Statistical comparison between .com's & anglosphere's path to pandora servers (1x).

first the english server was not anglo server so stop calling it anglo

secondly the results are not surprising at all.

The other server was domination of one alliance since early stages of game - so the players of it became extra powerful. Travian allows the more powerful players and alliances to become more and more powerful specially when there is no competition against them when in english server people lost their off and deff left and right.

The numbers of raiding you're reading is because people in english server are already done/quiting/lost their troops in major alliance wars. there is no reason to left anymore when the server is concluded.

Fourth point is that the English server had more competitions in early and mid server - which caused everyone to grow less. when you're busy fighting over stuff you grow less right?

the english server had a lot of drama. I personally deleted mid server and I'm not really biased with any alliance which was in there - I had friends in kgw, tm and team so there is that before a new drama starts here lol

Also about heathens, I was closely observing the game. My only point was that heathens had a very predictable and easy win - not that its not significant or they shouldn't be congrated at. As a third party observer who was not on server I think I can say that much.

congrats to winners of both ptp servers

I don't play on either, but the stats suggests that the two top teams on anglo are more evenly matched, while none on .com provided much of a challenge.

The victory points of the 2nd team on .com being as "high" as they are, while having pretty terrible off/def point numbers, suggests that they achieved it largely through simming, which was probably made possible by the larger map (I mean, they aren't even 2nd in def points, and barely 2nd in off). While anglo has seen more fighting over territory as suggested by the def/off point distribution.

You can also see that for anglo, both KGW and TM took big leaps in off/def points in the period, while only Heatens really upped their points on .com.

Anyway, indeed congrats to winners regardless

I'll write my two cents later.

boodil wrote:

Less so to those who splats, deletes and writes nonsense.

When you don't know shit don't talk about it

and why are you insulting me and what I wrote? Your face is nonsense.

My delete was not because I lost my army or my account was weak. I didn't even loose a single village then. I was Team defense coordinator and I just couldn't take the toxicity that was happening at that time (not going into details about it) I deleted instead of joining team enemies cause the players in alliance trusted me as defense coordinator and I didn't want to break that trust and appear as their enemy so I decided to just let me acc go. I never deleted mid server before that server and I never will give up mid server specially when I was also in leadership position. I just don't take bullshit well.

What i was trying to say was that heathens had a better opportunity for raiding because of the server being less competetive when TM and KGW were splatting their armies on each other. and I was trying to explain to you why such stats make sense when you look at them all together at the same time.

I did say that heathens deserve credit for win and I congrated them - or maybe you're blind and can't read?

I have no grudges against Heatens nor I have any grudges against TM, KGW or Team and I'm non of these alliances friend - even though I have friends in all of them

If you wanted to call all replies to your statistics, nonsense, why did you think posting in forum is a good idea at all?

Maybe you do that that people shit talk your alliance (that you have ties with) and don't give credit to you for what you deserve either.

on .com , 9 outta top 10 or you can check more that more than half of the top 50 are gathered in same place . from 2nd month and towards its end some alliance was farming more than the rest of the 9 alliances in top 10 leaderboards . their +pop or simming was equal to next top 3 alliances . well ... end of story . well that some alliance was so serious that they even send raids with 1.2k cata to some low tier player and most of their attacks consisted of 12-15 waves and those are not fakes but real attacks with catas . so damn serious server for them . congratz on the victory .

Hmm, I can barely call this a statistical comparison. I havent played in either servers but off/def or raiding itself doesnt give the full picture. I have seen alliances leading in all three categories but losing the server badly. These numbers can be boosted by random factors such as number of players, pre-formed alliances, competition etc. So this really is not an apples-to-apples comparison

boodil wrote:

I'd also like to take the opportunity to give some extra credit to everyone who hangs in there to the end of the servers. Who can handle suffering losses, coming back and continue to fight. That shows character. Less so to those who splats, deletes and writes nonsense.

boodil wrote:

This line of mine was not meant for you specifically. Sorry. It's more that I think a lot of players and teams in general give up prematurely.

Eh, why would you bring this up out of context then? It was clearly a response to FA. Even if the first part is honest, "writes nonsense" part kind of gives it away anyways.

boodil wrote:

This line of mine was not meant for you specifically. Sorry. It's more that I think a lot of players and teams in general give up prematurely.

Besides, I thought you meant that you deleted mid-server on the .english one and didn't play the .com one, but rather was a third party observer on .com? Poorly phrased by me probably, my bad.

yeah i Played the .english one till mid server and deleted

I never played on .com. I just observed it when I was helping a friend of mine.

