Greatest TW Player Ever

[crimsoni]

Rizzla09

I'm convinced.

 

[shveik]

Eh, sh*t(s) happen every day and it's beyond our reach :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

Calmir! But not really.

 

[xyziz]

Petar is consistent, reliable, team based, exceptional at timing, and a good influence on the tribes he was in. It's not all about where you're ranked. Especially when we're talking about people who are all going to be at the top of the worlds they play. Where as someone like hoang as you mentioned was about as useful to the tribe as a sack of potatoes, the true irony of that one is that hoang was known as a "timer" in that uk world because petar and I sniped for him and sent his trains -_-

Was hoang that guy who quit the game because someone killed his offence, and at the same time I was getting attacked by like 4 different people?

Also mattcurr sucks. He suicides heavy cavalry.

 

[ALessonInPointWhoring]

Petar is consistent, reliable, team based, exceptional at timing, and a good influence on the tribes he was in. It's not all about where you're ranked. Especially when we're talking about people who are all going to be at the top of the worlds they play. Where as someone like hoang as you mentioned was about as useful to the tribe as a sack of potatoes, the true irony of that one is that hoang was known as a "timer" in that uk world because petar and I sniped for him and sent his trains -_-

In terms of startup, off the top of my head, Petar was good back when he played.

I'd never call hoang a better overall player than Petar, I just meant Petar's not exactly a standout at startup, which was what Mania referenced. Petar's good, at pretty much everything. Hoang is more of a savant, even much moreso than I am, he was exceptional at 1-2 things, mediocre to bad at most others.

@Kam, yeah uk3, that was hoang. The idiot that insisted on going NW for better farming when the rest of us started SW, and then hopped on reduaram's account when his own got trashed.

Reduaram's a lot like hoang too, can't time, lacks understanding of most things beyond farming.

 

[satorbg]

There is a fine line between a clinical case of inflated ego and just simply stating a fact and holding to your position despite peer pressure.

I liked Nauz before i knew who he was based on his forum posts because he has turned to TW with an analytic mind. He made an account on 76 just to PM me on a question I had about startup and village composition, and O to D ratios. I now feel bad that I didn't save it somewhere and it got deleted automatically, but I want to try the start-up strat he described.

Also, styx, a player I deeply respect, has stated several times (backed up by CoreE) when I asked: Nauz is actually a team player and willing to teach and help his allies and any tribe is lucky to have him. The only issue is that he can't be bothered to stick with a world past a certain point. But I think most good players are like that. Styx told me she won't play past 500 villages for example. At some point the good players tire of the tedium of late game.

Startup is actually really important because TW is a snowball game, but come midgame when people quit internals make up for poor starts.

I think if we clarify some clear categories then maybe we can evaluate players. Each skill is rated differently and then we get the total for the category. I propose:

Mechanical skills

Timing based skills (snipes, split trains, cancel snipes, return snipes) 0 to 40
Startup build order (we include micro farming here) 0 to 40
Farming (dedication, eye for detail) 0 to 25

Tactical skills

Choice of targets (first ennoblement, growth to 10 or so vills etc.) 0 to 20
Flexibility (willingness to adapt, change and adjust troop and vill compositions etc.) 0 to 10
Agressivness (willingness to use nukes, typically dominates ODA scores at the stage when ODA is good for an account) 0 to 20

Strategic skills

Midgame account and cluster planning and management 0 to 20
Offensive/defensive/specialist village composition 0 to 10
OP planning and coordination of players, teamplay (support, clearing etc.) 0 to 30
Lategame huge account management 0 to 40

Leadership skills

Tribal wars politics, knowledge of leadership to members dynamics 0 to 30
Infamy and knowledge of other players 0 to 20
Willingness to teach any skill to any player who is willing to learn 0 to 25

 

[ALessonInPointWhoring]

I think if we clarify some clear categories then maybe we can evaluate players. Each skill is rated differently and then we get the total for the category. I propose:

Mechanical skills

Timing based skills (snipes, split trains, cancel snipes, return snipes) 0 to 40
Startup build order (we include micro farming here) 0 to 40
Farming (dedication, eye for detail) 0 to 25

