Can't really compare age 18/20 with age 55 in terms of mechanics. There are a lot of factors playing part in that.
Explore pool, dicing, # of provinces, ww bonus etc. Sure, we had WW bonus but we also had no dice possibilities because it was consuming pool. We also only had ~5000 provinces. In age 18 it must have been over 10 times that amount. More players = more acres. Again, I don't think you can really compare the 2 era's.
With the exception of a few, most of the good kingdoms lived on the Battlefields ;p
And yea when there's 4000 players left now, its obvious that there was more real competition on WoL back then than there is now numberwise. If you go by percentage, probably not.
There's plenty of good caliber kingdoms around still, they just choose not to grow but try and war in a relaxed manner without all the fuss.
So you guys agree he needs to change his sig, right?
The Jerks.
OT: I really miss the old KD names being thrown at this post. I wonder where the old farts I've played with are - and will they ever go back and just play (even casually). Carry on.
My take? All wins per age are all relative - and we're all talking about what-if scenarios. But that's fine, we all have our opinions. I just feel sad about folks dissing the old WoL. I had my fun there too. But Zaup's point may carry some weight with regard to the "quality" of players and KDs around in the older ages. For me ages 20-35 would be the peak season of quality fun, imo. But then again, to prot's point - mechanics are different and we really can't mix and match.
Maybe the question is: which KD had the best winning age based on *how* they won it? I always enjoyed the dominating ages le Bruties had (ofc, <3 donkey, furto wherever you SC nubs are)
http://www.utopiatemple.com/news.php?id=687&fpage=all
That's not the tone most players shared when it happened.
I don't disagree that 55 was the strongest crown of the last 10 (or 15, maybe even 20) ages (though you could dice while pool was empty!). I disagreed with Godly's assertion that it was the strongest crown ever :P
Yes, the game has changed a lot, but the reality is the quality of age necessary to crown today is much less than the quality of the age necessary to crown 40 ages ago.
KDs grow bigger these ages, in spite of there being fewer targets -- driven in part by three things:
1) Fewer kds competing to hit said targets
2) less need to be drafted (limited chance someone hits up / easier to cf all competition)
3) eow bonuses shoving land into the game.
Also LBG vs NWBG.
Silly convo though, so I'll bow out now.
LBG is <3.
I see muminballs in that thread though. that's about it. :B
The "tone" of elitist players is somehow more valuable?
The "tone" of any player is mostly irrelevant? Is a triple crown vs anyone an achievement? Sure. Don't think anyone would argue about that. But doing it against far weaker competition really doesn't make it more valuable than some of the dominating wins over much stronger competition.
The only people who are going to understand the relative effort/skill required to crown on WOL and BF are going to be the people who competed on both at a high level.
BF went on to be one of the strongest kingdoms for the next 20 ages, still I would credit them with having won the only triple crown in utopia history regardless of the server. :) Ialso feel it was largely part of what started their reputation. Then dominating on BF without a formal alliance was the other thing that made them renowned. If you ask most players for their top 5 kingdoms of all time BF generally makes it. alas godly age 55 does not :P Almost everyone will agree Pansies was the best kingdom during the height of the game in an era when it was truly hard to be good because the internet was not as available.
My top 3 is still:
Pansies->Playboys->Brute
Brute is really the only non abs kingdoms with a lot of crowns and success over a long period of time :(
Last edited by goodz; 24-07-2014 at 19:48.
My life is better then yours.
Why didn't Equalibrium triple crown if it wasn't that hard? Or Fratzia? Or Brute Force any of the other times they crowned on WoL? Oh that's right, because it's an outrageously difficult accomplishment that's never been repeated in the entire lifetime of the game (unless my gut is right and there's another one somewhere)
But more on topic, if you guys want to pretend that somehow beating up Sanctuary, a Rage that was drastically under performing and their little brother Mercy who was just happy to be competing with the big boys and finishing with a 33% lead be my guest. I guess we have different definitions of dominating because I'm pretty sure Playboys won by 130% and they didn't need to lift a finger other than to hit dice.
I didn't say BB's crown was the best ever. Perhaps you should take that up with Godly or Prot.
I said Pansies nearly triple crowning vs real competition using what was the weakest race on teh server -- 25 fae (wewt?) -- was the best crown.
EQ was a ghetto on wol. So was Fratzia. BF didn't try to triple most ages -- need to remember they were a kd of multis and their players all cared more about their accounts on the main server -- with a few exceptions -- than they did about their wol accounts.
That's a rather telling reason why it's not as impressive as pansies. Because Pansies players also multied in brute and didn't pay as much attention to those provs.
Also, DropBearz (who are they?) triple crowned age 29.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)