Warwin replacement chart

[Araqiel]

I dislike the way the war win chart works.

It promotes toxic gameplay;

• Picking on ghettos for min-time wins.
• Prolonging surrender to prevent a kingdom aiming for the WW crown.
• Dismisses a lot of warring strategies.
• Land dropping to stay in ghetto range.

My suggestion is to remove the war count ratio as it is and replacing it with a kingdom 'Might' rank.

Every kingdom would start with 100.0 as default on 0/0 wars.

When warring, the following factors are taken into consideration:

1. KD vs KD networth ratio (as currently stands)
2. Length of war
3. Current Kingdom Might rank
4. KD Networth/Land ranks

The formula for Might rank exchange would run something like this:

((NW ratio) * (Max Kingdoms / KD Networth~Land rank) * (Utopian Days * 0.02)) * (Losing Kingdom's Might / 10)

Scenario one:
A first war between two kingdoms of equal networth, with a min-time win would result in:
(1 * 0.96) * 10 = 9.6

Winning Kingdom has 109.6 Might
Losing Kingdom has 90.4 Might

Scenario two:
A war as a kingdom with 100 might verses a kingdom with 150 Might and 110% nw, lasting 96 utopian days:

(1.1 * 1.92) * 15 = 31.68

Winning Kingdom has 131.68 Might
Losing Kingdom has 118.32 Might

This promotes positive gameplay:

• Risk vs Reward - Warring kingdoms will want to fight eachother more, for a better reward)
• Warring ghettos will give lower results
• Promotes growth and overall a more competitive play style for the entire server
• Kingdoms who do not want war will be able to avoid war easier, as their might rank will never get deliciously fat
• Long wars are still rewarding
• More accurate representation of strong warring kingdoms

[Cello]

+1

Although you might want to weigh the length of the war slightly less, since it has too much of an impact now. Perhaps factor in a kingdom winning by becoming 50% of their opponents networth as a bonus factor as a counter to lowering the weight of war length in that formula.

[Palem]

I think the current system is ok as a base, it just needs improved upon.
I still think you should receive a bonus for how many wars the kds you beat win.


That way, if I beat say Modesty, Melle Weapons, and Balance, and they all go on to win 15 wars, I get 15 bonus points.

Pretty much eliminates praying on a bunch of terrible ghettos since they won't win many wars and encourages you to war better kds so you can get a better bonus.

[lastunicorn]

So then I strike a deal where I lose to tfc, then bash 10 ghettoes in to give them another 10 points

[Palem]

Fake wars are illegal.

[f1av0r]

I like the general idea of this suggestion

[Orangeychicken]

you would be looking at a ranking system similar to chess rankings.

They take into account a "tie" - the no. of war wins of all your opponents. This tie only comes into place when more than 1 kd has the same rating as another. This encourages taking on really tough opponents and advising opponents after the end of a war so that they may win other wars.

Of course, changes might be made so only no. of war wins of opponents that you beat are counted so there are no suicidal people who take on the strongest and then fight 20 ghettos.

[boz]

I don't think a elo ranking by itself would work. I think it would need to modified by strength of victory. EG a percentage change in your opponents nw divided by the war length

[Ethan]

ELO can be tuned to be surprisingly responsive by adjusting some of the parameters (without incurring significant artifacts), but I agree the sample size is simply too small for a straight ELO setup to work. I do like the idea of starting from a responsible ELO setup, then adding some additional factors to try and push it's responsiveness further while keeping the resulting artifacts "good" - a good artifact being one that over-rewards "clean and fair play" however we eventually view that. Basically, to get a system responsive enough, it'll have to have "mild loopholes" - lets make them those that require a tough fight to exploit.

[Araqiel]

Any mathematicians around to make a plausible algorithm? :p

[Persain]

Any mathematicians around to make a plausible algorithm? :p

You dont need a mathematician to make it u need someone with a poli-scie degree because the biggest problem with the chart is determining the factors that go into it.

Should NW matter?
Should How much u win by matter?
Should # of wars matter than the quality of the kd.
Should how many wars the kd u fight has matter?

Deciding on the factors to use, and how important they are relative to each other is alot harder than making a formula that incorporates everything.

[Araqiel]

You dont need a mathematician to make it u need someone with a poli-scie degree because the biggest problem with the chart is determining the factors that go into it.

Should NW matter?
Should How much u win by matter?
Should # of wars matter than the quality of the kd.
Should how many wars the kd u fight has matter?

Deciding on the factors to use, and how important they are relative to each other is alot harder than making a formula that incorporates everything.

• Networth always matters. Higher networth = Higher raw strength. Whoever has more has the advantage.
• How much you win by should never matter. If you annihilate a kingdom and they let you take 75% of their land, it is a reward in itself. A win is a win, no matter how close or far the margin was.
• The number of wars won will represent the quality of the kingdom, so both go hand in hand. Higher might = higher war wins = higher quality kingdom. The higher the number, the bigger the risk. The bigger the risk, the higher the reward.
• I don't believe total wars participated in really tells anything. The two best warring kingdoms could have their horns locked for six weeks, whilst a ghetto could manage to lose five wars in the mean time. Total wars won against challenging opponents is what really matters. This will be represented by a higher might rank.

[Elldallan]

You dont need a mathematician to make it u need someone with a poli-scie degree because the biggest problem with the chart is determining the factors that go into it.

Should NW matter?
Should How much u win by matter?
Should # of wars matter than the quality of the kd.
Should how many wars the kd u fight has matter?

Deciding on the factors to use, and how important they are relative to each other is alot harder than making a formula that incorporates everything.

• In my opinion the relative NW at the start of the war should have some impact but not all that much.
• How much you win by should not be included unless you auto-win after 7 days because that metric is too uncertain.
• I don't think that what a kingdom goes on and accomplishes after the war is concluded should have any impact at whatsoever(thus you avoid the problem where someone looses and then goes on to bash 10 ghettos to boost the ranking of the kd they lost against).
  But wars fought and wars won at the start of war should have some impact, probably a pretty significant one. This will mean that wars later in the age has a bigger impact than wars early in the age but I don't think that's a huge problem, actually I think it's beneficial, you benefit less from hiding your actual ability, which most kingdoms do to some extent at the start of an age.

I am not the requested political sciences major, I major in chemistry :P

[peteyb22]

I like the idea of factoring in length of war and opponents total (future) war wins.

[Orangeychicken]

Length of war shouldn't be factored in because if you are able to win min. time you can be assumed better than a kingdom that takes close to a week to end.

Relative NW should be taken into account, and possibly a kingdom with a better relative NW should score higher on the charts than the other way.

The only issue with WW is that kingdoms of differing sizes cannot fight each other, and you can end up with 2 kingdoms of 7/7 - one top 20 kd, the other just in the top 100 or something of a sort, and the NW gap is too big for them to fight each other. Possibly set up categories for WW? not sure how it will work though.

Like I said earlier, if you account for total war wins (i guess you could take past wins as well), but only use it as a deciding factor (not a main variable), then it can prove useful - especially if you are going to change the system...

Anyway, why would any KD go on to bash 10 ghettos to let another win? Firstly they put themselves in a bad position for the crown because their rating would not improve by much (theoretically) and it's highly unlikely 10 ghettos are gonna take them on.