War Win Formula

[fawk]

#6 Fair Play is cromulent (#:##) = 5.64
With 1/1 war win only.

Come on bishop this is just f*cking stupid.
With kingdoms slaving all age to have 4/4 wins and 5/5 wins bending over backwards to achieve this, and you can reach it end of age with 1 f*cking win and get rank 6 war win chart.

Please fix this stupid ranking system.

[fawk]

Just to clear this:
#6 Fair Play is cromulent (1/1 ww. Opponent size 113%)
#7 sevve where are thou (4/4 ww. Opponent size 106%)
#8 Seagulls gold in Sochi Hostile (4/4 ww. Opponent size 105%)

And so on... f*cking come on.. this is so stupid.
You know how discouraging this is to warring kingdoms that work hard all age to achieve rank?

[Bishop]

War opponents with more wins than you and you'll get more points. Warring people with 0/1 win wont get you loads of points.

[fawk]

War opponents with more wins than you and you'll get more points. Warring people with 0/1 win wont get you loads of points.

Yes but it creates a problem when a 4/4 kingdom wars a 4/4 kingdom in a very challenging war, only to gain 1 point, while a 0/0 kingdom vs 4/4 kingdom will get over 4 points.
Both fought the same kingdom. Yet one is barely rewarded for it.

[Abscond]

A win from CR 1/1 VS Pyro 3/3 will hand them WW,NW and Land crown. Nice.

[fawk]

Ok Bishop, please consider:

Kingdom A: starts at 0/0
Fights vs 0/0 kd and wins
Fights vs 1/1 kd and wins
Fights vs 2/2 kd and wins (a hard war)
Fights vs 3/3 kd and wins (a very hard war)
Now ranked at around 5 points in ww chart.

Kingdom B: starts at 0/0
Fights vs 3/3 kd and wins (a very hard war)
Now ranked at around 5.5 points in ww chart.

Does it seem reasonable that Kingdom B is ranked higher than Kingdom A?

Currently the ranking system will rank Kingdom B higher than Kingdom A. I think it is pretty clear that kingdom A should be ranked higher.
The war wins ranking system is bad and needs to be changed.

[tetley]

I think beating a 4/4 opponent is supposed to give you more than 1 point. (Bishop can confirm?)

[Sheister]

Fawk,

You think beating a 4/4 opponant that was the #2 ranked kingdom in the game for NW and Land and also recognized as one of the best warring kingdoms in the game as well as the most experienced players in the game is not worth that many war points?

oh, I see your point......


/sarcasm


Lets be clear. There are hard wars and there are HARD wars. If you think for a minute that ANY of your 3/3 or even 4/4 kingdoms in the mid ranks of the land and NW charts can fight anywhere NEAR as hard as AMA, you are not only ignorant, you are foolish.

Let me put this another way. If my 7 year old daughter plays a soccer game against another 7 year old, it will be a hard fought match. Does that mean that they deserve to be ranked anywhere near a premier league team in global rankings?

Accept that your KD is my 7 year old daughter and AMA is a premier league team. Then get over yourself.

[Bishop]

Yes but it creates a problem when a 4/4 kingdom wars a 4/4 kingdom in a very challenging war, only to gain 1 point, while a 0/0 kingdom vs 4/4 kingdom will get over 4 points.
Both fought the same kingdom. Yet one is barely rewarded for it.

I dont think thats how the points are awarded.

[fawk]

Fawk,

You think beating a 4/4 opponant that was the #2 ranked kingdom in the game for NW and Land and also recognized as one of the best warring kingdoms in the game as well as the most experienced players in the game is not worth that many war points?

oh, I see your point......


/sarcasm


Lets be clear. There are hard wars and there are HARD wars. If you think for a minute that ANY of your 3/3 or even 4/4 kingdoms in the mid ranks of the land and NW charts can fight anywhere NEAR as hard as AMA, you are not only ignorant, you are foolish.

Let me put this another way. If my 7 year old daughter plays a soccer game against another 7 year old, it will be a hard fought match. Does that mean that they deserve to be ranked anywhere near a premier league team in global rankings?

Accept that your KD is my 7 year old daughter and AMA is a premier league team. Then get over yourself.

It's funny to see you talk like you have beaten AMA in a fair war.
Now, please pull your head out of your ass and try to understand what i am saying.
If some 3/3 kingdom beats AMA it will receive 1, or maybe 1.5 points.
When your ghetto kingdom 0/0 ranked beat AMA, it received 5.64 points.

