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 somet

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

I agree with Aries.