Forums-->General game forum-->
1|2|3|4
| Author | Watchers Guild |
|---|
for Sylin:
Honestly, i never did that kind of search... good idea
have to dig combat log of knight experts and hopefully copy their talents:) | @FA
You should seriously avoid doing WG with low faction level. If you wanna have a better chance use potion of skill. Keep in mind that some people who set the records played with FL12. | @Lord MilesTeg, the words gullible and dense are used for their exact meaning towards the arguments made by the other as explained fully in #47. And ad hominems meaning is: attacking the person instead of their argument, so you can't even try to go for ad hominem here, nice try for twisting it around.
@iuker, you do know that conspiracy theory means that people or organisations have conspired to cover up something? There is no conspiration or cover up here, people make mistakes, so does the administration, otherwise even balancing faction troops would not appear from time to time. Since they even reduced the difficulty in the hunt quests because it was too severe as opposed to now, more WG updates will follow as well, so rule 10 falls into the category of mistakes. So learn to use words like conspiracy theory for their meaning instead of throwing it around as you see fit so the herd might pick it up to set it in stone.
@Sylin, using http://www.guildofheroes.ru/players.php?lang=eng for the statistic page, you should know that it is buggy, it shows their last used faction, I have seen lots of darkelves in that list who played WG with another faction instead. It would work better if it was also assortable on the faction skill levels.
Analysation of herd behaviour in human societies have been around since the 1900s. Also I was speaking in general, as in the people of the entire world. So you can't yell ad hominem here either. And when it comes to statistics, it's just a collection of data often using probability theorie, which also can be manipulated by whoever is paying best. According to statistics one can even throw sixes for 20 times in a row since theoretically there is always a chance for it, but in reality, as in the world we live and breath in, this never happened. Computability theory is just another word for using computers to solve problems, but even they admit that there are tasks that computers cannot perform like some things can run endlessly etc, causing problems like the halting problem or the busy beaver problem. So don't go around saying what I do understand or don't understand without having any basis for it. For that is making up assumptions to attack my character instead of my argument which is exactly the meaning of ad hominem, it is crystal clear who does not know its meaning.
Do explain what I have not understood of Lord Milestegs posts since you have such a strong impression about it, because just saying it does not make it so.
@_-_Kratos_-_, only one example does not make everything factual. Also there was no lesson to be learned here, it's just a well placed argument that's getting debated by only a few it seems. And good effort for picking up and repeating liukers conspiracy theory wording, just a few more people and it can be set in stone since herd behaviour is as herd behaviour does. | for _-_Kratos_-_:
See? Lawton would never learn any "lesson". No point wasting time with him anymore. He would never make any progress with his hunting skill since he doesn't know what "humility" means. | for Lawton: I think we will agree to disagree - Personally I do not agree with your arguments (to be honest pretty much any of them (no offence intended, though I recognise that you could be by such a statement, factual as it is ) - they do not hold together for me (As stated previously), however you are entitled to maintain your views and have no obligation to be swayed by my points.
One last thing to leave you to contemplate - which makes assumptions (impossible not to really - though I believe they are reasonable ones and will be clearly stated)
Assumption 1 - Admins have a database of all battles - in this I think they will record
what battle type (pretty sure of this)
Who won (I think I may get you to agree on that one)
A measure of how well the human players did (as FSP for sure - this is derived in part from other measurements on strength of army - that I think they will store with it)
In this situation --
re rule 10 - you code to look up battles which have been in events for your level and faction and have won -
I think it likely to be no more (or at least only marginally) more difficult to code to look for event battles that have been won, versus those that have just been played.
Certainly if they had made a mistake on this I would expect a LOT more impossible battles since win ratio in WG is much higher than in almost any event - so somehow they would have to code to mostly choose battles that were won, then occasionally put in a battle that was lost. This seems unlikely as is contrary to what they have said and is harder to do - so unlikely to occur by accident
Re Rule 9: Battles getting harder
Two options - They lied - and they stay the same difficulty ( I could well believe this to be the case) and would take even more data mining to find if there is a link between level and difficulty
OR that When they select a battle they factor in how much strength the player had left when they won - As you get to a higher level you get more battles which were won by narrower margin - and therefore have an increased likelihood to be difficult
Both of these scenarios seem viable to me for explaining rule 9 - neither would massively change my experience of WG unless I was increasingly finding it hard to win (which would suggest the rule was in existence)
I am sceptical that rule 9 is operational - but since they have said it is and I can see how they could do it, I think it reasonable to believe them, while retaining some doubt in my mind until situations clarify as to evidence for it (when their are higher WG levels the difference between the respective difficulties may become significant enough to give an inkling as to the truth of rule 9).
Either which way I think there is minimal benefit in decrying the injustice of WG and the impossibility of tasks and massive unfairness- I don;t think the evidence is there for such polarised views as this - gentle grumble maybe - but not a full on rant.
I think that is all from me - I think I have made some views clear enough to keep any discussion balanced - as I think all discussions should be | @Lawton, prove that they reduced the difficulty.what if they say so?they have already lied about rule 10.we need solid proof.Why being so gullible?Did they make a mistake or there were many crying babies in the forums?