Tactical skills

Choice of targets (first ennoblement, growth to 10 or so vills etc.) 0 to 20
Flexibility (willingness to adapt, change and adjust troop and vill compositions etc.) 0 to 10
Agressivness (willingness to use nukes, typically dominates ODA scores at the stage when ODA is good for an account) 0 to 20

Strategic skills

Midgame account and cluster planning and management 0 to 20
Offensive/defensive/specialist village composition 0 to 10
OP planning and coordination of players, teamplay (support, clearing etc.) 0 to 30
Lategame huge account management 0 to 40

Leadership skills

Tribal wars politics, knowledge of leadership to members dynamics 0 to 30
Infamy and knowledge of other players 0 to 20
Willingness to teach any skill to any player who is willing to learn 0 to 25

If I tried to rate myself on those criteria I'd probably go with something like:

Mechanical:
Timing: 35+
Startup build order: 38+
Farming: 23+

Tactical:
Ennoblements: 17+
Flexibility: 10
Aggressiveness: 15+ I am not very aggressive, but I am willing to lose troops when it is worth it, whether for my own account, or for my tribe's benefit. I wouldn't really say I typically have OD, but I consider low aggressiveness to mean selfish internalling/barbling and refusal to use offense, and I wouldn't describe my playstyle as such.

Strategic:
Midgame Account Planning: 10-15
Village Composition: 8+
OP Planning: 15-20
Huge Account Management: 15-25

Leadership:
Politics: 20-25
Knowledge of players: 18+
Willingness to teach: 23+

I chose ranges for everything except flexibility because I think choosing an exact number would be too arbitrary and widely contested, whereas I honestly feel I may be the game's most flexible player, and if not definitely among the top 0.001%.

 

[Muldie325]

If I tried to rate myself on those criteria I'd probably go with something like:

Mechanical:
Timing: 36+
Startup build order: 39+
Farming: 24+

Tactical:
Ennoblements: 18+
Flexibility: 11
Aggressiveness: 16+ I am not very aggressive, but I am willing to lose troops when it is worth it, whether for my own account, or for my tribe's benefit. I wouldn't really say I typically have OD, but I consider low aggressiveness to mean selfish internalling/barbling and refusal to use offense, and I wouldn't describe my playstyle as such.

Strategic:
Midgame Account Planning: 15-20
Village Composition: 9+
OP Planning: 20-25
Huge Account Management: 25-35

Leadership:
Politics: 25-30
Knowledge of players: 19+
Willingness to teach: 24+

I chose ranges for everything except flexibility because I think choosing an exact number would be too arbitrary and widely contested, whereas I honestly feel I may be the game's most flexible player, and if not definitely among the top 0.0000001%.

 

[idontfight]

If i was to rate myself upon these points:

Mechanical skills

Timing based skills (snipes, split trains, cancel snipes, return snipes) 32
Startup build order (we include micro farming here) 28
Farming (dedication, eye for detail) 20
Tactical skills

Choice of targets (first ennoblement, growth to 10 or so vills etc.) 14
Flexibility (willingness to adapt, change and adjust troop and vill compositions etc.) 8
Agressivness (willingness to use nukes, typically dominates ODA scores at the stage when ODA is good for an account) 19
Strategic skills

Midgame account and cluster planning and management 17
Offensive/defensive/specialist village composition 6
OP planning and coordination of players, teamplay (support, clearing etc.) 22
Lategame huge account management 35
Leadership skills

Tribal wars politics, knowledge of leadership to members dynamics 20
Infamy and knowledge of other players 8
Willingness to teach any skill to any player who is willing to learn 24

Ali

 

[ALessonInPointWhoring]

My main issue is I think things that are quickly mastered are worth fewer points than those that are hard to master.

Flexibility/adaptibility IMO is the one thing that can't be taught as a player, therefore the #1 most important thing.

Similarly, no one can teach you to be a good leader in a hour.

 

[DeletedUser92121]

Similarly, no one can teach you to be a good leader in a hour.

I can try if you are willing to learn

 

[twenty-five]

Mechanical skills

Timing based skills (snipes, split trains, cancel snipes, return snipes) 0 to 40

25
Startup build order (we include micro farming here) 0 to 40

25
Farming (dedication, eye for detail) 0 to 25

25

Tactical skills

Choice of targets (first ennoblement, growth to 10 or so vills etc.) 0 to 20

25 = 4
Flexibility (willingness to adapt, change and adjust troop and vill compositions etc.) 0 to 10
25=3
Agressivness (willingness to use nukes, typically dominates ODA scores at the stage when ODA is good for an account) 0 to 20
25=4

Strategic skills

Midgame account and cluster planning and management 0 to 20
25=4
Offensive/defensive/specialist village composition 0 to 10
25=3
OP planning and coordination of players, teamplay (support, clearing etc.) 0 to 30
25
Lategame huge account management 0 to 40
25

Leadership skills

Tribal wars politics, knowledge of leadership to members dynamics 0 to 30
25
Infamy and knowledge of other players 0 to 20
25=4
Willingness to teach any skill to any player who is willing to learn 0 to 25
25

 

[ALessonInPointWhoring]

I can try if you are willing to learn

You're not a good leader. Or any sort of leader for that matter, much more of a follower.

 

[satorbg]

The reason I didn't put down more points for flexibility is because the idea behind the flexibility trait was "willingness to adopt village composition and O to D to specialist ratios as needed"

But realistically how much of an impact can that have, all other things being equal? Someone who is more rigid (I am like that myself. I like to have a standard nuke, an axe heavy nuke, a sp/HC D and a sp/sw D. Specialist vills are scout vills and cat vills) is not at a huge disadvantage since they would be using tried and true D or O vill unit compositions.

Duff told me of the HC/Axe hybrid build when starting a new cluster in enemy territory, but frankly, I'd just rather go and support from the backline with proper D villages and construct proper nukes in the new holdings.

If you can name other instances of flexibility that I am missing then this can be raised IMO. The numbers are up for debate anyway as I brainstormed this, I didn't sit down and plan them much.

 

[ALessonInPointWhoring]

By flexibility I more vaguely meant adaptability in general. It'd encompass things like build order, farming, troop composition, village composition, politics (small-scale, not tribes diplomacy, but not pissing off all your neighbors, etc.), etc.

For example you can know how to do A, B, and C, but lack the insight to know when the best time to use each methods is. I think adaptability/flexibility are what set apart people who do well every now and then, and people that do well consistently in a variety of different circumstances.

ie. If you have two players, they each play 10 worlds in a row with equal amounts of activity every world.

Player A hits rank 1 twice, top 10 four times, and top 20 six times.

Player B hits rank 1 seven times, and top 10 all ten worlds.

Player A is still very good, but what likely sets them apart from B is their inability to adapt to whatever is thrown at them.

 

[DeletedUser112257]

not at a huge disadvantage since they would be using tried and true D or O vill unit compositions.

Almost all of the "tried and true" unit compositions I have encountered in my time playing tribal wars are really not very good and often just strictly worse than a lot of better but less intuitive builds. But this tends to not matter as the difference in unit compositions is usually vastly outweighed by the difference in skill/organisation in a war.

In my opinion the things that set players apart in tribalwars in the early game is a lot of things like activity, target choice, build order etc but lategame it is almost purely organisation skills and diplomatic skills

 

[twenty-five]

Player A hits rank 1 twice, top 10 four times, and top 20 six times.

Player B hits rank 1 seven times, and top 10 all ten worlds.

Player A is still very good, but what likely sets them apart from B is their inability to adapt to whatever is thrown at them.

Dat nauz logic that rank = good. :icon_confused:

 

[Metal Duck]

Flexibility: 10

That made me laugh. Thank you.

 

[Michael Corleone.]

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[satorbg]

Dat nauz logic that rank = good. :icon_confused:

He's saying that getting consistently high ranks in different worlds makes you good and I would agree. A player can get to high ranks based on luck, an easier area or internals once or twice, but on ten different worlds? Fifteen? IMO anyone getting consistent high ranks is good. Heck, I think most of the posters on the externals are good. If you're good enough to play under an alias to avoid being catted to 26 points on the second week of the game, then you're good.

From this point on it's a matter of how consistently you perform under different circumstances. If you're in some badass premade then fine. But start under an alias without any premades or allies and still make it to rank 1 or 2, then you're good. IMO at least.