Printable View
Ghetto's are not mimicing top kds (wtf?), the majority of ghettos play for honor, and going hybrid is the best way to obtain honor dude. If they had the activity of top kingdoms then they would probably play for land, it's not a question of adapting, but rather a question of activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
Personality bonuses lasted for as long as I played, which was more than 2 ages.
Don't quite remember when I joined, but it was
human 4/6 +1 off spec
elf 5/4
dwarf 5/5
orc 7/2
faery 3/6
halfling 4/4
avian 6/4
undead 6/3
The next age, elf changed to 6/2.
btw, when you mention kingdoms that won, are you referring to size or honor?
the majority of ghettos don't go for anything... nor is the best way to acquire honour requires the use of hybrids.Quote:
Originally Posted by KuhaN
playing for the land chart is not a question of activity either, otherwise xlogging kds would be unbeaten, but time and time again, this is proven false - x log kds cannot grow.
Learn to play.
xlogging kds just have coordination, they're not good at micromanaging and being incredibly active imo. It is definitely a question of activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
Top kds still run hybrids. What are you talking about?
hybrids ftfw man
Those elite setups are from before the specs changed to be worth 5 instead of 4. (dwarf became 6/6, for example). Elites did not have personality bonuses until age 24. The change to specs was in age 23. I'm pretty confident they were gone by age 27, but the bonuses sucked so much it was irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenvector
I'm referring to land kds.
I'm not sure, as Realest is, that the hybrid is completely dead. However, I am pretty sure that 3-5 pure t/ms can still dish out more damage in an ns run than 25 a/t.
lol all these post kinda funny - decide whose race is the best...
seems veryone forgeting something...
we're not play as an individual ...
we play as a KD
of course all race have weakness and benefit ..
what we need is a good % combo of race in1 Kd...
example.. everyone always compare DE and elf...
but why u must compare it???
why dont see DE as a destructive one that can hit other race (non elf) with deadly +30% damage and to sustain non stop MS and tornadoes which need hige runes... DE real good in a long run war...
and see elf as the one need to maintain such as pitfall and some ms too since they got +efficieny make them the highest wpa to combat enemy DE and enemy elf too...
of course it's kinda funny if DE and ELf try fight each other... because those two powerful in magic...
btter hit other race =)
my point is: every race has unique ability and offensive or defensive...
each race make the Kd more better and the important is work together as a Kd and destroy enemy in war by use tactic and combo our race...
and other point is: every war different ... depend of our's and enemy's kd race composition...
if u feel weak against a certain Kd then dont war it .. avoid it try another Kd that u can take down...
also as a last note: activity is the key to see which one is better
maybe somone say elf better than de... de sucks or elf weaker... but it depend on the player ability to handle the province ^^
=)
DE is horrible in a long war. They have to pay extra wages, they lose defense that they are perfectly incapable of replacing efficiently and 30% spell power is inferior to +1% mana in war. After you workout the numbers and see how people play up on top you will realise what you just said is complete utter nonsense.
And Zauper, hybrids are far from dead. I am quite sure 20 A/Ts can NS more of your ogres than your 5 T/Ms can on our elf lords/knights/whatever. It all depends on whether the provinces know how to build and manage their provs efficiently.
Really? And are your a/t rogue? Because if not, my WTs just ****ed over your success. On the other hand, my 5 t/m can have 1 torch your wts and go to town on you. They also have the mystic power to MV your CS. You can't have both the mystic power to mass 'nado a prov and still have the tpa power to NS them unless you're running 7-8 more twpa than them -- which means your mil is godawful and you'll lose anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asakura
If you are running more than 6rwpa and 6rtpa maybe you could also tell me how much defense you intend to run before being massacred to hell. How many thieves you have that does not really change how effective WTs work, so have fun spending a whole day GAing the WTs before you can even NS. Your mages might have more luck though, that I would have to agree.
And you run A/Ms and A/Ts seperately. Of course your prov will be awful if you tried to run enough mages AND thieves in one prov and still want to attack. The A/Ms can do the tornadoes, and the A/Ts can do the NS. With 10-15 of each it is not much work to bring non T/M targets down.
