Crown Winners' List

[octobrev]

Crown Winners' List

Mission: Fill in the players involved in each crown using the comment function. Go ahead an add yourselves and others you played with. ONLY the province crown winners go on the province crown tab, not kd mates.

I'll consolidate player lists and clean it up occasionally.

[Darkz Azn]

sad ... most of the data were in sheep before hawk took it down =\

[clarey]

Yawn

[brandonc204]

[tetley]

underrated post, would laugh again

[Darklove]

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20080...ge10k-2/nw.htm

you can find the missing there i belive

[octobrev]

It's missing pieces ;_;

Help me Bishop!

[Lestat]

I know a guy gunning for Avian province honour crown. I'll put him in touch if he wins.

[Verminator]

I know a guy gunning for Avian province honour crown. I'll put him in touch if he wins.

You better make sure I don't get it!

[dawan]

ned to know the all time best playr

cant b the rock

[octobrev]

That would undoubtedly be TheMango aka phiwha with his 34 crowns! (I may be overlooking a couple)

[flogger]

That would undoubtedly be TheMango aka phiwha with his 34 crowns! (I may be overlooking a couple)

Gotta dock him some crowns given the one age we played together I made the decisions, he disagreed with every one, and we beat everyone by 50k in war

His greatest skill may well be managing to win crowns while simultaneously being wrong about everything at all times

[AquaSeaFoam]

WoL vs Battlefields history lesson.

Utopia once had too many players to be able to run on a single server smoothly. Therefore two servers were made and the rules only allowed a player to play on one of them. Age 8 and 9, kingdoms were randomly assigned. There was a problem though with well organized kingdoms bashing weak kingdoms so for Age 10, all of the well performing kingdoms were placed on the Battlefields server and all of the not so well performing kingdoms were placed on the WoL server. It remained this way in subsequent ages, with the worst performing Battlefields kingdoms being demoted to WoL and the best performing WoL kingdoms being promoted to Battlefields.

It was the same concept as the English Football league with the best performing teams in the Premier league based on the previous season's performance. Of course in Utopia, there is a wider discrepancy between the best kingdoms and the worst kingdoms than the difference between the Premier league and non Premier League professional soccer teams. Therefore, a closer example would be if you included all the amateur and youth soccer teams as well in the system and most of the professional teams being on the Battlefields league and the WoL league being mostly amature teams playing for fun.

Then there were some professional level players who thought it'd be a hoot to bash noobs in the amature WoL league by scamming the system to script a team onto the amature server for an age while still playing on their real professional teams on the battlefields server. The team of pros trashed the noobs on the amature server while barely trying and triple crowned. A few other teams also scammed the system to unfairly join/stay on the amature server, but for the most part, the professional teams stayed on Battlefields and the casual teams stayed on WoL.

To change analogies, comparing crowns on the WoL and Bettlefields server is like comparing winning the world series to winning a recreational softball tournament. Sure, the Yankees could join the recreational softball league for the fun of smashing amatures there to drink beer, and the Yankees would still be a good team even in the amature softball league, but winning the softball tournament would not be comparable to winning the World Series. The best few WoL kingdoms generally could compete with Battlefields kingdoms, but they scammed the system to stay on the casual server and therefore didn't face even close to the same competition.

I could give an example of a kingdom I knew who was trashed on battlefields by kingdom after kingdom until they were in the bottom 10% of the battlefields server and truely one of the worst kingdoms on the server. The next age they were demoted to WoL and without any significant changes in the kingdom they were competing for #1 on WoL.

By Age 30, the player population had dropped enough and computer technology improved enough that the could now host all kingdoms on one server again without it being too slow. Since this age had both WoL and Battlefields together, it's useful to see how the WoL kingdoms did when combined. The #1 WoL kingdom, DropBearz, did not place in the top 50 combined (didn't compete?). The #2 WoL kingdom finished #35 the next age on the combined server. The #3 WoL kingdom finished #37 the next age when combined. The WoL #7 and #11 finishers were the only two other WoL top 50 kingdoms that I could find on the combined server top 50 the next age. Therefore, it looks like only 4 of the top 50 WoL kingdoms managed to finish in the top 50 of the combined server with none of them making the top 10.

No legitimate Utopia competitive crown list counts Genesis server wins, Utopia clone wins, Starcraft wins, or WoL server wins from ages 10-29. All of those may be achievements, but they are separate from competitive server crowns. A "crown list" is already a poor oversimplification of player and kingdom success, but it loses all value completely if you start counting non competitive servers like WoL or Genesis.

[Pillz]

WoL vs Battlefields history lesson.

Utopia once had too many players to be able to run on a single server smoothly. Therefore two servers were made and the rules only allowed a player to play on one of them. Age 8 and 9, kingdoms were randomly assigned. There was a problem though with well organized kingdoms bashing weak kingdoms so for Age 10, all of the well performing kingdoms were placed on the Battlefields server and all of the not so well performing kingdoms were placed on the WoL server. It remained this way in subsequent ages, with the worst performing Battlefields kingdoms being demoted to WoL and the best performing WoL kingdoms being promoted to Battlefields.

