Player Power Rankings - Aries

Country rankings are okay. It is neat to be able to compete for an award sometimes and the list serves as the only tool for certain things, such as searching for player countries outside of random map clicking. However, there are several purposes it is not suited for.

1. Player competition.

The game needs a new measurement for players beyond data for single countries or enterprises. Many (most?) players set their goal on building an empire, often spread throughout the Sim-galaxy. For all the work these players put into their empires, there is no rankings reflective of their efforts.

2. War Preparation Analysis

Another player on the forum pointed out that there is little way to predict the forces available to an opponent on the eve of a pvp war. A player faced with an attack can rightly mobilize the means to defend himself with resources throughout that player's empire. There should be some way to have a roug

Nice idea you got there. The only Problem I see is that with MP and WP there would be a new way to sneak around 'Security Settings'.
I would agree if only the TPL would be shown for Ranking purposes, the others either only as it is now meaning the actual Rank someone has in Financial and Military or possible to put them 'Secured' so now aditional intel for other players you dont want them to have.
Additionally FP should take into Account only Player's Entities that are out of Beginners Boost *hinthintandy*

The premise is that security settings are a bit too secure. No country on Earth has the ability to check a box and hide their capabilities so utterly. A teenager could gather more information on a real world country's military with a casual search online than what is currently available to Sim-Presidents. Being able to (very) roughly estimate a Sim-Empire's military and wealth reserves seems well within the capabilities of any intelligence agency in a technological world.


This suggestion has more of a dual-use goal of an overall player ranking, rather than single entities, and a base level of intelligence. Ideally, a more detailed intelligence feature would be available in the game allowing investment in spy satellites, human intelligence, and other intelligence-gathering assets to gain even a clearer picture of the competition. Until then, these estimates seem very reasonable to me.

Bumping above some non-suggestion board spam. More comments on this are welcome.

I like your real-world applications for the game...personally i don't see any negatives.

I like the idea personally.

My only thought is that we cant throw to much info in because we don't want the new players to feel like they cant compete.
Seeing top guys being worth quad-trillions or having overly massive numbers makes it seem like they cant achieve that and might turn some away.

If anything take them and the GM should create additional rankings. We have the ones for top scores, why not top average monthly military, econ, and so on.

Like i said i like the idea just thinking of the news.

I actually like this total power idea as its not just based on military power but based on all other assets that you have in the game, a very good idea that I thought could also replace the current war levels as well.

This is still a good idea.

I support Aries Power Rankings.

I like this idea aswell.

@ SS. I don't think so, atleasst not for my self.

As it stands right now for ranking, i pick someone who is between 5 and 10 ranks higher then me, then work my arse off to get a better rank then them. ( right now, i am working on out ranking one of Aries's CEOs on LU. )

If this all was added, it would not only let me work on being best in the world but see how i compare to the universe and slowly work my way up.

I would suggest maybe having it so one could separate the premiums for non-premium players though.

Being able to see just how high up a non-premuim player can get compared to players to put $$ into the game, would i think, Help encourage newer plays to stay and work twice as hard on there nation / enterprise. But also i think this might encourage some of them to become premium members.

Very nice

Bumping this thread to further discussion on the topic.
Aries pointed this out to me in another thread involving the gathering and displaying of stats. Please feel free to add suggestions for more "power rankings"

Some games are pay-to-win. Simcountry could become a pay-to-rank game. In multiple ways, one can use a credit card to get a high rank.

How do we know if ranks demonstrate skill? Currently there is no way to know whether someone else's rank results mostly from skill, or from credit card use. Ranks would be more informative if they include how many gold coins each player has bought.

I eat card warriors for breakfast. Skill wins this game.

The deciding factor in Simcountry is and always will be skill.
Spending money helps, mostly in terms of accelerating growth. It doesn't turn bad presidents successful though.

On the subject of displaying player GC spending in any way. This is about as likely to happen as Andy going on vacation (never!).

High ranks in Aries' Power Player Rankings can be bought with a credit card:

1. Military Power
A player can use a credit card to buy the gold coins necessary for buying population, game cash, and spending boosters. That enables owning lots of military assets. One also could buy other players' countries and CEOs that already own military assets.

2. Space Power
A player can use a credit card to buy the gold coins necessary for buying a bunch of shuttles.

3. Wealth Power
A player can use a credit card to buy the gold coins necessary for buying game cash. One also could buy other players' countries and CEOs that already own lots of game cash.

4. Financial Power
A player can use a credit card to buy the gold coins necessary for buying the financially well-developed countries of other players.

Thanks for sharing Madoff. What do you suggest?

Skill will ALWAYS help you sustain the above powers. All 4 rankings would require substantial investment via credit card to develop a lot of power, and it would take further investment to maintain that level of power without skill. If a player does use their own money for that, then they are legitimately a power in the game.

I'm not sure if it matters whether these reflect "skill" as much as it matters that they reflect relevant, measurable areas players strive to improve their accounts in. Big military players would likely have to earn their stripes at one point or another anyways.

Also - I'm not sure at all why power per gold coin would be particularly beneficial. If a country is well-built, it's powerful no matter how it came to be well-built.

