PDA

View Full Version : All-time Statistics



Bloated Fish
03 Sep 2013, 01:07 AM
Conquest Statistics



Most Conquests: Alliances




Rank
Alliance
Members
Villages
Conquests
Population
Server
Round


1
G•
43
1,179
539
923,852
UK5
Round 2


2
C.F.
54
1,203
513
927,320
UK4
Round 5


3
SMASH!
47
1,108
466
831,423
UK3
Round 6


4
FO@D
60
1,281
434
983,327
UK4
Round 6


5
HATE™
49
901
430
674,262
UK6
Round 4


6
+NE+
18
183
422
114,364
UK3
Round 5


7
HATE
60
1,290
421
964,268
UK7
Round 1


8
HATE™
39
854
418
589,623
UK3
Round 6


9
D•
58
1,493
397
1,141,525
UK5
Round 2


10
W.C..B&P
53
1,124
389
864,240
UK4
Round 4








Most Conquests: Players




Rank
Player
Alliance
Villages
Conquests
Population
Server
Round


1
Charlemagne
TE-III
71
52
59,177
UK6
Round 2


2
defender
AC
55
50
49,002
UK6
Round 2


3=
Beano
AC
84
48
71,310
UK6
Round 2


3=
Hoops
C.F.
52
48
50,484
UK4
Round 5


5=
sickness
TLW
30
42
23,229
UK1
Round 5


5=
GaulELeo
SD
44
42
43,759
UK4
Round 5


7=
jaycee
AC
65
41
52,941
UK6
Round 2


7=
Mestammo
|~VIST~|
55
41
41,414
UK6
Round 3


9=
Stormwarrior
GutPath™
57
40
54,806
UK3
Round 6


9=
Izmirübül
-
47
40
42,074
UK5
Round 2

NightLock.
03 Sep 2013, 01:23 AM
Nice work :)

Not to be a pain but UK2 Round 6 finished yesterday. I have all of the stats collected, just waiting for Avi to get back to me so they can go into the Hall of Fame.
PM me if you want a copy so this can be updated.

Bloated Fish
03 Sep 2013, 01:28 AM
Nice work :)

Not to be a pain but UK2 Round 6 finished yesterday. I have all of the stats collected, just waiting for Avi to get back to me so they can go into the Hall of Fame.
PM me if you want a copy so this can be updated.

yeah, please send it to me, that would be great. Also, if you let Sam know you have the data, as she was thinking of doing a server analysis for s2. I've just done one on S4, as we finished today, so I can always do one with that as a template.

septimus ii
03 Sep 2013, 01:49 AM
Some of the column names on your tables are incorrect, when you've got time to go through them.

Bloated Fish
03 Sep 2013, 01:53 AM
thanks for pointing it out, that what i get for doing it back to back with the server 4 stats

EDIT: Should be sorted now.

NightLock.
03 Sep 2013, 01:53 AM
yeah, please send it to me, that would be great. Also, if you let Sam know you have the data, as she was thinking of doing a server analysis for s2. I've just done one on S4, as we finished today, so I can always do one with that as a template.

Sent, I've forwarded the link to Sam as well, might save her a little bit of time.

boxerboy89
04 Sep 2013, 08:20 PM
Good read fish, thanks for effort
+1

Samantha78
04 Sep 2013, 08:52 PM
Thank you both - outstanding effort :)

The one quirk (Avi has a list somewhere)...is that different versions are very difficult to compare. One of the most obvious examples of this is in the simming charts, while there are differences between T4 and T3.6 (such as artworks), the even bigger difference is with T2.5 where the CP requirements are much much less - which is why UK6, r2 and UK6, r3 are streets ahead of others.

[And personally, it is bothering me slightly that I've sat three of the top 15 def accounts through quite considerable chunks of the end games lol]

Bloated Fish
04 Sep 2013, 09:08 PM
Yeah, totally agree with the simming bit. I was amazed to see action hero break into the top 10 with the CP restrictions.

NightLock.
04 Sep 2013, 09:20 PM
+1

Collecting the stats for UK2 hall of fame was enough to give me a headache (especially those flaming hero stats) so fair play to BF for putting this and UK4 stats together at the same time. Definitely deserving of some rep if only for the time it must have taken.

Bloated Fish
04 Sep 2013, 11:50 PM
Thank you! :)

EDIT: Updated to include UK2, Round 6
EDIT: Updated to include Heroes

Bob Hawken
04 Sep 2013, 11:51 PM
Super effort - congrats!

