Top 12 Pharae ~ Top 12 Sink or Swim ~

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
@Ponini21 thank you for putting in all the effort to create this detailed Top 7. However I think the combined points totals for multi-branch alliances are a little misleading when it comes to Domination worlds; each alliance counts separately for Domination percentages, and only one alliance can win (there is no equivalent to World Wonders' crown sharing). It also raises the question of what multi-branch alliances will do when the endgame approaches: will they forcibly internalise the excess players for their cities, will they kick them out and fight them for more battle points, or will they expect them to help the main branch achieve victory and receive nothing in return? This logic applies to any multi-branch alliance on a Domination world that intends to win their world.

Specifically with regards to the True Fear points increase, I don't suppose you know how much of that growth was from the absorption/merging/recruitment (or whatever we're calling it this week) of Mercenaries, as opposed to taking cities? Growth via recruitment isn't as sustainable in the later stages, and in particular won't help for winning Domination unless you somehow keep recruiting higher-point players and internalising/excluding your smaller players.
 

jameslongst

Strategos
@Ponini21 thank you for putting in all the effort to create this detailed Top 7. However I think the combined points totals for multi-branch alliances are a little misleading when it comes to Domination worlds; each alliance counts separately for Domination percentages, and only one alliance can win (there is no equivalent to World Wonders' crown sharing). It also raises the question of what multi-branch alliances will do when the endgame approaches: will they forcibly internalise the excess players for their cities, will they kick them out and fight them for more battle points, or will they expect them to help the main branch achieve victory and receive nothing in return? This logic applies to any multi-branch alliance on a Domination world that intends to win their world.

Specifically with regards to the True Fear points increase, I don't suppose you know how much of that growth was from the absorption/merging/recruitment (or whatever we're calling it this week) of Mercenaries, as opposed to taking cities? Growth via recruitment isn't as sustainable in the later stages, and in particular won't help for winning Domination unless you somehow keep recruiting higher-point players and internalising/excluding your smaller players.
How about growth via constant internal takes? Hows that going for you Kal? Pretty good?
 

jameslongst

Strategos
Summer James is to busy attacking over alliances and trying to get as many good players under one team as possible. He needs to get half the server behind him first before he even dares to do things that involve hitting Hug This consistently. After all, the more meat shields you have the further you can run west.
Sorry for the double post...just saw this tripe.

How we show our true colors at last. This guy has slow rolled every opportunity to do Hugs any damage since the start. IMHO, he works for them and should be kicked as soon as possible.

How else to describe his incredibly poor showing...its like he was giving them cities, and at the same time encouraging them in the externals to take more.

Snake in the grass...now he is just repeating their propaganda without even knowing what it means.
 

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
@jameslongst, I was asking Ponini a statistics question about his Top 12, not starting yet another petty squabble. If you want to publicly bait me, I suggest you do so on one of the many threads that has already derailed into trash talk, rather than dragging yet another one off-topic. Furthermore, if you do feel the need to resort to personal trash talk, it makes it blindingly obvious that you have no proper response to the content of my post.

Back on topic, it's nice to see the Top 12 split into a number of warring factions, rather than the boring 1-2 large power blocks that many worlds tend to devolve into.
 

jameslongst

Strategos
@jameslongst, I was asking Ponini a statistics question about his Top 12, not starting yet another petty squabble. If you want to publicly bait me, I suggest you do so on one of the many threads that has already derailed into trash talk, rather than dragging yet another one off-topic. Furthermore, if you do feel the need to resort to personal trash talk, it makes it blindingly obvious that you have no proper response to the content of my post.

Back on topic, it's nice to see the Top 12 split into a number of warring factions, rather than the boring 1-2 large power blocks that many worlds tend to devolve into.
Your bullcrap, your public pontification we all have to respect for some reason, was full of snarky crap. Not right out in the open, but ya it was there. Who cares about your statistical question, start fighting or get out.

Huggies are a bunch of golding, pay to win cowards. Come get some.
 

Nanotechno

Hipparchus
Your bullcrap, your public pontification we all have to respect for some reason, was full of snarky crap. Not right out in the open, but ya it was there. Who cares about your statistical question, start fighting or get out.

Huggies are a bunch of golding, pay to win cowards. Come get some.
Last time I came and got some, I killed 600 of your LS while you slept. You need to stop picking fights when you can't fight well.

And if you so chose to dispute this, I still have all the reports.
 

