Winners and Losers

[DeletedUser39031]

Recent News:

Pool A Closed

Pool A Updated

Pool B Closed

What is it?
A competition between 4 alliances to get points on the Weekly and All Time LeaderBoards.
Who is competing?
In Pool A, Venom 2.0, Truculence, Black Legion and Victores. In Pool B, Redwood Originals, Phoenix, Villainy and Bones and Skulls.
How to compete?
Score better than your opponents in the 6 categories (Cities Gained, Cities Lost, Points Gained, Attack Battle Points Gained, Defense Battle Points Gained and Total Battle Points Gained.
How to get on the Weekly Leader Boards?
To get points on the Weekly Leader Boards, simply score in the individual categories. A 1st place earns you 10 Points, 2nd earns you 5 points, 3rd earns you 4 points and 4th earns you 2 WLBP.
How to score in the All Time Leader Boards?
To score in the All Time Leader Boards the alliance must get either 1st or 2nd on the weekly leader boards. 1st in the Weekly's gets 2 competition points, 2nd gets 1. If an alliance scores 2 first places in a row they receive a bonus points. If an alliance gets 2 second places ina row they get a bonus half point. The bonuses will be added immediately.
What is the quoted writing?
The quoted writing is recent information given from the manager of the thread, which is ImPreeetySure. Any complaints talk to him!

Pool A:(For Alliances 1,2,3,4)
CITIES GAINED:
Truculence+ 46 = 0.73% Growth Per Player
Black Legion + 109= 1.211% Growth Per Player
Venom 2.0 + 73 = 1.02% Growth Per Player
Victores + 61 = 0.79% Growth per player

1. Truculence 10
2. Black Legion 5
3. Venom 2.0 4
4. Victores 2

CITIES LOST:
Victores - 16 = 0.20% decrease per player
Venom 2.0 - 2 = 0.02% decrease per player
Black Legion - 0 = 0.00% decrease per player
Truculence - 0 = 0% decrease per player

1. Black Legion 10
2. Truculence 5
3. Venom 2.0 4
4. Victores 2

POINTS GAINED:
Truculence + 628114= 9.97% increase per player
Black Legion + 558074 = 6.2% increase per player
Venom 2.0 + 625561 = 8.81% increase per player
Victores + 388765 = 5.04% increase per player

1. Truculence 10
2. Venom 2.0 5
3. Black Legion 4
4. Victores 2

Attack Battle Points Growth
Victores + 231490 = 3% increase per player
Venom 2.0 + 496958 = 6.99% increase per player
Black Legion + 620635 = 6.89% increase per player
Truculence + 507061 = 7.92% increase per player

1. Truculence 10
2. Venom 2.0 5
3. Black Legion 4
4. Victores 2

DEFENSE BATTLE POINTS:
Truculence + 231155 = 3.61% increase per player
Black Legion + 303003 = 3.36% increase per player
Venom 2.0 + 275170 = 3.87% increase per player
Victores + 442010 = 5.74% increase per player

1. Victores 10
2. Venom 2.0 5
3. Truculence 4
4. Black Legion 2

TOTAL BATTLE POINTS:
Victores + 673500 = 8.74% increase per player
Venom 2.0 + 772128 = 10.87% increase per player
Black Legion + 923638 = 10.26% increase per player
Truculence + 738216 = 11.53% increase per player

1. Truculence 10
2. Venom 2.0 5
3. Black Legion 4
4. Victores 2

Leader Boards (Week 13/9/13 - 19/9/13)
1.Truculence 49 <--- (New Record)
2. Black Legion 29
3. Venom 2.0 28
4. Victores 20
​

ALL TIME LEADER BOARDS​

1.Venom 2.0 with 5 competition points (1)
2.Black Legion with 5 competition points
3.Truculence with 4 1/2 competition points (1/2)
4.Victores with 0 competition points

COMMENTARY

Truculence takes out First place this week with an all time high of 49 points. They move to 4 1/2 points on the competition ladder. Second was Black Legion, who had a slow week in most areas, they scored 29 points and move to 5 competition points. Venom 2,0 came in Third with 28 points, also a slow week. Finally we have Victores, who scored 20. Victores are still stuck on 0 All Time Points, however they did manage to get First in Defense Battle Points which is a good sign. That's all for this week!

Pool B:(alliances 5,6,7,8)
Same rules as Pool A except the competition has less detail. Only determined winners on City Gain/Loss.
All Time Leader Boards
1. Villainy with 2 competition points
2. Bones and Skulls with 2 competition points
3. Redwood Originals with 2 competition points
4. Phoenix with 0 competition points.​

 

[DeletedUser]

Awesome work! I look forward to seeing this when it's finished.

 

[DeletedUser]

I never get encouraged by Pushty like that.

 

[DeletedUser15581]

Can you do a ABP and DBP growth too please?

that will deserve a +rep from some

 

[DeletedUser39031]

sure!

 

[DeletedUser8345]

nice job mate but will nead a lot of effort to maintain it

 

[DeletedUser]

Guess we have to pick up our game because this is a percentage game and the people with the most points/cities will be at a disadvantage. Oh well guess it just means we need to get more and more

 

[DeletedUser15581]

you still haven't put Defense BP or total BP :-(

Also, once cities gained has been put up, how is points gain useful? which alliance has been able to recruit more players?

good idea nonetheless... just giving my 2 cents on refining it

 

[DeletedUser]

Awesome! Keep it up.