Around 100 dpa. I'll ask frat to post his strat from last age here, if you're curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asakura
The ability to GA them makes a big difference -- as does the ability to nado them before you GA.
The other advantage of t/ms over a/t is longevity over the length of the war. Due to losses, land gain/loss, etc -- it's harder for an a/t to maintain their thief effectiveness over the course of a war than it is for a t/m. The t/m only has to retrain thieves, afterall.
A gnome mystic with good science can run both thieves and wizards and still be an effective attacker.
which kd runs em?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahab
I guess dead is a little definite, since the "correct" answer is that it depends. However, I'd be inclined to agree that pure t/ms are the way to go; I ran 3 last age. I would never run "hybrids" in my kd most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zauper
Lots of top kds still run hybrids. Examples from the Top 20 last age would include Absalom, there was an all-gnome (or mostly gnome) kd in Top 10 running heavy thief counts, and there were some independents doing the same. I don't remember the kd names. It might depend on what you mean by hybrid, but lots of top kds devote significant resources to thieves and wizards and run very few if any pure t/ms.
DE is horrible in a long war. They have to pay extra wages,mana in war. After you workout the numbers and see how people play up on top you will realise what you just said is complete utter nonsense.
lol people has their own stategy to play and play as a team ^^
i've been hybrid for ages not only play DE but im very good as gnome/rouge too
yeah +1 mana better but dont forget elf still need runes... can u keep the cost of doing constant ms / tornadoes without nonstop? i doubt that elf in the second day of war always start having trouble of rune... and now mystic dont have bonus on runes ...
===============
elf CS good but since DE dont need use tower we can use it to WT too
==============
they lose defense that they are perfectly incapable of replacing efficiently and 30% spell power is inferior to +1%
i dont see why i must defense with DE...
why do u think DE got +1 off spec 6/0....
if u mean DE to play as a/m why u should hiding =)
i love DE off spec...
as a note: im not a player type who like to turtle and use high Def ...
better have more off than def... even i love a Kd who dare use suicide startegy too ^^
all free credit spec going into off spec...
i dont like defense startegy ^^
if elites too expensive in war then just use archer =)
no point in war to maintain defense!!!
if u are a true attacker - u know everyone can hit u too as long as ur army out
DE who use full leets and defensive turtle mode is for people who enjoy do t/m job ^^
i saw u keep posting : DE power in elites...
yes indeed if u use elites awesome and like u said it need lot of gc even TOG wont help in war coz u need it to do offensive spell =)
but +1 mana and +30%stregth... ehm if the spell take longer effect wont u save mana% too =)
i dont really see +1 mana as a very superior ability
but it's a benefit of elf since elf need rune to cast it
"elf elite (6/4) is better then (5/6) of dark elves? "
"free credit in war elf-> into def spec, DE split because use expensive ellites?"
elf- attacking power in elites 6/4 ... DE atatcking power in their off spec 6/0...
why u always assume De will keep use elites?
im sure OOW DE keep train elites...
but in war as an attacker
DE use their free credit to keep maintain their offense power into off spec 6/0
while for def DE can use archer too the same amount as elf def-> use archer from free credit... ( better train 2 spec def than pay 1 elites... and u can gain faster def)
while elf keep train elites for better offense and pay more than DE while DE use 6/0 spec and not train elites...
well im not debate ur statement
but i just state out my mind...
i think the way to play a race for everyone not the same ^^
and we can play each different
the outcome is base on activity , situation and our KD mate too =)
ok.. good nite ^^
Almost all of these people are referring to whole kingdoms of mentioned race/pers. Not just single provinces 4v4lon.
@Zauper: If that's the case then I joined 24 or later because specs were 5 and elites were as I said they were; I'm very confident on this part.
If you're talking about land, then the top kingdoms were mostly in the same alliances and hardly warred at all, at least back then. #1 usually went with no war throughout the age and the age playboys topped the charts they warred perhaps once. Not having been in one of them, I don't know what kind of war builds they ran, or how much they even considered war builds. So I may be wrong.
