Congratulations to our first 'esteemed' kingdom.
Printable View
There seems to be a whole lot of misconception regarding the War Points formula change. Understandably, the final changes post is not as straightforward as it probably could (or should) have been.
As JeffT already mentioned, the base formula for determining the war points awarded has been unchanged, therefore any theories about relative KD size being taken away can just be ruled out. The change that was made for this age was to add a modifier based on Kingdom rank on any of the charts. This is also included in the final changes post, just not very clear. To be more clear: based on the rank of your opponent (on any chart) you have the potential to receive 1.0x the war win points as determined by the war point formula from ages past all the way up to 2.0x the war win points you would have received from the formula from ages past. There is a snapshot of both Kingdom ranks taken at the start of war that the formula uses to then determine the points awarded once the war concludes.
If a kingdom intentionally stays small to fight in the 100-150 ranked kingdom sizes and manages to get and win 10 wars, or 15 wars, should that kingdom be ranked as a better war kingdom than a kingdom that has managed to fight and win 5-7 wars in the Top 25 of the server?
Likewise, a whore kingdom that has a single war at the end of the age will not be able to win the war win crown with a single war (or 2).
It should also be noted, that the war win bonus also has significant effects derived from your war win points. Up to a 50% increase is possible to the war win bonus! To translate, that means war win kingdoms that are doing well on the war win charts will be forced into the higher land/nw/honor arena. So technically, a good war kingdom will have an easier time achieving a quad crown than a whore kingdom because of the war win bonuses they are receiving. Keep in mind, the personal explore pools make it so that when a dedicated war kingdom eventually fights a 'whore' kingdom there isn't going to be any massive disadvantage for the war kingdom because they haven't focused their entire age into developing 2 or 3 cows at 30k acres. Personal pools means that top 'whore' kingdoms will have relatively similar sized provinces making the war kingdom much better prepared to fight (due to the honor and other war related stats).
To me, this entire thread is pre-mature as there hasn't been time for war kingdoms to develop and take advantage of the bonuses they will receive from doing well via warring. To look at such a small sample size and draw such conclusions seems out of place. Time will tell if the changes have the desired effect. The proper amount of time has not yet passed.
DavidC, a warring tier kingdom is only going be able to snag a quad crown (or even the land/NW crown) if they're dumping their explore pool when it fills up. There aren't many warring kingdoms that want to dump their pool and grow that much though.
I think what he should say is that a growth kingdom that doesn't war much will have a though time crowning.
Yes, a warring kingdom that happens to grow a lot by warring will not be at the usual disadvantage when they fight a growth kingdom because there's no more cows. However, a warring kingdom like Bravehearts or NOOBS aren't dumping their pool, and so they won't be warring any kingdoms in the top 5 Land/NW charts. That puts them at a disadvantage to get WW crown. If I were a betting man, I'd put gc on Divinity or Barcoloco winning WW crown, already in their 4th war against a top5 land/nw kingdom. If they war 2 more times (which both kingdoms like warring, so that's possible) and win every war, they'll be in a good position!
If anything the forced fattening of subpar war kds just throws a handful of provs up with enough acres to be eaten/fed to the big kds that can actually compete. #paythosetaxes
I thought the plan was the beat the crap out of the toughest kingdoms you can find.
The point system will prove itself thus.