Average Opponent Activity

[Nub]

there is a lot of debate going on over the "quality" of war wins that warring kds achieve throughout an age. currently there is no way of determining the quality of war wins - we only have a quantity.

so i suggest in the kd page, right next to Average Opponent Size, we have an Average Opponent Activity section, which would show the average number of successful attacks suffered by the kd per day (per month in utopian calendar) during wartime (may be limited to min time only -- open for discussion). since activity is a good measure of quality of an opponent, we would have a better tool for determining the worth of each war win, and thus, each warring kd, along with the quantitative measurement of the number of war wins.

so what say y'all? is this a stupid idea or what?

[VT2]

If you war stoffi's multi-kingdom, he'll run so many attacks on you that it won't even be funny, and it will show up as a very impressive thing.

Your proposed system is flawed, just like the old warsystems.

[Nub]

so how can fake wars be taken out of the picture? would a fake kd's attacks be successful attacks? pardon my ignorance, i have never been in a fake war.

what if land or nw gains throughout a war were included in determining whether a war win is valid or not?

if not, is it absolutely impossible to devise a system that can detect fake wars and count them out of war wins?

ps: the number of successful attacks taken into account for the activity calculations could be limited to min time only to get the peak activity value of the warring kds.

[Paper Unicorn]

im no expert on fake wars either, but from what i understand of them, its not about WW's, but rather pumping safely, avoiding unwanted wars etc...then after ~48hrs min time, theres a MP to end it!

again, if someone knows better about em, please enlighten us.

and Nub, your sugg wont work, as its not about the number of attacks that win a war, its about the quality of those attacks, you can win a war, but have fewer attacks than the losing kd!

[Nub]

and Nub, your sugg wont work, as its not about the number of attacks that win a war, its about the quality of those attacks, you can win a war, but have fewer attacks than the losing kd!

although that is possible, it is highly unlikely. however in cases where it does happen, well, great for the winning kd, because they will get credited for winning against a kd that is more "active" than they are. although "activity" and "number of successful attacks made" are not the same thing, they are pretty close.

[rosedragoness]

fake war is a term when war is used to pump and avoid outside hits. This means, inside fake war, the two kds that involved WONT exchange hits. Normally, fw ends with MP.

[Nub]

so what exactly is wrong with this suggestion?

[Realest]

because it is a useless statistic.

if anything we need to implement an 'average poster intelligence' rating for these forums, which is a calculation of the intelligence displayed in all the posts.

[Nub]

and that would be a useful statistic, how? you seem to have a pretty good idea of who is smart and who is stupid anyway. :p

how about using that uber brain of yours to come up with a counter idea that will turn this into a usable suggestion?

[Magn]

although that is possible, it is highly unlikely. however in cases where it does happen, well, great for the winning kd, because they will get credited for winning against a kd that is more "active" than they are. although "activity" and "number of successful attacks made" are not the same thing, they are pretty close.

Its not only about activity, there is multi-tapping too.

At some point, we warred a KD that were focusing mostly 4 of our players.

The rest of the KD outgrew them and pounded them to mush.

They kept bragging that they had more attacks then us, because two thirds of their attacks were quadruple taps on those 4 players.

They surrendered eventually and they had more attacks then us thanks to these quadruple taps.

[Allrias]

there is a lot of debate going on over the "quality" of war wins that warring kds achieve throughout an age. currently there is no way of determining the quality of war wins - we only have a quantity.

so i suggest in the kd page, right next to Average Opponent Size, we have an Average Opponent Activity section, which would show the average number of successful attacks suffered by the kd per day (per month in utopian calendar) during wartime (may be limited to min time only -- open for discussion). since activity is a good measure of quality of an opponent, we would have a better tool for determining the worth of each war win, and thus, each warring kd, along with the quantitative measurement of the number of war wins.

so what say y'all? is this a stupid idea or what?

I wouldn't call the idea stupid.

However, there is a flaw. If you are wishing for a "quality" war win in this senario, you will have to sacrifice one or more of your provs in order that the enemy kd will have more attacks on you than you have on them. Typically, the more attacks you make compared to the enemy kd, the better your chance to squash the enemy provs, removing their chances for attacking for quality hits, the better your chance for a war win. This is, under the current conditions, contradictory to your concept.

A FW is, as has been said, typically done in order to either pump up while being protected, or to get out of a potentially devestating position. I have used it once when 4 larger kds all decided to wave us at one time while we were still in a recovery phase after a war. And no matter what your "solution" is to a fake war, there will be times when it is used, sometimes to the commonly considered abuse level.

[Nub]

I wouldn't call the idea stupid.

