UK1 Server Analysis 4/9

  • Good stuff.


    It would be good to get a more detailed analysis of SE @Jake. What's going on there?


    Then perhaps we can do an update of SW from @Cretin_UK or @KnowToFail? What's new between GG and Betrayed?


    And from NW can we have anything from @notorious crunchie or @DaegontheSnake? Both been very quiet. Or perhaps from GOT? As long as it's not one of your "we have done this before and we always win against bigger alliance" crap I'm good.


    If so, I can do NE.


    And no @MartinJames_UK I'm not FOX you can stuff it.

  • So you're CTL. Our first clue in the #UnmaskHeston saga!

    What reports are you meant to show off if you're a defensive player? :(


    My name is Alex, not Mark :)

  • not on my level though, if i might say so humbly

    Did I say Spectacularly awesome? No I rank some way down on the scale.


    0 Barely capable of finding backside with both hands
    1 Not remotely awesome
    2 Never going to be awesome
    3 Has awesomeness potential
    4 Occasionally awesome but inconsistent
    5 Consistently awesome
    6 Particularly awesome
    7 Remarkably awesome
    8 Phenomenally awesome
    9 Spectacularly awesome
    10 Unbelievably awesome

  • Well yea. but like I said, add 400k micro/macro raiding into that and the difference isn't ground shaking anymore.What I try to say is: I don't get why people would cheat when playing legit gives you almost the same outcome. Nor don't get why people would complain about cheaters , it's not that hard to cata them down :D

    yep maybe so, but the numbers you talk about dont reflect the server uk1, where is the 400k microraid?
    Anyway thats bs, cheating makes a huge difference and thats why me like many others condemn it. Just think having extra N villages you raid from full bags, how doesn't that make a difference? what if one of those is a 15c 150%?

    The post was edited 4 times, last by playingwithfire: removed allegations of cheating. no warnings ().

  • well they were in our farm list just like in everyone elses, but theres been no drop since troops have increased and we look for new farms consistently, anyway i dont talk about this first day of week, lets talk about it when the week ends, last week we were rank 2 for all first half of week and yet we ended on top. Deffer is raiding very well though so lets see :)

  • Your ranking system favours the small, tight alliances made up of experienced players. Having a high proportion of raiding accounts also doesn’t bode well for your defence or long term play. High raiders don’t tend to stay the course.


    It was an interesting read though. Thanks for sharing :)

    The ranking system favours any alliance with active members and not carrying deadweight. Just so happens we found 9 accounts on this server, and unfortunately this is a typical number in any given quad on recent UK servers, if you exclude preformed groups.

    Thanks for taking the time, interesting analysis. But, as Meme has noted, it has clear limitations given you're going purely off averages.


    If some of the larger alliances were to take 15 high pop accounts with high bonus 15cs and a half decent raid count they'd be stronger and higher ranked based on your quantums, which is an obvious flaw.


    Can't remember the last time I've seen so many analyses in such a short period on a single server!

    Much bigger alliances are being carried by a few raiders, and again, we could say that 33% of losers are top ten raiders, or 30% of the top ten raiders are from losers, whichever way you look at it it is still better than MFH (<1% of players are top ten raiders, 10% of top ten are from MFH). Some other big alliances don't appear to be raiding much at all, and couldn't even be included in the statistics...

    Yes but the issue with your analysis is consolidated by the strength these figures would purport Losers have. In reality, however, Losers is 9 accounts, whose raid count is carried by three accounts and whose population is entirely skewed by Donald Putin.


    Interesting to look at nonetheless.

    Even losers smallest population player is larger than some of the bigger alliances average, so you can hardly say it is "entirely" skewed

    Why do people disregard 9cs all the time?

    I did the cropper count, and as I was at work when doing it, I'm sorry I didn't have time to check oasis bonus, or 9c caps. I would have liked to put more detail in that, so maybe next time! From memory, Gotn would be the only other alliance to have got 100% "good caps" if 9c caps had been included.

  • If you can't see how one dimensional that perspective is, I'm uncertain I can explain it to you. The comments you've made simply corroborate the limitations I described.


    You're basically saying that anyone who isn't raiding very heavily, isn't super high population or doesn't have a 15c 125+ cropper is deadweight? Effectively, this analysis and the benefits you're putting forward as being attached to it are saying that if I were to take the top 5 raiding off accounts in my alliance and set up a mini wing, I would be better off than I am now because my averages would be higher, which is clearly not the case. We might as well just stick Donald Putin in a one man alliance and be done with it! Then he could have highest average pop, highest percentage of 15cs settled, highest raid count. Clearly you guys are all deadweight holding them back!


    In truth though, any player worth their salt who has seen a game play out til endgame will appreciate that you don't need to be top 50 pop or in raiders week in week out to produce a serious endgame hammer or anvil. This analysis would discount those accounts entirely, or, as you put it, class them as 'deadweight'.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by -SR ().

  • It's clearly a joke analysis that was made to trigger people and cause shade. No real insight about anything, no clever conclusions attained and extremely basic methods used to compare alliances. Probably written up in about 5 minutes.

  • If you can't see how one dimensional that perspective is, I'm uncertain I can explain it to you. The comments you've made simply corroborate the limitations I described.


    You're basically saying that anyone who isn't raiding very heavily, isn't super high population or doesn't have a 15c 125+ cropper is deadweight? Effectively, this analysis and the benefits you're putting forward as being attached to it are saying that if I were to take the top 5 raiding off accounts in my alliance and set up a mini wing, I would be better off than I am now because my averages would be higher, which is clearly not the case. We might as well just stick Donald Putin in a one man alliance and be done with it! Then he could have highest average pop, highest percentage of 15cs settled, highest raid count. Clearly you guys are all deadweight holding them back!


    In truth though, any player worth their salt who has seen a game play out til endgame will appreciate that you don't need to be top 50 pop or in raiders week in week out to produce a serious endgame hammer or anvil. This analysis would discount those accounts entirely, or, as you put it, class them as 'deadweight'.

    I agree here, this is a team game and especially endgame hammers which are one of the main factors influencing the winner of a server are a team effort, not just 1 account effort, that never is the case

  • If you can't see how one dimensional that perspective is, I'm uncertain I can explain it to you. The comments you've made simply corroborate the limitations I described.


    You're basically saying that anyone who isn't raiding very heavily, isn't super high population or doesn't have a 15c 125+ cropper is deadweight? Effectively, this analysis and the benefits you're putting forward as being attached to it are saying that if I were to take the top 5 raiding off accounts in my alliance and set up a mini wing, I would be better off than I am now because my averages would be higher, which is clearly not the case. We might as well just stick Donald Putin in a one man alliance and be done with it! Then he could have highest average pop, highest percentage of 15cs settled, highest raid count. Clearly you guys are all deadweight holding them back!


    In truth though, any player worth their salt who has seen a game play out til endgame will appreciate that you don't need to be top 50 pop or in raiders week in week out to produce a serious endgame hammer or anvil. This analysis would discount those accounts entirely, or, as you put it, class them as 'deadweight'.

    Apart from the statistics what can be said at this stage of the game?
    We know gotn have been spanking you in your own backyard with half the amount of players, but it can’t be put into statistics really unless we started counting how many times your lot had a village zeroed?