Top 10 Kingdoms in the History of the Game.

[DHaran]

Size is less relevant than competition. Being the #3 scorer in the NHL in 98-99, for example, is more meaningful than being the #2 in most years. In fact, it's probably more or less as meaningful as being the #1 in most years, because it's generally accepted that Gretzky and Mario were abberations.

I think folks will agree that competition in the 20s was substantially better than it is today. KDs, alliances, etc.

FWIW, there is pushback against some of the achievements during WWII in hockey, because a lot of the promising players were drafted or voluntered for the war -- and thus, not playing. It's not about size, it's about competition.

That devalues Realest's back to back crowns Zauper, how dare you point out such obvious facts like that....

[Realest]

Gretzky and Lemieux's were generational talent, sure, but if you put them into today's game, how much more would they dominate? Have you considered the rule changes? How about the shifts in sports medicine? In arguing for the greatest of all time, its not about how hard it is to win, but whether or not you won. A win is a win is a win. To say number 3 back then is the consensus number 1 today is a foolish argument. What if we sent Usain Bolt back to face Donovan Bailey? What if we brought prime Michael Johnson (consensus nr2 in the 90s) to the modern day, is he suddenly the fastest man? Doesnt take a genius to figure out that result.

You can actually argue parity in the past 10 ages has been as high as its ever been, due to server size and the nature of game mechanics. Parity is a result of relative competition (or lack thereof). Back to back crown winning kingdoms are generational talents in utopia and should be respected as such.

[Darkz Azn]

why are we soiling this thread with the mentions of ghettos like sanctuary?

It's also silly to discount crowns by era or # of players. That's like saying we should diminish Russell and Chamberlain and Rocket Richard's crowns in basketball and hockey because the league at the time was small. Horrible argument.

Nobody mention Sanctuary but you ... I believe I did my job so hater gonna hate, I don't care if our name is our silly list. I'm glad it's not ... =D Good thing we didn't make it on your cutlist, or else I didn't do my job correctly. =)

[Darkz Azn]

I think one thing that should be taken into account is the "best" kds that cheated i.e. scripted,traded etc because i think those should be DQ'd

Those can't be proven =P These secrets are kept within the kingdom as it disbanded =D

[Zauper]

Gretzky and Lemieux's were generational talent, sure, but if you put them into today's game, how much more would they dominate? Have you considered the rule changes? How about the shifts in sports medicine? In arguing for the greatest of all time, its not about how hard it is to win, but whether or not you won. A win is a win is a win. To say number 3 back then is the consensus number 1 today is a foolish argument. What if we sent Usain Bolt back to face Donovan Bailey? What if we brought prime Michael Johnson (consensus nr2 in the 90s) to the modern day, is he suddenly the fastest man? Doesnt take a genius to figure out that result.

These are somewhat problematic arguments for a lot of reasons. First of all, we don't need to play the projection game and compare them to today's players (and it's an irrelevant comparison in utopia, where there is no sports medicine, and all those kds showed they were capable of adjusting to rule changes) -- because we can compare them to the average players in their day, and compare todays stars to their average players. Secondly, saying 'a win is a win is a win' is contradicted by your list. Why? Because you don't have Playboys at #1. If you truly felt that way, your list would be as simple as 'who has the most #1's in the history of utopia', which playboys wins. Are you saying that Ovechkin is either tied for the 3rd or 8th best player in the history of hockey? (2 Harts / 3 Pearsons puts him behind 7 folks for Harts and only 66/99 for Pearsons). Lidstrom has the most Norris trophies, followed by Bourque, but the consensus best defenseman in the history of the NHL is Orr. Bourque is (generally) accepted as being better than Lidstrom, even though the two of them have had comparable careers, because Bourque was competing against far better players when he was winning his Norris trophies.

That wasn't even my argument, though. My argument was merely that if you're comparing Yzerman to another player, you could look at that year, and see he came in third behind 99/66, and say that that is roughly the equivalent of being the best offensive player in a given season, because 99/66 were generational talents (or perhaps historic talents, depending on how you define generational talents). If you accept that Pansies (and to an extent, BF) are generational kingdoms, then who are the next best kingdoms of their respective time periods? How dominant were they?

Let me ask you a question: if competition is equal, why did it take 20 ages for any kingdom to win two crowns, when it happens probably every 10 ages these days?

You can actually argue parity in the past 10 ages has been as high as its ever been, due to server size and the nature of game mechanics. Parity is a result of relative competition (or lack thereof). Back to back crown winning kingdoms are generational talents in utopia and should be respected as such.

Parity may be better, but if parity is higher because quality has declined, then your 'generational talent' is still less than the 'star talent' of the old days, and should be treated thusly.

I can tell you that the difference between 'prime pansies' and 'prime playboys' is huge.

Beyond that, I also think that the way they approached the game was substantially different, and in a good way -- Pansies never ran from a fight, they never delayed a hostile before going to war, etc. Going to war wasn't always in your best interest back then, either. But they did it, and they were by far the best kd in the game. There is no other kd in the game today that is capable of that kind of attitude and success rate. And a fairly small number of kds in the history of utopia, including your list.

[kbone]

who were the leaders of these top kingdoms?

