Posts: 8,515
Location: Vienna, Austria

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

You might want to read what Gedrin came up with in that regard:

Player Ranking systems
14.07.2009 09:12 Erwin [CS] is offline Search for Posts by Erwin [CS] Add Erwin [CS] to your Buddy List
uncountednose Player-Rank: 3 uncountednose is a male
Master Beta-Tester Extraordinaire


images/avatars/avatar-892.gif

Registration Date: 01.02.2007
Posts: 1,991
Location: Bryan, Texas

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

well there is still some decay there even though he basically overcomes it with the contemporary/legendary skill rankings. i don't really see the need to make it as complicated as he does but generally i don't have an issue with his formula.

i guess in my mind the scores should still be cumulative but modified by the relative scores of the other players. at the top of the rankings right now is xiiro, he has played in a lot of galaxies and that is a big reason why he is up there. i don't have an issue with his score being higher because of that.

ultimately i am relatively indifferent to the method used. i am pretty confident that any reasonable system would put me in the top 20 and that works for me. the advantage of the current system is its simplicity. the proposed systems in general are not simple. a system where you have no idea when you finish a galaxy in a high position if it will increase or decrease your score is just to abstract for me. i realize a relative score(as gedrin proposes) reflects actual skill better than a cumulative but that just doesn't bother me.

__________________
"...uncounted! He's a legend!!"

-Erwin [CS]
14.07.2009 10:18 uncountednose is offline Send an Email to uncountednose Search for Posts by uncountednose Add uncountednose to your Buddy List
Nongolf Player-Rank: 3 Nongolf is a male
Wins even when not in your Galaxy


images/avatars/avatar-1040.gif

Registration Date: 29.09.2007
Posts: 6,035
Location: Denmark

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

quote:
i realize a relative score(as gedrin proposes) reflects actual skill better than a cumulative but that just doesn't bother me.


I don't believe that (and certianly most players do care).
You obviously expect to be placed top 20, or else the system must be unreasonable:

quote:
i am pretty confident that any reasonable system would put me in the top 20 and that works for me.
14.07.2009 16:18 Nongolf is offline Send an Email to Nongolf Search for Posts by Nongolf Add Nongolf to your Buddy List
packyk Player-Rank: 1 packyk is a male
Hurries Production on Hotdog Stands


images/avatars/avatar-567.gif

Registration Date: 08.02.2008
Posts: 706
Location: Wisconsin

Thread Starter Thread Started by packyk
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

quote:
Originally posted by DarkLStrike
Also, don't forget to elimate the galaxies where the player was rewarded 0 fame. These are caused by the fact that the player signed up but did not play or that the galaxy was unfamed to begin with. Either way, they wouldn't be good indicators of the player's skill level since it is impossible to try and get 0 fame (barring current team gals but I'm sure Erwin will change that soon.)


I left out all XP and the first Team gal because you couldn't earn fame in those, but in a galaxy where you could earn fame but didn't I included. And as I said before, when a player does that badly, but it only happens a few times those times arn't counted against them.


quote:
Originally posted by Arcady
I'm gonna have to play with that myself for a bit to see anything really useful, but won't have it done till tomorrow sometime.

There's no way I'd place second compared to that list of players. I realize the data you have produces that result, but I'd have to see it with actual data somehow. Myself, I think the idea is sound, so that you would have to continually do well to maintain a high rank.

What about connecting it to the number of galaxies you've played, so that older players with more galaxies have a slower decay/increase rate? Does this make sense to anyone? Bascially saying if he's done 30 galaxies, did really well for 25, but lost the last 5, he's not down to nothing. Maybe it does that already, but I didn't see it. It's late. I'll Excel it tomorrow, unless maybe your sheet is small enough to include as an attachment, that would be great.

I understand there are some other formulas including the current one, maybe we could setup up a comparison chart? Still hard to compare with that data though.


The system isn't the most accurate until I have around ten galaxies to compare with it, so you'll move to a point that makes more sense after you've played more galaxies.

The system I created does forgive you for if you don't do well in a few galaxies. What happens is, those galaxies where you do really bad, compared to your normal, are ignored. Also if you do bad in twenty galaxies, but then do insanely well in one you won't suddenly receive a huge bonus for this, but until your average placement in galaxies moves up that galaxy won't be counted toward your final score.

quote:
Originally posted by uncountednose
not in favor of decay. i am actually fine with the current system. if a relative system must be used then i would say a system where the amount of fame you get per galaxy is based upon how well you did in the galaxy modified by the average fame per galaxy of the other players in the galaxy(or maybe the top 10 players). making the score work that way would create a very interdependant system where players position could go up or down even when they are not in a galaxy which may not be desirable. also could be interdependancy conflicts in the formula itself. not adverse to throwing out 0 fame galaxies.


Galaxies do not decay over time in the system I posted, they decay as you play more galaxies. So if you play ten galaxies then stop playing for a few weeks, then come back and play five more, it's no different than if you just played fifteen galaxies in a row.

__________________
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - Fear of long words

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by packyk: 14.07.2009 19:59.

