Top 5 Combos For Age 45

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

@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.

---

Sigh. Age 18 pansies won with 1 war. Age 19 pansies were t5 honor and #1 nw/land -- they claimed the nw crown on the last day of the age. iirc, they had 5 wars. Age 20, pansies were t5 honor again. The #2 kd (us, serenity) were also t5 or t10 honor; we both had 4-6 wins. Age 21, the top kd warred the #2 kd (that would be boa warring ZZ [the halfling rogue kd] and beating them). Age 22, the top kd (pansies) had 0 wars, by virtue of the fact that no one wanted to war their a/t strategy. It was perhaps the most dominant win in the history of uto. The #2 kd (us again) had 4 wars.

Age 23, the top 3 or 4 kds all had 0 wars. Age 24, was screwy because of the abs-spirit awar. Age 25, the #1 kd (halfling / human / undead mix iirc?) warred playboys (the #2) for the #1. PBs were 25 undead mystic. Age 26, the #1 kd only had one war (vs BoA, which they lost). The #1 kd wasn't a/t or a/m. The #2 kd was undead rogue -- BoA. We won honor that age with our 4 t/m and 21 a/m hitters. Age 27, the #1 kd had one war -- early on against a prior #1 kd. Also screwy because of the abs-spirit awar.

In that ^^ timeframe, we see 4 wins by Pansies, 1 win by BoA, 1 win by Playboys, 1 win by Force, 1 win by Brute Force, and 1 win by Desire.

Pansies always considered wars, as did Brute Force.

Quote:

---

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).

---

Yes. You intentionally stayed small to bash ghettos. That makes you a ghetto.

Quote:

---

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.

---

See?

Quote:

---

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 did the same. The only difference is we didn't war ghettos for our honor. We also didn't require a/t or a/m strats to pull it off. We also warred every time we got declared -- that's where the majority of our war wins came from, even in our honor ages; kingdoms that declared us because they were more pumped than us and wanted our honor.

Quote:

---

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

---

More proof of ghetto qualities? You went vm for a week to protect your honor #1 because you know you didn't deserve it and would lose it otherwise. I remember the age we won honor (and we finished t10 land as well), the #3 honor kd farmed about 20k honor in the last hour of the age.

Quote:

---

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

---

That's how it's always been. The real competition is in the nw/land charts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zauper

Age 22, the top kd (pansies) had 0 wars, by virtue of the fact that no one wanted to war their a/t strategy. It was perhaps the most dominant win in the history of uto. The #2 kd (us again) had 4 wars.

---

Aww.. 4 Dwarf Mystics, 4 Elf Rogues and Human Rogues core (All Elite, 4TPA + Schools) tore through the "age of Orcs" like no other. People swallowed our hostile waves all age, begged for CFs in return for more hits. Perfect age played.

Shoutout to Sid and the Pansy crew. <3

From your statistics, I see that honor, size and war wins don't coincide at all and that my hypothesis of little warfare was pretty close to correct. I'll take it from you that kingdoms are ranked by size. Most of the single wars per age you've described were to determine the biggest kingdom by oea. It then seems like growth is the priority with a war strat for backup in case you need to war. You spend the majority of the age not warring. Therefore, it just seems odd to me that these kingdoms spend so much time arguing over war strats and planning on war builds.

VM is a tactical move to maintain #1 honor spot. #1 always shifts during the age. Princes get razed for no reason other than they're princes. However good you are, if you're #1, there's a good chance too many people are going to try wack you out of #1 if you're not in war or vacation, even when honor was a little more stable at the time. Enough of that if it doesn't mean anything to you.

So you rule out honor for honor whoring and war wins for ghetto bashing. Only thing left is size; only thing I don't understand about that is size doesn't mean best at warring either and is actually even less of an indicator of the ability to war than honor or war wins.

To be fair, Zauper, up there it is more like power politics than actual comparison of how builds work. Going to is war simply a bad idea for maintaining top-end size and NW. How useful builds are compared to each other is almost based specifically on how much land they can whore and how much land they can keep.

As long as you do not go to war, hybrids are a horrible idea. You are wasting a lot of space and population for /M and /T which are impractical outside of hostile and war. As a result, we have actually just wasted time on an entirely pointless discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

So you rule out honor for honor whoring and war wins for ghetto bashing. Only thing left is size; only thing I don't understand about that is size doesn't mean best at warring either and is actually even less of an indicator of the ability to war than honor or war wins.

---

The skill and organization it takes to compete with the kd's going for nw and land is bigger than that it takes to bash ghettoes. Most of the nw whoring kd's are quite good at warring too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

From your statistics, I see that honor, size and war wins don't coincide at all and that my hypothesis of little warfare was pretty close to correct.

---

What counts as 'little wars'? 4-6 wars is not 'little' when you're warring kingdoms that aren't ghettos.

Quote:

---

I'll take it from you that kingdoms are ranked by size. Most of the single wars per age you've described were to determine the biggest kingdom by oea.