It was the same concept as the English Football league with the best performing teams in the Premier league based on the previous season's performance. Of course in Utopia, there is a wider discrepancy between the best kingdoms and the worst kingdoms than the difference between the Premier league and non Premier League professional soccer teams. Therefore, a closer example would be if you included all the amateur and youth soccer teams as well in the system and most of the professional teams being on the Battlefields league and the WoL league being mostly amature teams playing for fun.

Then there were some professional level players who thought it'd be a hoot to bash noobs in the amature WoL league by scamming the system to script a team onto the amature server for an age while still playing on their real professional teams on the battlefields server. The team of pros trashed the noobs on the amature server while barely trying and triple crowned. A few other teams also scammed the system to unfairly join/stay on the amature server, but for the most part, the professional teams stayed on Battlefields and the casual teams stayed on WoL.

To change analogies, comparing crowns on the WoL and Bettlefields server is like comparing winning the world series to winning a recreational softball tournament. Sure, the Yankees could join the recreational softball league for the fun of smashing amatures there to drink beer, and the Yankees would still be a good team even in the amature softball league, but winning the softball tournament would not be comparable to winning the World Series. The best few WoL kingdoms generally could compete with Battlefields kingdoms, but they scammed the system to stay on the casual server and therefore didn't face even close to the same competition.

I could give an example of a kingdom I knew who was trashed on battlefields by kingdom after kingdom until they were in the bottom 10% of the battlefields server and truely one of the worst kingdoms on the server. The next age they were demoted to WoL and without any significant changes in the kingdom they were competing for #1 on WoL.

By Age 30, the player population had dropped enough and computer technology improved enough that the could now host all kingdoms on one server again without it being too slow. Since this age had both WoL and Battlefields together, it's useful to see how the WoL kingdoms did when combined. The #1 WoL kingdom, DropBearz, did not place in the top 50 combined (didn't compete?). The #2 WoL kingdom finished #35 the next age on the combined server. The #3 WoL kingdom finished #37 the next age when combined. The WoL #7 and #11 finishers were the only two other WoL top 50 kingdoms that I could find on the combined server top 50 the next age. Therefore, it looks like only 4 of the top 50 WoL kingdoms managed to finish in the top 50 of the combined server with none of them making the top 10.

No legitimate Utopia competitive crown list counts Genesis server wins, Utopia clone wins, Starcraft wins, or WoL server wins from ages 10-29. All of those may be achievements, but they are separate from competitive server crowns. A "crown list" is already a poor oversimplification of player and kingdom success, but it loses all value completely if you start counting non competitive servers like WoL or Genesis.

If Age 29 is WoL, and Age 30 is combined, then Dropbearz(1), PARADOX(2), and Fratzia(7) all charted respectably on the combined server at 4th, 15th and 13th. In age 31 they also did well at 5th, 9th, and 35th.

[AquaSeaFoam]

If Age 29 is WoL, and Age 30 is combined, then Dropbearz(1), PARADOX(2), and Fratzia(7) all charted respectably on the combined server at 4th, 15th and 13th. In age 31 they also did well at 5th, 9th, and 35th.

False, the utopia-game posted rankings are broken for ages 30 and 31. Check the wayback machine for the real rankings. Notice on the utopia-game rankings there are many kingdoms with the exact same name, location and acres on the 29, 30, and 31 charts. I already described in my post how the WoL kingdoms actually charted once moved to Battlefields.

Well if we go into the bussiness of deciding which crowns are legit crowns or not we're treading dangerous waters. I'd say it's a safe bet to say that most WoL crowns from ages 10-29 were more competitive than the crowns of the last 10-15 ages...

I'm saying that there is one server that counted each age for competition (besides the two ages I mentioned.) Why is no one here arguing for inclusion of genesis crowns or crowns from the utopia clones?

Crowns is crowns! Choosing to play on the easier server is just good strategy imo.

There was one official competitive server thought utopia's history with the exception of two ages. "Winning" on some other server, be it WoL, Genesis, ******, or Orkfia is just not the same in the same way that winning the local beer league softball tournament is not the same as winning the World Series. Winning at these other places is not a Utopia "crown." If you won on WoL, your reward was being invited to play on the competitive server the next age.

and what people are missing is that most wol "top kds" were just people from BF ;)

Yes, I did state this already. The few scripted "good" kingdoms on WoL like Brute Force were composed of battlefields players. Brute Force was basically a troll kingdom for battlefields players to noob bash for lolz to distract from the hard work of their real competitive kingdom. Brute evolved into a real kingdom over time and moved to Battlefields and competed successfully but few other WoL kingdoms really did so.