I would suggest in the spreadsheet that the version which that server was is included in a column.

If someone creates a section of the excel saying which Travian version and whether it is a speed or otherwise I will include it the info on each line - the lookup or similar isn't hard to create if you know how.

I may even do a pivot table to pick out the info that you really want...

Bloated Fish
05 Sep 2013, 12:07 AM
Super effort - congrats!

I would suggest in the spreadsheet that the version which that server was is included in a column.

If someone creates a section of the excel saying which Travian version and whether it is a speed or otherwise I will include it the info on each line - the lookup or similar isn't hard to create if you know how.

I may even do a pivot table to pick out the info that you really want...

Speed is too different, I will do another for speed, if I can motivate myself, lol.

I will do the Travian version, it shouldn't take too long. ETA, tomorrow. :) I also plan on do the top developing players.

Bob Hawken
05 Sep 2013, 12:24 AM
Super - happy to help (I teach Excel to accountants so it really won't take me long at all!)

Bloated Fish
08 Sep 2013, 12:36 AM
Updated - Now includes conquests (Note, I could only back date as far as getter tools would allow)

EDIT: Master Copy Updated - Now includes Server Versions, so you can easily check version specific stats.

keevill_81
08 Sep 2013, 01:46 AM
eekk need to try harder :'(:$ had to scroll down a lot of list before I see my name :depress:

The Jester
12 Sep 2013, 08:37 AM
Bloaty, either I'm blind or I've not been included on top attackers or top hero :P I believe I should be somewhere in the lower ranks ;)

Bloated Fish
13 Sep 2013, 12:43 AM
Bloaty, either I'm blind or I've not been included on top attackers or top hero :P I believe I should be somewhere in the lower ranks ;)

You have to make the top 10 on the server to qualify, so whilst you would have been better than a fair amount of players that made it from other servers, no such luck on the overall. You'll have to be content with 4th best defender!

When are you going to add your opinion onto the S4 awards thread?

MartinJames
13 Sep 2013, 01:06 AM
The HATE on rank 8 attackers has it listed as from UK4 Round 5 - the same round CF and Toxic are listed on. :) I don't know what the correction would be though.

Also - if the chance comes up, would you be able to edit in the Version for the top 10s pretty please? As Sam has already stated it does make a difference to what is doable - With the 2.5s lower CP reqs etc.

Bloated Fish
19 Sep 2013, 12:18 AM
thank you, amended.

UPDATE: Alliance and Player Conquests.
UPDATE: WOP WW victory time from S1, R6 now included.

Moog
21 Sep 2013, 04:32 PM
Does go to point up how dodgy the CF numbers are though. When an alliance has half again what any other alliance has achieved playing the same version, it does look rather fishy. I don't think anyone doesn't rate ASBO, and even HATE critics would have to admit there is talent within the alliance. Their figures are not dissimilar, but CF had to go killing their own clubs, scouts and Natars (and animals). Just takes the gloss of the numbers.

Samantha78
21 Sep 2013, 08:00 PM
I think the bigger factor is that the CF server lasted significantly longer. Other factors can make a huge difference including the quality of the player competition.

Neither version of HATE are immune from natar hits (given documented artie and WW/plan holding); 3.6 HATE included a lot of nature hits, and a burst of killing their own troops in the end game. Based on a sample of FALCON's attacks, and assuming that the same players use similar approaches on other servers when they've been in HATE, there is certainly natar and animal killing that goes on.

Moog - you can estimate this for yourself; look through a sample of attack logs and work out what %age of off points in the sample come from which natars/animals/other players - it moves away from the usual he said/she said blustering. (Killing own troops - in any alliance doing it - is usually reserved for early server to get medals in the first month or so or end of the server to use up troops get higher end positions; but there will be some alliance who are raid hungry and will clear their own players as soon as they go yellow in order to raid)

Bloated Fish
21 Sep 2013, 08:58 PM
I think the bigger factor is that the CF server lasted significantly longer. Other factors can make a huge difference including the quality of the player competition.

Neither version of HATE are immune from natar hits (given documented artie and WW/plan holding); 3.6 HATE included a lot of nature hits, and a burst of killing their own troops in the end game. Based on a sample of FALCON's attacks, and assuming that the same players use similar approaches on other servers when they've been in HATE, there is certainly natar and animal killing that goes on.