Now:
AMA is ranked at 3.71 points in ww charts, after 3 very hard wars.
Pyro is ranked 3.37 points in ww charts, with 3/3 war wins.
Other kingdoms with 4/4 WW record, fighting only undefeated kingdoms are ranked with around 5 points.
Your wonderful kingdom is ranked after one war, with 5.64 points.

It is ranking so high because the ranking system gratifies ghettos like you with 0/0 ranking for beating any kingdom whatsoever.
If Pyro 3/3 would have warred Ama 3/3 and won, they would be ranked with around 5 points (gaining around 1.5 points).
Do you understand that Pyro with 4/4 warwins, after beating AMA, would be ranked lower than you currently are?
I cannot dumb this down any further for you.

This is clearly a bad ranking system and needs to be changed.

[Sheister]

It's funny to see you talk like you have beaten AMA in a fair war.

no, I played in pewpew when I warred them and lost.

Now, please pull your head out of your ass and try to understand what i am saying.
If some 3/3 kingdom beats AMA it will receive 1, or maybe 1.5 points.
When your ghetto kingdom 0/0 ranked beat AMA, it received 5.64 points.

Your argument ends there. If you knew anything about the people in CR, you know they can war and war well. The come from some of the best war KD's to ever have played the game. Please take your ignorance someplace else.

Now:
AMA is ranked at 3.71 points in ww charts, after 3 very hard wars.
Pyro is ranked 3.37 points in ww charts, with 3/3 war wins.
Other kingdoms with 4/4 WW record, fighting only undefeated kingdoms are ranked with around 5 points.
Your wonderful kingdom is ranked after one war, with 5.64 points.

AMA was 4/4 I believe and is now 4/5. Just because the game can't distinguish between an enforcement gang bang and a more legitimate win does not in anyway mean the formula itself is wrong. there are always going to be things wrong with the formula. Had CR won what you would consider a legit win, I think you would agree that they deserve the full points there. If not, you are ignorant.

It is ranking so high because the ranking system gratifies ghettos like you with 0/0 ranking for beating any kingdom whatsoever.
If Pyro 3/3 would have warred Ama 3/3 and won, they would be ranked with around 5 points (gaining around 1.5 points).
Do you understand that Pyro with 4/4 warwins, after beating AMA, would be ranked lower than you currently are?
I cannot dumb this down any further for you.

Please, I know that RK is a ghetto, but you don't need to rub that in my face. Thats just mean. I mean, we are sitting at 2/3 having lost to a war to AMA (before I joined) that we were forced into because of bad luck/bad situations. We probably would have more wars, but we are forced to sit around with no targets because we are stuck between the nublets that refuse to grow and the KD's contending for a crown. But it hurts my feelings to have our ghettoness exposed.

This is clearly a bad ranking system and needs to be changed.

No, its not. You just don't like that your hitting on itty bitty kingdoms in ghetto land can't win you a meaningless WW crown. I can win 9 wars in an age probably if I spend time baiting correctly. You are just being silly with this whining that CR got a huge boost for beating a very able opponant. the points are allotted to rank war abilities. If you beat a 4/4 kingdom, you need to be ranked up with the 4/4 kingdoms under the assumption that the 4/4 kingdom is a better kingdom at warring than a 3/3 kingdom or a 2/2 kingdom etc. This is likely a false assumption in the formula because the greatest warring kingdom on the server might well be sitting at 0/0 because they have not pursued wars. to assume that a kd at 0/0 is a ghetto is also a false assumption. Unfortunately, there is no way that I can see for the game code to distinguish warring and strategic skill in a vacuum without tracking kingdoms through multiple ages. Ergo, it will always be flawed. But the fundamentals that if you beat a 4/4 kingdom, you should get a boatload of points if you are a 0/0 kingdom are sound because you have earned the right to say you are the better kingdom (at least for that matchup). Cry me a river over your meaningless crown. Real war KD's do not war for the crown, they war because warring is more fun than not warring. If you would do that, you would not have your perfect record. grow, fight better KDs and stop being a wimp and crying about it. Otherwise, stay low, war, and enjoy your wars.

