Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: WW points currently

  1. #31
    Forum Fanatic Pillz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sinners NA
    Posts
    2,278
    Quote Originally Posted by s0830887 View Post
    For once, I agree with Steel - new WW crown is essentially old Honour crown. I think it's a positive change.
    Just to clarify - I said that the WW Chart (as in since its conception) is the old Honor chart and that Honor has gained some legitimacy.

    The WW Chart changes might legitimize it a bit, though, if thats what you mean by positive change then OK.

  2. #32
    Scribe
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffT View Post
    Well, the points formula itself didn't change, so the base points generated remains the same (and is still modified by size). But assuming that the base points generated were the same, 1 beating 40 would not receive double the points of 60 beating 54 (assuming they were those ranks for all charts), but would receive a slight bump relative to 60 beating 54 (before the influence of the size modifier).
    even a slight bump is bad in a case like that. Beating someone well below in nw/acres should earn less points every time, while warring up should be rewarded. It's no wonder we have all these bottomfeeding wars and wars against weaker opponents if the rewards flow in that direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by s0830887 View Post
    I don't see a problem with it, Mirana. That's probably not the response you want to hear! But you and I both know that warring KDs are actually pretty lame a lot of the time. Shaving is lame. Avoiding wars is lame. Fighting noobs KDs is lame. And, honestly, both your KD and mine do these things, because that's how warring level works. This should be discouraged - we all know that. I don't see an issue with encouraging KDs to fight the best competition they can.

    For once, I agree with Steel - new WW crown is essentially old Honour crown. I think it's a positive change.
    we most certainly do not drop land or purposely war weaker opponents. so with all due respect don't stick me in the same box as kingdoms that do.
    Kingdoms should find the best competition they can, that is exactly my point. Having 25 provinces pretty much automatically puts you into the rankings where you get more points. Having 25 provinces says very little about your warring skills though.
    Expecting a kingdom that has 22 provinces to war a kingdom with 25 is just silly(in most cases). And again , I am not going to bat here for those that purposely stay small to cheat the system. It's the kingdoms that try but can't get the 25 players now required to compete because there just aren't enough to go around.

  3. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    37
    Can we get the exact formula for WW points? I understand the logic of not officially announcing the exact formulas for things like spell success and gains, but WW points is a different thing. It's sort of "outside" the game mechanics - it's purely a ranking methodology. If it's to be thought of as the same as the other three crowns, the ranking methodology for the other three crowns is much more transparent. You have more land, you rank higher in land. You have more NW, you rank higher in NW. Higher honor, ranked higher in honor. Win more wars... you don't necessarily rank higher in WW points. It's just confusing.

    There is a logic to not officially announcing exact formulas but when the community is this confused about a ranking methodology, I think the admin should just give it out and let us see how it works.

    Personally, I like that you get more points for warring in larger tiers, but you also do get more points for warring a kingdom who's directly larger than you, right (I believe that existed in some form in the formula from previous ages)? So let us know the exact formula so we can see how it's weighted.

  4. #34
    Post Demon Elldallan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Goodwitch View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Elldallan; 13-06-2017 at 04:07.
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    29
    My problem with the current implementation is that it gives a chance to whoring kds to get the ww "crown" without chasing it. Nw and land are tied togeter, ww and honor are tied togeter on their own level. You removed a "loophole" that allowed growth kds to achieve honor crown (lowering oow honor gains) but you replace it to another by providing another "backdoor acces" to ww crown, both were/are in relation with land. Thats a "bottomfeeding" mechanism of the "superior" crown on the "inferior" ones :p. (I assume the intention is still to offer lower tier kds somehing to chase. If not just merge them all in 1 :)

    And while many say it's for the better, gets more kds on top, gives incentives to better kds, i doubt that you can force this on people. It's a game and people play it as they like/can.