Moog - you can estimate this for yourself; look through a sample of attack logs and work out what %age of off points in the sample come from which natars/animals/other players - it moves away from the usual he said/she said blustering. (Killing own troops - in any alliance doing it - is usually reserved for early server to get medals in the first month or so or end of the server to use up troops get higher end positions; but there will be some alliance who are raid hungry and will clear their own players as soon as they go yellow in order to raid)

Yeah, agreed. We are about 53k per day, Hate's best was 49k per day. Not too dissimilar, particularly when you factor in that we hit more Natar WWs (7 more) and we deliberately tried to cause panic when plans were released... I forget how many we took, but it was a lot.

-------------------

Moved here


Does go to point up how dodgy the CF numbers are though. When an alliance has half again what any other alliance has achieved playing the same version, it does look rather fishy. I don't think anyone doesn't rate ASBO, and even HATE critics would have to admit there is talent within the alliance. Their figures are not dissimilar, but CF had to go killing their own clubs, scouts and Natars (and animals). Just takes the gloss of the numbers.

- We didn't killed our own troops

- We have always openly stated we have hit Natar WWs as a tactic and target for our server ambition and as show of dominance. We do not believe this undermines our statistics, but instead adds to it. We caused the server to last 400 days, despite the fact we threw hammers at 9 Natar WWs. From what I've seen Hate have always had a tactic of prolonging servers, but have never caused admin to shut down a server. We actively and evidently tried to avoid prolonging the server through our use of hammers on Natars and still caused this.

- We also admit to clearing oasis for points and resources, as we easily and consequently got a net gain from our members in troop numbers. I was on UK3, last round and saw how Eragon did the same from the sticks. It was a tactic observed from Hate and implemented more widely by CF. It put our alliance in a better position troop wise and was thus a no-brainer to actively encourage it.

- Aside from those tactics, we also went after the unique artes, holding all 7 until a couple of days before the end of the server, when we lost one due to a tactical over-sight, exploited by JWAA. We owned our quad, chiefing 500+ villages from players we dominated. We zero'd every WW at least once, and chiefed 2 enemy WWs. We took on the biggest alliances, leaving the smaller ones from outside our quad alone.

mercy
21 Sep 2013, 10:19 PM
Some great work there on those statistics, not an easy thing to do getting all that info together and sorting it. Well done and thanks :)

septimus ii
21 Sep 2013, 10:57 PM
Moog - you can estimate this for yourself; look through a sample of attack logs and work out what %age of off points in the sample come from which natars/animals/other players - it moves away from the usual he said/she said blustering. (Killing own troops - in any alliance doing it - is usually reserved for early server to get medals in the first month or so or end of the server to use up troops get higher end positions; but there will be some alliance who are raid hungry and will clear their own players as soon as they go yellow in order to raid)

I haven't checked, but probably 100% - the attack boards are completely dominated by micro-raids, with the odd natar kill as part of it

Samantha78
21 Sep 2013, 11:04 PM
don't confuse volume of raids with value of attack points :p

septimus ii
21 Sep 2013, 11:44 PM
I know, but a typical sample taken from the alliance attack boards won't have any reports with 'real' attacks on it. You'd need to take thousands of raids, I guess. 87.5 thousand attacks on uk3 yesterday, hundreds at most I reckon with major attacking troops hitting major defending troops.

Samantha78
22 Sep 2013, 11:01 PM
I know, but a typical sample taken from the alliance attack boards won't have any reports with 'real' attacks on it. You'd need to take thousands of raids, I guess. 87.5 thousand attacks on uk3 yesterday, hundreds at most I reckon with major attacking troops hitting major defending troops.

No; you don't - you can just filter the reports to see those with losses.

septimus ii
22 Sep 2013, 11:03 PM
I forgot about that (blush)

Samantha78
24 Sep 2013, 12:26 AM
The tables did note that UK4 was a 400 day server

(and bickering edited out - it's not becoming on a section that isn't part of the war)

jawwwwsh
24 Sep 2013, 06:36 AM
I feel like I should be somewhere on the Attackers ranking from last UK2, I don't have the exact stats, but my end game WWK netted me 243k attack points on its own and I wasn't exactly simming before I sent that thing off.

Bloated Fish
24 Sep 2013, 08:19 AM
I feel like I should be somewhere on the Attackers ranking from last UK2, I don't have the exact stats, but my end game WWK netted me 243k attack points on its own and I wasn't exactly simming before I sent that thing off.