14.07.2009 18:02 packyk is offline Send an Email to packyk Search for Posts by packyk Add packyk to your Buddy List
Quetzalcoatl Player-Rank: 2
Invades without Troop Ships


Registration Date: 12.05.2009
Posts: 341

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

I must say I'm not too fond of a skill based system. Even if it's more appealing in many senses, it has many limits.
I started playing in some galaxies I didn't finish, either because I had other things to do, or because I wasn't going too well(ok my fault, but most players don't have 24h a day to dedicate to the game, and I don't think you can win without being much time online). This system could be only an alternative ranking, but I would:

1. big bonuses for winning galaxies and bonuses for the first positions.
2. exclude from the calculation galaxies where you went inactive in the first 200 turns, even if you got some fame point.
14.07.2009 22:12 Quetzalcoatl is offline Send an Email to Quetzalcoatl Search for Posts by Quetzalcoatl Add Quetzalcoatl to your Buddy List
packyk Player-Rank: 1 packyk is a male
Hurries Production on Hotdog Stands


images/avatars/avatar-567.gif

Registration Date: 08.02.2008
Posts: 706
Location: Wisconsin

Thread Starter Thread Started by packyk
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

This would probably be a system alongside the curent 'fame' system.

This system rewards you for a good placement in a galaxy, and it will only count it when you go inactive early if you do that on a regular basis. When you are doing badly or going inactive on a regular basis I believe that you should be punished for that, by the system.

__________________
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - Fear of long words
14.07.2009 22:23 packyk is offline Send an Email to packyk Search for Posts by packyk Add packyk to your Buddy List
Quetzalcoatl Player-Rank: 2
Invades without Troop Ships


Registration Date: 12.05.2009
Posts: 341

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

inactivity shouldn't be penalized, galaxies can't be prisons, that force you to be there all day long else you lose all your hard-earned fame.
Sure, if you go inactive in late game it's another story
14.07.2009 22:39 Quetzalcoatl is offline Send an Email to Quetzalcoatl Search for Posts by Quetzalcoatl Add Quetzalcoatl to your Buddy List
packyk Player-Rank: 1 packyk is a male
Hurries Production on Hotdog Stands


images/avatars/avatar-567.gif

Registration Date: 08.02.2008
Posts: 706
Location: Wisconsin

Thread Starter Thread Started by packyk
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

quote:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
inactivity shouldn't be penalized, galaxies can't be prisons, that force you to be there all day long else you lose all your hard-earned fame.
Sure, if you go inactive in late game it's another story


That's not what I said, what I said was being inactive in multiple galaxies, ie more than one third of them, should be pennalized. Where as going inactive in one or two galaxies is no big deal and will be ignored by the system.

__________________
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - Fear of long words
14.07.2009 22:51 packyk is offline Send an Email to packyk Search for Posts by packyk Add packyk to your Buddy List
Quetzalcoatl Player-Rank: 2
Invades without Troop Ships


Registration Date: 12.05.2009
Posts: 341

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

2/3 of the galaxies that you have to play until the end seems still a lot to me. Maybe I sign in too precipitously sometimes, but inactivity in early game has little to do with skill imo. Or better, sometimes it has, sometimes not. You want to force players to limit their participation to galaxies? Inactivity must be punished in-game, not for the fame.

This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by Quetzalcoatl: 14.07.2009 22:58.

14.07.2009 22:57 Quetzalcoatl is offline Send an Email to Quetzalcoatl Search for Posts by Quetzalcoatl Add Quetzalcoatl to your Buddy List
packyk Player-Rank: 1 packyk is a male
Hurries Production on Hotdog Stands


images/avatars/avatar-567.gif

Registration Date: 08.02.2008
Posts: 706
Location: Wisconsin

Thread Starter Thread Started by packyk
Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

Well that wouldn't really work with this system, what those results above show is how likely a player is to rank high in a galaxy. If a player consistantly goes inactive, they aren't very likey to rank high are they? Another thing is that consistant inactivity is basicly another factor in that players playstyle, and therefore skill. Honestly I had that problem early on, of signing into more galaxies than I could handle. I often was in as many as five or six galaxies at once. That became overwhelming and I was going inactive at some point in almost all galaxies. So now I am usually in no more than two galaxies at once. So, no I don't want to limit participation in galaxies, but I think that a player should not take on more galaxies than they can handle, that is a sign of poor judgement on the part of the player. Besides, inactives are annoying to all other players.

__________________
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - Fear of long words
14.07.2009 23:04 packyk is offline Send an Email to packyk Search for Posts by packyk Add packyk to your Buddy List
Quetzalcoatl Player-Rank: 2
Invades without Troop Ships


Registration Date: 12.05.2009
Posts: 341

Reply to this Post Post Reply with Quote Edit/Delete Posts Report Post to a Moderator       Go to the top of this page

My main concern about this system is: I wouldn't want that it makes players feel forced to keep playing in a galaxy, else they lose too much fame, and a kind of fame they will never get back. And I wouldn't want that for the same reason more players go inactive sooner than they would otherwise, just not to lose fame. I like the concept, but I think it's pretty complicated to do. Well if you come with ideas that work it's fine for me anyway.
14.07.2009 23:14 Quetzalcoatl is offline Send an Email to Quetzalcoatl Search for Posts by Quetzalcoatl Add Quetzalcoatl to your Buddy List
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 next » ... last » Tree Structure | Board Structure
Jump to:
Post New Thread Post Reply
Cosmic Supremacy Forum » Suggestions » Relative Skill

Forum Software: Burning Board 2.3.6, Developed by WoltLab GmbH