However, I do know the #1 honor (would you call that a ghetto on today's terms?), I think from 2 ages or so before battlefields and WoL merged, Legendary Empires with 11/11 wars, 23 provinces, 19 attackers and 4 T/Ms (my memory is a little dodgy on these, but not on the elite data =D). We were very small throughout the age, ending up at around 1200 acres average, in order to own ****ty kingdoms, but we did war some better small kingdoms later, including a few from the top 10 honor, because you can't expect a ghetto to voluntarily fight a 7/7. We actually still gained honor from wars when we were baron-viscount average and opp was lord average (remember 1200 starting honor for knight back then), in which opp probably expected to lose the war but gain some honor. We only hit #1 for the last week or so and went into kingdom-wide vacation after the final war to prevent random people from vulturing. =D
If it's the ghettos that go for honor and top kingdoms that go for land now, then I might as well be a total noob to this world. I'll shut up then. =D
@Ahab: The gnome / mystic was my example of a province that can go A/T/M. However, VT2 and I would say that although it's possible, you might make better use of the province as 2/3 roles instead of all 3.
@Realist: Hybrids are dead? Where's VT2 and his ego?
If you ask me, any race is workable (although not any race / personality set) and any combination of roles is workable. They just all run different strategies and how well you can pull them off depends on how good the players and the kingdom are. However, because utopia is not even close to perfectly efficient, there are some races that are better than others in general situations. That still doesn't rule out the "bad" races as unusable or certain roles unplayable.
"They just all run different strategies and how well you can pull them off depends on how good the players and the kingdom are. However, because utopia is not even close to perfectly efficient, there are some races that are better than others in general situations. That still doesn't rule out the "bad" races as unusable though"
agree with Eigenvector ^^
you keep saying "lots" of top kingdoms run hybrids and you can't even name 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ahab
Sorry, my memory for names isn't all that great. Name 5 who don't. No, wait don't do that it's not the point. The original claim was that top kds don't use hybrids anymore. It's a descriptive claim. You have a handful of people here saying hybrids are still used a lot. So believe what you want. It's a casual conversation, not a litigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
So, are you claiming top kds leave all the spells and thievery to pure t/ms? You'll notice I said it may depend on what you mean by hybrid. Isn't there really a range of t/m ability? It's not exactly all-or-nothing.
ok, lets review your claim based on the top 10 last age
1 Sonata (16:10) Jarn (#10) 31,077,098 gc
orcs and elf
2 Sanctuary of Absalom (1:25) Zark (#25) 28,497,582 gc
orcs and elf and some gnomes
3 Rage of Absalom (12:16) Porsta (#16) 27,800,089 gc
orcs and elf and some gnomes
4 Mercy of Absalom (5:29) Dorf (#29) 20,676,201 gc
gnome mystics
5 Zenobias Zealots (12:1) Astel (#1) 20,118,271 gc
DE/gnome/Elf
6 Equilibrium Hostile (5:12) Linst (#12) 17,470,119 gc
gnome/clerics
7 HaLL of Heroes WAR (2:30) Enia (#30) 17,034,763 gc
forgot
8 PANTI PIJAT MARVEL (14:21) Verdok (#21) 14,791,830 gc
gnomes
9 TrinityLuvsUCormach (12:11) Kamoria (#11) 14,768,914 gc
Orcs I think.
10 Hall of CCproxy (14:38) Maui (#38) 14,574,904 gc
Dark elves
now where do you see a kd's setup predicated on hybrids? An attacker casting a CB does not make him an "A/M" nor does casting the occasional storms/explosions make him one. Additionally, an attacker who gets 2.5 tpa to defend against ops does not make him an "A/T" either if hes just using it to intel ops and the occasional robbery.
Don't pretend you know how the top works based on your own poor rationalization of its mechanics. Play there before you try to challenge my claims because it only makes you look stupid when you are arguing a wrong case. Arguing semantics doesn't mean you have a case either.
Like I added as a detail earlier, the "correct" answer is that hybrid use is situational, and for most situations, they are useless. Hence, hybrids are slowly getting phased out from top tier play because its useless.
Alright if it really is networth that ranks the kingdoms, then it doesn't make sense to me that you're looking for the best war builds rather than the best growth builds.
i agree with mr eignvector, u smell realest, and ur stupid kd wide strat if u think u know everything, u one sided stupid man that's it.
get a ****ing clue before you talkQuote:
Originally Posted by Dragonite
i have a big fat clue u go away smelly a$$
Oh? you do? Care to share?
