WW points currently

[Bishop]

I would say worst change ever, but there are so many changes that could compete it's hard to single just one out.
Giving war win points by nw or acre charts is just the next blow (after the honor changes) to the warring tier.
Really doesn't matter though cause charts don't reflect anything really except for who can cheat the best, may as well add the war win chart to that list as well.
Have fun with it. Now the top cheating whores wont have to cry cause they couldnt muster up enough wars to rank. one war will count as much as 3 competitive wars in the warring tier , giving them the needed points.

Points also granted for honour and ww chart.

Less outrageous ranting please.

[Goodwitch]

Points also granted for honour and ww chart.

Less outrageous ranting please.

well I have learned that the only way to get an answers at all is by being loud and obnoxious. Apparently I wasn't even outrageous enough since I only got a half answer.

figuring out gains mechanic, new spells, new ritual mechanic and science is all good and well but when it comes to charting the information how charts are computed should be available.

And while it is great to know that honor and war win chart figure into the equation I still think that the direct comparison of size is far more relevant to a competitive war.

Until now Palem's overall chart was exactly that. A chart where well rounded kingdoms would shine, the ones that do it all. The honor change(which is changed back at least a bit which I am thankful for) already changed that some. I fear this will further inspire kingdoms to use patterns and behaviors that do not make the game fun for everyone.

p.s. for all the usual trolls, this isn't about me. This is a building age for us as we took on a bunch of new players, we won't be charting anyway. It's about the game.

[Bart of Sparta]

well I have learned that the only way to get an answers at all is by being loud and obnoxious. Apparently I wasn't even outrageous enough since I only got a half answer.

Absurd. Who taught you such a thing?

[Bishop]

well I have learned that the only way to get an answers at all is by being loud and obnoxious. Apparently I wasn't even outrageous enough since I only got a half answer.
.

Did you read the age changes post? It's in there.

WW Chart Chains - In order to incentivize conflict between top WW kingdoms, we have altered the formula to provide additional WW points (scaling from the current if the kingdom you war is outside of the top 50 for land, honor, NW, and warwins) to double the current points.

[Pillz]

Did you read the age changes post? It's in there.

WW Chart Chains - In order to incentivize conflict between top WW kingdoms, we have altered the formula to provide additional WW points (scaling from the current if the kingdom you war is outside of the top 50 for land, honor, NW, and warwins) to double the current points.

Bart's gif should have been in response to this post.

And while it is great to know that honor and war win chart figure into the equation I still think that the direct comparison of size is far more relevant to a competitive war.

What seems to indicate to you that direct comparison of size isn't being factored in? In some manner it must be, since I assume higher charted KDs receive fewer points from lower chartered KDs and vise versa. And while it isn't stated stated I imagine that rkdnw is still considered.

But what is this thing about 'competitive war[s]'? What makes a war between two kingdoms ranked 60th and 56th more competitive or worth more points in a global chart than the war between the #1 and #2 kingdoms? The simple fact that the WW chart is a server-wide measure of performance means that it should be winnable by the best kingdoms on the server, not by ghetto trash. WW chart = old honor chart with honor becoming slightly more legitimate the last few ages (this age remains to be seen). And by that I mean, the WW chart is a worthless measure of who can better manipulate their size & get easy wars.

Allowing the Honor and WW charts to be winnable by top kingdoms while they pursue land/nw crown is the best possible route for charts to take, since it encourages small kingdoms to improve instead of rewarding them for mediocrity.

[Goodwitch]

Bart's gif should have been in response to this post.



What seems to indicate to you that direct comparison of size isn't being factored in? In some manner it must be, since I assume higher charted KDs receive fewer points from lower chartered KDs and vise versa. And while it isn't stated stated I imagine that rkdnw is still considered.

But what is this thing about 'competitive war[s]'? What makes a war between two kingdoms ranked 60th and 56th more competitive or worth more points in a global chart than the war between the #1 and #2 kingdoms? The simple fact that the WW chart is a server-wide measure of performance means that it should be winnable by the best kingdoms on the server, not by ghetto trash. WW chart = old honor chart with honor becoming slightly more legitimate the last few ages (this age remains to be seen). And by that I mean, the WW chart is a worthless measure of who can better manipulate their size & get easy wars.

Allowing the Honor and WW charts to be winnable by top kingdoms while they pursue land/nw crown is the best possible route for charts to take, since it encourages small kingdoms to improve instead of rewarding them for mediocrity.

of course #1 vs #2 should get more points than 60th and 56th...but this system rewards #1 vs #40th as well(yea I know that it is highly unlikely that those two would be within range, but the point is that they could potentially war at the bottom of their declare range all age and walk away the winner just because they consistently warred in the top 50 and are ranked). Depending of course on how the charts are weighted in that system and if or how nw/land range comes into play exactly.

I am against land dropping, bottomfeeder wars(though sometimes you really can't help it I have learned) and purposely staying small or with less provinces just to be able to win wars. But unless they fill kingdoms to 25 it's not always the kingdom's choice to have less provinces, there just aren't enough players yet.

[Elldallan]

of course #1 vs #2 should get more points than 60th and 56th.

No, #1 warring #2 ought to recieve similar points as #54 warring #60, what should discouraged is #1 warring #54, nothing else.
Assuming that #1 wins ofc, #54 should definitely recieve a boost if they beat #1 but not the reverse.

If #1 warring #2 gives more points that say #54 warring #55 then it just creates a feedback loop that creates an impassable barrier of entry, just like science pumps used to do for the nw/land competition.

[Korp]

No, #1 warring #2 ought to recieve similar points as #54 warring #60, what should discouraged is #1 warring #54, nothing else.
Assuming that #1 wins ofc, #54 should definitely recieve a boost if they beat #1 but not the reverse.

If #1 warring #2 gives more points that say #54 warring #55 then it just creates a feedback loop that creates an impassable barrier of entry, just like science pumps used to do for the nw/land competition.

That would just encourage people staying small bashing ghettos even more.