WoL really was bad, even if asf is laying it somewhat thick about just how bad.
WoL really was bad, even if asf is laying it somewhat thick about just how bad.
My logic always is. It's the premises that I need to work on, it will come, in time!Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam
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
So is current utopia...
Palems like a cloud of doom returned to haunt these forums int heir death throes
I mean...it is lol
I'm not trying to be a Debby downer, but if you're going to discredit WoL crowns for not being very competitive, I'm not sure how you can count recent crowns when they've been comparatively just as noncompetitive.
Where was everyone when I was arguing with ASF about this alone? This was my exact stance... Also palem chart is = to WW chart.
"The Utopian voice of reason" ~Ben (And he's an official moderator)
Cause Palem doesnt hide behind trickery and false trails!
Palem, in the same way you count the world series winner from 70 years ago when competition wasn't as good but you still don't count the minor league winner today even if the minor league today is about as good as the major league was 70 years ago. It wouldn't make sense to count the minor league winner today when there are 30+ major league teams today better than that minor league winner today.
Likewise, many of those WoL ages, there were 30 Battlefields kingdoms better than the WoL winner, and even if the WoL winner happened to be a good kingdom that age (like Brute) they didn't face any good competition so the feat was akin to the Yankees winning a local recreational softball tournament against amateurs there to drink beer.
Most likely top 30 WoL kingdoms back then would have much higher player quality than top 30 kingdoms in Utopia now. Also if the quality of the WoL was so poor why werent there more tripple crowns then since a lot of kingdoms consisted of BF players and you make it sound that everyone in WoL was basically ****.
Palems reasoning is sound, if you dont count WoL kingdoms back then due to lack of skill you shouldnt count crowns in this era of Utopia cause they are basically worse than WoL kingdoms back then.
Besides if we look at the rankings for WoL there was plenty of kingdoms that had good standings in BF that there from time to time.
Last edited by Korp; 03-12-2016 at 20:25.
Korp,
It's hard to compare with trading and sitting legal today. Also, players today are generally the same players that were around back then just with more experience now and potentially more real world commitments on the flip side. I don't disagree that the server today may be a similar level of competitiveness overall as WoL back then, however I will still say that back then the #2-10 battlefields kingdoms accomplishments were more worthy than a WoL crown winner yet I see no one arguing for handing crowns out to them.
I think my reasoning is also sound. You count World Series winners from 70 years ago when looking at a list of world series winners even though the competition wasn't as good. You don't count minor league winners today, even if the minor league is as competitive as the major league was 70 years ago. A crown count is already not an accurate measure of how good a kingdom was and never will be no matter what ages you include or don't include. It's certainly possible and reasonable though to say that "Ages xx-xx were the most competitive and kingdom x got the most crowns in this time frame so I consider them the best of all time."
To get a triple crown back then, you needed to specifically try for a triple crown. You needed to stay small and war early then grow late. Very few kingdoms made organized efforts for that. Brute and Drop Bearz did do it, but Brute didn't try for it every age, took ages off, and eventually moved to Battlefields. Other kingdoms really just weren't that good and few even tried to triple crown. Most of the other "top" WoL kingdoms were around #30 battlefields quality.
Last edited by AquaSeaFoam; 03-12-2016 at 20:41.
Yeah, because no one praised the dream team for obliterating inferior opponents. If you had gold glove winners and a few Cy Young winners all demoted to the minor league and they went 162-0 (I don't know how long minor league season is), they're still an incredible team that accomplished things worthy of note. Last I checked they do give out trophies and write it down somewhere when an amateur team wins their league.
WoL kingdoms (amateur league) were generally composed of BF players (pro players). The goal of the WoL server was the same as the BF server (as opposed to Gen which served as a testing ground for people to try different stuff out without compromising their main account). Good kingdoms competed against other good kingdoms for the same goals.
I don't think anyone would argue that crowning on WoL was just as tough as crowning on BF, but to completely disregard their accomplishments is as much a joke as me claiming that the BF server was the minor league because they weren't competing against me.
But in the end its far easier to use the simple method of counting crowns, a crown is a crown. Using subjective viewpoint of what merits as a "valid" crown is just tiresome and troublesome cause people will never be able to agree. For example, why wouldnt BF crowns count on WoL they for sure were a superior kingdom in a lot of ways that would give BF kingdoms bang for their buck. Quality wise they were as good as any Battlefield kingdom.
Im just saying you thinking WoL is such a free ride, more battlfield player should have made the tripple crown due to lack of competition, i mean if a Major league player cant cut it in the minor league what good are they then? :P
Palem,
The Dream Team won the olympics which is the highest level competition of it's sort. This will come across as very non-PC, but the analogy is more like if the Dream Team competed in the special olympics and destroyed all competition while not competing in the able bodied Olympics.
Yes, you get a trophy for winning an amateur softball tournament. That does not make it equal to winning the world series. I'm not suggesting the WoL winner s shouldn't be written down somewhere, I'm just saying it shouldn't be combined on the same list as the winners of the competitive servers.
