Can we liven the Forums for NOOBS?

DeletedUser121537

Guest
Somewhat

http://www.twstats.com/en88/index.php?page=tribe&id=4709 - #1 tribe 65 + 110 changes from a disbanded previous tribe
http://www.twstats.com/en89/index.php?page=tribe&id=2637 - #1 tribe 368 changes, interestingly enough it has very similar if not identical settings to w93 so could be something related to that?
http://www.twstats.com/en90/index.php?page=tribe&id=157 - #1 tribe 161 changes
http://www.twstats.com/en91/index.php?page=tribe&id=60 - #1 tribe 180 changes
http://www.twstats.com/en92/index.php?page=tribe&id=182 - #1 tribe 304 changes
http://www.twstats.com/en94/index.php?page=tribe&id=3107 - #1 tribe 60 changes
http://www.twstats.com/en95/index.php?page=tribe&id=1884 - #1 tribe 31 changes, none of the top 3 have more than 100 changes
Very interesting, especially the comparison with W89. Two data points isn't enough to prove anything conclusively, but that gives us two intriguing outliers.

Any theories on which settings could be the 'culprit'? My experience is with much older and larger worlds. There the tribal changes stat mainly reflected tribal age, e.g. 500+ changes for a 100 member tribe after 5 years wasn't unusual.

EDIT: any chance it has something to do with the size and success of premades? E.g. both Screw and Noobs got a significant amount of their players out of recruiting in-world rather than pre-world. If other worlds have more stable premades, that would drop the stat significantly.
 

the nemesis123

Guest
Somewhat

http://www.twstats.com/en88/index.php?page=tribe&id=4709 - #1 tribe 65 + 110 changes from a disbanded previous tribe
http://www.twstats.com/en89/index.php?page=tribe&id=2637 - #1 tribe 368 changes, interestingly enough it has very similar if not identical settings to w93 so could be something related to that?
http://www.twstats.com/en90/index.php?page=tribe&id=157 - #1 tribe 161 changes
http://www.twstats.com/en91/index.php?page=tribe&id=60 - #1 tribe 180 changes
http://www.twstats.com/en92/index.php?page=tribe&id=182 - #1 tribe 304 changes
http://www.twstats.com/en94/index.php?page=tribe&id=3107 - #1 tribe 60 changes
http://www.twstats.com/en95/index.php?page=tribe&id=1884 - #1 tribe 31 changes, none of the top 3 have more than 100 changes
W89 was because DST started off as a rim tribe, which eventually merged in the rank 1 premade @Night when it collapsed. The majority of the tribe changes come from that I imagine. I find in these newer worlds, the average is somewhere around 200 or so across the world.
 

OTDDeathAwaits

Guest
Which was exactly my point. This stat means nothing since it does not take account ownership changes into account. Given that you understand how the stat works and how little it means, there really is no valid reason for you to use it.
You said: 'I think mass-recruiting and threatening to internal anyone who doesn't do exactly what you want doesn't make you Sun Tzu either.'
I Fact checked you with TW stat - highlighting NOOBS have gone through 2x as many members and still have 77 over our 46..
You said: As for your 'facts', tribe changes don't mean much if many accounts in the tribe are simply a revolving door of ever-changing account owners.
I said: Account owners changing does not contribute to this stat. 1 point for an account recruited and 1 point for an account leaving. Its funny how you put 'facts' in inverted commas when your explanation is incorrect 'fact'.
You said: Which was exactly my point. This stat means nothing since it does not take account ownership changes into account. Given that you understand how the stat works and how little it means, there really is no valid reason for you to use it.

Now I reply: I never considered the changing of account owners, that was never mentioned as a factor - I highlighted the revolving door in the NOOBS family (as shown on TW stats) being 735 tribe changes compared to our 303. You made a statement about mass recruitment not 'mass changing of accounts' how is that relevant to anything. Keep on point if you are going to debate something; it was your point to begin with as well...


Clearly it is, given how bent out of shape you are about this. Also, don't you mean "We will win"? ;)
You were directing your entire post at 'me' by saying 'you' and how uninspiring I am ...hence the 'I' in my response
For your reference of your own post since you have a short memory: Heck, all this might get you the world win eventually...I simply have a hard time finding it inspirational or awe-inspiring ;)
 

the nemesis123

Guest
Well Noobs just recruited everything that moved in an effort to hope they would get something good, hence their high numbers. At least that is my theory. It's interesting though hearing what outsiders think of Screw, can't say I agree but a curiosity anyways.
 