Hyperadox

Hekatontarch
@Kal Gordon to answer your question about sister alliances and branches, it might help for you to understand where the Hounds are coming from that perspective. Currently we do have a sister alliance, where we are in the process of weeding out people who go inactive, and who don't contribute to the alliance as a whole. Our goal is to have condensed down to a solid team by the time domination starts, so that we can meet the criteria of 1 alliance control %. Now, we aren't there yet, but we're working on it. For us, at least, it makes sense to include our sister alliance in those numbers, because the bulk of the sister alliance will eventually be controlled by the main (Whether it's by taking the strong players in, or internalizing the others) the numbers will eventually be contributing towards the main (Also assuming we don't lose any of those cities to another alliance. But our gains would make up for those losses for sure)

Not sure if the same attitude would apply to other alliances with sisters, but does that maybe answer your question a bit?
 

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
@Hyperadox I can see where you're coming from. Combined points totals do make sense in terms of the size/power of an alliance, I agree on that point. I just think that they aren't quite as useful as an endgame-indicator in Domination as they are in World Wonders, simply because of the difference in mechanics, i.e. only 1 branch of people being able to actually contribute towards the win condition.

If you truly believe that you can get down to one branch through removing inactives and true deadweight by the time the endgame comes around, then I'm not arguing against that. I just get concerned that sometimes victory-seeking alliances won't have slimmed down before the endgame starts; not only would this mean that they can't fully make use of their size, but it can lead to loyal, active players being abandoned or expected to help feed a victory to the main branch without being able to get any reward themselves. These are concerns that I've had since Domination was announced, i.e. long before this particular world.

Also, for any teams that intend to initially attempt to block Last Stand, rather than rush to achieve it, multiple branches isn't a hindrance or a risk of disappointing teammates. (Not that I'm saying any alliances have that intention, just a generic note.)
 

Ponini21

Chiliarch
@Hyperadox I can see where you're coming from. Combined points totals do make sense in terms of the size/power of an alliance, I agree on that point. I just think that they aren't quite as useful as an endgame-indicator in Domination as they are in World Wonders, simply because of the difference in mechanics, i.e. only 1 branch of people being able to actually contribute towards the win condition.

If you truly believe that you can get down to one branch through removing inactives and true deadweight by the time the endgame comes around, then I'm not arguing against that. I just get concerned that sometimes victory-seeking alliances won't have slimmed down before the endgame starts; not only would this mean that they can't fully make use of their size, but it can lead to loyal, active players being abandoned or expected to help feed a victory to the main branch without being able to get any reward themselves. These are concerns that I've had since Domination was announced, i.e. long before this particular world.

Also, for any teams that intend to initially attempt to block Last Stand, rather than rush to achieve it, multiple branches isn't a hindrance or a risk of disappointing teammates. (Not that I'm saying any alliances have that intention, just a generic note.)
The main reason I put it is that the Top 12 for me has never been about who's most likely to win Domination or World Wonders. I have been in many worlds where the third or fourth or even 5th is pushing wonders at a faster clip than the 2nd place alliance. My focus was always statistically who's strongest. Hugs definitely have the strongest 60, but Top 12's to me aren't about the strongest 60 they aren't even about the strongest alliance, it's purely been and always has been to me a points based ranking that gets broken down with hopefully impartial advice/opinion. (My goal for a Top 12 is for it to come out and I can still do a joint op with the alliance I gave a sink or a float. It's not supposed to be a diss or a ranking of who's best amongst the top. To me it has always been about the physical size of an alliance regardless of rules. I do this because realistically also, if we or TF absorb our academy, that doesn't mean we as an alliance grew, in fact in most academy absorption alliance actually sink because they don't take the small cities of the core, and they can never fit all the academy into the main and then some academy players position wise where perfect for the academy horrendous for the main etcetera.

Also about growth being city takes vs. new members. To me it doesn't matter. Alliances in almost all cases grow fastest in a war not by taking cities but by taking members or forcing members to quit so they have easy takes city wise. This is especially true in speed one worlds. This is why if you look at players ocean, Ocean 44/54 by far has the smallest players, because Hugs literally took every city of the guys who previously dominated ocean 44/54. This is also why TF's ocean, ocean 45 by far has the most players over 200k followed by NONAME's ocean 55. Hugs made a lot of the guys who would've had 20 cities in one ocean quit. While TF absorbed many of them and NONAME is the perfect control ocean. Even in Hugs current ranks the biggest players 3 out of the top 6 in ocean 54 are from Nightmares, so the alliance they didn't kill, led to players willing to focus more on one ocean than the rest of Hugs. This might be confusing what I mean but if you want I can try to explain this point even further. Just imagine Hugs without the three players they currently poses from Nightmares in 54, imagine if you had jsut tried to destroy them at 100,000 points or so when they first joined you. Same with DaveA8 and Predator, imagine if they hadn't taken so many cities to become around 200,000 now and had just had their cities take off their hands when they were 70,000 point players.