+rep

 

[DeletedUser11508]

I thought this game had changed from pure battle/defensive points game to a more sofisticated strategy with these island wonders and such...guess I was wrong

 

[DeletedUser]

This game will always be about war... unless they mess it up like most other good games.

 

[DeletedUser39031]

you still haven't put Defense BP or total BP :-(

Also, once cities gained has been put up, how is points gain useful? which alliance has been able to recruit more players?

good idea nonetheless... just giving my 2 cents on refining it

Sorry, I wasn't going to do DBP, I didn't really think of it as important. In your original post you didn't ask for normal BP. I'll put it in then.
Yes, it is on who has the more players generally, but it's also on which alliance has the most point growth.

 

[DeletedUser15581]

I just wanted ABP and 1 of DBP or total BP. 6 items would be too much work for you.

+rep now... and there will be more later

Going to bug you again, lol. Treedaddy is right about questioning your % increase criteria. Your alliance, Truculence is low on points/cities/BP, so % increase for it would be high. But Venom and BL have done a lot of hard work till 21st August to have these high BP stats, cities and points. No points are awarded till 21st August, and % increase from here on will only mean that a lot is being demanded from these 2 alliances to "beat" Truculence in this scoreboard. So probably absolute increase should be considered instead of percentage increase.

 

[DeletedUser]

If we use absolute increase Truculence will be at a disadvantage as well because of there lower member count. However, I think its more there fault as they have so few players. Absolute increase does seem the most fair when you take all four top alliances into account

 

[DeletedUser15581]

okay SF, I agree with your first point about Truculence being put to disadvantage due to lower member count and the reason why Mr.sure won't go for it.

So can we put it at BP gained per member, cities gained per member etc, instead of either percentage or absolute?

The thing is, BL shouldn't be taxed for having so many cities and ABP already and Venom shouldn't be taxed for having so much DBP and total BP. I guess if we take it per member it becomes fair to all. If BL has more members, it is expected to gain more cities/BPs and since Truculence has less, it is expected to gain less.

 

[DeletedUser39031]

okay SF, I agree with your first point about Truculence being put to disadvantage due to lower member count and the reason why Mr.sure won't go for it.

I'll do whatever is reasonable, applicable and suits the majority of people.

So can we put it at BP gained per member, cities gained per member etc, instead of either percentage or absolute?

The thing is, BL shouldn't be taxed for having so many cities and ABP already and Venom shouldn't be taxed for having so much DBP and total BP. I guess if we take it per member it becomes fair to all. If BL has more members, it is expected to gain more cities/BPs and since Truculence has less, it is expected to gain less.

So from what I can see you guys would rather divide the point/city/BP growth by the amount of players to determine the winner. I can do that next week if you like (bit late now)

 

[DeletedUser]

This is cheap mathematics, which makes me wonder what they teach in school these days. Lumping for instance Redwoods into a group that is 50% smaller and then do a straight percentage doesn't work. The same happens with Black Legion and Venom. What you have to use is a weighted average. For instance in pool B you have to add all the points in the pool and get a number ... then you do a percentage of that collective number compared to each individual part and then compare it to the next week total % to come up with a proper % increase .... the straight up percentage doesn't work because 1% increase by Redwoods is a much larger number than 1% of Villany ... so on this point this entire exercise is pointless and only used to make a point that is more propaganda than anything else.

If the numbers are corrected to my suggestion then I will say it is fair but until then this thread is pointless.

 

[DeletedUser15581]

Prettysure, do it on a per member basis, it will peace out your critics including me
Anyway Truculence will benefit from it due to their low member count.

 

[DeletedUser39031]

This is cheap mathematics, which makes me wonder what they teach in school these days. Lumping for instance Redwoods into a group that is 50% smaller and then do a straight percentage doesn't work. The same happens with Black Legion and Venom. What you have to use is a weighted average. For instance in pool B you have to add all the points in the pool and get a number ... then you do a percentage of that collective number compared to each individual part and then compare it to the next week total % to come up with a proper % increase .... the straight up percentage doesn't work because 1% increase by Redwoods is a much larger number than 1% of Villany ... so on this point this entire exercise is pointless and only used to make a point that is more propaganda than anything else.

If the numbers are corrected to my suggestion then I will say it is fair but until then this thread is pointless.

Jeez, the way I did it was reasonable as it's testing an alliances growth compared to itself one week ago. At that point in time that seemed the most logical way of testing an alliances growth.
Next week, I'll do Increase Per Member which will work. I didn't realise people would be wanting their alliance on top .

And with the groupings, I put Redwood into Pool B as it is much easier doing two Pools of 4 rather than 2 Pools of 5. It takes a long time to get all the stats down anyway, do the math etc. Two extra alliances would likely make me unable to do this within a reasonable time slot.

 

[DeletedUser]

Per member seems like the fairest thing to do in my opinion, can't wait to see the results for next week!

Also I think your math is pretty good! What maccat suggested seems a little too time consuming for some fun on the forums, no offense intended. It is perfectly reasonable what you suggested, its just, come on ro: