New economy sub-ranking

    • General

    • New economy sub-ranking

      My suggestion is to split economy ranking into 2 sub-rankings (military is also splitted):
      1. "Economy points": exactly as it is now.This would be the default.
      2. "Mines production": daily mines production.
        • Measured in raw total production (metal + crystal + deutherium) or MSU (metal + crystal*1,5 + deutherium*3). IMHO, MSU is more accurate.
        • Should consider theorical production (basic + mines + plasma tech) without premium boosters (items, geologst, ...).
          Optionally, could consider actual current production (considering fusion reactor, current energy available, etc.), in other words, as is in "Total per day" row in "Resource settings" page.
          This could cause too much ranking movement
        • Don't know what should happen when seeing Alliance ranking. Maybe the sum of all productions of all members? Sounds good to me.


      Example (apologies for my photoshop skills || )

      The post was edited 11 times, last by green ().

    • But the problem with just one ranking and all resources combined is that the “conversion rate” is fixed.
      May be it's more practical to have three rankings? One for metal, one for crystal, and one for deuterium. Then there could be a external script that could combine that in any chosen ratio by the user.

      I believe this would be better.

      But yes, anything that officially compares the mine production would be welcome.

      EDIT: there's no point in having a sum production (i.e., raw sum of all three resources) because that doesn't add any information, and we already have economy ranking; this proposal tries to get a real useful comparison of productions (so, either different rankings, or one ranking with conversion rate, 3:2:1 ratio as proposed by OP is fine).

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Minion ().

    • I don't see as a problem to have a fixed conversion rate ......... ranking is a convention.
      Maybe could be a problem to have 3 rankings, because in that way you have too many info about a player without spy him .......... so i think it is better to have one only ranking with sum of metal , crystal and deuterium

      Atm it is a your choise to share with everybody info about your mines and production .......... after if exist a ranking you cannot decide that you don't want to share it.
      So i don't think it is a good idea for the game to show a lot of info

    • Well, even then to say for the counter-contrast, for what I'm getting say conversion rate for points gained to amounts, anything other than standard production, would be variable to adjust, given say premium bonus for 10, 20, 30 percent values, but all weigh a weeks worth in time?? If so, be reasonable to sustain a constant-variable against to add with to say, but say in overall total in total so far would be varied.

      And still with just a total so far without plus and additional factors, would seems to place in points otherwise that for every 100K in resources or something is just worth say 10 points or the like.
      Given, having variable mines and worth of amounts spent as respective, any cumulative amounts would probably not change in say any given total against another.

      So, even if say ranking was based on say just a daily storage or weekly consumption rate, would probably not be as equally represented in a worth of economic developments of say one player against another in terms of more or less, but on a average of perhaps ranks achieved. But would though help an indicative to place most likely on say a greater means provided by established Mine Production then say resources gained through mining. But storage again, would seem to offset the expense, but perhaps in some favor if say Resources used in spending.

      Ranking then could be for thoughts of mines, say a Utilized as such, and with such offer interest of say overall total from such to achieve rank within value. That way leaving say storage and non-storage open to contribute as say played to to have. And say anything directly of mines and storage maintain a separate ranking perhaps somehow.

      But of such, would seem to suggest what someone has been doing though of course as well. Which could be a high negative as such.

      For any off-set I would not really know for sure, other than say taking overall storage amounts against Resources spent perhaps.
      But if so, would should say a level 1 storage versus a Level 25 mine suggest?? I don't know. At a time many things wouldn't work out that way really, so then for say counter-contrast shouldn't matter as much, but leave say information gained from ranking more viable for an option as such.

      So, again, Total so far, seems to me most reasonable, but there is probably something else, given I have probably taken conversion into a wrong contrast.


      Thanks,

      Kellogen

    • @Minion I prefer the idea of only one mines ranking. Doing a list for every resource doesn't seem practical nor attractive.

      I think the key will be choosing between raw sum sum ranking or MSU. That has also been the discussion in every forum miners ranking thread. Each approach has its pros and cons.

      For me, MSU is more accurate and that's what I prefer. I admit that 3:2:1 ratio, although is what is considered "standard" (gameforge itself uses it at auctioneer and import/export) is far from being the most used between players. At less, in .ES, something like 2.6:1.6:1 would be more realistic. BUT, there's also the merchant, who is offering 3:2:1 if one is lucky :D
      Raw sum, on the contrary, is in detrimental of players with high deutherium production.

      As I said before, as far no premium items are considered, and this is implemented somehow, I'll be happy!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by green ().