Obi-Wan I can assure you he's not referring to him, since he doesn't even know what server FA was playing on (or what's his IGN), but certainly to other people who did nothing but complain from the start of server and did that exact thing. Splat, delete,complain.

As a Heathen, I have to disagree with boodil , the server wasn't competitive. But as I already said, it's only our enemies fault and it's nonsense to accuse Heathens for trying being organised as a couple of people suggested on this forum.
If a server is not competitive it's fault of non-competitive teams, not of the competitive ones.

The statistics show that Heathens put a lot of effort anyway though, otherwise you wouldn't have had such high numbers.
I repeat that we developed our accounts and organised OPs as if the server was competitive and this is the result. You can't bash us for trying to keep it alive.

TM vs. KGW was a reasonable fight but wasn't in the same league as some of the matches I've seen on Legends version in the past. KGW had good individual players but clearly lacked coordination, maybe something to do with not being a pre-formed team like TM. During this entire server I had only once had red swords on my cap (I play for TM by the way) and that's quite unusual on any competitive server.

Obi-Wan Do you have other suggestions what number to pull out?

Frozen Angel 100% sure boodil meant nothing against you.

GQuadri wrote:

Obi-Wan I can assure you he's not referring to him, since he doesn't even know what server FA was playing on (or what's his IGN), but certainly to other people who did nothing but complain from the start of server and did that exact thing. Splat, delete,complain.

As a Heathen, I have to disagree with boodil , the server wasn't competitive. But as I already said, it's only our enemies fault and it's nonsense to accuse Heathens for trying being organised as a couple of people suggested on this forum.
If a server is not competitive it's fault of non-competitive teams, not of the competitive ones.

The statistics show that Heathens put a lot of effort anyway though, otherwise you wouldn't have had such high numbers.
I repeat that we developed our accounts and organised OPs as if the server was competitive and this is the result. You can't bash us for trying to keep it alive.

Show All

agree to what heathen has accomplished but you are wrong about others as there not many players outside heathens to go toe to toe with them and most were rather a hindrance to JC/ELITE than to Heathens .

GQuadri wrote:

Obi-Wan I can assure you he's not referring to her, since he doesn't even know what server FA was playing on (or what's his IGN)

My mistake then. I didn't know that other players were complaining from the start as well. It looked out of place without the context.

ELE wrote:

Obi-Wan Do you have other suggestions what number to pull out?

My understanding is that, this is an attempt to come to a more general conclusion on com vs anglo ptp servers but not necessarily for these particular servers. I dont have a good answer for that. One meaningful way to approach this would be to take larger sample (as it becomes available). This could smooth out the randomness or highlight the systematic differences between the two servers.

Regardless, if one wants to interpret these two servers - I believe that two key factors would be skewing these aforementioned statistics: competitiveness of the server and the density of the server (or the number of registered accounts). These two are often correlated too. But I do not see a good way to compare the two servers as such and the off/def points as well as raiding numbers tell only about the comparison within that particular server. To give an example, if one alliance does a poor job on defending, the opposing alliance can gain inflated attack points. Similarly, if an alliance attacks mindlessly, it can give a boost to other alliance's defense points. In theory, it is very well possible that higher numbers translate into poor performances (Someone else can plausibly argue the otherwise too). I guess, what I am trying to say is that different servers have different dynamics and one needs to be careful interpreting these stats and drawing definitive conclusions.

Hello every one. I want to share stats from ru domain. Its not over yet, but the numbers will stay the same +-

And thats our 2 biggest army

Well, there is a reason why we have sayings like "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics" when it comes to poring through numbers. They often are superficially interpreted to support someone's conclusion and every conclusion can be different even when looking at the same data. I said before you couldn't really compare the two servers because the context is so different. I will try to explain the situation on "Anglish" (a compromise ) to try to make sense of these stats.*

*My conclusions of what teams on either server were doing may be incorrect but they are observations made to the best of my knowledge.

Pre-start situation:

1) Small Map (401x401)

2)The "Anglish" server had 4 supposed contenders: TM ( Twelve Monkeys from .com), WB (Wild Bunch/ Mean Girls from .us), TIW ( The Iron Wall from .au), TEAM (from uk.). All came with a full stable of 60+ players except WB (35+?) and TIW (50 or so). TEAM had the most with about two wings of players.

Early Game

1. Start Strategy

TM: We decided to split our people at the start. Several went to NW to get an early start on raiding (since there was more land for players/farms to settle) while rest who weren't so much into raiding, went SW.

