Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 225

Thread: Crown Winners' List

  1. #16
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Pillz View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korp View Post
    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.

  2. #17
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,637
    All this from the guy who originally tried to include race crowns to improve his standing!

    Grandpa Syntico, in his infinite wisdom, ordained this system of measurement. As a Pansies player he would reside at the top of your both list or and ours. He was thus uniquely positioned to cast judgement on the matter without bias.
    theHERETICS - Brute Force - Sonata - Dreams - The Pulsing Trollfags - The Expendables
    Visit my home for banned, neglected, and otherwise disenfranchised players on Discord!

  3. #18
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,226
    If I suggested race crowns, it was with the same sarcasm that I suggest including genesis crowns and crowns from the clones. It's irrelevant what position Syntico would be at. What is relevant is that only one server was competitive. It was established that way directly by Mehul and any reasonable examination of the facts confirms it.

  4. #19
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam View Post
    If I suggested race crowns, it was with the same sarcasm that I suggest including genesis crowns and crowns from the clones. It's irrelevant what position Syntico would be at. What is relevant is that only one server was competitive. It was established that way directly by Mehul and any reasonable examination of the facts confirms it.
    How many high quality kingdoms were in WoL (generally speaking)?

  5. #20
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,404
    so are we using revisionism to rewrite the history of the Battlefield server now?

    As far as I remember kingdoms could always opt to stay or to be transfered to that server meaning it was not always about ranks or who was better but who had the balls to join. Sadly to many kingdoms opted for the Wol server, and the reasoning given behind closure of battlefield server was something along the lines of the game having to force to many kingdoms to go to that server against their wishes age after age.

    Personly went on to compete solo for genesis when my true home Battlefield was taken down, when genesis too was decomissioned due to lack of players I was rather taken aback by the level of ****play and farming gooing on joining the Wol server, it might have been the diffrence between t50 in battlefield and random ghettoing in Wol, but it sure seemed to me like it was dog eat dog and the competition was much more firence than what I was used to on those other servers.
    Furthermore I think Carthage should be destroyed and Dryads brought back to the game

  6. #21
    I like to post
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,531
    Win crown never was easy. How Korp pointed many from ages WoL Kds have won are ppl from BF coming in WoL. Difference from both Servers is BF Was much more alliance oriented and number kingdoms know how to trade/scrip and not get deleted was more from kingdoms in WoL. Its what made BF "better" server.
    Still WoL or BF server win stay in history chart. Talk how one is better from other don't make much sense. In old days game was very very dirty include all kind farmings/GB and more. So every one have done all what is possible for win crown.
    “the mystery of life isn’t a problem to solve, but a reality to experience.”
    ― Frank Herbert, Dune

    “I should've suspected trouble when the coffee failed to arrive.”
    ― Frank Herbert, Dune

  7. #22
    Post Fiend JoRoSaR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    158
    Ooooh I wanted to remember at some point what crowns I had, it's been so long I didn't remember exactly when. This is excellent :)
    RUTHLESS // Randomers // BiO // Pulse // Pyro // BeastBlood // BlameMod

    #Giraffes #PayKuhan

    Playing Since Age 18
    Resident esports gob
    Ooooh I didn't even know I had crowns, are they edible?

  8. #23
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,837
    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.
    What I meant, a lot of BF multied on WoL playing in kingdoms that were in the top. I didnt talk about "real kingdoms".


    Quote Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam View Post
    If I suggested race crowns, it was with the same sarcasm that I suggest including genesis crowns and crowns from the clones. It's irrelevant what position Syntico would be at. What is relevant is that only one server was competitive. It was established that way directly by Mehul and any reasonable examination of the facts confirms it.
    But that doesnt make any sense, just cause you dont have the "top kingdoms" on wol doesnt mean it wasnt competitive.

  9. #24
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Palem View Post
    How many high quality kingdoms were in WoL (generally speaking)?
    On an average age, 1 or 2 would have been top 20 Battlefields quality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madchess View Post
    so are we using revisionism to rewrite the history of the Battlefield server now?

