The other thing to consider would be time as a Principality, or even just length of time the game has been played in that region. Ex, 9B has 36 belts and has been a Kingdom for 4 years, so high number of belts/year. But when you consider that the game has been played in Ontario Canada (the current 9Bregion) for 30 years, those numbers look a bit different. It would be interesting to see it compared to just the last 4-5 years of Kingdom awards across the game (which would be way too much work, cause the ork doesn't break them down by year given) I honestly think that would give a better sense of the current culture across the game. Right now numbers are skewed towards older parks having less belts/year simply because they have existed so long.
15:45 keeping the ORK updated is crucial. Even if you're not in office, you can put it in as an award recommendation with a comment of when and who gave the award. If you're in a kingdom that you think is stingy with awards, start putting in award recommendations in the ORK with specific comments about the underlying achievements (for example, "won the Summer 2024 Midreign tournament" and maybe even how many total and high-level participants). This provides a time-stamped record for later officers to reference that want to catch up on giving and recording awards.
17:53 looking at the ROP, giving out 1.6 Crown belts per year is high, but not suspiciously so. Being a Monarch that encourages growth qualifies you to jump to 10th Order of the Crown. There's 1-2 Monarchs per year. So if your Monarchs usually serve 1 term and usually encourage growth, that's two 10th Orders per year. If each of them usually demonstrate mastery and knightly qualities, then it would be appropriate for your Kingdom to award two 10th Orders of the Crown, two Master Crowns, and two Knights of the Crown for current and previous service in office.
Some of the best Knightings I've seen were during a kingdom visit to the knight's home park. Having more Kingdom visit knightings would cut down on the oversaturation of event knightings. Plus, this way your new players who might not be ready to go to an event get to see the monarch come down and perform the ceremony. It can be very inspiring for new players. I can't say enough good things about this method.
I am torn on this. Knighthood is a kingdom award and I would like for it to be given at kingdom events where the kingdom can participate. More newer players show up at events than most parks. If that’s really what a person wants, I won’t stop them of course and I see your points, but I think having them at kingdom events outweighs the bad most of the time. I know a few knights who did this due to back logs in their kingdom and everyone regrets it. That’s anecdotal of course, but has been my experience with those in my area who have done this.
@@aroundthefiremedia I think they are both good options, as long as too many knightings aren't happening at the same event. Also, we should never deny someone a knighthood that they deserve. If your kingdom has a huge number of people that deserve knighthood, that sounds like an amazing kingdom!! It is a great problem to have :)
Suggestion + Question: Suggestion: Currently in the spreadsheet, Battle belts/year is calculated like the others, in relation to Kingdom founding. Since its existence is so relatively new, in my mind it would make more sense to find the number/year since the establishment of the belt. That might open to the door to questioning how you tabulate Crowns, since they went from iirc 6 successful terms in V7, to a regular 10 ladder awards and Masterhood, but that I'm less sure how to handle. Question: How does the dataset handle Knights whose belts were given by Kingdoms different than their current home one? I'm using Nine Blades here cause it's the one I'm by far most familiar with. One of the longest serving Canadian Knights that I know received his belt (according to the ORK) back in 2008 when the Ontario parks were still under Goldenvale, so would it be a Goldenvale belt, or 9B? As a last note in defense of the Nine Blades, we were playing up here in Canada for ~22 years before we were made a Kingdom. We must have been cultivating people worthy of elevation - see that 2008 Knighting for example - but a lot of people just couldn't be arsed to travel across an international border to pursue acknowledgement. One of the drives to get Kingdom status was to be able to recognize that backlog of people who the populace believed had been proving themselves worthy for years. So, ya, to sum up, we have been giving out a lot of belts - we had a lot of catching up to do.
I ran these numbers last year, so they are bit out of date but should be helpful. This is the weekly average players for each kingdom according to the ORK RW: 171 CK: 168 DW: 136 WE: 135 EH: 133 NR: 106 NW: 105 PL: 105 WM: 105 VO: 90 TD: 82 NL: 81 DS: 79 CG: 78 WL: 74 BS: 73 9B: 72 RM: 57 GP: 56 IM: 50 GV: 51 BL: 18
Love your work and the data is really cool. A note on 13 roads knights/belts. We as a kingdom have only given a single belt (as of November 2024). All our other Knights were knighted by other kingdoms either before our founding or that knight moved into our kingdom after their knighting. Love this kind of data analysis, keep up the great work
Thanks for the kind words! This data is only for knights that reside in kingdoms. The ork doesn’t easily let us see what kingdom gave each award. We can do some leg work to see, but it’s a TON of work. Just what I have took 5 or so hours. Doing the work to pull each kingdom would take ten times that amount of time
take into account the population of the kingdoms. The more people you have the more possibility for advancement as the intake of new people provide fodder for tournaments and allow prerequisites for awards to be met.