I've been wondering about this. I've been trying to figure out the best way to play some sort of hybrid, but I couldn't ever come up with anything that didn't leave me with a weakened military so I gave up. My builds tend to become.....unfocused. I think I gotta agree with Realest on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
Hybrids have weaker militaries than attackers. You make up by being able to op your opponent. They actually weakened the mage hybrid this age by removing runes bonus for mystics. Thief hybrids are countered by watchtowers and clear sight.
Doesn't give me much incentive to play hybrid then. Why would I op my opponent and have to retrain all those expensive thieves I just lost if I can just go ahead and break them with my military? Seems to be counter-productive for all the effort into trying to make it work.
he said that top kds use hybrids, so i listed the top kds from last age for him. Do you wish to argue semantics on this one as well? Would you be happier if I used your kd as an example instead? Alas, i doubt your kd is top. I promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenvector
whats the point of lowering your enemy's ratios to match your own, when you can just use the space to get higher ratios to begin with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigenvector
"Hybrids have weaker militaries than attackers."
If that's how you run them, you're not running proper hybrids.
They do have weaker militaries, since attackers have less concern over dedicating land to TDs, Guilds and towers. They also have more population to play with since they do not need as much wpa and tpa. The question is whether the hybrid's military would be so much weaker than that of an attacker to the point of being outgunned ridiculously, which if they are then the hybrid is not being ran properly.
I've never seen a proper hybrid with a weaker army than an 'attacker.'
What you sacrifice is the ability to make money - not the ability to destroy people with hits.
No my kingdom's not top, however you define top, so that would not make me happier. How you defined top is top networth, in which case I said it doesn't make sense to me that you're looking for war strats rather than growth strats, considering wars generally lower the networth of both kingdoms, unless it's a total ownage. So it would make more sense to me that a top networth kingdoms would attempt to avoid wars or play fake wars. So it doesn't necessarily mean that the top networth kingdoms are the top war kingdoms, because it's not necessarily their priority war. What would make me happier is for you to find kingdoms with high war wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
You take every one of my comments as an attack on yours. Neither of them actually was. If I'm a noob and I don't know that top kingdom means top networth, then please explain to me how top networth is connected to best at warring.
The point is that rate of decrease always beats initial increase for time approaches infinity. The break even point in utopia varies, but I find it to be around 2-3 days. After that point, attackers are already weaker than the hybrids and will only continue to weaken at a faster rate.
Funny thing that VT2's first comment is against something I said. Hybrids are weaker than attackers for the same race and personality with the same build, the same science and the same peasants because you spend more population on thieves and wizards that you could otherwise have used for offense and defense. Pretty objective.
If you'd rather sacrifice peasants for the thieves and wizards, note that the attacker can do the same thing. In the end, each wizard and thief you have more is each elite and def spec you have less.
OK so you have a guy in love with hybrids and a guy who thinks hybrids are useless and they're both bashing me in the middle because I'm the one who pointed the facts out.
Defense is meaningless past a certain point.
Realest is an ass, because he's trying to assert his position as 'top.' That means you should ignore or belittle him.
He's not trying. Last I checked he IS one of the 'top', or do you not think Sonata deserved the win?Quote:
he's trying to assert his position as 'top.'
hybrids are useless for top kds with 0-1 wars per age, they are useless in peaceQuote:
Originally Posted by Realest
hybrids give you power to set defence on enemy's province to the number which you need to chain it effectively. How can it help to pure attacker if his huge offense let him make 1.6 successful attack on chain target? While hybrids can make from their initial poor 1.3 2 or 3 successfull hits per province. More hits per province => more chain targets per wave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
Higher utilisation is more important than bigger numbers.
elf/warrior a/t with 3-4 raw tpa must be able to pk 15-20 max-gaining 2.5 tpa orcs within 4 days of ideal war last age..
only prob that hybrids represent are that they are not super easy to play. Specialization is easy...if im a thief, as many thieves + TDs as possible, same with mages and attackers, but with hybrids, having ratios and builds that are effective are not always simple.
Either having sharp players or a monarch + a few others micromanaging and checking up on all provinces in the KD through pimp are required to make sure the hybrid is playing right! :)