    As far as I remember kingdoms could always opt to stay or to be transfered to that server meaning it was not always about ranks or who was better but who had the balls to join. Sadly to many kingdoms opted for the Wol server, and the reasoning given behind closure of battlefield server was something along the lines of the game having to force to many kingdoms to go to that server against their wishes age after age.
    You flat out remember wrong. Kingdoms were never given the "choice" on either server. If you finished in the bottom cutoff percent of Battlefields, you were demoted to WoL. If you finished in the top cutoff percent of WoL you were promoted to Battlefields. If you were on WoL and had less than 18 provinces returning you'd stay on the server even if you were in the top cutoff percent. This is how kingdoms like Brute could stay even if they did well. They'd tell enough of their players to select to not stay and then try and script them back next age.

    You are also completely off base about the reason the servers were merged. Mehul publicly announced that he never wanted to have two different servers but he was forced to for technical reasons (the game was simply too slow and unplayable on one.) Once the player numbers and technology allowed having one server again, he could then have the single server again that he always desired.

    Certainly, there were some kingdoms that resented being forced to go to battlefields after finishing well on WoL and not manipulating their returning player numbers to stay. These kingdoms typically went from being one of the best and strongest kingdoms on the server and easily finishing top 10 to being out of the top 50 and trashed by every single opponent they faced. It's not too much different from when competition on the single server was stronger and many kingdoms intentionally chose to stay small so they could win most fights and if they grew they'd be trashed by the top kingdoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elit View Post
    Win crown never was easy. How Korp pointed many from ages WoL Kds have won are ppl from BF coming in WoL. Difference from both Servers is BF Was much more alliance oriented and number kingdoms know how to trade/scrip and not get deleted was more from kingdoms in WoL. Its what made BF "better" server.
    Still WoL or BF server win stay in history chart. Talk how one is better from other don't make much sense. In old days game was very very dirty include all kind farmings/GB and more. So every one have done all what is possible for win crown.
    Before Korp ever posted, I had already explained that the few good WoL kingdoms were mostly composed of Battlefields players "multiing agains the rules" on Wol like the Yankees playing in a recreational softball league as a fun chance to bash noobs. Winning on WoL was much easier than Battlefields. On Battlefields it was a challenge just to make the top 10. This is exemplified by how not a single WoL kingdom made the top 10 once the Battlefields and Wol servers were combined and only 4 WoL kingdoms even made the top 50. This is pretty conclusive.

    As an example, there was a Battlefields alliance kingdom that was struggling. They lost fight after fight and despite trying to grow and stay on Battlefields, they were just too bad and got demoted to WoL. The next age on WoL they had the same leaders and players and were #1 much of the age and finished in #2 just barely behind #1. When they went back to Battlefields, they were again terrible, losing nearly every fight and unable to place in the top 50.

    You can give whatever reason you want for battlefields kingdoms being better (better at cheating or whatever) but the bottom line is that they were. By your logic, the winner of the world cup and the winner of a local youth soccer tournament both get a trophy and so they are both crown winners and it makes no sense to talk about how one is better than the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korp View Post
    What I meant, a lot of BF multied on WoL playing in kingdoms that were in the top. I didnt talk about "real kingdoms".

    But that doesnt make any sense, just cause you dont have the "top kingdoms" on wol doesnt mean it wasnt competitive.
    Sure, a youth soccer tournament is still competitive. It's just not the world cup. The game admin designated WoL as the casual server and designated Battlefields as the competitive server and moved kingdoms to and from them accordingly according to performance and number of players.

  10. #25
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,637
    Who are we to make assumptions about the intent of our Creator?
    theHERETICS - Brute Force - Sonata - Dreams - The Pulsing Trollfags - The Expendables
    Visit my home for banned, neglected, and otherwise disenfranchised players on Discord!

  11. #26
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam View Post
    On an average age, 1 or 2 would have been top 20 Battlefields quality.
    And now we have maybe 2-3 "BF quality" kingdoms in a given age, so we've stopped counting them as "crowns" right? Because this server as it stands couldn't possibly compete against the old BF server...

  12. #27
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,226
    Octo, They are not assumptions. They were handed down to us in His own words here on these very forums.