Give me a moment to adjust my tin foil hat and open my dictionary.
from oxford dictionary: desnse=(Of a person) stupid
We have come at an age where even oxford dictionary refer to terms like gullible and dense automatically as insults while, only for Lawton, they actually have specific meanings to use them for.Probably because he doesnt belong to the herd.
the statistic page is buggy.You can find examples there that reject the theory.So there must be a bug. People also change faction and classes.What if the tasks are different for different factions and classes?What if the given example is a DE.You have to say whatever reduces your cognitive dissonance and keep the theory alive.
Statistics?Probability?This is not science for you, of course.Just something to make polls.What if throwing a dice is a probability problem?You know better addressing it to statistics.You know better the purpose of those fraud sciences.Why do i have a few books of 800 pages on my shelf about those subjects?I am sure their pages are full off... dense text.
Computability theory?Another fraud.Not a science.Just another word when the light is blinking on that typewriter with the lights and the small tv.What if it exists even before the computers?So,it is Not a science,just matter of wording. | @Lord MilesTeg, yes, the administration takes battles like the max hunt ones from its database but it seems they don't look at them, and the problem mostly originates from here. For during events level 14-15s are played more than higher levels 17-21, this leads to having a higher max hunt on level 14-15 while the same exact hunt stays lower in amount on the higher combat levels. Most stay even at half that amount. I find this absurd, that the higher combat level you become the less the amount becomes on the exact same hunt quests, as in the difficulty of the hunt quest gets reduced the higher you go in combat level. This directly conflicts rule 9 as well.
Also when they take those won battles they don't take much notice that the player in those has stats like HG 9+, LG 10+, TG 10+, MG 8+, CG 3+, FS 12 etc this also leads to that exact same quest becoming impossible for the majority of the players since only a select few have those stats, instead of taking the average they go for the extreme here.
While understanding your point of view I'm standing by my point, they need to revise rule 10. I feel an update in WG coming again in some months reducing the difficulty of some parts of it.
@Lady sofiouta, there has been an official announcement about it and the hunt quest troops were indeed slightly reduced, as in we have seen direct proof of it in the long run. So unlike you I did not take it just because they said so, which would be gullible.
Yes, one of the other means of dense is stupid, complimentary to the herd for setting it in stone, but like I had explained I was refering to it's other meaning of it which is also included in that same oxford dictionary as well, but then again some will see things however they want to see it even if you explain it thoroughly.
And I was refering to the usability of that page when I commented the buggyness not it's functionality, go read my comment again it seems you have again a hard time of understanding it, which is again the other meaning of dense. Due to it not being coincidental even the irony here is lost.
Also I never said that statistics and computability theory are not science. This is you making up assumptions again and going along with them, as if it is a fanatical sport for you. Looks like you have found yourself a new tune of making things up some more, created mostly out of hysteria, so keep dancing to it, it suits you well.
Thanks to the herd even sentences as 'you look like a mom' have become an insult. So yes, we have come to an age where almost everything is being taken automatically as insults. Originating mostly thanks to the over sensitive upbringing like in schools etc where every participant gets a ribbon and not just the winners, by not even keeping scores anymore and applauding all, as if the participation and not the ability is important, creating more and more that cry and get traumatised at the very first obstacle in life later on.
Moving on, I'm gonna end this by quoting a Roman maxim law: 'For he that would be deceived, let him.' and just wait out a WG update. | @liuker, and people have to find yet even one battle link, I dare you, find one, just one.
@_-_Kratos_-_, only one example does not make everything factual.
It's kind of funny to see that people are still trying to convince Lawton. Can't we just end this meaningless argument and move on? I have been playing WG from day1 and didn't see any problems with those rules from my own experience. My suggestion is quite simple, if you don't like the current WG or feel that it's overwhelmed to you, you can simply stop playing it or skip those hard fights. | ^^ lol that two lines will give everything about him nature :)
WG is not a guild like HG/MG, it gives more challenge to players... you can't expect to do only three battle per day with 3 star.
We are a lot behind form thous Russian task masters :) do not expect a cheap victory every time. | big lol up there, huh.
hey guys, how about improving the results of the task?
do you guys think it worth it from the aspect of fsp/xp ratio, golds, wg points and armaments?
from my observations if you get only 1 star for first try and you confident that it can be done with 3 stars after some tactics modifications i think you should do it again.
ofc you need to pay for the arts again but you will still gain good fsp/xp ratio about 3.3+ if you are level 16, 0.5 wg points more and an armament ofc.
and if you already got 2 stars on the first try and try to compensate for the fsp/ratio of 3 stars, better doing easy tg or else, as it cheaper cost for arts but you will lose chance of getting armaments.
thats all. thats my opinion. just want to know how you guys deal with the task in most effective ways or am i doing it wrong? | Same here. I only do tasks again if I lose them (or have 1 star) and I'm confident that I'll get 3 stars next time. At least if you lose them and you're sure you can win next time it doesn't hurt to try, since you'll get the gold.
But trying 2 stars again I (almost) never do. After all you only get 0.2 WG points and 1.5 - 2 fsp extra and an armament that is most likely useless. | https://www.lordswm.com/war.php?lt=-1&warid=755455015
nice battle, but AI horse declared independence, seems like AI hero drink too much :P |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
1|2|3|4Back to topics list
|
