The Most Efficient Build Order

[DeletedUser]

*chokes on tesco pizza roll*

Did i just read that?

Read my response. But, as for most efficient, it would be the most efficient way to the troops you need to keep your queues running 24/7.

 

[DeletedUser]

Read my response. But, as for most efficient, it would be the most efficient way to the troops you need to keep your queues running 24/7.

Having co -players helps, the alternative is not having a job, been a complete bum and setting your alarm clock to go off every few hours.

A lot of it is down to luck, the other main factor is how much of a loser you are. (just because you are a winner on TW doesn't change anything IRL)

 

[DeletedUser]

Having co -players helps, the alternative is not having a job, been a complete bum and setting your alarm clock to go off every few hours.

A lot of it is down to luck, the other main factor is how much of a loser you are. (just because you are a winner on TW doesn't change anything IRL)

You posses the average characteristics of someone who knows nothing about how top players play.
Efficiency>all else x27
(this is mathematically proven)
/sarcasm

 

[DeletedUser]

You posses the average characteristics of someone who knows nothing about how top players play.
Efficiency>all else x27
(this is mathematically proven)
/sarcasm

Really?

I suppose you do, Tell me, does the rank 1 player have co-players? He does? He has two? Oh right. /sarcasm

When a efficient player beats a player that has two other co-players let me know.

 

[DeletedUser]

Really?

I suppose you do, Tell me, does the rank 1 player have co-players? He does? He has two? Oh right. /sarcasm

When a efficient player beats a player that has two other co-players let me know.

Lardingd
lodda(?)
PP
Nauz
Hoang
all players who have solo'd (possible exception is lodda, but I don't believe so) and had large headstarts on coplayed and non-coplayed accounts in different game ares.
Some common top 5 soloers:
nauz
mattcurr
PP
Lodda
Krono5
Aww heck, jamm and cheesasaurus have done it
and that is just off the top of my head, thinking back only a few worlds. There are others whom I haven't personally seen solo, but whom I know could hold a top spot whilst doing it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Having coplayers allows you to be more efficient.

One efficient player could beat two inefficient ones.

 

[DeletedUser]

Having coplayers allows you to be more efficient.

One efficient player could beat two inefficient ones.

exactly, I just listed many of the players who have shown (multiple times) that they can.
And I am just thinking of top coplayed accounts. Not even mentioning ones that have never reached top ranking, and there are many that stay top 100-150, but never even hit top 5, 10, or even 20.

 

[DeletedUser]

Having coplayers allows you to be more efficient.

One efficient player could beat two inefficient ones.

How does having a sexy co-player who logs in to get your nobles to land at around 7 am so you have a new villa in the morning effect things?

 

[DeletedUser]

exactly, I just listed many of the players who have shown (multiple times) that they can.
And I am just thinking of top coplayed accounts. Not even mentioning ones that have never reached top ranking, and there are many that stay top 100-150, but never even hit top 5, 10, or even 20.

And how many times have you reached rank 1?

Speed world doesn't count, neither do worlds that have a tiny population.

 

[Nauzhror]

The biggest factor to succeeding is luck, nothing else, your either lucky or you arent.

Hmm, so let's see here, I've been rank one, seven times on .net worlds, eight counting High Perf, and twice on .uk. That's 10 times. An average world has 50,000 people. I've played around 20 worlds. Let's estimate each world has 50 different rank 1 players in its lifespan. Essentially mathematically this means if skill equal and luck determines success that one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 players will have been rank 1 in 10 out of 20 worlds. Obviously there's not that many players, in fact, not nearly that many people on the planet, so luck is obviously not the key determinant for success.

Having co -players helps, the alternative is not having a job, been a complete bum and setting your alarm clock to go off every few hours.

Mmm. No. I'm a full-time college student attending the University of Michigan with one semester left to go in my Bachelors of Computer Science. I have a 3.95 GPA and work part-time at a hospital in their IT department.

Not exactly a bum.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, so let's see here, I've been rank one, seven times on.net worlds, eight counting High Perf, and twice on .uk. That's 10 times. An average world has 50,000 people. I've played around 20 worlds. Let's estimate each world has 50 different rank 1 players in its lifespan. Essentially mathematically this means if skill equal and luck determines success that one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 players will have been rank 1 in 10 out of 20 worlds. Obviously there's not that many players, in fact, not nearly that many people on the planet, so luck is obviously not the key determinant for success.

I see you have problems reading, Remind me again, what rank are you on world 4? Ah yeah.

Speed doesnt count, because ive been high ranked in that so many times its not worth mentioning.

And yes luck is part of it, lets say you get to noble point, and it just happens a player on 2k+ points is quitting, and sends all his troops out and renames his village 'noble me there are no troops here' This village is also very close by, you noble it with no troop losses and can quickly noble another village. Is that not luck? Another example is, all your neighbours build high level mines and no or nearly no troops, is that not luck?

Luck and activeness is the two key parts of been high ranked, if a solo player starts at the same time as a tri-account, the tri account will overtake the solo player with ease. The only way the solo account could even try to keep us is by staying on tw for 20 hours a day, which is not healthy.

p.s as you like to gloat, tell me, all seven worlds you were rank 1 on.

 

[Nauzhror]

When a efficient player beats a player that has two other co-players let me know.

Old W2 UK rankings:

Fuzzy Bunny was me. I used no sitters and did not co-play.

Rank 2 was zynga.

Zynga was played 3 people, 2 of them play on Smile? here.

I see you have problems reading, Remind me again, what rank are you on world 4? Ah yeah.

I joined over a month late. :icon_rolleyes:

And yes luck is part of it, lets say you get to noble point, and it just happens a player on 2k+ points is quitting, and sends all his troops out and renames his village 'noble me there are no troops here' This village is also very close by, you noble it with no troop losses and can quickly noble another village. Is that not luck? Another example is, all your neighbours build high level mines and no or nearly no troops, is that not luck?