    So why not better tie ww by honor ranking because the changes thread sais " In order to incentivize conflict between top WW kingdom" not top land kds. And honor is now the most dominant product of wining wars. (While land is not : whoring, exploring oow hits, you get the picture)


    Ps: if in the past ww chart was flawed because of ld's and hunting wars with ghettos i can see a situation in the future when it would be flawed because of hunting wars with whoring kds. With a fs-ish setup get 2 war wins fast, dump pool and then war a whoring kd. Grind them out while they take your land, they tact widr, you take the ww, they take the land, both happy. After 2 ww +pool, so high acres, the ww land bonus will probably cover (or close) your losses and you move for next lower whoring kd, or why not, if possible, b2b.
    Last edited by drakon; 13-06-2017 at 09:24.

  6. #36
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by drakon View Post
    My problem with the current implementation is that it gives a chance to whoring kds to get the ww "crown" without chasing it. Nw and land are tied togeter, ww and honor are tied togeter on their own level. You removed a "loophole" that allowed growth kds to achieve honor crown (lowering oow honor gains) but you replace it to another by providing another "backdoor acces" to ww crown, both were/are in relation with land. Thats a "bottomfeeding" mechanism of the "superior" crown on the "inferior" ones :p. (I assume the intention is still to offer lower tier kds somehing to chase. If not just merge them all in 1 :)

    And while many say it's for the better, gets more kds on top, gives incentives to better kds, i doubt that you can force this on people. It's a game and people play it as they like/can.

    So why not better tie ww by honor ranking because the changes thread sais " In order to incentivize conflict between top WW kingdom" not top land kds. And honor is now the most dominant product of wining wars. (While land is not : whoring, exploring oow hits, you get the picture)


    Ps: if in the past ww chart was flawed because of ld's and hunting wars with ghettos i can see a situation in the future when it would be flawed because of hunting wars with whoring kds. With a fs-ish setup get 2 war wins fast, dump pool and then war a whoring kd. Grind them out while they take your land, they tact widr, you take the ww, they take the land, both happy. After 2 ww +pool, so high acres, the ww land bonus will probably cover (or close) your losses and you move for next lower whoring kd, or why not, if possible, b2b.
    To get the WW crown you still need to war multiple times. If a large KD goes 5/5 fighting top quality opposition, then they deserve WW crown more than a small KD who preys on ghettos and goes 8/8.
    Josh; leader of a lovable band of misfits, Pinoys, and probable virgins.

    My Raging Clue

    *If a Utopian falls in the woods, and no-one is around to see him...was he still bottom-feeding?

  7. #37
    Scribe
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,363
    Quote Originally Posted by s0830887 View Post
    To get the WW crown you still need to war multiple times. If a large KD goes 5/5 fighting top quality opposition, then they deserve WW crown more than a small KD who preys on ghettos and goes 8/8.
    don't think too many are arguing that part. Giving a bonus simply because someone is big even if they fight way smaller kingdoms is the thing that is broken. Fixing the range at which points are given could be the answer. Leave the declare range the same but only award points and bonuses for wars within 10% or so.

  8. #38
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    7,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Elldallan View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Sir Postalot
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    3,471
    We should just accept the way the points are counted. It is currently the best possible system. Until the devs decide to change it, it will remains o.
    A Spartan always pays his debts

    I will take it for permission

  10. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    34
    Im a fan of the new WW charts.

    We just hit #1 with 11.58 points

    Before our last war we were 3.52
    Warred the KD in first at the time at 6.85

    Both top 25 KD's.

    So yes, gain more the better KD you are warring, which is nice.

  11. #41
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    995
    Quote Originally Posted by VanCanto View Post
    Im a fan of the new WW charts.

    We just hit #1 with 11.58 points

    Before our last war we were 3.52
    Warred the KD in first at the time at 6.85

    Both top 25 KD's.

    So yes, gain more the better KD you are warring, which is nice.
    Congratulations to our first 'esteemed' kingdom.

  12. #42
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South of the North Pole
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffT View Post
    Congratulations to our first 'esteemed' kingdom.
    Does it still count if they are a esteemed ghetto? Apparently they are looking for meat.

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
  •