TIW: TIW chose to delay their start and aimed mostly SW - so they ended up mostly in Pisae and Africa

WB: From what I could tell they spawned in all four quads at middle and spread out from there.

TEAM: Spawned mostly in NE

Context: So funnily enough, you had three pre-server contenders making a presence in the SW, leaving a vacuum for smaller teams to populate the other quads. The first differences we noticed from our COM experience is that the noob ring expansion was extremely slow, even for a small map. I believe it was due to lack of bots which on our usual servers would have forced an explosion of expansion at the start, so that we wouldn't have had to delay our starts as much just to get into an area like Carthago, for example. Many of us were forced to start earlier than desired. The second difference: Where were the @#$! croppers? Once again, TM (and by extension WB and TIW) was shafted with a low number of good croppers (125%+) appearing near start zones in SW and only a couple good ones in NW and all were under intense competition even just among our own guys nevermind other teams.

2. Settling Strategy

A) Early settling:

TM: For TM, the start and the early game race for croppers was extremely painful. As mentioned above, good croppers were extremely limited. And PtP introduced its own little wrinkle to allow friendly chiefing with no penalty and the potential for an Egyptian 150% was a great temptation to use this tactic. Personally, I hated this new feature due to all the drama it created and my own principles against such tactics. I believe there were 30 croppers in SW alone that were 100% or more and the few good ones were in Africa - locked away due to the lack of required pop. So when you're presented with 100%+ croppers for just half your team before the cropper race even began, to say I wasn't looking forward to the problems it will cause is an understatement. TM typically starts fast and furious, snapping up croppers and spawning in unlocked regions but because the noob ring was so damn slow, we couldn't settle as fast as we liked. In fact, getting to settlers too fast was a hindrance because you constantly bumped against locked regions, holding settlers and waiting for regions to unlock - but someone had to settle to unlock those regions. So in effect, some of our best simmers didn't even get best croppers. Overall, having 1) 3 decent teams in SW, 2) competitiveness among own teammates, 3) Limited croppers and, 4) PtP Egyptian cap temptation was a recipe for drama, drama, drama.

As stated, TM split in half more or less, with simmers/non-raiders to the SW and heavy raiders to the NW. Originally, we limited settling in NW to just Pict and August, but players were growing irate over lack of croppers so some went as far north as Trevor, Lutetia, and Durno. Another group went to Africa at earliest chance and tried for croppers there, but had to compete with WB and TIW for good croppers yet to be unlocked. I think many couldnt settle a cropper until villa 3 or really slow simmers with v2. One contingent of our group, a Pinoy group we recruited before the round, opted to aim for Carth and settled v2/v3s there (against the recommendation of leaders, I might add).

TIW: TIW, from what I could tell as an outside observer, decided to delay their start and settle in Africa (Caesarea, Hippo, Carth, Girba), with Carth as their main, early goal and they hoped to accomplish it with mass settling of the region as soon as it unlocked, unfortunately for them all three SW teams had same idea.

WB: WB, the SW group at least, wanted Carth just as badly as the rest and also mass settled the region. One player grabbed the coveted 150% Carth cropper before TM and TIW by increasing their TS, im guessing, to at least 15(!). I think they hoped to secure the region pretty quickly, but with all three teams settling in Carth, this expectation proved to be fruitless. Meanwhile, they had no quick access to boots and TM was already pushing cata in Pict. The rest of their team went SE route, but regions like Epi were contested by several other small teams - mostly Cavalon/Camelot.

TEAM: Team seemed to employ a what I call a "5 point strategy". They had the spawn, central core area, then spread to essentially 4 corners of the map: England regions, SE Jerusalem, NE Hyperborea, etc. (Later some settled in Spain regions in SW). They had more cropper opportunities overall, since more land mass, but maybe spread themselves a little too thin trying to get essential artifacts.

TM still had the most success in capturing croppers it aimed for. Cathago, however, was a failure, even if it wasn't an original focus of our pre-server strategy. (We wanted to cap settling at as far south as Caesarea and as far north as Pict). WB's best player took the Carth cropper, and both TIW and WB had more defense support in Africa. With our raiders (and thus majority of early hammers) in NW, help was unfortunately too long in coming. The outlook was grim for TM in Carth, especially when many did not have the necessary coverage or activity.

