Power Rankings

[Most Lee Harmless]

I find the concept and definition of 'power' to be exceedingly complex and somewhat ambiguous.
I suppose its necessary to define what we mean by power. You can have potential power : the means to express power : this could be wealth or resources. Of course a large voodoo chest implies potential power : if used. But then we must consider practical power : a million TI's are just junk without several million turns to actually implement them. Thus voodoo power will always be constrained by turn possession and acquisition. If turn limitations mean one can only ever use say.. 1000 of a card then the player with 10000 is not actually more powerful than one with 1001 cards. There is potentially more power but practically.. there is not.
I suppose one must also consider the application of power : which is more powerful : 10 levis that sink a 60att SotL or 10 levis cast on a nuisance pirates 40att frigate? Context can matter as well as ability and skill in applying power : 50 TIs cast on a 50mil population do not carry the same weight as 50 cast on a 1.5bil population : that also applies to BD's.
Is 5billion sitting in a bank untouched for months as 'powerful' as 5million worked hard to generate an income far above that figure?
Influence is power : it provides control and can provide vast income : but it's transient power and its also deceptive : context matters again. 50million in one port is control : 50 mil spread across 20 ports is just a large bill daily to stop it bleeding away. Meanwhile it matters nowt if your nation is weak. 20 million in the right nation and right port can be the path to wealth and resources.
So...how we weight each aspect of potential power matters. But should we also weight application of power? A skilled pirate may have few ships and few voodoo along with limited infrastructure yet apply that power exponentially and punch far above their notional weight. A wealthy merchant with vast fleets, wealth and infrastructure can be a hopeless fool when applying that potential power to practical means.
It's a complex business and immensely difficult to measure accurately nevermind rank
That said I would welcome such a metric but not invest too much belief in its efficiency : as a fun top list it could add flavor to the stew but not a lot of sustenance.

[DezNutz]

I think if we called this metric something other than power, I think I could get behind it more. Power is more than just stats and resources. Power is how you apply those resources.

Outside of calling it something else, I think this would be a nice metric to see.

I'm inclined to go with Roth's Naming "Networth"

I think that is more accurate of a description for what is being measured.

[ChaIbaud]

would someone be able to hide this score from others? i could see some concerns over players knowing just about how much someones got in the bank and think that they could be addressed by making it optional to show the full amount or maybe letting the player decide how much to display for everyone to see

[Most Lee Harmless]

One caveat I would have is that a ranking would adversely affect the Perception of Power. A player can have a weight of power beyond material assets like coin or voodoo. Its hard to explain but an example I once read, it may have been fictional but holds true : a gang leader was a physically weak sickly old man. But his power held sway because he had no 'off' button. Get in a fight and he would win because he would not stop until you were dead. Rational folk were scared as we usually recognize when the fight becomes more costly to continue so most back off : this guy wouldnt regardless of cost. Thats an immensely powerful persona to project. The same holds true in gaming terms : those players we think are just too much trouble to get into a conflict with even though materially they may be 'weaker' than us. Reputation is a large part of the perception of power and a game is much more fun and uncertain when its mystique remains.

[Dejanira]

To be honest I think that the lack of an exact player ranking is one of the plus of PG compared to other online browser games.
I like that there is a fame chart but having more fame than other players is not the best power index. There's influence too, and the same is true for influence as well. There's a ship chart, and that's not the best index as well, again.
And nonetheless we all have a perception about who's a big player, beyond ranks. This means that rankings are not so really important, after all.

Another plus of PG is, I think, the fact that a player can be perceived as one of the big even without being an old player.

To sum up, not only I don't feel the need of a perfect ranking system. I think that PG would lose one of its feats.

Totally -1 on this.

[DezNutz]

Bumping.

While this would be interesting, I don't see much of need for it.

-1

[PFH]

I find a small need for a net worth on players, the idea within itself is good, but i dont believe this is the answer

-1

[Bigtea47]

To be honest I think that the lack of an exact player ranking is one of the plus of PG compared to other online browser games.
I like that there is a fame chart but having more fame than other players is not the best power index. There's influence too, and the same is true for influence as well. There's a ship chart, and that's not the best index as well, again.
And nonetheless we all have a perception about who's a big player, beyond ranks. This means that rankings are not so really important, after all.

Another plus of PG is, I think, the fact that a player can be perceived as one of the big even without being an old player.

To sum up, not only I don't feel the need of a perfect ranking system. I think that PG would lose one of its feats.

Totally -1 on this.

+1 this

[Kangaroo]

-1 Too many different meanings to be read

[Banger]

Meh, -1