DeletedUser121537

Guest
You said: 'I think mass-recruiting and threatening to internal anyone who doesn't do exactly what you want doesn't make you Sun Tzu either.'
I Fact checked you with TW stat - highlighting NOOBS have gone through 2x as many members and still have 77 over our 46..
You said: As for your 'facts', tribe changes don't mean much if many accounts in the tribe are simply a revolving door of ever-changing account owners.
I said: Account owners changing does not contribute to this stat. 1 point for an account recruited and 1 point for an account leaving. Its funny how you put 'facts' in inverted commas when your explanation is incorrect 'fact'.
You said: Which was exactly my point. This stat means nothing since it does not take account ownership changes into account. Given that you understand how the stat works and how little it means, there really is no valid reason for you to use it.

Now I reply: I never considered the changing of account owners, that was never mentioned as a factor - I highlighted the revolving door in the NOOBS family (as shown on TW stats) being 735 tribe changes compared to our 303. You made a statement about mass recruitment not 'mass changing of accounts' how is that relevant to anything. Keep on point if you are going to debate something; it was your point to begin with as well...



You were directing your entire post at 'me' by saying 'you' and how uninspiring I am ...hence the 'I' in my response
For your reference of your own post since you have a short memory: Heck, all this might get you the world win eventually...I simply have a hard time finding it inspirational or awe-inspiring ;)
Your 'fact-check' based on your own decision to only count tribe changes and not count recruiting new players to old accounts as part of "mass-recruiting" still shows Screw as having far more tribe changes than most other recent number 1 tribes, which means you're clearly mass-recruiting compared to other potential candidates for master commander.

Compared to the grand pantheon of TW greats, you're still the single-win mass-recruiter who consistently needs replacement players to keep his tribe going while being only 10% away from the dominance mark. So no, not Sun Tzu. Sorry :)
 

the nemesis123

Guest
Well to be fair, as someone who has been in 7 rank 1 tribes in the last 15 worlds or so, coplayer turnover is pretty common as people tend to get bored towards the end of the game. Not to comment on Screw's particular case, but it is certainly not an unique phenomenon for coplayers to quit and join towards the closing stages of a world.
 

DeletedUser121537

Guest
Well Noobs just recruited everything that moved in an effort to hope they would get something good, hence their high numbers. At least that is my theory. It's interesting though hearing what outsiders think of Screw, can't say I agree but a curiosity anyways.
In the case of my old tribe, it went the other way round: everyone that moved wanted to join Noobs because they were bigger than we were and, well, not Screw ;) Noobs didn't have to go out and recruit, we went to them and applied. Same outcome though.
 

OTDDeathAwaits

Guest
Your 'fact-check' based on your own decision to only count tribe changes and not count recruiting new players to old accounts as part of "mass-recruiting" still shows Screw as having far more tribe changes than most other recent number 1 tribes, which means you're clearly mass-recruiting compared to other potential candidates for master commander.

Compared to the grand pantheon of TW greats, you're still the single-win mass-recruiter who consistently needs replacement players to keep his tribe going while being only 10% away from the dominance mark. So no, not Sun Tzu. Sorry :)
I won the first M&C award back in 2015 FYI and this will be the 3rd time I win a world. Never claimed to be a sun tzu, I believe the nemesis 123 used that comparative as a not-for-like with BGR.

I dont need to compare to other worlds as every world has its own story and this one...our 'closest' rival has double the revolving door of people coming and going. Still twice the member base and comes here flashing the 'mass recruitment' card. It just seems salty.
 

DeletedUser121537

Guest
Well to be fair, as someone who has been in 7 rank 1 tribes in the last 15 worlds or so, coplayer turnover is pretty common as people tend to get bored towards the end of the game. Not to comment on Screw's particular case, but it is certainly not an unique phenomenon for coplayers to quit and join towards the closing stages of a world.
Coplayer turnover is high everywhere, I imagine. Losing the main player (or all players) regularly sounds exceptional to me, but I've been away for years. How does that sound compared to your experience?
 

the nemesis123

Guest
I think Screw's W74 core has been pretty consistent. Beyond that, sure there is player turnover. More than some, less than others. I'm not really paying too much attention though, pretty close to being one of those statistics myself.
 

DeletedUser121537

Guest
I won the first M&C award back in 2015 FYI and this will be the 3rd time I win a world. Never claimed to be a sun tzu, I believe the nemesis 123 used that comparative as a not-for-like with BGR.
I've said multiple times now that I feel the MC award within a world is silly since obviously people will vote for the person who motivated them to stick around on that world. That makes it a contest of whose tribemates spend most time on the forums...not sure I'd want to win that, but to each their own I guess.