3. Mid-Game to Present

Early mid-game, TM had pretty much established itself in SW and NW. WB was still struggling to take Carth even though they had the upper hand in firepower, just they were being matched pop for pop and not able to gain control. TM, meanwhile secured boots early and was jumping up in raiding. Camelot held the other early boots in Epi. Our guys in Africa were also bumping heads with TIW, contesting for Cesarea, Rusadir, Rusicadae. Seeing TM raiding and fast start I guess spurred leadership in WB to consider a merger with Camelot. By this point, Camelot was actually leading in VP simply by holding Delphi early. TM was 2nd, as SW/NW had a lot of small, high vp regions. WB was kind of mired in contested regions, so they merged with Camelot to form KGW (Knights Gone Wild), thus taking Camelot's VP and boots and a clear path through SE, and the WB wing became the secondary KGW2.

The merger was critical for KGW to compete, but it was still a disappointment to see on our end when we wanted to see the four teams duke it out for bragging rights. The merger essentially changed the dynamics of the server. KGW no longer had their stiffest competition for expansion in their way. They now had the VP lead and could finally operate with boots, which would help in taking the UB region of Carth as well as quicken expansion into SE with the vital Fools regions. Meanwhile, TM, TIW, and TEAM were battling on two fronts each: TM vs TEAM in Spain and NW (our one guy was still holding up in Durno), and TM vs TIW in Pisae/Caesarea/Rusa/Rusic. TIW was fighting KGW in SW/SE Africa, and TEAM was also fighting KGW in NE and other smaller teams in addition to TM.

So, with TEAM holding three wings at this point (TEAM, TEAM2, TEAM PR) and KGW/KGW2 focusing on TIW, we realized that if we were to continue hitting TIW, we were only aiding KGW as much as ourselves. So for sake of strategy and hoping to kill some KGW hammers, we struck up a partnership with TIW. TIW, for all their efforts, were completely out of the race in their VP/day with no real light at the end of the tunnel, so we adopted them and no longer contested some regions we could've taken from them. Sure, it likely meant less of a challenge, less fun for us but we were barely getting attacked by KGW outside of Carth and offensive guys in TIW were few and far between. We got mocked for our confed of course, but who is to predict what the outcome would've been had we refused any confed, but at the time it felt like a good decision in light of the sudden merger.

So by now, you're probably thinking: We should have had a lot of attack points, def and off.. but no.. not really. Group ops on PtP were kind of pushed back in favor of more BG style fighting. Defense, early on, even with boots was still too slow to reach areas facing immediate threats - Carth for example. And BGs of 5 or less seemed to be more effective than ally-wide ops over the long term. In addition, the attack styles/skills of each team varied wildly. For example, our presumably fast-to-start off accounts were NW, but they stayed mostly localized, didn't really expand beyond spawn/cropper regions and fought for control of adjacent regions in groups of 3-4, such as 1-2 off accounts working with 2-3 deffers.

Guys in SW were slower in developing because of the late settling or just they simmed high fields before trooping 24/7 - different strategies for each account, not worth diving into, but the gist is early on, the team was at different levels of development and at vast distances (for small map), which impacted how fast we could do ally ops. One factor was obviously the raiding. As I pointed out earlier, there were practically no bots, which meant less Natars for raiding and chiefing and, I think, the server had less players overall. We couldn't really chief into new regions for a long time while we had to wait for enemies to grow slowly. Expansion was up to your gold use and how well you managed CP, primarily. TM and KGW simply had more of such players. (Just compare the top 20 pop accounts in "Anglish" server vs COM. Heathens clearly dominated the "quality" on their server).

I also think that the Egypt caps just made so much crop that raiding, for some, really wasn't necessary.

As for TEAM and KGW:

TEAM's wings acted alone most of the time, and lack of coordination among the wings cost them allies and players - a lot of defections and deletions, mostly because they saw two fronts or more for entirety of the server. Their expansion style depended on mass settling or chiefing natars over chiefing/cata'ing enemy, and they seemed to lack focus on what their long term strategy was supposed to be. In the end, they chose to prevent a KGW win than fight TM for personal or political reasons.

KGW was aggressive and much more evenly matched with TM. They had, in my opinion, about equal number of top, aggressive players, but they lacked cohesiveness - which I suppose would happen when its a group of former enemies and all with a lack of leaders, maybe no OC for quite a time - just BGs that worked unofficially for most part. Much of their progress, like TM relied on 20-30 active, and aggressive players, but those players did a lot of work after the merger. They were taking regions almost daily, so some planning or directing was occurring but I'm not sure the trust among members was there.

