Fellowships Remove tournament ranks add more info to fs tournament tab

[DeletedUser2402]

@ashrem Thanks for this information. I will look through the links you provided.
I didn't know I had to go to the archive section to see why it was archived. Prior to being archived a moderator said it would be closed because of derailing.

 

[SoggyShorts]

one of my ideas was archived without a poll. What is the criteria of that? Bias? that soggy derailed it?

Here:

we have no intention of removing the rankings here, so I'll archive this thread now

Not because I derailed it, but rather that I was right about rankings.

 

[DeletedUser2402]

I know that now soggy because I had to go find it and read why, but prior to that scoobydoo said she would close it because of off topic posts. So if that's the case all of my removal ones should be archived. No biggie, I'm learning what's important to this company.

 

[DeletedUser1657]

I would not like to see the global ranking removed, it is a competition like FA and it is nice for a reward for those who do well. Some ranking points is really nothing in the grand scheme of things but some players really like them.

Removing it within a fellowship is fine but also a bit, meh. The people need to be ranked somehow and ranking by points makes sense to me as you can easily check for non-participation or if you have a minimum requirement then you can identify those below that fast as well. I have never seen any disruption within a fellowship for this and if there is it is more likely a function of the members than the score.

Adding some extra information could be interesting like provinces and stars but I don't think catering/combat should be there (despite I would like it). I think that information is providing more information about a persons approach then they might like and could create tensions, potentially.

 

[DeletedUser2414]

Participation medals are a better indicator than rank and score.
Score is necessary to achieve the team chests but rank is not.

I agree. Tournaments and FA are team based and should be scored that way. I have never been a fan of ranking but as Soggy says a lot of people pay for a better ranking.

 

[edeba]

-1
Tournament ranking is a huge part of the game, as is the ranking points you get. There is massive competition between individual players for tournament ranking points, which you get by how well you do in the tournament overall compared to other players and has nothing to do with the fellowship.

You get a huge score reward for finishing in the top 10, a decent score reward for finishing 11 to 50 and at least something for your score for finishing 51 to 100.

 

[Ashrem]

Tournament ranking is a huge part of the game, as is the ranking points you get. There is massive competition

While I agree that there are people who care about tournament ranking, and it should not be removed from the game, neither huge, nor massive, are words that should reasonably be applied to its importance.

 

[edeba]

You really don't get to decide the use of language or what constitutes correct use ashrem. You seem to think it is your place to correct everyone all the time and dumb stuff all the time.

 

[Ashrem]

You really don't get to decide the use of language or what constitutes correct use ashrem. You seem to think it is your place to correct everyone all the time and dumb stuff all the time.

You're correct, I don't get to decide. Neither do you. There is no reasonable definition of Huge or Massive that applies to the ability to see tournament ranking. There is only so much room for things to be huge or massive in a given system, and I'm confident that tournament ranking falls well below such things as Graphics, Events, Future Tech expansions, Fellowships, and PMs/Chat.

Any one of those things is of "massive" importance to the game and the removal of any one would drive thousands of players away. Losing the ability to see tournament ranking would not drive as many people away. It is important, it is not massively important. It is an important part of the game, it is not hugely important.

Words have meanings established by common usage. Any native speaker who stops to think about them can suss out that meaning. I don't have to decide what they mean, you don't get to decide what they mean.

 

[SoggyShorts]

@ashrem
To be fair, @edeba said
"there is a massive competition", and ~100 players take part in that each week. Considering how few truly active players there are per server, that's not a very big exaggeration imo.
He also said
"A huge score reward for top 10" and iirc #1 gets 1,000 points which, compared to other possible sources of points which all take up significant space in your city, I don't think that's out of line either.

I think there is room in English to allow for exaggeration to make points. Provided that a player doesn't go too far and claim that ALL of something or EVERYONE something, readers can figure it out for themselves.

 

[Ashrem]

@ashrem

I thought I'd broken you of tagging me in conversations where I already participate. Will have to keep working on that one. You are welcome to mention my name, but I really don't need an extra email that someone tagged me when I'm getting one for the conversation anyway.

To be fair, edeba said
"there is a massive competition", and ~100 players take part in that each week. Considering how few truly active players there are per server, that's not a very big exaggeration imo.

Actually, Felyndral had over 4500 participants last week, of whom 100 is not a massive number. It is, in fact, .0002 (or 1/50th of 1%) of all the people who participated in the tourrnament. And that's assuming all the people who made the top 100 actually cared whether they did (which I don't beleive is the case), as opposed to just doing what they wanted to do in the tournament.

A huge score reward for top 10" and iirc #1 gets 1,000 points which, compared to other possible sources of points which all take up significant space in your city, I don't think that's out of line either.