I'm a big fan of these rankings, as seemingly are most players who've posted here. I'm always in

Military power, space power, and wealth power would not necessarily require skill to maintain.

• Military power: The military assets could be stockpiles of deactivated weapons in countries or CEOs.
• Space power: Space shuttles don't decay if they are unused.
• Wealth power: Game cash can sit idle in countries with a mediocre economy that breaks even.

To maintain those assets, a player simply would need to extend registrations. Only financial power would require substantial skill to maintain.

I don't share your belief that big credit card spending entitles players to be regarded as powerful. The game isn't going to improve by encouraging pay-to-rank game-playing.

Right now I don't have a suggestion for a ranking system. But I would prefer something that values different playing styles. In Aries' pro-military ranking system, players who play in peaceful mode or only as CEOs probably would not rank mu

In one sense, I agree, but in another sense, how are they actually a "powerful player" then? Many players are interested in the financial game, and others are not so interested there. This is easily the best system I've seen (and it will have a section for finance so you'd be able to measure your skill there).

I actually disagree and think the game does improve when players pay more. With no skill, credit card warriors come and go, but their assets, activity, and participation do benefit the game.

Conversely, players with longer tenure have a huge advantage over new players AND new credit card players. At varying stages, my account has had hundreds of trillions sitting in direct trading that has built up over the years. Any sort of ranking system excluding credit card swipers also should then have to base rankings on tenure as well. That starts becoming way to intensive, convoluted, and unnecessary.

Lastl

i'm not sure its fair to say that finanicial is the true measure of skill, it certainly is A meassure, but assets accumulated over time, is likely a combination of econ and war skill.

of course card power can effect these things. now-a-days, its unlikely that a new player will have a large empire of 9 100M plus countries, on 4 dollars a month, which would effect econ power, ofcourse.

further, regarding space just being a measure of card power, that certainly is possible, but if you take my 1K shuttles, and 30 docking stations, along with my 100s of thousand of SCMUs, and tons of back up shuttle parts, on only 4 dollars a month, i'd have to point out, that isn't card power. thats econ skill. space is an optional measure of econ skill, with a huge military advantage

I suggest using ranks that emphasize operations instead of idle assets. That minimizes the potential for pay-to-rank, and highlights skill. To further minimize pay-to-rank, countries or CEOs bought in the previous 12 months should not be included in the computation.

Suggested ranks for the aggregated entities of each player:

1. Total production: shows influence on the economy.
2. Workers employed: also shows influence on the economy.
3. Profit: shows financial skill.
4. Shuttle flights: shows space activity.
5. Spoils of war: the asset value of conquered player-owned countries at the time of the conquest shows military skill. (Warriors in action!)

A composite of "total power" is best left out of a ranking system.

As this thread shows, power is too subjective and a matter of opinion. For that reason, a composite rank of "total power" would be biased in favor of o

Madoff - I truly appreciate the suggestions. Let me attempt to poke holes in them for the sake of debate. I don't really agree that your rankings help show much more than the proposed rankings do.

I think the goal of Aries' suggestions was to show the overall power of a player's account in different areas. I understand that some players may not way to feel like they need to compete with pay-to-play players, but the reality is, you're playing the same game they are. On an empire level - they could attack you if you're out of war level protection. On an enterprise level, they can hostile bid your corporations and affect markets you're buying products in. The game already has a "levels" system in several ways, so this would be an easy adaptation that tells a more accurate story of a player's empire, enterprise, and account.

My responses to your suggestions:
1. Total Production - A player with more and

along with #4, what would be really useful, and interesting, would be fights from particular planets and space stations, to show us where the most activity is, in terms of space trade, it'd be similar info to supply/demand, graphs we can pull up for each product, a record of activity

Casual Industries:
An inventory of idle assets is not a persuasive show of power.

My suggested ranks focus on action, not on idleness. I never said my suggestions guarantee 100% that there won't be pay-to-rank. But my suggested ranks showcase gameplaying that is nowhere near as easily bought with a credit card as the idle assets of Aries' ranking system.

To rebut:

1. Total production. Regardless of salaries, total production shows market share. One could call that market power.

2. Workers employed. Regardless of the setting for hiring, the workforce is the central part of the economy. It's odd that you regard workers as irrelevant to gameplay.

3. Profit. Regardless of playing time, more skilled players get a higher return on assets. I define profit as the line item for profit in the financial statement of countries, and the line item for total profit in the financial statemen

I appreciate where you're coming from, Madoff.

My last comments here.

1. Sounds fine. You made arguments repeatedly against pay to play players having an advantage. This is an area they have an advantage.

2. Workers employed - I'm not sure what workers employed actually shows. Why not just show population and production? Those both show clearer statistics.

3. Profit - I disagree in that I think profit only applies to those 100% focused on eco. Profit per corp would be interesting, as could be income per citizen.

4. Shuttle flights - per my last post, I liked your idea here.

5. Spoils of war - again - I totally disagree. Just because a player "owns" a country doesn't mean it's defended. Inactive, player-controlled countries are the easiest targets. A country I currently own, I took from an inactive player. I received quite literally zero resistance, and would have had more troub