    Palem, it is a fair point that competition has significantly diminished. Certainly the trolls could choose to only count crowns from a certain age range. Diminished competition now though doesn't justify counting other servers like the casual server or genesis server for ages when there was a competitive server. The #2 kingdom on the competitive server accomplished a much harder task than the #1 kingdom on the casual server. If you want to weigh real accomplishments, you'd need some sort of weighted system that took into account both rank and competition level and looked at more than just "crowns."

    Let's say that Baseball players and teams are much better now on average than they were 70 years ago. Should we not count the World Series winners from 70 years ago? Should we start counting a major league World Series winner as well as a minor league champion in the modern winners? To me, it seems dumb to count a minor league champion as the same as the World Series champion when the worst major league team was still probably better than the minor league champion. Perhaps the minor league champion is as good as the World Series winner from 70 years ago, but that still doesn't excuse that there are 30 major league teams this year that are better than the minor league champion.

    Addendum:
    I'd like to add that there was also a second reason for why the two servers were arranged into a casual one and a competitive one. the first reason that was already discussed was so that the competitive kingdoms wouldn't smash he noobs as bad and make them quit (kingdoms that scripted onto the casual server specifically to noob bash were directly in contradiction of this.) This was only part of the reason and as already stated, Mehul preferred one server with all kingdoms together even with noobs getting bashed.

    The other reason, and the reason that Mehul stated he didn't want split servers at all if it was technically feasible to avoid, was to have one continuous world. One continuous world allowed for meaningful rankings and interactions. The two ages where kingdoms were randomly assigned between servers took a lot away from the game because there was no true winners those two ages because each server winner had a valid claim to the crown. It's like if the AFC and NFC champs never faced each other in the Superbowl and each could claim to be the best. A large part of placing the competitive kingdoms together was to allow for 1 winner with everyone competing together. It was the next best solution when for technical reasons you couldn't have all kingdoms on one server. Having a competitive and casual server at least allowed the competing kingdoms to all compete with each other for the crowns on the Battlefields server.
    Last edited by AquaSeaFoam; 02-12-2016 at 22:16.

  13. #28
    Sir Postalot Pillz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sinners NA
    Posts
    3,351
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam View Post
    Octo, They are not assumptions. They were handed down to us in His own words here on these very forums.

    Palem, it is a fair point that competition has significantly diminished. Certainly the trolls could choose to only count crowns from a certain age range. Diminished competition now though doesn't justify counting other servers like the casual server or genesis server for ages when there was a competitive server. The #2 kingdom on the competitive server accomplished a much harder task than the #1 kingdom on the casual server. If you want to weigh real accomplishments, you'd need some sort of weighted system that took into account both rank and competition level and looked at more than just "crowns."

    Let's say that Baseball players and teams are much better now on average than they were 70 years ago. Should we not count the World Series winners from 70 years ago? Should we start counting a major league World Series winner as well as a minor league champion in the modern winners? To me, it seems dumb to count a minor league champion as the same as the World Series champion when the worst major league team was still probably better than the minor league champion. Perhaps the minor league champion is as good as the World Series winner from 70 years ago, but that still doesn't excuse that there are 30 major league teams this year that are better than the minor league champion.

    Addendum:
    I'd like to add that there was also a second reason for why the two servers were arranged into a casual one and a competitive one. the first reason that was already discussed was so that the competitive kingdoms wouldn't smash he noobs as bad and make them quit (kingdoms that scripted onto the casual server specifically to noob bash were directly in contradiction of this.) This was only part of the reason and as already stated, Mehul preferred one server with all kingdoms together even with noobs getting bashed.

    The other reason, and the reason that Mehul stated he didn't want split servers at all if it was technically feasible to avoid, was to have one continuous world. One continuous world allowed for meaningful rankings and interactions. The two ages where kingdoms were randomly assigned between servers took a lot away from the game because there was no true winners those two ages because each server winner had a valid claim to the crown. It's like if the AFC and NFC champs never faced each other in the Superbowl and each could claim to be the best. A large part of placing the competitive kingdoms together was to allow for 1 winner with everyone competing together. It was the next best solution when for technical reasons you couldn't have all kingdoms on one server. Having a competitive and casual server at least allowed the competing kingdoms to all compete with each other for the crowns on the Battlefields server.
    The more you post the more it sounds like everything post Dreams shouldn't count.