---

When a kingdom tended to only have one war, that was often the case. When a kingdom had several wars, it wasn't. (for example, the age Desire won, they lost their war, but won the age -- the #2 kd, BoA, had several wars)

Quote:

---

It then seems like growth is the priority with a war strat for backup in case you need to war. You spend the majority of the age not warring. Therefore, it just seems odd to me that these kingdoms spend so much time arguing over war strats and planning on war builds.

---

A poor war build means you lose the age.

Quote:

---

VM is a tactical move to maintain #1 honor spot. #1 always shifts during the age.

---

The age we won #1 honor, we were #1 for every hourchange except 1 during the entire age. Including protection. The only hourchange we were #2 for was the hourchange before our pump ended.

Quote:

---

Princes get razed for no reason other than they're princes. However good you are, if you're #1, there's a good chance too many people are going to try wack you out of #1 if you're not in war or vacation, even when honor was a little more stable at the time. Enough of that if it doesn't mean anything to you.

---

So, essentially what you're saying is:
"Going VM is valid, because otherwise we could have potentially lost the #1 since we couldn't protect ourselves."
Gotcha.

That's why going for honor was (and still is) considered ghetto.

Quote:

---

So you rule out honor for honor whoring and war wins for ghetto bashing. Only thing left is size; only thing I don't understand about that is size doesn't mean best at warring either and is actually even less of an indicator of the ability to war than honor or war wins.

---

If you have a lot of land, and you can't protect it, the sharks at the top will take you down.

Quote:

---

To be fair, Zauper, up there it is more like power politics than actual comparison of how builds work. Going to is war simply a bad idea for maintaining top-end size and NW. How useful builds are compared to each other is almost based specifically on how much land they can whore and how much land they can keep.

---

Sonata won last age in part on their strong performance in two wars. Sanctuary was only a threat to them due to their strong performace in one war. War plays a large role in all top competition.

Quote:

---

As long as you do not go to war, hybrids are a horrible idea. You are wasting a lot of space and population for /M and /T which are impractical outside of hostile and war. As a result, we have actually just wasted time on an entirely pointless discussion.

---

Agreed, hybrids are inferior oow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syntico

Aww.. 4 Dwarf Mystics, 4 Elf Rogues and Human Rogues core (All Elite, 4TPA + Schools) tore through the "age of Orcs" like no other. People swallowed our hostile waves all age, begged for CFs in return for more hits. Perfect age played.

Shoutout to Sid and the Pansy crew. <3

---

Pretty sure dwarves were rogues -- the mystics were the elves. Ran the dwarves for people that weren't quite as active, because the dwarf elites were quite powerful.

I'm afraid I don't agree that hybrids are inferior OOW, despite understanding very well the argument that they are. It depends on the goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spheric

I'm afraid I don't agree that hybrids are inferior OOW, despite understanding very well the argument that they are. It depends on the goal.

---

Well... I'll grant you that a/m hybrids may well be superior oow, for dicing reasons -- but a/m isn't as effective in war as a/t, even. The discussion was more along the lines of a/t hybrids, though.

I don't think there's much of an argument for how a/t hybrids are more effective oow.

Spheric, stealing gold does not count as a /T. As long as you do not go into hostile/war /Ms and /Ts do not count in on offensive capability. While you might have the same off/def numbers as a full attacker or T/M something has to give, like your BE and/or economy.

I do not think anyone is going to play hostilities with you just to exchange ops, so if you stay OOW /M and /Ts lose effectiveness compared to pure attackers. T/Ms suffer similarly, from having nothing to do OOW, but their economy will be stronger than hybrids.

Zauper I would refrain from dicing excessively OOW as an A/M, especially this age if you are not a DE. Dise takes a hell lot of runes and you have to keep a pile around in case you do go to war. Hybrids also need to stay pumped, so continual growth is a bad idea.

There's only really one ideal A/T hybrid, and that necessitates hybrid play in-war and out.

I think the extent to which this is true changes slightly as you approach the t5, but for all other sizes, it's generally accurate.

A/M is probably more potent for hostile than war; the downside to a predominant A/M build is the long-term maintenance of wizards, which can't be acquired so easily when the situation warrants it.

In my opinion - and in general - hybrid play requires sacrificing growth/economy for a stronger ability to war on equal terms. From that, it's just the case that those with a more pure build will simply be able to improve their distribution and size over you; which can derive a greater benefit for warring or long-term growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asakura

Spheric, stealing gold does not count as a /T. As long as you do not go into hostile/war /Ms and /Ts do not count in on offensive capability. While you might have the same off/def numbers as a full attacker or T/M something has to give, like your BE and/or economy.

---

In the example we're talking about, not only are thieves are essential for stealing, they contribute towards well over 80% of the 'economy'.

