- When are the new ratings coming out?
- Can you include a new rating for total k/a’s?
- Unknown - we’re finishing off the code for the Print routine and that’s a priority as well as around 10 other projects. The problem is not that the PRS is being updated rather that we can’t email you the results at present. There’s ways around it but they’re going to take time to implement.
- Nope, we have no plans to update the PRS at present.
Clint
Too many CL players do not concentrate on whats truely important for that nation, and
that is k/a’s… Too many try to amass VC’s to the disadvantage of the rest of the
team. Its why I would like to see a k/a total. Not only that but why not a k/a total?
Would be simple to collect and publish data and is one of the mot important sections
in ME.
Like who cares about some of the PRS stats, example chess style etc…? Surely
a k/a total has huge impact on games and should thus be measured in PRS.
Lots of k/a in losing games, low k/a in winning games. Too many CL player do not concentrate on what’s truly important for that nation, and that is allegiance victory. Too many try to amass k/a to the disadvantage of the rest of the team.
Totally nitpicking and couldnt agree with you less!! Explain your point
Brad. Granted the CL has to be an economic pillar for the DS by
sending out tons of cash and pc’s. Yes, the CL might have to employ
agents into defensive positions for the team. But what else???
I believe the CL can easily fulfill the two objectives above and amass
a huge k/a total. In ME30 I transfered 300,000 gold to my allies by
turn 20. Utilised many agents in blocking and team request defensive
formations YET still ended the game with 119 k/a’s
But hold on, I’m one of the best CL players talking tactics with one
of the worst CL players… Yawn, waste of time. 
My point is there are over 700 likely players in this community and stating that the opinion of 1 person is Absolute Truth such that the company “should” reopen the PRS is absolutely absurd. I’m sure other horrible CL players like myself out there figured it out.
I didnt start talking ‘absolute truths’ till you starting talking your absolute truth… See
the hypocracy? Well, didnt think so. lol My point is how much effort would it be
to adjust PRS to inlcude k/a’s? If its an easy option (a few lines of code) surely
it would be a important and interesting addition to the PRS?
Scoot illiterate master cloud lord. 
So you believe everything they tell you and/or accept it without reasons or debate??
hey guys, sheesh. calm down.
Happymadcat - the problem with basing a PRS rating on K/As as I see it is that it looks at one dimension of the game that is important for a handful of nations. I agree that it’s a big part of what’s important for CL, LR, SE, NE, maybe Dun/WM/IK but anyway, what about all the rest of the nations?
We could focus on special characteristics of lots of nations. For example, should we have a rating for NM max market action each turn? for NG/EO army combat stats? Artifact hunting by BS/NE/DrL? etc. etc. ? nah. we shouldn’t
I think you’re dicing things too finely in trying to measure K/As in the PRS framework.
But congrats on all those kills.
Dave
I see your point Dave but consequently I believe the PRS systems ishould be totally
revised instead of just adding one or two more ratings… I agree k/a’s is only
one dimension of the game albiet IMO the most important, the total army combat
stats, artifacts retrieved etc are also fundemental parts of the game.
Surely these attributes hold more significance then VC’s and therefore
a measuring system would be beneficial? Around us the world is developing
and constantly changing. Why shouldnt ME?
In many present games there are ratings for in game actions, these include most
of the succesful online games. Why not this one? We are in 21st century and
the PRS is struggling to keep up.
i agree that a dynamic approach to this game is a good thing. Clint & company seem to have this in mind.
The whole problem of rating players is such a hard problem that I’m not sure it’s worth it (personal opinion). How do you measure caliber of opposition? caliber of team-mates?
Brad’s point is (I think), not that K/A isn’t a primary objective of CL, but that maybe it’s better to K/A that really difficult Tarondor with his arties leading all the starting NG cav than to get the 2 newbie C10A20s in the NG capital. i.e. it’s just not so simple as # of K/As, though I certainly agree that a high count there is an indicator of DS success and a low count is an indication of DS difficulty.
Anyway, my own opinion is that the grudge games are the most difficult and challenging. I keep learning stuff playing with awesome players (team mates and opposition) in the grudge games. Playing these games I get a much better appreciation for who the outstanding players are. much better than a PRS rating system.
Finally, I was rated high in the PRS for a while, but I’m sure I’ve fallen off a cliff because I’ve played against a bunch of tough opponents lately and lost. oh well. It was more fun to have tough opposition and I learned stuff. PRS never mattered that much to me anyway.
cheers,
Dave
Some people simply want their name in lights.
My point is how much effort would it be to adjust PRS to inlcude k/a’s? If its an easy option (a few lines of code) surely it would be a important and interesting addition to the PRS?
We’ve got a massive amount of work on at present. It’s a matter of priority for what we do next; a few lines of code can turn into: who’s going to do it, when are they going to do it, which project do I take them off, explain what is needed, do the players want it, etc - all snowballs.
At present we don’t aim to add to the PRS system for the short term, it’s something that we’ll look at again in the future. I don’t think it’s a bad idea, any statistic like this is interesting for example.
Clint
Rarely. When they say they’re not going to change the code, obviously they’re lying and will change the code to ensure all my orders fail when I play the Cloud Lord. When they say they’re not going to bother changing something that exists outside the game for no real reason due to other priorities, influenced heavily by the amount of redundant debate opening such a can promises, even for such an apparently fickle addition, well, yes, I believe them.
Spot on, its a million dollar question, perfection can never be attained
but improvements are better then stagnation.
Totally agree and maybe a break down in capital kills, large army kills
could be an answer…
Again I agree… So why isnt it reflected in a part of the PRS. Many of
VC scores result from normal games where players are able to play the
selfish card and against lower standard teams. Why a seperation
of normal and grudge game data correlations?
IMO what matters is benchmarks and to enable the PRS to inspire
players to improve their game INSTEAD of playing the selfish card.
Is wanting to improve a part of ME a selfish aim? IF ME had a true
rating system on in game action wouldnt it attract more players
to join our small pool of players? People love ratings not only
to see the competition but also as benchmarks.
Check how many people play Battlefield 1942, WoW just to name
two. Each has accurate and extensive player rating… In a poll
of WoW player ratings was voted the 2nd reason for playing
the game besides the human interaction with clan members.
Are they all wrong?
Oh I think it would be a lot more complex than “adding a few lines of code” as “kidnaps” are not tracked anywhere in the program that I can tell. It tracks hostages held by a single character and total number of hostages game-wide (how many were captured in battle though?), but that’s a far leap from tracking the act of a successful kidnap. Just like it tracks “ritual kills” (210s & 615s) for the CL kill meter but how many characters did you kill by executing hostages, and blowing through guards with rank 100 assassins? Those aren’t in the tally, but really ought to be, you would think.
Besdies the fact that the PRS is a total waste of everyone’s time even discussing it. Where is Shimel to shout you down when you need him? <g>
VC scores ONLY impact 1 of the 3 ratings - Istari. Ignore that rating. The others are based on Wins and Losses and the same Rating of both Teammate and Opposition.
All things considered, beyond various statistical items, VALAR is the only PRS that should be tracked, IMO. The others can be reconstituted into various types of statistical measures, but calculating and displaying them as “ratings” similar to their primary one is IMO a mistake.
The archaeic nature of the current program is one of the reasons they haven’t been able to track as many statistical measures as some of us would like to see. If you recall during some of the original debates pre-PRS, an Order Based scoring system was proposed that could factor in gold shipped, troops killed, agent results based on the nature of the pop and target, etc, similar to what you, Guy, note as “more important” vs lesser k/a’s.
10 characters later…