Basically a member if active is almost always better than taking their cities, because players eventually reach a point here a 10,000 point city is the only thing their willing to take, small players are willing to take smaller cities and found more cities in general hence leading to better cores. Now obviously players can be a liability in the battlefield if all their doing is simming and building nice little cities. But taking 50 cities vs. taking the 3 players who owns those cities and will have a combined 150 cities come Domination time. You just earn more from the latter than the former. This is why their are limits on players in alliances, IMO players who are willing to learn are the games best resource. So growth from taking players in from defeated alliances is just as valid as city takes just as long as you don't abuse it by trying to merge the world, obviously you can never abuse city takes but I've still yet to see an alliance win that started with 50 players, and ended with even 50 of the same players, if they trying to win the world rather than just take cities off of teams they will take cities of teams until the alliance spirit is crushed and then merge the best/most sturdy (This is also why if you really put effort and try to be the best player in every alliance you join you'll never get rimmed, when the rest of your alliance is facing inactivity your enemy will realize it's impossible to take 500 cities right after taking 200 of you and will recruit at least a 100 of those cities to make the job easier), now merging the best part could be 1 player (in most cases it's 3-7) or could be 25 players.

This really was supposed to be shorter, but i'm not sure if what I wrote reads like the English language so I tried to over-explain my point of view.
 

pgalland25

Phrourach
I may have missed something here, but you talk about growth, from what I see and hear, TF & PC's growth is mainly through merging/absorbing. Whereas HT is through actual city gains by taking cities from an enemy. Like the 50 cities they took from NN in the past few days

Also a small but important point when talking about TF and her wee sister only one alliance can win in this world so 60 folks will be happy, but the rest no so.
Have you ever played dom before? Because what matters is city percentage, not how you got those cities. And you can stick to your clearly strong code of ethics, but all is fair in love and war, is it not?
 

Kal Gordon

Phrourach
Have you ever played dom before? Because what matters is city percentage, not how you got those cities. And you can stick to your clearly strong code of ethics, but all is fair in love and war, is it not?
What matters is city percentage, but how you get the cities can have an impact on how relevant the city gains are for the percentage when it gets to the endgame. For example, if you gain cities by recruiting players, but you already have more than 1 full branch of players who will stay until the endgame, then those city gains may not actually count towards the Domination percentage for the main branch as the players couldn't fit in. If you believe that you'll have internalised all excess players successfully (i.e. without losing any cities to other teams) by the time the endgame arrives, then mathematically I don't think it makes a difference. However if recruitment plays a major part in alliance family growth, then there's always a worry that the group will not be down to a single branch by the time the endgame begins, thus voiding some of that earlier growth.

Growth via recruitment/merging in World Wonder worlds is actually more of a clear-cut case for how you gain the cities not really mattering (on a theoretical basis, not debating ethics), simply because any players not in the main branch can still contribute in the endgame.
 
Last edited:

pgalland25

Phrourach
Thank you so much for mansplaining the subtleties of the game to me, I don't think I ever could have figured that out without your help.
 

SycOPath

Phrourach
Have you ever played dom before? Because what matters is city percentage, not how you got those cities. And you can stick to your clearly strong code of ethics, but all is fair in love and war, is it not?
More to the point have you ever played Domination. Seeing as this is your second world since returning to the game and the other was a casual world, so I'm guessing not then.

Bearing in mind that your alliance holds a number of cities on non farming rocks which shock horror, don't count towards the city percentage that you are preaching about.

But as you say all's fair in love and war.............but is it truly.
 

jooser

Phrourach
Are you stalking me? That's awful flattering, but I'm all good on that.
lmao, and what you expected? You attacked him first asking if he has played dom before. So it´s reasonable to do little research before answering to your question. And indeed its okay, before this world there´s been only 2 other dom setting worlds so i´m sure many haven´t played it yet :). I guess time will tell which tactics are most fun and efficient at the same time ;). But i´m pretty sure, if it comes to domination worlds, developers had specific intention why they changed the end game(yes we have had that topic here in the externals before). And that is to prevent hugging and push more fighting. But well well, we all know how it went in 110 bwahaha.