You should use the same kingdoms you did for the first experiment and try it on 15 and 17. I believe that would add a great deal of support to your argument.
The LB became moot when Pwars took over. Nonetheless not a bad read regarding mechanical oddities. I'm still not find of u though...
I personally ignore the overall leaderboard when looking to see the strongest in the game, and look to allies. I find that to be an accurate representation of what you would want..the real highest statted kingdoms.
Or then again maybe you can just add another LB saying "Strongest" because technically the LB being talked about is "Overall" so I don't know.
well mechanics of lb seems to be at least misleading. devs - can we have a 'a really most powerful kingdoms' as an additional ranking? it would help a lot - at least we wouldn't have to make approximation based on ally lb. support philosopher! cheers, fish
@prinacas He has? lol Ask him if my friend can smack him around a few more times. Remember, it is all in the name of Kaw Science. :lol:
@Philospher, I believe a kingdom's strength also depends on his activity and in this case, Actions = Activity. Thus concluding that Metallinica should be on Overall LB rendering your argument invalid. Have a good day
@Lamojita Activity is a different factor that doesn't contribute to being the "Most powerful". I agree with this thread. Support
LB should be calculated according current_stats BFA equip_stats everything else is wrong, so I support author
Nope based on stats. If you wanted, you could sweep through the 40-60b range hiring 900k/900k/150k/150k attack builds for a cheap good BFA. If you don't mind not being able to ally trade