The top 20 in Charts


As you can see from the charts there is a large range within the top 20, but the real interesting thing is the 2 clearly different gradients that meet at ConsortiumCzar.

Once again you can see 2 clearly different gradients in the chart with similar patterns between the 2 charts but spread out over a larger point difference. The horizontal axis can be a bit misleading as it was streached out to clearly display all the names.

I have been tracking the stats of many empires over the past week, from inspecting the data i have a few a few generalisations can be made.

  1. Larger empires tend to grow at a faster rate then smaller empires.This is the cause of the widening gap between the top 10 and the rest of the population. There is a clear snowball effect occuring when it comes to growth.

  2. There is a moderate positive association between Grand Emperor ranking/points and Industrialist ranking/points with several clear outliers in the data. The cause of the outlier is likely due to saving of credits, different play styles and race chosen.

  3. Difference in points between rankings tends to decrease as ranking increased, eg the difference between points between 2nd and 3rd for Industrialist is 23,242 as compared to the difference between 14th and 15th place with a 520 point difference. There are a few outliers in this generation.

You can draw your own conclusions from the data presented before you, it’s only up to date to when i posted this so thinks are likely to change in the future but these are the observations i have made, they might me right, they might be wrong so take them with a grain of salt.


Snowballing is probably unavoidable in this sort of game, where you can spend resources to get resources, and then you get more resources, spend them on getting even more resources faster. Nor is it a bad thing, it’s just part of the nature. I do however feel that the general pace at which this is happening is too fast.

There are of course a number of things that can counter this state of affairs, and what would seem most prudent to me is to implement a more thorough scheme of diminishing returns. I.E. The further you get, the less you’re getting for the same investment.

One thing I proposed on discord a while back; if one were to implement a resource scheme where you have two numbers for a resource, instead of density and deposit, you’d have density and distribution. And then density would function as it does now, however distribution would be the percentage decrease of density for each subsequent mine. I.E. if you density was 100% and your distribution -10%, your first mine would operate at 100% density, your second at 90% (100-10%), your third at 81% (90-10%), your forth at 92.9% (81-10%), etc. It would never reach 0%, the next mine would always yield /something/, it’d just take longer and longer to pay off, this would counteract the exponential nature somewhat.

I’d also like some mechanic of internal trade being implemented, where maintaining an internal trade network just becomes more and more expensive the more assets you have the further apart. Again, leading to diminishing returns as you grow.

Of course, there should still be an advantage for being ahead, and that’s why the diminishing return mechanic is so usefull, as you’re still ahead by the time you suffer the consequences. It’s just not as bad as earlier. In a way corruption is doing this, as the costs to mitigate the happiness debuff rise exponentially. And without that mechanic this probably would have been way, way, worse, but on its own is not enough. Nor are people playing very optimally, given that I’m still being in that graph despite being mostly afk for 2 weeks.

Another thing, if random events ever get implemented, is that they could be skewed against top rated players. Not that they’d always be bad for players who are ahead, and always good for players who are behind, just (far) more often so.


The charts are also showing less than half of the current players, so there’s that too…


I had to cut it off at the top 20, showing any sort of detail beyond that is not really possible, the names would have to be cut off and the scale would be stretched even worse by a 1000 players, I can set up a basic plot of it but as i showed in my data the point difference between rank outside of the top 20 is rather small.


I think Raptors point is that you are showing 20 players of 1300 players, while 20-30% of those maybe inactive, these 20 players aren’t indicative to how everyone else is playing, they are in fact the outliers in this system.

These people either have great strategies, had amazing starts, or other factors that led them to this point. The graph also doesn’t show key data, like which race is which.

@IkkeTM while I agree diminishing returns would be needed, I don’t even think the current top 20 would be near that even at this stage. I realize they are starting to snowball, however in the current systems of caps and corruption they will eventually hit a wall.

You also have to balance the fun factor into this, and if we are going to start throwing things in her to stop snowballing, which fuels things to do in game, then we need something else to do. We need missions, alliance mechanics, goals, etc.

I think one of the issues at hand, is all balancing factors, right now at least, I think would hinder the flow of the game. I am not against them, I just think we need someone more, or the game will become tedious and unfun.


My point is that you are showing 20 out of 1300 players, when there are actually 2900 players.


while I agree diminishing returns would be needed, I don’t even think the current top 20 would be near that even at this stage.

Which is why I think they should be more thoroughly implemented? At present you’re not really hit by diminishing returns untill you reach the maximum population and are forced into upgrading buildings to advance your planet further. You can choose to take that hit earlier ofc, as snowballing resources allow. If however as with the example I gave up there, the diminishing returns would start to hit already with the second mine you build, you would be hit right away.


I’m working on a larger chart, getting a scale that work effectively, for Grand emperor is a bit tricky as it goes from 16,528 to 1,912 within 200 players, the rest below that i suspect are most likely inactives or not very active players.

For Industrialist it goes from 377,919 to 30,199 within 200 players, I won’t be able to include markers on the line, and the resolution is not very good when scaling it that large, it’ll take a while to make but fitting the trend line to it will be hard as both sets of data have a nonlinear alignment to them.


No, there’s currently a bug where some people just … don’t show up on the charts. People like myself.


There aren’t 2900 people, that is a bug, there are around 1300 people, however only 800 of them or so are showing up on the leaderboards, which makes that another bug.


1012 at present, but you make a fair point. It’s impossible to get an accurate count with some people just being missing.


I was in the top 5 for a good month, however, in the past few weeks i have been doing a lot of upgrades, and according to the Grand Emperor point system it doesnt weigh much, while constructing new buildings is better for points. I’d think optimising planets with upgrades should be worth more points. some players may be more powerful than others.

Also constructing big buildings like orbital defence, they may give some industrial points, but it only gives the GE the same amount as constructing a mine.

Also, reaching closer to the softcap in regards to corruption, (obviously can get more and more), but have slowed down dramatically. at the moment with 21 planets it is giving %1.88 corruption. i mean, you can get a lot of planets as an organic, depends how much of your life you want to invest into this game


I agree with you here, about the point systems.

It seems that upgrades are worth just as much as regular buildings, honestly they should be worth more.


I dunno why they’ve made it so complicated! Why not add together all the material costs of something and score points based on that?

Each item auto scales then, only thing you might want to add to the formula is a weight base don the speed of the upgrade.

As things are now its only the roughest of rough guides to somebodies progress. I am certainly not gonna base strategy off what I see on the leader boards right now (Assuming that was meant to be a point to them).


some upgrades range form a 20% increase to a 100% increase, adding such a system just adds unnecessary complexity to the game in its current form.


You are correct, but then its not actually drawing an accurate picture.

You could have 1000 mines, and I could have 333 deep mines

Or you could have 1000 military bases, and I have close to the same amount of bases + Orbital Defenses.

One person that has expanded out vs another person that is much higher tech level is going to come up as the same score. This isn’t accurate, and beyond that it penalizes the person that has to wait 5 hours for an upgrade, vs the person expanding super fast with 12 minute buildings.