UK1 Server Analysis 4/9

    • Analysis

    By using our site, you accept the use of cookies to make your visit more pleasant, to offer you advertisements and contents tailored to your interests, to allow you to share content on social networks, and to create visit statistics for website optimisation. More information

    • 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.
    • Heston wrote:

      And no @MartinJames_UK I'm not FOX you can stuff it.
      Oh am I supposed to be interested in this still? I'd already forgotten you existed, like most of the people who you went to school with, worked with and ever tried to engage in any form of conversation or friendship. Stuff that you stain.
      Look what I found of mine from the old UK forum!



      Gaul WWK: Converter - Battle reports Travian
    • MarkokraM wrote:

      graculus wrote:

      notorious crunchie wrote:

      Sim_To_Win wrote:

      Nor don't get why people would complain about cheaters
      It's the ones that brag about how they are so awesome that annoy me
      Well I'm particularly awesome but I don't like to brag about it.
      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
    • Sim_To_Win wrote:

      Ghetto wrote:

      Sim_To_Win wrote:

      Delta_DK wrote:

      At least, no one is accusing you of having multi acc's ;(
      When your capital makes 2 times the resources of #1 raider having raided, you don't need multiple accounts :D Add some micro/macro raiding to that and well, you have a pretty good account going :) At this point of the game, having multiple accounts doesn't give that big of a leverage over others.
      so your cropper is making 2M res per day? :) lvl 16/17 on 150%, thats goodBut I don't agree with the leverage thing, a guy with multi accs raiding 1M per day and having a cropper that makes like yours, outproduces you quite a bit in income
      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 :)
    • Mercedes wrote:

      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.

      -SR wrote:

      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...

      -SR wrote:

      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

      WIM wrote:

      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.
    • -SR wrote:

      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
    • -SR wrote:

      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?