First, if anyone is getting even 10% of their total score from tournament placement, they are an extraordinary case, so I think it is out of line. Second, not displaying a ranking doesn't preclude granting points for those people. While the two appear to be inextricably linked, it is not the case. A list of who is getting what points that does not include in the 4400 people on my world who did not get any points would be almost of the same effect.
All of that said, I quite precisely agreed that I think Tournament Ranking is a valuable tool and should not be removed. I only questioned the abuse of the superlatives.

I think there is room in English to allow for exaggeration to make points. Provided that a player doesn't go too far and claim that ALL of something or EVERYONE something, readers can figure it out for themselves.

You are, in fact, free to think that and I am even prepared to agree, in part. However, I do not accept your premise that something which is probably well under 5% of the game's "value" deserves to be place in the wiggle room you are defining for "massive" . I am also free to say that English has superlatives for a reason, and that "wild" abuse of superlatives (which this is) weakens their import for when they are legitimately required.

TLDR: I think Tournament Ranking should not be removed from the game. It is of significant, but not exceptionally large (massive) import to the game in comparison to other systems.

 

[SoggyShorts]

I think perhaps it comes down to what you are used to. I probably hear too much superlative abuse, so unless it comes with a few expletives, "huge" and even "massive" don't mean that much to me.

For the "huge" part, I think for top tier players there is a bit of a soft cap on score- They all have max expansions and similar buildings, so there isn't much room to beat each other with working pop&culture required.
That really only leaves AW levels and tournament points to set them apart, of which tournament points is kind of a huge part.

I also don't really consider anyone who got under ~400 points to have participated (which is a totally biased opinion), which makes the number of players ~1500, of which 100 is a "fair chunk" to me. For a player like Edeba with a score of 750K and an average tournament participation of over 6,000 points, I'm guessing anyone not getting the minimum 1600 points to do their share of 10 chests doesn't count as a participant, which cuts it down to ~300 players, of which 100 could be a "massive" portion.

That's a lot of guessing on my part, but my point is that the accuracy of words like huge and massive can be partly perspective based like a "huge" amount of money will be different for different people, and yet using the word to describe $100 or $10,000 can both be appropriate.

 

[Ashrem]

my point is that the accuracy of words like huge and massive can be partly perspective based like a "huge" amount of money will be different for different people, and yet using the word to describe $100 or $10,000 can both be appropriate.

I'll give you props for wiggling.

The two words are always relative descriptors. They can't be anything else. A huge star and a huge apple are not similar in size. If you have a large basket of mixed fruit, 1/3 of an apple is neither massive, nor huge, in relation to that basket. Even if someone comes along and says "Oh, they're only talking about the apples. And since there's only one apple, 1/3 of an apple represents a huge amount of fruit." or "Yes, It's a big sack of cash, but since they're only talking about the Canadian money, even though there's $10,000 US, $100 out of the $300 Canadian in the sack represents a huge amount of cash."

Tournament ranking is an important, and useful part of the game. It is neither massively, nor hugely, important to the players as a whole. Individuals are welcome to feel different, but I presume I am welcome to disagree when they use words as though they are facts, rather than opinions.

 

[SoggyShorts]

I'll give you props for wiggling.

https://media.giphy.com/media/8Eup943BRqxbO/giphy-downsized.gif

Your apple analogy doesn't account for the observer's perspective.
1/3 of an apple is a huge amount to an ant(but not to a horse) regardless of what else is in the basket, the size of the basket, or how many apples there are.
For Edeba, the ranking points are a massive draw, and make a huge difference.

His use of huge was also qualified further in the post when saying that 11-50 get a "decent" amount of points. If you are going to allow that 70 points for 50th place is "decent" then by comparison 1,000 points for first place is actually relatively huge.
Through context it should be simple for a reader to see the scale that is being used, and I find it reasonable to say that something which is 14x as big as "decent" is "huge"

Picture whatever you think is a decent sized apple, and I'm confident that an apple 14x the size of that is huge.

I've also heard other common usage for massive like "There was a massive fight at the concert" Where 20 people where fighting. Out of 50,000 attendees, 20 is a rather small amount, but any fight involving 20 people is pretty impressive(to some).
So if Edeba sees the fight for top tournament spots as being massive in a virtually competition-free game, I don't think he's off there either.

 

[Ashrem]

https://media.giphy.com/media/8Eup943BRqxbO/giphy-downsized.gif

Your apple analogy doesn't account for the observer's perspective.
1/3 of an apple is a huge amount to an ant(but not to a horse) regardless of what else is in the basket, the size of the basket, or how many apples there are.
For Edeba, the ranking points are a massive draw, and make a huge difference.