[goodz]

Realest comparing crowns from now and then is like comparing the CFL to the NFL. Sure the winner gets a trophy at the end, but one league has 6 weak teams, and the other has the best to offer.

just because you couldn't win then doesn't mean that waiting for everyone to retire makes you the greatest leader of all time, or any kd you currently play in anything worth of a top place in history.

[Darkmoore]

You have to forgive Realest.. He is a tool.. Tools have their purpose too, so there is nothing to be ashamed off.

[KuhaN]

Players that've never retired are the best players, it holds true for all games. Realest may not have won too much back in the days, but i bet u he is better and more knowledgeable than any of the retired players. IMO. The same applies for players like jdorje, malm, loiso, etc etc, and u dm, u still leadin HoF right? :)

[Elit]

imo...

1. Pansies
2. Brute Force
3. Seasons
4. Playboys
5. Rage

Beyond that I feel it's just not worth spending time trying to think about.

Agree.

Edit:
About argue for wins now vs wins in past. ATM i don't see any good kd around who can compare with top 3 from list up, same time its not more easy to win. In old ages there was unlimited targets. Was often KD n1 for honor/land never to had hostile war with kd n2-3-4 now its different. Targets is very limited and only few kds compete every age. So win is still hard, but you cant compare them. Last age HoH win n1 nw/land. They did very good age and won deserved, same time its low value won to me because there was zero competition all age. They had only 1 conflict with Dreams later and because had free pump + proper play all age they won it easy. Its same for cows won. I cant understand why some ppl think they are so good after won 1 age or half crown now. For example last age Rock won cow n1 but he had zero competition because all cows was ally and its clear win in ghetto/shell kd is much more easy for cow vs top kd where you receive much more dmg in hostile/wars vs strong kds.

No point to take game so serious now.

[clarey]

Players that've never retired are the best players, it holds true for all games. Realest may not have won too much back in the days, but i bet u he is better and more knowledgeable than any of the retired players. IMO. The same applies for players like jdorje, malm, loiso, etc etc, and u dm, u still leadin HoF right? :)

There are players and leaders that have played for a long time but are still nub.

[DHaran]

There are players and leaders that have played for a long time but are still nub.

<----

[Zauper]

Agree.

Edit:
About argue for wins now vs wins in past. ATM i don't see any good kd around who can compare with top 3 from list up, same time its not more easy to win. In old ages there was unlimited targets. Was often KD n1 for honor/land never to had hostile war with kd n2-3-4 now its different. Targets is very limited and only few kds compete every age. So win is still hard, but you cant compare them. Last age HoH win n1 nw/land. They did very good age and won deserved, same time its low value won to me because there was zero competition all age. They had only 1 conflict with Dreams later and because had free pump + proper play all age they won it easy. Its same for cows won. I cant understand why some ppl think they are so good after won 1 age or half crown now. For example last age Rock won cow n1 but he had zero competition because all cows was ally and its clear win in ghetto/shell kd is much more easy for cow vs top kd where you receive much more dmg in hostile/wars vs strong kds.

No point to take game so serious now.

While that's true in honor (and still is), part of that was because of land differences. In nw/land, it is false...
Age 18, Pansies (#1) had one war against the kd that was #2 at the time. They had a few other conflicts.
Age 19, Pansies (#1) went honor/growth, so they had multiple wars, including hostiles against 2 of the top 5 kds as they hit their way to the top. [LinA, Force, Criminals UM]
Age 20, Pansies (#1) went honor/growth, so they had multiple wars. However, this age they didn't have to fight any of the top kds, because they were too busy breaking deals with eachother.
Age 21, Beauty (#1) defeated Playboys (#1 at the time? or were they #2?) in war. They also fought with ZZ (t5).
Age 22, Pansies (#1) had a hostile against every other kingdom that ended in the top 5 except Serenity (#2). Noon e was willing to war them; they won by about 10% land in spite of losing 3 provs with 2 weeks left in the age.
Age 23, Playboys (#1) took the #1 early, and didn't have a fight with any other top 5 kd. However, they were GB'd by 10-15 top 50 kingdoms that bouncewaved down multiple provs.
Age 24, Force (#1) took the #1 by farming Monolith (t5 at the time) during the abs-spirit alliance war.
Age 25, Brute Force (#1) took the #1 by warring and beating Playboys (ended #2)
Age 26, Desire (#1) had multiple hostiles with other top kds (incl. ZZ, multiple Abs kds) and warred Destiny (Or whatever ASF's kd at the time was). They lost every conflict.
Age 27, ED (#1) had one war against the kingdom that was #1 at the time. It was not a big name kd, though. Alliance war occured this age. KLECHO.
etc.

In fact, it was RARER for a kd to take the #1 early and win as a result. It's happened twice in the last three ages; HoH and Fratzia. In that list I posted above? It happened once: PBs. And they lost the #1 during the GB on them.

[Elit]

Zauper, i agree in past there was big competition and its made game very complex and every won value. For this we cant rate wons same. From other side in utopia history stay only chart noting more. So won is still won.

[Ironballs]

Age 22, Pansies (#1) had a hostile against every other kingdom that ended in the top 5 except Serenity (#2). Noon e was willing to war them; they won by about 10% land in spite of losing 3 provs with 2 weeks left in the age.

I can't find the rankings anyway but andn00bs must have been around top 5 that age too and I doubt pansies waved us. Can't remember where we finished but we were top 5 when Blackrose who were also top 5 waved us and we pwned them.