At belle I was referring to hire cost. Has set amount stages. Upon re-reading I appear to have goofed what I said.unless the occasions I noticed same hire cost were just coincidence.
So your saying someone that has more battles and as a result is "stronger" than me in the LB, will beat me in a fight? That's complete bull, not as much as activity being a direct factor in the LB, obviously the more active you are the higher up you get but your point is idiotic. From what I can tell you just made stuff up and then posted a load of random thoughts on the forums...
When you hire a player their value goes up 5%, every time. The hire values of most players are the same. If it is different and off the trend line, it's because the player was once dropped.
No "Strategy", he just clearly understands the game mechanics better than you. Go reread read it, you might learn something.
Maybe he knows more about his made up mechanics than me, how much can you know without even having 900 defends. There is a hansel in my clan that is higher than me on the LB will I loose fights to him?
I don't know much or understand the mechanics of the game, but I know this much, if someone has bigger stats than me.... I don't upset him lol
Strategy... Me thinks your missing the point, this isn't a thread about facts or answers, it is simply supposed to be thought provoking about a potential factor into the ranking system and mystical formulas used within game.. In my experience, any insight you can garner can prove fruitfull.. Open your eyes, consider, and just take it for what it is, as the title suggests... One mans take. Haters will hate
What strategy is trying to say, i think, is that you are stating the obvious. Activity does play a part, in the fact that the more active you are, the more wins and battles you will have, the more gold you make, so the higher up you go. Which is logical and easy to work out if you understand the main factors of the LB. But, your point that one person above another on the Overall implying that they are stronger is incorrect. A player might be ahead of me by 10k wins an higher up on LB, but worse BFA and resets. Is he stronger? No. Can i beat him? Yes. You contradicted yourself slightly in that you say that if one player is above another in overall they must be stronger, by saying earlier/later about the different factors that we know affect LB ranking. Not hating, just thought provoking.
Miss, thought provoking is the aim.. Will you win a battle against someone above you? Yes.. Of course, but the further below them, the least likely.. Resets play a part, allies, battles won.. Of course, but, what I am trying to get people to think about is the other factors that play a part in lb rank... Lb is ranked by 'strength'. So, however it's decided, the end result is that someone above you is stronger. You may not think it, it may not even look like it on the stats you can see.. But the 'other' factors are what make this the case.. And my post is just a suggestion as to what these factors may be. I talked about weighting... Ultimately, we all have a 'number'. It's an equation.. Every factor is pumped in, from raw stats, battles, allies, resets, items, even possibly pots and value?? Then we get a number given, the higher that number, the further up the lb we are. So, each factor is a % of that total number. But think of it like this... The numbers that are fixed; stats, bfa, battles won etc are static, they can't be altered. Then, you pump in another figure.. For example.. In a rolling 7 days, there is an average of battles won. Total battles won in kaw, divided by players. If you are above that average, you get a boost to your lb position, a 'dynamic' figure.. A % increase or shift in weighting.. And this is compound over time.. Just one idea! Like I said, a lot of assumption and possibly pie in the sky. But, we all know, the main factors that make up the lb aren't the only ones! There HAS to be a handicap system in there somewhere, otherwise people wouldn't climb the leader board, the gaps would just increase... New players (in time) can creep in, and mathematically that's only possible if some sort of handicap and/or reward system is in place.. And by the process of elimination, all that I believe is left that can fairly influence players on nothing other than 'time' is some sort of activity reward.. Or is that too much waffle?
I am basing my arguments off of test that consist of all stats. I can see them, i know of them. I highly disagree with activity being a possible factor as a direct factor. It obviously does influence the other factors though. My other posts explain why i disagree.
Miss, we go to Canada. Break into the offices of ATA, crack into the safe and steal the folded piece of paper that has the magic formula on (grabbing a t-shirt on the way out).. Whoever gets the answers first wins a cookie. Deal?
No deal. I care not what the formula is, achieving LB is not one of my "goals" for my kaw accounts. Let those who care figure out the true formula, i just offered my opinion
Interesting thoughts. Activity may very well play a role in LB rank, but we already know it does in the respect that more activity = wins = gold = allies; but wether or not activity in and of itself is a factor is a very intriguing idea. I can appreciate the fact that the OP put thought behind this.. Not sure I buy it but have no way to discount it either.. As far as a higher LB rank means stronger than a lower rank, if you mean the overall LB, I have to disagree. Already been accepted that many factors make up overall rank. That alone says that you don't have to necessarily have a higher stat value(including bfa etc) to be ranked higher than another player. You could also go battle to determine this. The idea that activity alone gives some sort of strength in battles is an interesting idea, just don't buy it. Again, certainly thought provoking. Well written. Thanks for the thoughts