Winters edge may be stuck in a ever replenishing list of candidates for knighthood, at least until the most of the scribal members get their belts. Since they help create the higher awards there is more official visibility of their crafts thus producing more qualified members for knighthood, not to mention the knighting gifts people make. More knightings means more opportunity to create, leading to more creations and higher visibility, perpetuating a need for more awards, and ultimately more knightings.. this is what i would assume explains the larger serpent numbers in WE.
I have done the per capita numbers and will be making another video shortly. But the long and short of it is: Highest Belts Per Capita 13 Roads Nine Blades Rivermoor Polaris Burning Lands Lowest Belts Per Capita Dragonspine Neverwinter Emerald Hills Desert Winds Goldenvale
13 Roads lacks the masterhoods. We have plenty of people on the road to masterhood and eventual knighthood, and a handful of new masters who are now eligible for knighthood. We're getting there.
I have done the per capita numbers and will be making another video shortly. But the long and short of it is: Highest Belts Per Capita 13 Roads Nine Blades Rivermoor Polaris Burning Lands Lowest Belts Per Capita Dragonspine Neverwinter Emerald Hills Desert Winds Goldenvale
Hey! When I pulled this info I thought it was strange. I questioned it but didn’t look much into it. I think people at park level had listed ootw was sword knights. It appears to have cleaned up sometime between when I ran the report a few weeks ago and now. Or I could have just simply fat fingered it and made a mistake haha. I don’t think I did tho because I made an audible “huh really?” When I was entering this data into the spread sheet
I can appreciate the attempt to make a data-driven analysis, but as someone who has been doing similar data work for the last eight years I would never present your data in that way. Because you're not looking at the correct data - which kingdom was the belt issued under, and how does that relate to its concurrent active population count - you can't know the proper answer, and after a very brief explanation about your dataset you then misrepresent it several times as being a correct dataset for what you're analyzing.
Viridian Outlands is full of some very pretentious Knights whom love to cause issues and have a boys club, I am belted under someone in the knighting area and VO has some Knight issues. I really think knights should be pillars/billboards of the community, not treated like a ladder award like some people wish to think. Theres only 2 Knights whom I think are pillars of the community that should stay knights. IMO thou.
@@aroundthefiremedia when the go to response about asking why that knight is being mean, rude or in general unpleasant “Oh he’s just like that” Sounds exactly like the excuse I hear some dnd players make “it’s what my character would do” if they are a terrible person to new people so they don’t want to join the game, I think they are bad knights and should represent Amtgard in that way. I almost quit one my first day to two separate parks in the first days and had to be coaxed back into coming back by a very close friend to think about playing at some parks in VO. And I still see those knights not change their ways, like when a new player doesn’t understand shots the go to is not to scream at them or hit them harder. And those are actual examples.
Average founded is a little silly. Average years existed/Age likely what should be there. Would think population should be taken into account. The larger the population the more people to get awards/knighthoods. Likely would need the average pop. Thanks for the analysis, data is fun!
I don't think the date of belts per year right now is useful for asking if too many belts are given right now and skews to make newer kingdoms look more generous than they are relative to the older kingdoms. Rising Winds in your spreadsheet is averaging 4.3 belts per year, exceeding the average of 3.6. But when you look at RW's weekly average players being the highest? I am fine with us exceeding that number. But as you pointed out, we have had way more than 4.3 belts per reign let alone per year in RW in recent history. As it turns out, the ORK is just a bad tool for querying this data, and here are a few reasons why: - RW looks normal in the data because we have 24 years of history with about 20 of those being a low number of knightings. The longer a kingdom exists, the less impact each reign has on impacting its average (as your mentioned). - Newer Kingdom's typically start with some number of knights in them, artificially raising their average (and lowering parent kingdoms). - Migrations complicate things, you wouldn't be included in a RW query of knights, despite you getting your first belt from Rising Winds. Its harder data, but it would probably be more interesting to try and map those awards by date (year over year) to see the escalation. And reflect that data both overall and per average weekly player.
The other thing to consider would be time as a Principality, or even just length of time the game has been played in that region. Ex, 9B has 36 belts and has been a Kingdom for 4 years, so high number of belts/year. But when you consider that the game has been played in Ontario Canada (the current 9Bregion) for 30 years, those numbers look a bit different.
It would be interesting to see it compared to just the last 4-5 years of Kingdom awards across the game (which would be way too much work, cause the ork doesn't break them down by year given) I honestly think that would give a better sense of the current culture across the game. Right now numbers are skewed towards older parks having less belts/year simply because they have existed so long.
