Milestones Athens Milestones

sableblack

Guest
[award]WO4Gej0IbGstzTJsgU5uo8f+ENOz3V2pkzxeE/Q8QlAGNQRp[/award]
i don't know how to show previous ones as they don't seem to last.
this is todays and i belive my 6th,
if i miscounted then it is my 5th.
 

Kingjon

Guest
And there's no real competition for the alliance ones at the moment
 

Corinthian II

Guest
Even if it is no competition..

Nordic Nightmares, first alliance to 100,000 average points.
 

Leonidas Agiad

Guest
And yet Nordic Nightmares, the alliance of 'big' players, is losing their war against lower ranked players in MoRC by 38 to 15 conquests.

It seems NN have the strongest individuals, but MoRC is the better alliance !
Leonidas_Head2.gif
 

wabberjack

Guest
And yet Nordic Nightmares, the alliance of 'big' players, is losing their war against lower ranked players in MoRC by 38 to 15 conquests.

It seems NN have the strongest individuals, but MoRC is the better alliance !
View attachment 4467
I have an innate sense of fairness, much as i dislike having to say this. with that said{only like NN due to the challenge they provide}:

Rank Name Points Players Average points Conquers conquers divided by total players
1 Masters of Rogue Chaos 14509822 185 78431 38 4.87
2 Nordic Nightmares 13584304 105 129374 15 7

Read from this what you will, the only thing pro NN about me, is the fun factor, defending, or conquering back and forth. The challenge if you will.
 

Leonidas Agiad

Guest
Hi wabberjack,

I think I see the point you are making (ie. you suggest NN are better because they make more Conquests per player), however I don't think it's valid. Its a lot easier for a big player to make a conquest over a smaller player, because they have a lot more assets to play with and its easier to coordinate them.

I wouldn't expect someone with 10 cities to make as many conquests against a 30 city player, as a 30 city player would make against a 10 city player !? (which is effectively what your 'conquests per player' measure is suggesting).

I think a fairer measure (to both sides) is the ratio of conquests to the number of cities available to make the conquests (because number of cities is a better measure of potential military force, than number of players is).

This gives:
- MoRC 38 for 1645 alliance cities = 2.31%
- NN 15 for 1499 alliance cities = 1.00%

Your method might be on safer ground comparing average conquests per player by average player size, which gives:
- MoRC = 4.87 by 78431 = 6.2
- NN = 7 by 129374 = 5.4
(leading zero's suppressed !)
Leonidas_Head2.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wabberjack

Guest
Hi wabberjack,

I think I see the point you are making (ie. you suggest NN are better because they make more Conquests per player), however I don't think it's valid. Its a lot easier for a big player to make a conquest over a smaller player, because they have a lot more assets to play with and its easier to coordinate them.

I wouldn't expect someone with 10 cities to make as many conquests against a 30 city player, as a 30 city player would make against a 10 city player !? (which is effectively what your 'conquests per player' measure is suggesting).

I think a fairer measure (to both sides) is the ratio of conquests to the number of cities available to make the conquests (because number of cities is a better measure of potential military force, than number of players is).

This gives:
- MoRC 38 for 1645 alliance cities = 2.31%
- NN 15 for 1499 alliance cities = 1.00%

View attachment 4470
I can agree with this, did not factor cities per player/cities per alliance:D
 

wabberjack

Guest
Hmm there should be a milestone for the most looters of the day, LumberKing20 would win hands down:p