Also a lot of the regions in our way, both TM and KGW, early on, were held by fairly weak teams, or at least, didn't have enough defensive presence to block much of our armies for very long. TEAM and KGW seemed to work def just as we worked offensively, in group BGs and local hubs rather than all working together on a defense call. TEAM lost a DC and their leadership had problems with activity and, far as I know, there wasn't much of a structure for defense coordinating in KGW either. But with UT early on, and a lot of chaff in the way of SE expansion, in addition to focusing on TIW (a defense-oriented team), of course KGW would have more attack points than TM. Defensively, we probably saw 1-2 ops against us from KGW and 0 from TEAM, it was all haphazard, solo tries or localized attacks. Also TM focused on getting regions, not killing caps and hammer villages, same for KGW. As a result, hammers didnt meet many solid walls (unless you decided to send hero along) and the VP race was kept fairly close until last couple weeks. Game wasn't decided by day 100 like previous rounds. The catalyst for our win, presumably (still 25 days left or so but barring TM deletions, KGW is mathematically eliminated), was the battle over Delphi which lasted a good 2-3 weeks, and prior to Delphi, was the capitulation of TEAM from several England regions by another TM BG. Simply put, TM took enough regions fast enough, and contested long enough, to counter KGW's efforts to monopolize the 100+ vp fool regions.

So, I guess to sum it up:

The disparity in raiding:

1) Less bots.

2) Less desire to raid (Egypt caps fed a lot)

3) Less Natars

4) Less players

5) More quality competition - at least to the point they could use rival's confusion or knew to cranny up.

6) Admittedly not much raiding activity among deffers either, and off guys mostly stuck to 1-2 hammers, few had 3-4 and they were typically the ones in top 10.

The disparity in attack/def points:

1) More BGs, less ally ops (until late)

2) Some teams employed settling vs chiefing/attacking runs.

3) Less emphasis on hitting caps/hammers, more on gaining regions = meet less defense

4) Not many significant clusters or active hubs to kill local enemy hammers

5) Top two contenders focused away from each other until late, and TEAM ended up being the one squashed in the middle.

6) A lot of teams had their "favorite enemy" and attacks were spread around. It wasn't a 3v1 brawl. For a while it was kind of like a Three Stooges fight.. (I'm probably showing my age here)

Anyway, as Obi says.. its apples and oranges. Context is everything. Perhaps if Heathens had chosen to play on small map or if TM stayed at COM, things wouldn't have been so lop-sided for Heathens, and more fun for all on Anglish.

-FW (Wordsmith)

Team spawned in NW too and had no region in NE for a long time. Only after alliance Hype breakdown, team got segestica.

Me and a bunch of good players were holding salona for a long while from KGW.

I think Team weakness was the way they spreaded in map instead of focusing on a settling plan at start of the server.

When I was deleting I knew that Team is just a bomb that could prevent either TM or kgw from winning but it couldn't ever win itself. I even told someone about my predictions even though the server was not even halfway done

boodil wrote:

I also don't understand the leap between the teams with players with higher population, but lower off/def points "having grown less due to competition and being busy fighting".

If this was a comment for me, I didn't say anything about growing less :? I said that on a larger map, you can take regions by simming more easily than on the smaller map, since regions will be less contested. You might have thought I meant simming as in higher pop, but that is not what I meant. On the larger map, you can easily settle in "boonies" to get control of regions, while the smaller map is a lot thighter.

Now, you didn't post the stats for population, but if I read this right, the players on anglo have more pop? That actually further underlines the point - more pop is needed to take control of regions than on .com = most likely more competitive.

Anyway, I'm not flaming any team, nor saying that one is better than the other or not - just that from the stats, anglo one looks more competitive.

Sigh, this really got out of hand.

I'm sure both sides have seen action and competition, stats are stats, for all we know one server still has 300k+ hammers ready to splat or kill loads of defence and could considerably change the stats by end of server.

wishmaster3 wrote:

Now, you didn't post the stats for population, but if I read this right, the players on anglo have more pop? That actually further underlines the point - more pop is needed to take control of regions than on .com = most likely more competitive.

Gotta remember too, .UK server had a lot more populations/regions naturally unlocked at the start from just account registration, and that you were probably able to spam a lot of villages close together thus making it easier to sim, whereas I've got 36h+ merchant travel times between some of my villages, and even with lvl5 merchant bonus, simming can be a bore with those kinda travel times, for most of the server we only had 3 villages next to our cap and such.

To show some comparison, I have villages spread across 14 regions, with 29 villages - which if you consider being on the bigger map, it was a drag to sim at some points I know on our server that the players with a lot of villages near their cap were those in contested regions, and i can only conclude that .UK had more contested regions due to naturally spawning in a lot more regions and such.