Quick question has anyone else noticed that WsK has recently been pushed out of first place by SS? How is this possible if the FS/SS war just started. Has their been a "war start" point system I have never noticed before?
Printable View
Quick question has anyone else noticed that WsK has recently been pushed out of first place by SS? How is this possible if the FS/SS war just started. Has their been a "war start" point system I have never noticed before?
Average relative size changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbot
Most Warring Kingdom= Kingdom with most wars
Birdie has 9. Shouldnt Birdie be at the top.
If the title wont be changed, then Birdie should deserve the top spot.
Thank you.
yeah thats part of the game... but annyone notice if FS war points also changed? or only works 1 way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Band of Horses
Don't worry, when FS wins, they'll leapfrog to wayyyy ahead of both you and SS in both the war and honor chartsQuote:
Originally Posted by cRs
Warwin ranking mechanic has long been broken, but I think it still gives a relatively fair measure of top warring kingdoms. I actually haven't followed it this age, but i assume it hasn't change from previous ages.
Your points are somehow multiplied by the relative kd nw.
This means you can be 6/10 in war wins. And then you fight someone that is 125% bigger than you, even if you lose the war, your warwin ranking would jump up, because your relative kd nw for wars would be higher.
I've seen it happen in previous ages. Can't say if it is intentional or not, but kingdoms fighting a KD much bigger than them would get a substantial boost in points, even if they lost, because their relative kd nw went up.
Unfortunately, the nature of the retro-active adjustment of the warwin rankings mean you can beat a kingdom 90% smaller than you and get 2 points for the win, and then on your second war, you lose vs an opponent 125% bigger, and your warwin rank would jump to 3 points. Obviously, the intended function of the warwin record was not only to measure the number of wars, but their difficulty. The developers messed it up because they don't measure the difficulty for each war seperately (e.g. a win vs a 90% rnw kd) instead they just measure the current relative kd nw, so you can have a bunch of easy 90% wars, and some free loses at 125%, your average relative kd nw would be 105%, making it seem the wars you won were extremely hard, when in fact they were extremely easy.
Afaik, the warwin calc has a bottom cap of .9, so I would assume it has a similar top cap as well.
The biggest problem with the chart, imo, is that too many conflicts don't go to war and so they have absolutely no effect on the calculation. You can wave 15 kingdoms and have them all run and you'll be behind the kd that tricked a ghetto 85% of their size to war them.
I think he means that it jumped up at declare rather than after war.
But I think in this case it was the last war win that made the rankings jump. FS waved SS right out of EOWCF. So by the time the ranks were updated they were already back at war pretty much. The points for this war won't be awarded till after the war.(I think)
No, there's a retroactive rNW adjustment upon declare. I don't think it's the best mechanic and would prefer if each war was considered individually, but I don't really mind it all that much.
Why on earth would you be given a prize for being 5/9 in wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Feint
Any idiot can war 10+ times an age if they run around waving giant kds and coughing up wins all over the place.
Winning meaningful wars is what earns the crown.
I thought Feint's trolling would be pretty obvious by now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry0
I don't invest much time reading forums but his 'trolling' is the type of stupid argument people often make when complaining about things.