W16 update
Points-based:
C4: 79.62% (+ 0.44%)
HHI: 16.95% (+ 0.17%)
Village-based:
C4: 78.07% (+ 0.54%)
HHI: 16.37% (+ 0.20%)
By popular demand:
Number of players that could be a top 20 tribe: 234 (-21)
Number of players that could be a top 15 tribe: 91 (-33)
Discussion
After three weeks with big CoP changes, our numbers are back to normal. They're a bit lower than what we're used to, but that's because it's been a short week between posts (5 days instead of 7). I'll try to get back to a regular Saturday posting schedule again next week.
Most surprising change this week is in the number of players that could be a top 15 or top 20 tribe on their own; for the first time, we have a significant drop in numbers there. This is mainly due to recruitment by several smaller tribes (notably I Wolf and ORC).
Project: Feeding patterns
In the project for this week, I have decided to do something a bit different. Instead of determining by how much the top tribes dominate this world, I've decided to make an attempt at finding out why
they are the ones dominating. In other words, what is necessary to be a top tribe?
(Don't worry though, I'll get back to concentration of power at the end of my post!)
Everyone has an opinion about this topic, and commonly heard explanations include that a top tribe has superior skill, takes better targets, is more aggressive, deals with inactives better, and many others. In this projects, let's move away from theory and see what the facts support
First, I've organised the tribes of W16 into three distinct groups:
- Tier 1 tribes: tribes with worldwide influence/dominance.Size of top 40 members > 50 million points
- Tier 2 tribes: tribes with regional influence/dominance.Size of top 40 members between 5 and 50 million
- Tier 3 tribes: tribes with little to no influence/dominance. Size of top 40 members < 5 million
After that, I have collected all conquers by tribes in each tier for a period of roughly a week (midnight Nov 20 to the evening of Nov 26). These conquers are divided into groups based on target, relation to the target and (in case of barbs) size.
Here is how the various groups grow:
Tier 1 tribes: C², Plight, LSHRV, BANG!
[SPOIL]
[/SPOIL]
Tier 2 tribes: Ad Inf, Sunny, Ni!, *MK*, TKR, Coal, =WWE=
[spoil]
[/spoil]
Tier 3 tribes: everyone else, for example ATE, I Wolf, LSHRVa, I.A.R and ORC
[spoil]
[/spoil]
So far, the "classic wisdom" appears to emerge victorious. Based on the analysis so far, the following observations can be made:
- Top tribes take larger villages: average conquer size is 8843 points for tier 1, 7954 points for tier 2 and 5164 points for tier 3
- Top tribes take less barbs: 31% - 38% - 69%
- Top tribes take larger barbs: 7206 points - 6439 points - 4197 points
- Top tribes deal with inactives faster: 46% - 30% - 15%
- Top tribes overnoble less: 2% - 5% - 14%
These numbers confirm that top tribes pick their targets better (player v barb, size), deal with their inactives better (or at least faster), and is more skilled (less overnoblings).
However, there's one common explanation missing. What about aggressiveness? Here is what the numbers say:
- Tier 2 tribes take more "live" targets: 23% - 31% - 15%
- Tier 2 tribes take more tribal villages: 14% - 29% - 11%
- Tier 2 tribes take more tier 1 targets: 4% - 12% - 0%
If aggressiveness is a requirement for being a top tribe, why are the mid-level tribes showing more of it? Why are they spending relatively more nobles against player-owned villages, enemy tribes and top tribes?
I believe the answer consists of many points, but the three main ones are below.
- Scale: while the tier 2 tribes take relatively more villages that require aggressiveness, the tier 1 tribes take more in total. Since there's a limited amount of enemy villages available, the tier 2 tribes have an easier time getting their percentage up.
- Location: by their nature, tier 2 tribes lack the solid/safe backfield that most tier 1 tribes have. As a result, a relatively larger portion of tier 2 territory borders enemy tribes, while a relatively larger portion of tier 1 territory borders tribemates.
- Diplomacy: while tier 1 tribes generally choose to go to war, tier 2 tribes are generally chosen. They take relatively more enemy villages because they have relatively more enemies. In tier 1, C² and LSHRV are at war with eachother while BANG is at war with Ad Inf. In tier 2, two tribes are under control of a top tribe (Ni and TKR), and all the others are involved in at least one war: Ad Inf v BANG, Sunny v LSHRV, *MK* v Coal, Coal v *MK*/LSHRV, WWE v everyone.
While this does not prove that aggressiveness is a necessary quality for a top tribe (I believe it is), it also doesn't disprove it. Based on this data, that's probably the best we can accomplish.
Conclusions
- Top tribes show more skill, better target sense and faster inactive eating
- Aggressiveness may be a factor, but the evidence is inconclusive
A note on concentration of power
The data above also tells us something about concentration of power:
- Tier 1 tribes nobled 1071 villages, while tier 2 and tier 3 combine for only 327
- Tier 1 tribes gained 202 villages against the rest of the world, but lost only 30 to everyone else
- Tier 1 tribes conquered 338 barbarians in this period, while tier 2 and tribe 3 combine for 147 barbarians
- In points, the difference is even bigger: 2.4 million versus 0.8 million
Since the top tribes gain 172 net villages against the rest of the world
and gain points from barbarians 3 times faster, it's clear that this world will only become more concentrated.
[Thanks to SavikTKR for advice on data organisation!]