State of the Nations - June

[GailWho]

Lol I want some!

 

[Brand Marrow]

Hey, dont give it to GailWho, she'll sprinkle it all over the hobbit hole! We need to get meaner, not nicer!!

 

[Ravenlord]

Ikr Brand Marrow - I've always said she's too nice & cutesy-poo - it's revolting - unlike oozing brain matter - which is also revolting but thats expected of zombies.....

 

[redprince]

Lol, it's just in my blood.

 

[GailWho]

Hey! You're messing with my groove here. If I wanna sprinkle happy fairy dust around the hobbit hole I will! It's better than that nasty stuff you got brewing on the naughty step Brand Marrow Don't think I don't know about it! Ravenlord FYI Nice can be scary too! I mean it is revolting you isn't it?

 

[Brand Marrow]

Hey, that ''nasty stuff'' may smell bad but I assure you that you will never taste a better klootzak sauce!

 

[Ravenlord]

GailWho - normally l like naughty girls but l happen to be making an exception for you, so don't spoil it .....

 

[GailWho]

Aww I feel so special! Thanks Ravenlord Brand Marrow I googled the recipe... Ummm ew!

 

[dannemare]

We also added more robust Leaderboard rankings for Alliances based on World Wars, so we can truly determine the #1 Alliance in the DomiNations! More on those features in a couple of weeks…

Since it is absolutely critical to get this new WW leaderboard correct from the start, I will repeat what I have already said in another thread: the game *must* (heavily) reward bigger wars. There is *a lot* more prestige in winning, say, a 35vs35 than a 25vs25. There is absolutely no way that a 25vs25 should be rewarded the same "war score" as a 35vs35.

As an example (and please keep in mind that I have no idea how the devs are going to implement "war scores" that can be used on ladders):

10vs10: no "war score bonus" (or whatever we wanna call it)
15vs15: 7.5% bonus
20vs20: 15.0% bonus
25vs25: 22.5% bonus
30vs30: 30.0% bonus
35vs35: 37.5% bonus
40vs40: 45.0% bonus
45vs45: 52.5% bonus
50vs50: 60.0% bonus

Also, I trust that the devs are taking each alliance's war strength (relative to all other alliances) into consideration. You can't have just a single leaderboard without taking this into consideration. Imagine the heavyweight boxing champion being ranked lower than the bantamweight champion simply because the bantam champ had had the opportunity to have more fights or whatever. Put them into the ring together and see what happens. In addition to this, I have to add that the heavyweight alliances often have to search for a loooooong time (days!) before finding a match. We have managed to wait for more than 3 whole days (85 hours to be exact), so *don't* base the ranking on something simple like number of wars/stars won. It will render the WW leaderboard completely worthless.

Seraphine and Nb4powerup, please forward to the devs. If the WW leaderboard isn't done right from the start, it'll be a disaster.

 

[dbenhur]

It's funny that you think big wars should have more prestige. It's actually harder to win a 10-10 than a 35-35. One guy getting distracted by Real Life can cripple a 10 on 10 and is insignificant to a big field. The large field allows more strategic opportunity for the strong players to clean up poor results from the lowers.

 

[GailWho]

Since it is absolutely critical to get this new WW leaderboard correct from the start, I will repeat what I have already said in another thread: the game *must* (heavily) reward bigger wars. There is *a lot* more prestige in winning, say, a 35vs35 than a 25vs25. There is absolutely no way that a 25vs25 should be rewarded the same "war score" as a 35vs35.

As an example (and please keep in mind that I have no idea how the devs are going to implement "war scores" that can be used on ladders):

10vs10: no "war score bonus" (or whatever we wanna call it)
15vs15: 7.5% bonus
20vs20: 15.0% bonus
25vs25: 22.5% bonus
30vs30: 30.0% bonus
35vs35: 37.5% bonus
40vs40: 45.0% bonus
45vs45: 52.5% bonus
50vs50: 60.0% bonus

Also, I trust that the devs are taking each alliance's war strength (relative to all other alliances) into consideration. You can't have just a single leaderboard without taking this into consideration. Imagine the heavyweight boxing champion being ranked lower than the bantamweight champion simply because the bantam champ had had the opportunity to have more fights or whatever. Put them into the ring together and see what happens. In addition to this, I have to add that the heavyweight alliances often have to search for a loooooong time (days!) before finding a match. We have managed to wait for more than 3 whole days (85 hours to be exact), so *don't* base the ranking on something simple like number of wars/stars won. It will render the WW leaderboard completely worthless.

Seraphine and Nb4powerup, please forward to the devs. If the WW leaderboard isn't done right from the start, it'll be a disaster.

I think they all have different strategies and different alliances may be better suited for certain ones. I know HZ has found their niche in the 20v20 and 25v25. I think there should be separate leaderboards for the each type of matchup (or groups of similar size match ups) so we know who's the best of each class. To use your boxing analogy, alliances shouldn't be penalized because they are smaller and don't have the numbers to play the larger wars. This doesn't make them any less effective at what they do (if anything it makes them feistier) and they shouldn't be judged deficient based on the inability to make a larger war. This is why they have these classifications in boxing and that's why leaderboards should be separated here. That way you can go on believing your heavyweight team is best but I'll be more interested to see how my team stacks up with the other middleweight teams.

 

[Fable]

No support, my clan runs 20 vs. 20 and a handful r fillers, why penalize the smaller war clans? Our membership is open, so it's not like we don't want more warriors, its that some of the new ppl that come and want to war flake out and don't use their att.s or follow simple direction which equals a benching or a boot.

If the bigger clans r having so much trouble finding a match, why not make another clan and have 20 vs. 20 or 25 vs. 25? It's your choice to run such high WW rosters, not ours.

And I completely agree with dbenhur, 10 vs. 10 is more critical than anything else, especially if ppl go inactive.

I stated before (and was hoping for a pulse in this thread by someone with authority from Nexon) pls implement 2 WW lb, 1 for clan and 1 for individuals.

ie

Clans judged by
W/L/T/TW (Win/Lose/Tie/Tie win) pls don't include loses from tie % into overall loses.
Overall win lb for clans
Overall % lb wins for clans (say minimum of 25 wars)
Even have a lb for perfect wars.

Individual lb
Pretty much just based on medals earned I guess.

Again pls Nexon at least converse with u know...your consumers about exactly how the WW lb should be implemented. Do it right the FIRST time.

Honor * Virtue [best war clan overall.]

 

[Equal]

Better include some bonus for defeating ally with better "power" score. And for some smaller ally's who does 20 or 25 sized ww should be seperate ranking. Could use 10 players ranges. E.g. rank of 10-20, 25-30, 35-40,45-50.or include some 10 and 15-20 rank to make it in 5 groups.anyway like on our ally we ussually do 20 and 25 sized ww. So we could be ranked in two groups. For each group to qualify minimum number of ww could be set. Like 5 or so and the last ww should be min. one week old. If it is older - you are out of this group ranking. Or could use like Olympics system. Like only last 20 or so ww counting and also last ww done in a one week in a particular group.