However, there is a flaw. If you are wishing for a "quality" war win in this scenario, you will have to sacrifice one or more of your provs in order that the enemy kd will have more attacks on you than you have on them. Typically, the more attacks you make compared to the enemy kd, the better your chance to squash the enemy provs, removing their chances for attacking for quality hits, the better your chance for a war win. This is, under the current conditions, contradictory to your concept.

i understand your point. am i correct then if i say you are suggesting that not only the number of successful attacks suffered, but also the quality of those attacks should be taken into consideration when determining the overall quality of an opponent, and thus, a war win?

let's see how i can expand on that. currently the system i proposed is based solely on the number of successful attacks suffered. however, the quality equation could include many more parameters than that to yield a more objective rating.

here are a few more variables to consider:
- number of disabled provinces in war (disabled: halved in size?)
- number of crippled provinces in war (crippled: dropped down to 1/4th of original nw?)
- number of successful T ops suffered
- number of successful M ops suffered
- average land loss/attack
- average nw loss/attack

ps: i feel the need to share my perspective on the term "quality war win", since it may have caused and may continue to cause some confusion. a "quality war win" is a war win achieved against an opponent that is equally or more active/pumped/war-ready/experienced than you are. this is how i define it, and this is what i am trying to determine here, hence the consideration of attacks/ops/etc. that are AGAINST your kd, rather than those that you have made.

instead of taking into account only the attacks/ops/etc. that are against your kd, one could also take into account the numbers against the enemy kd and divide them, getting a ratio of your activity vs. the opponent's activity and use that as a quality measure.

[Magn]

i understand your point. am i correct then if i say you are suggesting that not only the number of successful attacks suffered, but also the quality of those attacks should be taken into consideration when determining the overall quality of an opponent, and thus, a war win?

let's see how i can expand on that. currently the system i proposed is based solely on the number of successful attacks suffered. however, the quality equation could include many more parameters than that to yield a more objective rating.

here are a few more variables to consider:
- number of disabled provinces in war (disabled: halved in size?)
- number of crippled provinces in war (crippled: dropped down to 1/4th of original nw?)
- number of successful T ops suffered
- number of successful M ops suffered
- average land loss/attack
- average nw loss/attack

ps: i feel the need to share my perspective on the term "quality war win", since it may have caused and may continue to cause some confusion. a "quality war win" is a war win achieved against an opponent that is equally or more active/pumped/war-ready/experienced than you are. this is how i define it, and this is what i am trying to determine here, hence the consideration of attacks/ops/etc. that are AGAINST your kd, rather than those that you have made.

instead of taking into account only the attacks/ops/etc. that are against your kd, one could also take into account the numbers against the enemy kd and divide them, getting a ratio of your activity vs. the opponent's activity and use that as a quality measure.

I think the best compressed stats to use would probably be the following:

Average opponent size (already there)
Average opponent honor
Average opponent WW ratio (ie, WW/Total number of wars)

Sure, there is still some degree of abuse in that you could war only non-SK guetto bashers.

However, its harder to fake it with these stats for the following reasons:

1) The guetto bashers are inherently better than the guetto they beat (they tend to be mid-range KDs actually). That means that if you beat up guetto bashers, you at least have the merit of not fishing the bottom of the barrel.

2) Guetto bashers are called that for a reason. They tend to war only guettos so good luck trying to get a war with them if you aren't a guetto. So, its a lot harder to get a lot of nice looking WWs warring guetto bashers than it is warring guettos (the later can more easily be coerced into an unwinnable war).

[Allrias]

i understand your point. am i correct then if i say you are suggesting that not only the number of successful attacks suffered, but also the quality of those attacks should be taken into consideration when determining the overall quality of an opponent, and thus, a war win?

let's see how i can expand on that. currently the system i proposed is based solely on the number of successful attacks suffered. however, the quality equation could include many more parameters than that to yield a more objective rating.

here are a few more variables to consider:
- number of disabled provinces in war (disabled: halved in size?)
- number of crippled provinces in war (crippled: dropped down to 1/4th of original nw?)
- number of successful T ops suffered
- number of successful M ops suffered
- average land loss/attack
- average nw loss/attack

ps: i feel the need to share my perspective on the term "quality war win", since it may have caused and may continue to cause some confusion. a "quality war win" is a war win achieved against an opponent that is equally or more active/pumped/war-ready/experienced than you are. this is how i define it, and this is what i am trying to determine here, hence the consideration of attacks/ops/etc. that are AGAINST your kd, rather than those that you have made.

instead of taking into account only the attacks/ops/etc. that are against your kd, one could also take into account the numbers against the enemy kd and divide them, getting a ratio of your activity vs. the opponent's activity and use that as a quality measure.

Sorry, I was not suggesting anything...

The "quality" of attacks is also impossible to calculate as you may be waving a particular province down... or razing one into submission. Therefore, "quality" of attacks is not related to war wins.

"disabled" and "crippled" provinces in war would be difficult to ascertain as there are times when a new province suddenly goes inactive, or is otherwise out of action for a period of time, which would allow the enemy kd to claim a disable/cripple even though they are losing the war.

Successful t/m ops are not quantitative, so cannot be used either. I.E.: LL vs storms vs greed, etc. Each one can be debilitating under certain circumstances, yet ineffective in others. How can you, within reason and within programming ability, quantify the effects?

Avg. land lost/nw lost per attack, again, does not take into account the various methodology towards a war win. If you are chaining down a province, your gains will naturally be lower as the province size drops.

So, once again, I say, you will have to take this idea back to the drawing board. Keep thinking!

[goodz]

this just puts a stamp on ianctive low quality kds

"smash us"