When I play low and war, I don't care about WW chart, I care about warring. In fact, I am happiest when I lose one or two wars because it will be easier to get more wars. Being undefeated means you have to bully people or negotiate into a war because other undefeated kingdoms are freaking wusses and won't risk their precious war win record until they think its not at risk. That generally means vulturing or other BS behavior.

so, in short. the formula is fine. Your argument is useless whining. Put a sock in it, you are not as good at warring as CR anyway. you don't deserve any rank. Deal with it.

PS, I am in roughknecks. feel free to contact Tadpole to settle this dispute on the battlefield. I am sure we will oblige you.

**edit**

I did not know this before, but I just found out this fawk person plays in FREE, who notoriously use rune farms, hit into EOWCF, and so on and now he wants to complain about legit WW crowns......

R
O
F
L

go away little boy......

[Minty]

Who gives a ****.... we're #1 and we don't. Pointless crown. Why would anyone play for WW crown? lol. Go have fun instead.

[fawk]

no, I played in pewpew when I warred them and lost.



Your argument ends there. If you knew anything about the people in CR, you know they can war and war well. The come from some of the best war KD's to ever have played the game. Please take your ignorance someplace else.



AMA was 4/4 I believe and is now 4/5. Just because the game can't distinguish between an enforcement gang bang and a more legitimate win does not in anyway mean the formula itself is wrong. there are always going to be things wrong with the formula. Had CR won what you would consider a legit win, I think you would agree that they deserve the full points there. If not, you are ignorant.



Please, I know that RK is a ghetto, but you don't need to rub that in my face. Thats just mean. I mean, we are sitting at 2/3 having lost to a war to AMA (before I joined) that we were forced into because of bad luck/bad situations. We probably would have more wars, but we are forced to sit around with no targets because we are stuck between the nublets that refuse to grow and the KD's contending for a crown. But it hurts my feelings to have our ghettoness exposed.




No, its not. You just don't like that your hitting on itty bitty kingdoms in ghetto land can't win you a meaningless WW crown. I can win 9 wars in an age probably if I spend time baiting correctly. You are just being silly with this whining that CR got a huge boost for beating a very able opponant. the points are allotted to rank war abilities. If you beat a 4/4 kingdom, you need to be ranked up with the 4/4 kingdoms under the assumption that the 4/4 kingdom is a better kingdom at warring than a 3/3 kingdom or a 2/2 kingdom etc. This is likely a false assumption in the formula because the greatest warring kingdom on the server might well be sitting at 0/0 because they have not pursued wars. to assume that a kd at 0/0 is a ghetto is also a false assumption. Unfortunately, there is no way that I can see for the game code to distinguish warring and strategic skill in a vacuum without tracking kingdoms through multiple ages. Ergo, it will always be flawed. But the fundamentals that if you beat a 4/4 kingdom, you should get a boatload of points if you are a 0/0 kingdom are sound because you have earned the right to say you are the better kingdom (at least for that matchup). Cry me a river over your meaningless crown. Real war KD's do not war for the crown, they war because warring is more fun than not warring. If you would do that, you would not have your perfect record. grow, fight better KDs and stop being a wimp and crying about it. Otherwise, stay low, war, and enjoy your wars.

When I play low and war, I don't care about WW chart, I care about warring. In fact, I am happiest when I lose one or two wars because it will be easier to get more wars. Being undefeated means you have to bully people or negotiate into a war because other undefeated kingdoms are freaking wusses and won't risk their precious war win record until they think its not at risk. That generally means vulturing or other BS behavior.

so, in short. the formula is fine. Your argument is useless whining. Put a sock in it, you are not as good at warring as CR anyway. you don't deserve any rank. Deal with it.

PS, I am in roughknecks. feel free to contact Tadpole to settle this dispute on the battlefield. I am sure we will oblige you.

**edit**

I did not know this before, but I just found out this fawk person plays in FREE, who notoriously use rune farms, hit into EOWCF, and so on and now he wants to complain about legit WW crowns......

R
O
F
L

go away little boy......

You really put a lot of time and effort in your trolling.
Not only that you waste your time searching my old threads trying to find out where i used to play. I feel sorry for you.

[Sheister]

excellent counter point. yes, it takes a lot of time to ask in irc if anyone has heard of you and get a reply that you play in FREE. Murdered my time commitments over my morning coffee.

[Verminator]

If he's in FREE, he shouldn't really care about the war win charts, his kingdom isn't getting anywhere on them for the rest of the age, and it was THEIR choice too. ;)