48 Marquesh 845,346
71 Zider 710,526
76 Norbert 692,423
94 Enigma 657,335
105 Egon 628,428
143 The Prodigy 543,390
144 The General 541,737
152 Frenzy 531,285
197 Faceache 464,744
216 Virus 442,171

Not sure on your ign, but that was last UK2's stats, with each players position. There is an excel master copy where you can filter and search, etc, down at the bottom of the stats.

sharckyl1
24 Sep 2013, 10:04 AM
jawsh played as Lord Pan

jawwwwsh
24 Sep 2013, 10:16 AM
I was Lord Pan, probably around 300,000 off points from my wee little 10 vill account so probably 11-15th on the server, but that data doesn't appear to have been saved.

NightLock.
24 Sep 2013, 10:29 AM
Sorry Josh, I just grabbed what was needed for the hall of fame, didn't take any extra stats. :(

Bloated Fish
24 Sep 2013, 11:00 AM
I was Lord Pan, probably around 300,000 off points from my wee little 10 vill account so probably 11-15th on the server, but that data doesn't appear to have been saved.

to qualify for the all-time stats you need to finish in the top 10. sorry

jawwwwsh
24 Sep 2013, 11:17 AM
to qualify for the all-time stats you need to finish in the top 10. sorry

That is an unusual method of ranking? I would assume a player with higher offense points would be ranked higher than someone with a lower offense points.

Bloated Fish
24 Sep 2013, 11:28 AM
I'm not going to give newer servers an unfair advantage by collecting more sample data. my ally had people miss the cut who would be in the top 50. such is life.

Bloated Fish
29 Jan 2014, 10:38 PM
Updated, now including UK7, R2.

Many thanks to Hawkery!!

commander
29 Jan 2014, 11:25 PM
Will be interesting to see what false score lord pan achieves on the current UK3 now they have resorted to building mace and borging on themselves.

crossbreed
30 Jan 2014, 12:00 AM
That is an unusual method of ranking? I would assume a player with higher offense points would be ranked higher than someone with a lower offense points.

It is as it is, personally I thank Bloated Fish for the time he gave us, and the effort in progressing our game and stats that he constantly updates.

Great Job, Keep it up when you can!

Cheers

Blob

Kenobi
09 Mar 2014, 11:18 PM
5648

So SMASH! is holding 14 uniques in uk3 at the moment. Does that move SMASH! to the top place in all-time statistics? 8)

Xentil
18 Apr 2014, 11:39 AM
So this thread needs a few updates now UK3 has finished :D

The Analyst
18 Apr 2014, 08:01 PM
5648

So SMASH! is holding 14 uniques in uk3 at the moment. Does that move SMASH! to the top place in all-time statistics? 8)

i did not think there were 14 uniques, from memory you have
hawk
diet
architect
fool
speed
great storage
fast troop build
cranny

cannot think of any others but thats only 8, unless T4 has 6 new ones

Shadow Masterz
18 Apr 2014, 08:30 PM
i did not think there were 14 uniques, from memory you have
hawk
diet
architect
fool
speed
great storage
fast troop build
cranny

cannot think of any others but thats only 8, unless T4 has 6 new ones

there was a glitch in this server they made some large arties unique fools

commander
18 Apr 2014, 08:47 PM
It was a joke. Due to the no starvation bug, all diets were turned to 'unique' fools.

But in any case, smash ended up with all 7 uniques. I believe that is a record.

The Analyst
18 Apr 2014, 09:54 PM
my apologies was not aware of that consequence, had heard of the no starvation bug though

PinkFairyKing
18 Apr 2014, 10:23 PM
It was a joke. Due to the no starvation bug, all diets were turned to 'unique' fools.

But in any case, smash ended up with all 7 uniques. I believe that is a record.

TSL on UK1 also held all 7 uniques. It would be a joint record.

Grizzly360
18 Apr 2014, 10:26 PM
Though there were no glitches on UK1 so probably counts more :Popcorn:

commander
18 Apr 2014, 11:02 PM
Though there were no glitches on UK1 so probably counts more :Popcorn:

Since you struggle, 6 were held well before any bug, and the 7th was taken when the defence wouldn't have needed to even be fed.

Sounds more impressive.


TSL on UK1 also held all 7 uniques. It would be a joint record.