Luck and activeness is the two key parts of been high ranked, if a solo player starts at the same time as a tri-account, the tri account will overtake the solo player with ease. The only way the solo account could even try to keep us is by staying on tw for 20 hours a day, which is not healthy.

p.s as you like to gloat, tell me, all seven worlds you were rank 1 on.

W29 as Nauzhror in the tribe DSL
W30 as Too Poor For A Name tribeless
W36 as Darth Hellmuth in the tribe ACTIVE
W37 as Kristen Key in the tribe CHESS
W39 as Xalenryoh in the tribe Geico and Random
W45 as Pandora the Planet in the tribe Ego!
W47 as Abducted By Aliens in the tribe Hop!

Also worth noting, I never stated luck didn't matter at all, it's just simply not, by any means, the most important thing for success.

 

[DeletedUser]

Old W2 UK rankings:

Fuzzy Bunny was me. I used no sitters and did not co-play.

Rank 2 was zynga.

Zynga was played 3 people, 2 of them play on Smile? here.

Both on 6 villages, which points me again, to luck. You aren't doing very well on your point here nauz, You must accept that luck has a large part in success.

My first world was w19, i got to 3 villages without been nobled or restarting, and without knowing much about the game at all, a player on 5-6 villages had quit, and put all his troops in his smallest village, and renamed all his villages, i nobled them all, cleared his last village and nobled that too, i then carried on playing until 1.8 mil points'ish before quitting, do you think i would of done the same without that player quitting? Maybe, maybe not.

This game has 3 major factors, skill, luck and activeness. you need all 3 to succeed.

And as i suspected, all of the worlds were late worlds.

 

[Nauzhror]

And as i suspected, all of the worlds were late worlds.

Competition has risen over time, not dropped. Back on W1-10 you could be top 5 with no farming.

My first world was W18 in K7, my 2nd world and first world starting in the core was W23. 3rd world was W26, which I made top 20 on. W29 was my fourth world, was rank 1. How exactly was I to be rank 1 on worlds that were closed before I even started playing?

I have not played a world actively and not been top 20 since W23, my second world and first core start. Not once.

You stated luck was not simply an important aspect, but that it was THE most important aspect. You were proven wrong.

You claimed people could not be in the top ranks while having a social life unless they co-played.

You were proved wrong again.

You stated 1 player could not out-pace a co-played account.

You were proved...wait for it....wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

Competition has risen over time, not dropped. Back on W1-10 you could be top 5 with no farming.

My first world was W18 in K7, my 2nd world and first world starting in the core was W23. 3rd world was W26, which I made top 20 on. W29 was my fourth world, was rank 1. How exactly was I to be rank 1 on worlds that were closed before I even started playing?

Rank again does depend on the world, most of the time on .net two worlds open at the same time, one been a lot more popular then the other, if you chose the less popular of the two, you of course have a higher chance of been higher ranked. Not only that, it also seems the less skilled players chose the less popular worlds, again increasing your chance if you actually know what your doing

And if im not mistaken, oda is a lot more appreciated than points, while been rank 1 in points, were you rank 1 in oda? Ive seen quite a few point whores rise to top 1 and be quickly taken out once nobles start becoming wide spread

 

[DeletedUser]

Rank again does depend on the world, most of the time on .net two worlds open at the same time, one been a lot more popular then the other, if you chose the less popular of the two, you of course have a higher chance of been higher ranked. Not only that, it also seems the less skilled players chose the less popular worlds, again increasing your chance if you actually know what your doing

And if im not mistaken, oda is a lot more appreciated than points, while been rank 1 in points, were you rank 1 in oda? Ive seen quite a few point whores rise to top 1 and be quickly taken out once nobles start becoming wide spread

W45 and w 47 and w 39 were all the more popular worlds.
Stop bringing in new points in an attempt to save yourself, it makes you look desperate.
Though I am fairly sure nauz was top 20 in ODA anyway.

 

[DeletedUser]

W45 and w 47 and w 39 were all the more popular worlds.
Stop bringing in new points in an attempt to save yourself, it makes you look desperate.
Though I am fairly sure nauz was top 20 in ODA anyway.

top 20? if 404 was rank 20 in oda do you think people would respect them?

Im not making my self look desperate, although you are bringing stupidity onto the table, i dont know if you went to school, but discussions work by bringing new points into them and discussing them, are we supposed to discuss the same point over and over again until people start flaming each other for 3 pages?

and again, those are only 3 of the 7 worlds, None of which i have played or was even around at those times.

 

[DeletedUser]

#1 in ODA means you should be feared, but #1 in points is #1.

A reminder: topic is "The Most Efficient Build Order".

 

[Nauzhror]

top 20? if 404 was rank 20 in oda do you think people would respect them?

A player being top 20 ODA is not the same as a tribe being top 20 ODA.

Surely you understand that, no?

There are more than 20 good players on an average world.

There has never been a world with more than 20 good tribes.

OD is also absolutely not a sign of skill.

It is bragging rights, nothing more, nothing less. Good players aim to conserve their troops when at all possible.

Two players:

Player A:

5,000 points
5500 axes
2600 lc
213 rams
3,500 ODA

Player B:
4,300 points
3500 axes
1800 lc
150 rams
25,000 ODA


Whose in better shape?

Warning: If you get this wrong I will simply consider you too stupid to bother replying to in the future.

 

[DeletedUser]

#1 in ODA means you should be feared, but #1 in points is #1.

A reminder: topic is "The Most Efficient Build Order".

Your post made me smile, you reminded us of the topic name, yet made no contributions to it.

There is no specific build order, you build what you need when you need it.