It was specifically against the rules to play on both WoL and Battlefields since the whole reason for having two servers was to deal with player load and playing on both would defeat the purpose of splitting them. A few top WoL kingdoms (like Brute) were indeed scripted superkingdoms composed of battlefields players. I don't think there is any evidence though to say that WoL kingdoms in general were composed of BF players. Clearly this is not even possible given player numbers on both servers (they weren't even) as well as unlikely if you look at the player numbers of the combined servers and the split ones.
When the server split was arranged from Age 10 onward, The WoL kingdoms were specifically selected as the worst kingdoms out of all of the combined kingdoms and the Battlefields kingdoms selected as all of the best kingdoms. Each age the worst on Battlefields and the best on WoL were moved to the appropriate competitive or casual server to reflect kingdoms improving or decaying. Yes, a few kingdoms like Brute cheated the system with scripting to play on the bad server with a good kingdom, but from a competitive perspective WoL was undeniably the minor leagues while the Battlefields was the major leagues. It was intentionally set up this way by Mehul.
I'm in no way suggesting that WoL accomplishments (or genesis accomplishments, or clone accomplishments) should not be recorded or remembered for what they were. I am only arguing against considering them as equivalent to a battlefields crown. Again, it's my opinion (based on evidence) that the #2-10 Battlefields kingdoms accomplished a more difficult task most ages than the WoL winner. There were a few ages where massive deletion sweeps or other shenanigans on Battlefields also made those crowns less valuable, but Battlefields was still the competitive server while WoL was the casual server.
Last edited by AquaSeaFoam; 03-12-2016 at 21:24.
Korp, I was not interested in noob bashing or scripting kingdoms or illegally multiing and risking getting deleted. It's the reason I turned down joining Brute when they were forming and I was recruited. Brute was a fully scripted "troll" kingdom to show WoL how bad they were compared to Battlefields kingdoms. The irony is that in successfully noob bashing to a never before seen extent, in some people's minds Brute seemed to have legitimized the WoL server as somehow being competitive because there was one battlefields quality kingdom on there bashing noobs.
Brute moved to battlefields and they did manage to crown there too, but they had a harder time with it and there were many kingdoms they did not want to fight 1v1 and many that they lost to 1v1.
The Olympics is very much considered less competitive than the NBA. The best players in the world join the NBA to compete against each other and win a championship (and get ridiculously paid). I think it was Carmelo Anthony that suggested that the Olympics >NBA and the overwhelming response was people laughing at him.
That's not what this is though. This is a crown list. People crowned in WoL. As I said, no one is arguing that WoL = BF.Yes, you get a trophy for winning an amateur softball tournament. That does not make it equal to winning the world series. I'm not suggesting the WoL winner s shouldn't be written down somewhere, I'm just saying it shouldn't be combined on the same list as the winners of the competitive servers.
I don't think I articulated my point. I meant that the top WoL kingdoms typically had BF players, not that every WoL kingdoms had BF players.It was specifically against the rules to play on both WoL and Battlefields since the whole reason for having two servers was to deal with player load and playing on both would defeat the purpose of splitting them. A few top WoL kingdoms (like Brute) were indeed scripted superkingdoms composed of battlefields players. I don't think there is any evidence though to say that WoL kingdoms in general were composed of BF players. Clearly this is not even possible given player numbers on both servers (they weren't even) as well as unlikely if you look at the player numbers of the combined servers and the split ones.
I'll say again, no one is arguing that WoL = BF.When the server split was arranged from Age 10 onward, The WoL kingdoms were specifically selected as the worst kingdoms out of all of the combined kingdoms and the Battlefields kingdoms selected as all of the best kingdoms. Each age the worst on Battlefields and the best on WoL were moved to the appropriate competitive or casual server to reflect kingdoms improving or decaying. Yes, a few kingdoms like Brute cheated the system with scripting to play on the bad server with a good kingdom, but from a competitive perspective WoL was undeniably the minor leagues while the Battlefields was the major leagues. It was intentionally set up this way by Mehul.
I'm in no way suggesting that WoL accomplishments (or genesis accomplishments, or clone accomplishments) should not be recorded or remembered for what they were. I am only arguing against considering them as equivalent to a battlefields crown. Again, it's my opinion (based on evidence) that the #2-10 Battlefields kingdoms accomplished a more difficult task most ages than the WoL winner. There were a few ages where massive deletion sweeps or other shenanigans on Battlefields also made those crowns less valuable, but Battlefields was still the competitive server while WoL was the casual server.
If you went to Appalachian State and ask them how many championships they've won in football, they're going to tell you they've won 3 championships.
Appalachian State is an FCS school (the "minor league" of college sports for those that don't know). If you told them that they didn't actually win any because they're FCS, they'd probably tell you to go screw yourself.
An even better example would be UConn Womens basketball. The women can't compete with the men. That doesn't change the fact that Geno is one of the greatest coaches of all time and the UConn dynasty is one of best in college sports history. To suggest that their championships aren't great accomplishments because they aren't the men is just disrespectful
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