Fair enough. Although am I right in thinking TSL finished with at least 110 players? Probably a bit more room for success on that front compared to smash's 47.

Lateralus
18 Apr 2014, 11:21 PM
A record is a record - I don't feel there's any need to start a "whose accomplishment is better" debate in relation to the achievement. All servers unfold in different ways and in a different context. Well done to both alliances for holding all of the unique artefacts; the first time this feat has been achieved on a UK server.

Presuming Ed
19 Apr 2014, 02:22 AM
Though there were no glitches on UK1 so probably counts more :Popcorn:

Ah of course it does, without doubt! Plus we were the 1st ally to ever achieve it... smash only equalled our record! :grin:

SilverSlaughter
19 Apr 2014, 02:42 AM
i did not think there were 14 uniques, from memory you have
hawk
diet
architect
fool
speed
great storage
fast troop build
cranny

cannot think of any others but thats only 8, unless T4 has 6 new ones

No unique storage arti - so without glitches, there are always 7 different unique artis.

septimus ii
19 Apr 2014, 09:56 AM
I don't think anyone is going to displace a record of 14 uniques held any time soon :D

Grizzly360
19 Apr 2014, 10:34 AM
I don't think anyone is going to displace a record of 14 uniques held any time soon :D

That's kind of the point - a glitched server isn't the same as a normal one. I don't mean to detract from SMASH's equaling of the TSL record (though the TSL one was done in a shorter time), but 14 doesn't count - it would be 7.

I wouldn't be happy to see someone claim to beat HAL's record if they did it on a glitched server either.

Setback
19 Apr 2014, 07:20 PM
That's kind of the point - a glitched server isn't the same as a normal one. I don't mean to detract from SMASH's equaling of the TSL record (though the TSL one was done in a shorter time), but 14 doesn't count - it would be 7.

I wouldn't be happy to see someone claim to beat HAL's record if they did it on a glitched server either.

No it was 14 uniques, blame travian. I also held 2 uniques, can I get a prize for that?

septimus ii
19 Apr 2014, 11:44 PM
I would record it as equal with the 7s ie all available uniques (which is quite impressive)

Bloated Fish
20 Apr 2014, 11:42 PM
For the record, I am adding UK1 and UK3 at the moment

With regard to the unique artes, only the one's in the "large artefact" section count in this record book. So "WormS 3D" has got the real unique fools, and SMASH are joint first with 7 uniques.

But... as we all love an argument... Smash technically have 6 uniques... as the unique fool is no longer unique! :P

commander
21 Apr 2014, 12:21 AM
Smash also have 54 total artefacts with 47 members.

If there were more than 7 uniques, I'm sure we'd have them. If there was anywhere left to put them ;)

SilverSlaughter
21 Apr 2014, 07:08 PM
Smash also have 54 total artefacts with 47 members.

If there were more than 7 uniques, I'm sure we'd have them. If there was anywhere left to put them ;)

wow, smash's opposition must really have sucked! Though I can't speak much there....

commander
21 Apr 2014, 07:25 PM
Yes that must be the reason, not that we are better than some people may want to believe. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, there were some fail alliances on there like any server..but we also had to go up against HATE who for the first half of the server were piling the pressure on us before a turning point came and we eventually suppressed them heavily.

HATE still finished up only ~1 mill off points behind TSL's best..

Bloated Fish
21 Apr 2014, 08:23 PM
Don't get me wrong, there were some fail alliances on there like any server..but we also had to go up against HATE who for the first half of the server were piling the pressure on us before a turning point came and we eventually suppressed them heavily.

That's not what you guys said at the time :P

-------------------

UPDATE: Now inclusive of UK1, R7 and UK3, R6.
NOTE: I have taken away the spoiler attachments, they take too long to do, and all of that info can be seen far more clearly in the Excel spreadsheet provided via the link at the bottom of the original post.

SilverSlaughter
21 Apr 2014, 09:27 PM
Yes that must be the reason, not that we are better than some people may want to believe. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, there were some fail alliances on there like any server..but we also had to go up against HATE who for the first half of the server were piling the pressure on us before a turning point came and we eventually suppressed them heavily.

HATE still finished up only ~1 mill off points behind TSL's best..