His use of huge was also qualified further in the post when saying that 11-50 get a "decent" amount of points. If you are going to allow that 70 points for 50th place is "decent" then by comparison 1,000 points for first place is actually relatively huge.
Through context it should be simple for a reader to see the scale that is being used, and I find it reasonable to say that something which is 14x as big as "decent" is "huge"

Picture whatever you think is a decent sized apple, and I'm confident that an apple 14x the size of that is huge.

I've also heard other common usage for massive like "There was a massive fight at the concert" Where 20 people where fighting. Out of 50,000 attendees, 20 is a rather small amount, but any fight involving 20 people is pretty impressive(to some).
So if Edeba sees the fight for top tournament spots as being massive in a virtually competition-free game, I don't think he's off there either.

You keep trying to use comparisons in which the Tournament is the only thing that exists, and further, in which only those people who care about tournaments are significant to the scale. By that standard, I should accept the word of one of Nickelback's top fans that the Nickelback fan ranking is Massively important to music, and removing the ability to see which of their fans is the top fan would be a serious problem for the music scene

It's important to the people it's important to. It might even be massivly important to some of those people. Those people are less than 1% of the active population. It is not massively important to the game.

 

[Heymrdiedier]

cant wait to see the voting on this suggestion to see how other people think.

But for me tournament ranking is a big deal. If you want to play the ranking point challenge. Tournament points are the only way a non diamond player, can ever beat a diamond player in ranking. This incentive is for me crucial to the game, if it wasnt there, i as a non diamond player, would have stopped playing this game long ago, since the gap between diamond and not diamond is too huge else.

 

[Ashrem]

cant wait to see the voting on this suggestion to see how other people think.

Since no-one but the OP has expressed any support for the idea, I'm not sure the poll results will be very interesting, if they even add a poll. Once we stop discussing, the OP is supposed to get asked if they want to proceed with a poll. There have been no supporters, and the player signed up April 21 and hasn't posted since April 27.

 

[CrazyWizard]

Remove personal ranking from tournaments and add more information about each person’s participation to the fellowship tab.


Reason:

Personal rankings serves no purpose.

Tournaments are designed for fellowships and right now the only place a score is needed is to see participation within the fellowship. Where it currently resides. Sort by score but it is unnecessary to have a rank as one doesn’t receive an individual reward for scoring better than someone else. It should be about participation as a whole. It should also include all members of a fellowship, including those that don’t participate with a score of 0.

Add how many provinces completed, encounters completed, how many were catered and how many were fought.

If someone is losing a lot of units this could allow someone who excels in battle to help the person and suggest ways to improve their battle performance.


View attachment 4167

I originally thought the OP only wanted to remove it from the fellowship rank tab untill I readed his second post.
An idea that on itself doesnt sound too bad.

Maybe with a small misunderstanding and the response from the OP this post derailed in a tournament points dont matter as a whole thing.

To the derailment part:
On the dutch server we have a player who in 1 specific year spend 100k euro on 4 accounts so she could be 1st 2nd 3rd en 4th on the dutch server. several players spend thousands just to get somewhere close or beat her for a split second.

This is how "unimportant" those rankings are.

So yes for enough players the tournament rankings are important, which can initiate a massive amount of income for innogames by the few who rave on rankings. so also important for them.


Now back to the initial idea:

I like the overvieuw, but as an addition not a replacement.
Each round gives a different amount of "points" if you just show how much a player has fought or catered it doesnt show how much he or she added to the pool for the chests. but yeas it would be interesting to see and compare each fellowships players strategy.

So my point of vieuw I would love to see an addition like this, but not as a replacement like the OP wrote. since the fellowship ranking, points ARE important to monitor "chest" performance.

 

[Ashrem]

this post derailed in a tournament points dont matter as a whole thing.

There is not a single post on here, aside from the op, that claims tournament points don't matter and aren't important. There is no such derailment.

 

[SoggyShorts]

You keep trying to use comparisons in which the Tournament is the only thing that exists, and further, in which only those people who care about tournaments are significant to the scale.

Well yeah, the tournament is what edeba was talking about. The OP's posted idea included removing tournament rank from tournaments, and Edeba said that in the context of the tournament that the tournament ranking was massive.

As for it being a huge part of the game, as crazywizard pointed out: it brings in thousands of dollars, so it's hard to argue against that.

I know you strive for everyone to use the perfect words for every situation, but I don't think you allow enough for perspective and context. I don't feel that edeba's choice of words did anything to skew the discussion in any meaningful way, nor did your position that those words were too strong add anything to it. Other than some fun for you and I of cours

Like I said before, I agree that people should be careful with the use of superlatives like ALL or EVERYONE, but since big, huge, massive, immense, enormous, extensive, colossal, mammoth, vast, tremendous, gigantic, giant, monumental, mighty, gargantuan, elephantine, titanic, etc don't have a set or measurable meaning, there is more wiggle room.