By 'not hybridising', your output is constrained, thus there is an obvious example of a hybrid that is mandatory OOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spheric

In my opinion - and in general - hybrid play requires sacrificing growth/economy for a stronger ability to war on equal terms. From that, it's just the case that those with a more pure build will simply be able to improve their distribution and size over you; which can derive a greater benefit for warring or long-term growth.

---

Agreed in part, and disagreed in part. It's not just a question of warring folks who are now bigger than you, it's also those that are the same size and have made the same sacrifice for a stronger military (you drafted an extra 5% into thieves, I put it into elites and the same % you put into dens, I put into wts to war you), and folks that are smaller than you with equivalent military.

Congratulations on maintaining #1 throughout the age, Zauper. I'll give it to you that to maintain #1 for an age is more credible than hitting #1 in the end and saving it.

I think last age, the top 5 tended to change quite frequently throughout the age.

So if it's just that I'm a noob with a lot of well targeted but incomplete mathy theories, partly because I did not have the same concept of top kingdom as everyone else, and partly because of less experience, I'd actually like to get out of my current ghetto and get a feel for what it's like to go for size some time.

Yet, it's not exactly size either, because parody's 2nd episode or so mentioned 2 ghetto kingdoms surpassing Absalom in size and how big ghettos are a problem. So is ghetto then defined entirely subjectively?



"As a result, we have actually just wasted time on an entirely pointless discussion. " Bulls eye!

@Zauper

Yep, but then there are more factors that come into play under that scenario.

A ghetto is anything the top deems to be a ghetto.
To be top, you have to have the blessing of the actual top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VT2

A ghetto is anything the top deems to be a ghetto.
To be top, you have to have the blessing of the actual top.

---

As I last thought; it's subjective. In that case, "top" is an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

As I last thought; it's subjective. In that case, "top" is an opinion.

---

"top" has always been subjective. The folks at the top define it as being the very top. The folks in the middle define it to include more -- etc. Perspectives vary based on where you are. It's like looking at the difference between a "topkd" and a "skd". Different people have different interpretations.

The reality, though, is that a top nw/land kd can rock an honor or ww kd in war 99% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zauper

"top" has always been subjective. The folks at the top define it as being the very top. The folks in the middle define it to include more -- etc. Perspectives vary based on where you are. It's like looking at the difference between a "topkd" and a "skd". Different people have different interpretations.

The reality, though, is that a top nw/land kd can rock an honor or ww kd in war 99% of the time.

---

Well that's good to know. I like things more objectively determined though. You're able to do so with most sports and video games. They had a tournament with randomly chosen kingdoms. If they have one with player chosen kingdoms, one can more objectively determine the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eigenvector

Well that's good to know. I like things more objectively determined though. You're able to do so with most sports and video games. They had a tournament with randomly chosen kingdoms. If they have one with player chosen kingdoms, one can more objectively determine the best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFL says

On any given Sunday....

---

I'll take the NFL on this one. Ghettos can upset SKs.

the "difference" I guess you can say, between warring at the top and other levels, is that for the top, war is just the means (get acres) to an end (chart somewhere), whereas, on lower levels you can war for "fun" and an outcome does not really determine your age so to say. The top does not war frequently, but it does not mean they don't war; they just need to pick their spots. If to you, that means they don't know how to war, then fine, thats your opinion.

As for the distribution of top middle and ghetto, it really is subjective, but I'd put the relative top at around top 10~15 nowadays, middle at top 30~50 and the rest is ghetto. It will probably upset some people, but i'm sure im not alone with this way of categorizing +/- a few slots.

Lastly, Honour and WW charts are not even an indication of your kd's ability, except that you know how to bash ghettos, farm, or both. To say we should use either of these criteria to judge a kd's warring ability is laughable.

Well now we're slightly losing VT2 and my point. It's not just the length of the range in a particular chart that's subjective. It's that it's not a chart based on a single set of statistics at all, but just whoever the rest of the top deems to be the top, because apparently you can still call certain kingdoms of the top 10 networth ghettos. This is what peeves me.

calling certain kingdoms that manages to overgrow a ghetto is merely just showing disrespect. Obviously, whats ghetto to me might be godlike to you. There's no correct quantitative measure for this, so you just have to observe and judge performance. I think Spheric pointed that out to me, and it has its merts :P

for OOP wars, DE mystic is awesome. Dark Elf = No towers + ToG = extra early science or army.

Let's say that spells cost 3% mana each on average. You can't cast spells if you get under 10% mana, so this leaves you with 31 spells. Say you also need some more cash to train the last of your troops. Cast 10 ToG, you'll get at least 200k gc, and have 21 spells to go. Cast 20 MS to cripple the opposing kingdom, you have 1 spell left. For this example, cast minor protection to help prevent violent reprisals. You have gained enough cash to train 222 drow or 666 night riders; you have sent meteors to most, if not all of your opponents; and you have boosted your defense a little to prevent counterattack. In any decent kingdom, your war has gotten off to a great start, and you haven't attacked once. Add in your attack, and it's just icing on the cake.