Oh you guys are prob very skilled! Not trying to take away your achievement, otherwise I may expect the same back! TSL ended with numerous hammers still un-used, we had the ability to claim millions more off points, but not enough time...as we were 3rd quickest WW victory :)

Kenobi
22 Apr 2014, 12:33 PM
A record is a record - I don't feel there's any need to start a "whose accomplishment is better" debate in relation to the achievement. All servers unfold in different ways and in a different context. Well done to both alliances for holding all of the unique artefacts; the first time this feat has been achieved on a UK server.
^^ agree to that. But if one still wants to compare two alliances, what I see is both alliances got WW win and 7 uniques held, but SMASH acquired more artefacts (56105611) and got 5M more offense points despite the glitch, with one third of TSL's numbers.

Again, the conditions of two servers were different so not sure how much this comparison makes sense.


That's not what you guys said at the time :P

Apart from some fun banters, we didnt say that HATE was not a worthy opponent. HATE is one of the few alliances with strong history. This round, they have been pretty good until they splatted on SMASH walls few times, then things started to turn around. And in late mid and end game, I have to say that SMASH showed a complete dominance but it was not easy to get there.

Last note is a request for the tribes column in attacking players. Can we have it? Tribes have different attack potential, so it would be fairer to have a tribe filtered comparison. Congrats to HAL 9000 for his achievement, tho assuming HAL was teuton, I might get the top spot among Romans? :homer:

commander
22 Apr 2014, 12:54 PM
we eventually suppressed them heavily.



That's not what you guys said at the time :P


I think that is exactly what we said at the time. Doesn't change the fact they had the upper hand prior to that.

SilverSlaughter
22 Apr 2014, 03:42 PM
^^ agree to that. But if one still wants to compare two alliances, what I see is both alliances got WW win and 7 uniques held, but SMASH acquired more artefacts (56105611) and got 5M more offense points despite the glitch, with one third of TSL's numbers.

Again, the conditions of two servers were different so not sure how much this comparison makes sense.

Conditions such as s3 going considerably longer than s1 - Every one of our top players could have built 2 more huge hammers, given 100 more days to play ;)

Kenobi
22 Apr 2014, 04:10 PM
Conditions such as s3 going considerably longer than s1 - Every one of our top players could have built 2 more huge hammers, given 100 more days to play ;)

It was your decision to end the game sooner tho. You cannot both brag about getting third quickest WW win and whine about having less days to play...

Similarly, conditions such as s3 having a that stupid glitch made us have a) terrible exchanges in our hits (due to exaggerated defense numbers thanks to no starvation), b) having to end the server sooner than it was supposed to (It was crystal clear to everyone that the server would last 400 days, given that the bug hadn't occured). From your logic, everyone here can argue that they would catch one another in off-point rankings if the servers had lasted longer (like we could have caught CF maybe?), which in turn makes all tables and statistics meaningless. Dont you think?

So congrats on your quicker WW win, and let us have the pride of getting more attack points 8)

septimus ii
22 Apr 2014, 04:12 PM
Apart from some fun banters, we didnt say that HATE was not a worthy opponent. HATE is one of the few alliances with strong history. This round, they have been pretty good until they splatted on SMASH walls few times, then things started to turn around. And in late mid and end game, I have to say that SMASH showed a complete dominance but it was not easy to get there.

I disagree with that. That might have been the turning point from the outside, but Hate that round had leadership problems from much earlier on.

commander
22 Apr 2014, 04:50 PM
So congrats on your quicker WW win, and let us have the pride of getting more attack points 8)

And more def points. I mean if our attackers hadn't turned to def we could have made xyz more off armies ;)

SilverSlaughter
22 Apr 2014, 04:56 PM
It was your decision to end the game sooner tho. You cannot both brag about getting third quickest WW win and whine about having less days to play...

Similarly, conditions such as s3 having a that stupid glitch made us have a) terrible exchanges in our hits (due to exaggerated defense numbers thanks to no starvation), b) having to end the server sooner than it was supposed to (It was crystal clear to everyone that the server would last 400 days, given that the bug hadn't occured). From your logic, everyone here can argue that they would catch one another in off-point rankings if the servers had lasted longer (like we could have caught CF maybe?), which in turn makes all tables and statistics meaningless. Dont you think?

So congrats on your quicker WW win, and let us have the pride of getting more attack points 8)

Oh, I'm just noting relevant facts. Congrats on your off points.

Setback
22 Apr 2014, 08:03 PM
I disagree with that. That might have been the turning point from the outside, but Hate that round had leadership problems from much earlier on.

Uh well SMASH! only have hobos as leaders...

boxerboy89
22 Apr 2014, 08:19 PM
so is it fair to say its SMASH! vs TSL next server then?

Setback
22 Apr 2014, 08:36 PM
so is it fair to say its SMASH! vs TSL next server then?

Would be fun to see that.

JackDee
22 Apr 2014, 09:32 PM
Would be fun to see that.

Smash want to play the T5 Server but from the TSL room no one in there do. Personally I would love to see a Smash vs TSL as well as a few other really good alliances. Would be slightly awkward for me hahaha

SilverSlaughter
22 Apr 2014, 10:10 PM
well the next server to open up won't be T5 - idk how many TSL will be back, but we won't back down from a fight :)

Kenobi
22 Apr 2014, 10:26 PM
smash want to play the t5 server but from the tsl room no one in there do. Personally i would love to see a smash vs tsl as well as a few other really good alliances. Would be slightly awkward for me hahaha

SPY!!! Kick kick kick!

Samantha78
22 Apr 2014, 10:55 PM
"It was crystal clear to everyone that the server would last 400 days, given that the bug hadn't occured" - while that may be true if SMASH hadn't taken a ww, the fact you did changed the outcome. Or am I missing something and it wasn't SMASH that queued a level 100 ww?

Kenobi
22 Apr 2014, 11:27 PM
"It was crystal clear to everyone that the server would last 400 days, given that the bug hadn't occured" - while that may be true if SMASH hadn't taken a ww, the fact you did changed the outcome. Or am I missing something and it wasn't SMASH that queued a level 100 ww?

Yes you do. After the glitch, there was ridiculous amount of defense (at least for the standards of WW holding alliances) as only necessary skill one would to need to possess in order to be usefull for the alliance was to know how to use barracks and rally point. We used all our big hammers before WW defense got too big whilst the rest were taking their time, and thus, we ended up having no WWks/hammers to damage their WW with its inflated defense. We had to change our strategy (from being smashy smashy to getting a WW win), because otherwise GutWarDAPath would win the server in a week time or so, I suppose. It felt nicer to grab the win instead of letting GutPath (which, by the way, ended up having less attack points than Sniff account alone) get the pride very soon.

But regardless, it was not my point; actually kind of the opposite. I was simply saying that if TSL is to put up an excuse as to why they lack attack points, every alliance, including SMASH!, would do the same thing. So lets celebrate the outcomes as it is now rather than meaningless mudslinging. :ahoy:

keevill_81
27 Apr 2014, 01:04 AM
hum .....came on here to see where I place in the new attackers charts ......only to see the top 10 only .....BOOOO BOOO bloated fish :depress:

then I see all this SMASH vs TSL lark ........ :P would be intresting ...... and fun . I would say SMASH are the better alliance but up against the much larger alliance don't think they could build enough def to stop the constant TSL onslaught .

Kenobi
27 Apr 2014, 12:34 PM
And few additions I'd like to see in the tables (if possible):

1- Alliances of the players
2- Tribes of the players
3- Maybe average attack point per day - if we know how long each server lasted

Lastly, I think hero name part is unnecessary. It is the old system and occupies an unnecessary column. All N/A's seem ugly.

Bloated Fish
03 May 2014, 12:28 PM
hum .....came on here to see where I place in the new attackers charts ......only to see the top 10 only .....BOOOO BOOO bloated fish :depress:

then I see all this SMASH vs TSL lark ........ :P would be intresting ...... and fun . I would say SMASH are the better alliance but up against the much larger alliance don't think they could build enough def to stop the constant TSL onslaught .

the full list is there in a far more detail on the excel spreadsheet provided... it isnt difficilt for you to view it

- - - Updated - - -


And few additions I'd like to see in the tables (if possible):

1- Alliances of the players
2- Tribes of the players
3- Maybe average attack point per day - if we know how long each server lasted

Lastly, I think hero name part is unnecessary. It is the old system and occupies an unnecessary column. All N/A's seem ugly.

possible, will take time, but i will do all of these.... either in excel or on display.

septimus ii
03 May 2014, 01:27 PM
Attack points per day would be misleading. You're right that a longer server will have more attack points, but it's hard to pin down exactly how many. The number of days in the server includes months and months at the start where you'll get a relatively low number of off points.

Kenobi
03 May 2014, 02:32 PM
the full list is there in a far more detail on the excel spreadsheet provided... it isnt difficilt for you to view it

I am not able to open or download it. Gives error 404.