    And I don't even like dreams.

  14. #29
    I like to post MyNameIsMatija's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    4,960
    Quote Originally Posted by MyNameIsMatija View Post
    The Paradigm
    UTOPIA - THE SIMPLE AGE VICTORY COUNT

    --- KINGDOM ---------- WINS ---

    Playboys (of Absalom) --- 6
    Cromulent Republic --- 4
    Pansies (of Absalom) --- 4
    Rage of Absalom --- 4
    Brute Force --- 3
    Emeriti --- 3
    HaLL of Heroes --- 3
    Sanctuary of Absalom --- 3
    Beastblood --- 2
    Beauty of Absalom --- 2
    Seal of Solomon --- 2
    Seasons --- 2
    Sonata --- 2
    Alias of Absalom --- 1
    AMA --- 1
    Bring It On --- 1
    Cartoon Networth FV --- 1
    Desire --- 1
    Dreams --- 1
    Equilibrium of Absalom --- 1
    Evil Dragons --- 1
    eX Force Xe --- 1
    Fratzia --- 1
    Great Southern Land --- 1
    HMCS Heroes Blades --- 1
    Jesters Troupe --- 1
    Legion of Blades --- 1
    Morgoths Minions --- 1
    Old School --- 1
    Pantheon --- 1
    Paradox Gauntlet --- 1
    Prismatic Warriors --- 1
    PyroManiaCs --- 1
    Relentless Armies --- 1
    Shadowlight --- 1
    Swedish Warlords Epic Alliance --- 1
    The End is NR 1 --- 1
    The Pulsing Trollfags --- 1
    United Britannia --- 1
    United Provinces CQ --- 1
    WarCry --- 1
    Zenobias Zealots C --- 1

    My own list of the 69 ages winners inspired by octobrev's effort, each age counts as one crown. During the first few ages of the Battlefields server I give the win to whoever had more land on either of the servers and later to Battlefields winners due to the abundantly fiercer competition. If you notice any mistakes please inform me so I can edit the list (for example, in my opinion Age 29 Battlefields server rankings are missing from the wayback machine and I've put DropBearz as age 29 winners even though it might have been someone else who actually crowned on Battlefields that age - presumably Playboys which would put them at 7 wins).
    FILE: http://www.megafileupload.com/S9h5/The_Paradigm.xlsm

    EXPLANATION OF THE LOGIC
    Just like in sports we count titles for periods of time, not based on the level of the competition. For example a World Cup title from the early ages of football(soccer) counts towards the total count of World Cup titles of a nation even though today's football is considerably more advanced. This is why I consider each age as a title to obtain, factoring in the relevance of the competition within the age itself. One thing to note is that this is a list of the most decorated winners, not necessarily a list of the best KDs. Just like in other sports, the best teams don't necessarily win. Luck, skill, cheating, referee mistakes, you name it, they all contribute towards determining a tournament winner in their own right, that's why it's still a game and tournaments are held in the first place.
    Why does ASF always copy my logic? Is it just because my logic is flawless or because it suits him? Hmm... Questions...
    Age 65 - FreeakStyle - FeyrPlay Alliance Win - Dwarves Stole My Bike
    Age 66 - FreeakStyle - #1 Honor & Warring Kingdom - Making FS Great Again
    Age 67 - BeastBlood - #1 Honor Human(Prince) - Steve from Walmart
    Age 68 - BeastBlood ft OldSchool - #1 Honor Kingdom & Avian - We Are All Feyr
    Age 69 - Ancient Spartans - #1 Kingdom in The History of Utopia - Clever Use of Words
    Age 70 - Ancient Spartans - #1 Land(25325 acres) & NW Faery - Spartan of Redeeming Qualities

  15. #30
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,226
    Your logic is pretty spot on there ^^

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •