Sorry guys...we are still trying....

Since you are using babies born as the basis for the ranking you should be able to have it do a check of babies per hour, if it is unreasonably high the stat doesn't get accepted, that does of course making an educated guess as to what is reasonable.

Such as my game has been going for 959 real hours with 836 babies born, thats just .87 per hour average. While it would be possible to get higher average it can't be much higher unless there are a lot of disasters wiping out the bulk of the population, after all you can't have more babies after you reach a population of 90 until someone dies so that and the fact you have to improve farming before you do too much with the poopulation or everyone starves keeps a limit on the number of possible babies per hour ratio. You would just have to develope and keep secret what the actual number is to reduce the cheaters.

Also a check of real hours played would get the system clock cheaters off the board though that would be more involved to keep it advancing so as not to block legitimate players.

I still challenge the premise for using babies born as the ranking factor. If you finish a game with 25-30 people, in order to "rank" in the stats you then have to start on a breeding spree. Yes, they may be only pixels, but they're FEMALE pixels, not BREEDING COW pixels!!! grrrr

Too true

I suppose one thing that is kind of unfair/misleading is the fact that people have their games on different speeds. I don't mean timewarping, but having your game on Fast will give you much higher results than someone on Normal or Slow.

The other issue is that the Leaderboard doesn't really give new players a chance to get on it.

Looking at that Leaderboard - the majority of the results on it looks suspicious. I have three villages of the same age, all on fast, the only difference being Easy/Normal/Hard. They are all on pretty much the exact number of Twins, Triplets, Events, and so on. Yet on the Leaderboard, the events and hours played do not appear to correlate.

I am also curious about the 101 village population. That would require several sets of triplets being auto-born (ie generated in the log files, and appearing when you start the game) at once. I suppose it could happen, but it seems a very rare chance.

EDIT: I have attached some screenshots of my stats for reference. I have never timesurfed with these villages.

What you will notice is that the villagers die much younger on Hard/Difficult level. Therefore there is more "room" to have more babies, and so more have been born in this village than the other two.

Hi All,
Hate to complain.... But I cannot "send and receive statistics". I have the game and this website on, and even Outlook just in case, and all I get is "Could not connect. Are you online?" Well, at least it's fast now.

Those numbers show there is not a significient difference in babies born on the different levels. .99 Easy , .97 Medium and 1.03 Hard. No where near the 5 and 10 per hour some of those stats show. While there could be some differences based on mass deaths due to some of the random events it isn't likely to be much.

If the server doesn't respond, you'll get that error. It's a problem at the server end, not with your game or computer. We still have a lot of work to do to fix the stats situation, including additional procedures to prevent bogus stats from appearing on the leader board. Unfortunately, it's not likely to be resolved in the next few days, since it's a holiday weekend in the U.S.