Attack points per day would be misleading. You're right that a longer server will have more attack points, but it's hard to pin down exactly how many. The number of days in the server includes months and months at the start where you'll get a relatively low number of off points.

Agreed. One should have greater capability of having more and bigger hammers quicker at late game, since you should have greater resource income due to feeders, high capital fields, raiding etc. The best way would be to give different weights for different time phases (early-mid-late) and then calculate the weighted average. However it would be difficult to decide on weights; it will probably raise doubts and concerns that the weighted system favors one alliance/player over another etc.

Bloated Fish
03 May 2014, 07:03 PM
I am not able to open or download it. Gives error 404.

Fixed.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Konzea
07 Jun 2014, 11:35 PM
Everyone loves stats :D

These are pretty interesting.

Lateralus
11 Feb 2015, 07:40 PM
Please can this thread be stickied as well? It's the most detailed and comprehensive all-time stats page - deserves a place next to the All-time WWKs and WWRs :)

Bloated Fish
11 Feb 2015, 09:55 PM
and will be updated soon! :ahoy:

Ob1k
08 Mar 2015, 07:52 PM
Strange as I recall building a WW on uk5 which we won in 275 days

Bloated Fish
17 Apr 2015, 08:41 PM
Updated :P

hoops
19 Apr 2015, 03:23 AM
Was having a browse, noticed my uk4 round 6 hero xp wernt on there. Didnt have hero level written down, but the hero xp was 2065k

Bloated Fish
19 Apr 2015, 08:35 AM
Was having a browse, noticed my uk4 round 6 hero xp wernt on there. Didnt have hero level written down, but the hero xp was 2065k

Unfortunately UK 4, round 6 hero info is missing :(

If you, or someone else has it, I can add it in!

hoops
19 Apr 2015, 04:38 PM
Only have my own stats that server written down :/

Bloated Fish
19 Apr 2015, 08:46 PM
I have them now, thanks to Shaun, and will update them at some point tonight

rogs
26 Apr 2015, 01:15 AM
interesting thread as been away from uk servers for years playing classic on com, but its full of tor using russian cheats, was time to return

Bloated Fish
26 Apr 2015, 06:30 AM
thank you! :)

afreet
31 Jan 2016, 08:34 AM
Wow, uk server is super. I have never seen such statistics like here :O

antonio
25 Aug 2016, 07:19 PM
looking forward to seeing the updated charts Lots of new entries in charts from the era 9 Uk2

MOD Bloated Fish
05 Sep 2016, 05:04 PM
I've updated them. New entries in the overall include

Ouija x2
Dykester x2
Big Bell x1
Lord Aslan x1
Sllimzulu1 x1

with more coming in the T4 records. Well done to SWM on UK2 who made up most of these efforts.

Mercedes
07 Dec 2016, 09:05 PM
Yes that must be the reason, not that we are better than some people may want to believe. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, there were some fail alliances on there like any server..but we also had to go up against HATE who for the first half of the server were piling the pressure on us before a turning point came and we eventually suppressed them heavily.

HATE still finished up only ~1 mill off points behind TSL's best..

SMASH were a great alliance and had a ball of a server, though if the absolute truth were told, they only did it for one server. HATE had already played and dominated several - by the time SMASH came along, the leaders had all moved on with their lives and weren't able or willing to play to their usual standard. It takes a lot to maintain that level of commitment in terms of time for several years. ASBO were the original smash alliance to which all others owe a debt.

But smashy alliances aside, the only alliance who still dominate year on year are Pulse. They were around and well established when I first started playing years ago and are still going despite the decimation of player numbers in recent years. Perhaps there should be a record for the most times an alliance has won a server? There can't be any to touch Pulse on that one.

Bloated Fish
08 Dec 2016, 04:38 AM
Teams change their names from server to server. So whilst this is a nice idea, it would be difficult for me to execute. Particularly when consider what makes the alliance. Eg, should I track key players? Key leaders? etc. It gets into too much grey space. Not everything has to have a record though. We can continue to mention and respect Pulse, their leaders and players on this front.

And yeah, as for Smash, they only came up against the name HATE, not the alliance, as you insinuate. They got torn apart, regardless of what their leaders say, by CF and to a lesser extent Toxic, the server before. They borged all their hammers on CF when they left, which wasn't a lot. They also took ages to clear their rather unimpressive quad.

It certainly looked like they had fun on that server though.