Quote Originally Posted by Pillz View Post
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.