The MC award across worlds at least has the potential to be interesting (even with each world having their own story), assuming people try to be objective. That's the standard I applied to you, and based on what I saw and heard you came out as not exactly Sun Tzu...which is all I said, and you've been arguing about it ever since. I'm pretty puzzled about why...
 

OTDDeathAwaits

Guest
I've said multiple times now that I feel the MC award within a world is silly since obviously people will vote for the person who motivated them to stick around on that world. That makes it a contest of whose tribemates spend most time on the forums...not sure I'd want to win that, but to each their own I guess.

The MC award across worlds at least has the potential to be interesting (even with each world having their own story), assuming people try to be objective. That's the standard I applied to you, and based on what I saw and heard you came out as not exactly Sun Tzu...which is all I said, and you've been arguing about it ever since. I'm pretty puzzled about why...
Its irrelevant to me what you think of my character and even less-so now after exchanging these few posts with you - You read what you want to read and go off on tangents. Go revisit our posts and it was me correcting your claims that we were mass recruiters and I told you to take a harder look at yourselves. You and this posse are the ones trying to make it about my person.
 

DeletedUser121537

Guest
Its irrelevant to me what you think of my character and even less-so now after exchanging these few posts with you - You read what you want to read and go off on tangents. Go revisit our posts and it was me correcting your claims that we were mass recruiters and I told you to take a harder look at yourselves. You and this posse are the ones trying to make it about my person.
The original claim I made and you've been arguing against is that mass-recruiting doesn't make you Sun Tzu. By posting stats that show Screw with more tribe changes than nearly all rank 1 tribes in recent history, you've proven my claim. Thank you for that.

You're the one continuously trying to change my point to Solo vs BGR or Screw vs Noobs, when I clearly put you and BGR in the same "not Sun Tzu" category. Feel free to do so, but don't expect me to participate in a partisan flame war or another Solo ego-boosting session ;)
 

PorkSword

Non-stop Poster
Reaction score
204
I don't think Carnage ever said we didn't mass recruit. Correct me if I am wrong. he has just tried to justify our higher one.
 

DeletedUser119686

Guest
Noobs throwing bullshit facts around like they would make them still win the world
 

the nemesis123

Guest
It seems my analogy has caused a little bit of trouble. I only meant that having a few traits of a great war commander does not create the overall package. I doubt any TW leader could compare literally to one of, if not the most, influential military strategists of all time.

I don't think mass recruiting necessarily makes one a bad war commander either, sometimes it is optimal to recruit.
 

OTDDeathAwaits

Guest
I don't think Carnage ever said we didn't mass recruit. Correct me if I am wrong. he has just tried to justify our higher one.
You too should go re-read the posts then. He is the one who has laid down the accusations and I bounced back in return with facts to take a look at your own tribe first...then we get drawn into other world BS stats that are almost incomparable and finally how lousy a person he and the people he talks to think I am.

He had no facts. No objective. Only accusations.
 

DeletedUser121537

Guest
It seems my analogy has caused a little bit of trouble. I only meant that having a few traits of a great war commander does not create the overall package. I doubt any TW leader could compare literally to one of, if not the most, influential military strategists of all time.

I don't think mass recruiting necessarily makes one a bad war commander either, sometimes it is optimal to recruit.
Well no, I don't think we're going to find someone actually comparable to Sun Tzu here (though for what it's worth, OpenEye was pretty impressive ;)).

Recruiting has value in certain cases, but is too often used to avoid the tough fights. In the old days, you'd beat the enemy first and recruit their best afterwards, not the other way round. It had the benefit of creating a battle-tested group of veterans perfectly tuned in to eachother. Essentially building a pre-made on the fly...

That benefit was vital in large 100-K worlds since those groups would stick together better. In the current 16-K worlds, maybe recruiting to victory is easier...it just doesn't make the person doing it a great commander, merely a decent salesman.
 

the nemesis123

Guest
I think you are looking at it incorrectly. I'm not applying anything I'm saying to Screw here at all, but you cannot use recruitment policy to say someone is a bad commander. Someone can recruit and still be a great commander but choose to minimise risk instead.
 

DeletedUser119686

Guest
I think you are looking at it incorrectly. I'm not applying anything I'm saying to Screw here at all, but you cannot use recruitment policy to say someone is a bad commander. Someone can recruit and still be a great commander but choose to minimise risk instead.
Let them believe their fantasy.