HoF Development & Discussion Thread

Most off points
Most def points

The same for alliances

BD-special servers section

Largest defense at WW
Largest defense except WW

All of above by tribe, by crop, by power

I would love to see a collection of most interesting operations as well.

Templar Knight wrote:

Speed Server (x2 speed)

Do we have 2x servers over than finals? Tournament should be in HoF of it's own.

Largest offense can be judged by a report but how you will sort largest defensive army?

From Templar...Yours have been added

Maybe you can get some ideas from mine Hall of Fame Post from the de.Domain.

Hall of fame

Just a simple Collection

ELE wrote:

Do we have 2x servers over than finals? Tournament should be in HoF of it's own.

As i know ".pl" have 2x speed server. May be another domain too.

I think it would be great with a HoF for .com

I have records of various extension for 7-8 servers and will happily supply them

One of the things I'd like to see is a uniform HoF approach across the English domains. I'd prefer Travian wide but English domains is the easiest place to start. The only stumbling block at the moment is the lack of a CM for AU/UK/US. That said I appreciate an effort is being made on the HoF, it has been grossly under maintained (depending on domain) for quite a long time.

That said ELE has given a good list. I need to sit down and see if anything is missing based on docs/sheets I've prepared in the past but a first glance says its pretty detailed.

On a more general note though I think there should be a "Master Thread" that links to every individual HoF thread within the domain. Searching for a specific server/round has often proven difficult, though that is in part because I have all 4 English domains visible. Going along these lines would be other general housekeeping thoughts of using a particular format for thread titles and general formatting uniformity of content.

A question has popped into my head regarding formatting: Should each round receive its own thread or should it receive its own post in a single thread for that server?

I'm partial to a single thread per server, otherwise there will be quite a few threads and over time it will make things less organized. Thoughts from anyone else?

I prefer individual threads for different rounds... It's a bit easier to just click on a thread, instead of having to scroll through a thread to find a specific post (especially if the posts are long because of the stats). No real argument other than that, just personal preference.

A good point. A possible solution would be to have a table of contents in the first post a thread that links to the post(s) of each round. Then its two clicks and minimal scrolling. But regardless the main thing is being consistent. There are ways to make either approach more user friendly.

I too like the idea of individual threads for each of the server statistics with a contents thread linking to them all. I think that would make it vastly easier to find the relevant server and round.
Having the overall stats being on their own page also makes sense to me (i.e. largest hammer of all time, etc).

Artefact count perhaps?

Largest defense at WW
Largest defensive wall besides WW
Heaviest train (need to define, maybe by landing in certain interval)

Number of servers won

Shortest/longest WW built

If most artifacts then most plans as well

Smallest alliance to build a WW, largest meta to build a WW (may be not, no idea how to calculate properly)

Ah yeah ofc WW def.

Heaviest train is hard to define... I guess you mean by crop count? Should be a short enough interval so it's not two trains after the first one failed or something like that :p but still leaving time for some stragglers to land... 4 hours or something like that maybe? Could reasonably do both more and less though.

With smallest alliance to build a WW... You mean finishing level 100 right? If so, sure... But then it should include everyone who supports the WW, unofficial/hidden allies and so on too.

I had an hour in mind for the train Must set bar high. I was thinking about something for coordinated offense as alliance achievement. Maybe number of hammers that damaged a WW?

Yes, smallest to get to level 100, and yes, hard to count supporters, unless support is restricted to confederacy for which there are no plans for regular servers and WW in general so I guess TK can disregard that suggestion.

I think 2 hours is more reasonable then. Not strongly against one hour though.

ELE wrote:

Maybe number of hammers that damaged a WW?

Can be inflated if the WW def is lower (smaller hammers can do damage)... But I like the general idea.

Any news on this?

Would the sink count as a train or just a compartment

Hi,

I think its way too complicated to analyze all the nice parameters discussed in the messages I've read. However, this is a project that needs to start from somewhere simple:

Armies should be classified as per server speed, year, tribe, type of army, and whether it was made in a capital or non capital.

Before we start bombarding this thread with reports, I guess we need to set the minimum standards, such as minimum 15-20k catas and/ or minimum 35-40k rams, unless there its a hydrid, I guess.. Those type of armies should have the relevant infantry/ calvary.

Moreover, any record should be considered as unofficial, unless validated by Attacker, Defender and MH.

It is my personal belief that only after we have managed to create an army HoF, can we examine the possibility to create other HoFs, such as for Alliances.

Thanks,

Hi Again.

After doing a preliminary research, I have come to the conclusion that this, must definitely be, a team effort exercise.. I have not managed to process more than 50 reports in 2 days, and there are countless Battle Reports from various sources.. For that reason,

I am posting this to let you know that I am setting up a team that would be interested in supporting for the creation of a Hall of Fame, attacking armies only.

I have set up a preliminary but detailed step-by-step process for validation and created a simple board, to start registering results. Whoever is interested in helping out on this exercise, please add me on Skype "maki.ideas".

Thank you in advance,
Maki