It is true that I will get points for the goods; but someone fighting gets way more points and if they plunder they get goods too (that's called a double dip)!; this has been proven by my drop of over 20 positions since the reset. All the fighters are advancing past me, and my donations, research and negotiations will never catch that.
Am I suppose to accept that I cannot advance in this game and achieve a high rank through economics? Empires are not just forged with war; someone has to pay for them!
Like jaelis said though, the ranking favored fighters even before the change.
(minus the huge GB points)
Old system:
-No points for donating or spending goods (bad for you)
-Coin/supply collections gave points (both you AND fighters got points from this)
-GBs gave absurd points, but only at high levels
New system:
-No points for collecting coin/supply (this affects both you and the fighters)
-Goods now give points when spent (good for you as a producer, who should be able to make more goods than a heavy fighter)
-No more crazy points from high-level GBs, but in general they're now worth more to build due to the goods costs
In both cases, battle points are worth the same amount so nothing was really gained or lost there. Basically, you traded the ability to gain points from 'idle' play for the ability to gain points from donating goods. However, the only reason fighters weren't at the top of the rankings before the new system was put in place is because of the GB exploit. A non-fighter really couldn't compete in either system (again, removing the GB values), as battles are simply much more valuable and with GvG it's easy to rack them up. It's important to remember that everything you're doing to gain points, and were doing before the ranking change, is also available to fighters (perhaps in a smaller capacity due to giving space to military buildings). But by not fighting at all (an entire aspect of the game), doesn't it kind of make sense that you'd be earning less points than those who do?