Player Power Rankings - Aries

There is still nothing I would change about my original suggestion. Some of these other categories would be great in a, separate, "empire stats" leader-board. That would also be a good game addition but I believe a Player Power Ranking is a more needed addition.

For players, the stats I suggested are ideally suited for the purpose of knowing roughly the holdings and capabilities of a player. This is important when knowing "who you are messing with" as someone once said. Further, the accumulation of assets reflected in some of these measurements are, often, all players have to show for months of game-play between penalties removing them from competitively competing from a monthly award. This can work to keep the game interesting where, otherwise, progress may be hard to see.

The concept would encompass rankings specific to players, enterprises, countries and empires. So suggestions for all 4 categories are appreciated.
Of course some rankings will be influenced by how much someone has spent on the game, this is unavoidable. But we will make sure to include as many 'pure' rankings as we can.

Thanks for the in-depth discussion it will help us a lot when we get to the decision making stage on this.

This segment from Aries' post:

"Further, the accumulation of assets reflected in some of these measurements are, often, all players have to show for months of game-play between penalties removing them from competitively competing from a monthly award"

is where the whole point is. These rankings would be the single most welcome change in the years I've been playing this game. It will give new drive to many players and would affect deeply and positively many aspects of the game like forum interaction, alliance building etc.

Aries they need to make you a gamn master your very good at coming up with thing that would make this game better

This suggestion is still good.

I like these suggestions Aries. It would allow players with large Empires across multiple planets to gauge how good their empire is compared to others of nearly equal (large empires).

I know space power is added to this ranking system, but I don't believe it should be as effective towards the overall score as much( the way it currently stands ). There are some players I see on this list I believe would be above me if it wasnt for space power. Yes moving large assets in a short time is very effective when using a multi world empire. You can buy cheap products on one world, move and sell them for profit on another. While creating economic growth in those worlds cooperating with eachother. Although I wouldn't believe most of the players here even use space for those reasons.( most not all ) Possibly adding docks that're in space stations as owned should be added to the score along with space shuttles. Players who own multiple docks have more buying and selling power on the space trade. I've sold and bought products off of the space trade. worth probably over 80gc so far in trades, isnt much but it's something.

An example for how I'd put it
2 owned docks = 1 SP
4 owned docks = 2 SP
8 owned docks = 3 SP
16 owned docks = 4 SP

Leasing a dock.( this doesn't need to be used because it's renting not owning it's just a thought )You're paying 5gc a month. 2.5% of owning one for 200. Although you're paying rent too. So let's just take it as a year 60gc. Round off 60x3=180 to 200.

6 leased docks = 1 SP
12 leased docks = 2 SP
24 leased docks = 3 SP
48 leased docks = 4 SP

This is just an example. I think should be added to space power. Tell me your thoughts on this if it should be relevant or not. Spending gc on space docks and leasing can add up to a lot of gc spending.

If this was to be put into the score, the required number of shuttles for each rank should be increased from their current standings. Shuttles will still add to the overall space score, but shouldn't be as effective in the score from docks. Shuttles only add for the size and speed of moving products, but that's about it. They have no other major use, so they should be ranked lower( more shuttles per rank )

Most players wouldn't lease up to more then 6 docks, this should be a part of the score. It shows who has the assets in gc to be able to support multiple leases, or ownership of docks.

This section isn't relevant to my post
I do however believe @madoff, if a player simply swiped a card to gain more gc that they could buy docks and not worry. Although I believe players can still gain gc from space trade. Hopefully space market will expand as more players get on. I actually do support the spenders obviously. It will stimulate trade if they're willing to spend some of the gc in space. Any player with a brain can add 400,000 population a game month per world if they have the slaves to transfer. So spending gc on pop isnt much more effective from slave transfers. You wouldn't need to be very active either. Just set a time to do a war and do that war, the population gained should last a day or 2 real time. Get on every 4 hours, check your things, add the pop. Get off. Effectively, I gain 1.6 million population per game month total when im on( this is an irrelevant example of skill over spending ) So I do believe skill has more of an effect from paying cash. Although I do know what you're saying. I hate pay-to-win games. I believe this isn't a pay to win game.

Edit: The top section of my last post. The second sentence is not relevant to this post. That was referring to another post.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/1/25215.html?1447097515

Zen, I didn't make pay-to-win an issue. I said I'm against pay-to-rank. Most assets can be bought indirectly and easily with a credit card. A ranking scheme that measures assets can merely reflect credit card use.

By comparison, the Madoff Ranking System emphasizes operations. Operations are more skill-oriented than idle assets.

For example, you mentioned space. The Madoff Ranking System measures shuttle flights. That's more relevant than stockpiles of space assets.

Have you played some of those other MMP online games? Most of them have dropped any pretense at fair play and gone completely 'pay to win'. They often see free players as a bad thing; wasting their precious resources (bandwidth, server time, etc.). But free players are tolerated as potential payers. So they rely on a small group of wealthy players dominating the game.
It makes for a lot of rage quitters, but one has to admit, the companies make money off their game.
Don't get me wrong; I'm totally against 'pay to win' games. I hate them. But I also understand that this is a business, and what business doesn't like money?

Honestly, that is what makes this game pretty good. That it really hasn't become pay-to-win. There is certainly pay-to-bail-yourself-out and pay-to-get-a-few-things but the lion share of assets has been earned in game and assets only convert to power with a considerable amount of skill.

The "Madoff Ranking System" is not finished yet. There is no way to rank yourself with it or compile a group of player rankings with it along with analysis that would follow that would tell if it is truly a good ranking system. The rankings I posted at the top of this thread work right now. You can go to your account data and find out your various power levels and determine your Total Power Level (TPL) today. It is also possible to compile the data from other players, as I have done here:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/1/25215.html?1447160799

Based on the data, it is easy to determine likely play-style of different players between a war-focus and econ, as I did on the bottom of that thread. It was also to see who had more military assets, who had a lot of reserve cash, and who brought in more monthly profit. Players already measure themselves against others according to this system and it is providing motivation to play beyond the limitations of the current world ranking system, which was a key goal.

I agree with Aries.