15:45 keeping the ORK updated is crucial. Even if you're not in office, you can put it in as an award recommendation with a comment of when and who gave the award. If you're in a kingdom that you think is stingy with awards, start putting in award recommendations in the ORK with specific comments about the underlying achievements (for example, "won the Summer 2024 Midreign tournament" and maybe even how many total and high-level participants). This provides a time-stamped record for later officers to reference that want to catch up on giving and recording awards.
Yea pouring through the ork is always kinda sus because it’s not always up to date.
17:53 looking at the ROP, giving out 1.6 Crown belts per year is high, but not suspiciously so. Being a Monarch that encourages growth qualifies you to jump to 10th Order of the Crown. There's 1-2 Monarchs per year. So if your Monarchs usually serve 1 term and usually encourage growth, that's two 10th Orders per year. If each of them usually demonstrate mastery and knightly qualities, then it would be appropriate for your Kingdom to award two 10th Orders of the Crown, two Master Crowns, and two Knights of the Crown for current and previous service in office.
Good point!
Some of the best Knightings I've seen were during a kingdom visit to the knight's home park. Having more Kingdom visit knightings would cut down on the oversaturation of event knightings. Plus, this way your new players who might not be ready to go to an event get to see the monarch come down and perform the ceremony. It can be very inspiring for new players. I can't say enough good things about this method.
I am torn on this. Knighthood is a kingdom award and I would like for it to be given at kingdom events where the kingdom can participate. More newer players show up at events than most parks. If that’s really what a person wants, I won’t stop them of course and I see your points, but I think having them at kingdom events outweighs the bad most of the time.
I know a few knights who did this due to back logs in their kingdom and everyone regrets it. That’s anecdotal of course, but has been my experience with those in my area who have done this.
@@aroundthefiremedia I think they are both good options, as long as too many knightings aren't happening at the same event. Also, we should never deny someone a knighthood that they deserve. If your kingdom has a huge number of people that deserve knighthood, that sounds like an amazing kingdom!! It is a great problem to have :)
Suggestion + Question:
Suggestion: Currently in the spreadsheet, Battle belts/year is calculated like the others, in relation to Kingdom founding. Since its existence is so relatively new, in my mind it would make more sense to find the number/year since the establishment of the belt. That might open to the door to questioning how you tabulate Crowns, since they went from iirc 6 successful terms in V7, to a regular 10 ladder awards and Masterhood, but that I'm less sure how to handle.
Question: How does the dataset handle Knights whose belts were given by Kingdoms different than their current home one? I'm using Nine Blades here cause it's the one I'm by far most familiar with. One of the longest serving Canadian Knights that I know received his belt (according to the ORK) back in 2008 when the Ontario parks were still under Goldenvale, so would it be a Goldenvale belt, or 9B?
As a last note in defense of the Nine Blades, we were playing up here in Canada for ~22 years before we were made a Kingdom. We must have been cultivating people worthy of elevation - see that 2008 Knighting for example - but a lot of people just couldn't be arsed to travel across an international border to pursue acknowledgement. One of the drives to get Kingdom status was to be able to recognize that backlog of people who the populace believed had been proving themselves worthy for years.
So, ya, to sum up, we have been giving out a lot of belts - we had a lot of catching up to do.
I'd also like to see these stats normalized for kingdom population.
I ran these numbers last year, so they are bit out of date but should be helpful. This is the weekly average players for each kingdom according to the ORK
RW: 171
CK: 168
DW: 136
WE: 135
EH: 133
NR: 106
NW: 105
PL: 105
WM: 105
VO: 90
TD: 82
NL: 81
DS: 79
CG: 78
WL: 74
BS: 73
9B: 72
RM: 57
GP: 56
IM: 50
GV: 51
BL: 18
Love your work and the data is really cool.
A note on 13 roads knights/belts. We as a kingdom have only given a single belt (as of November 2024). All our other Knights were knighted by other kingdoms either before our founding or that knight moved into our kingdom after their knighting.
Love this kind of data analysis, keep up the great work
Thanks for the kind words! This data is only for knights that reside in kingdoms. The ork doesn’t easily let us see what kingdom gave each award. We can do some leg work to see, but it’s a TON of work. Just what I have took 5 or so hours. Doing the work to pull each kingdom would take ten times that amount of time
take into account the population of the kingdoms. The more people you have the more possibility for advancement as the intake of new people provide fodder for tournaments and allow prerequisites for awards to be met.
Should run this again with masterhoods.
Last i saw, there were aroun 50ish smiths.
Breaking down by masterhood tells a very different story.
@@sergioguerra2060 very true. I’ve done that with my kingdom, but not the game as a whole
Winters edge may be stuck in a ever replenishing list of candidates for knighthood, at least until the most of the scribal members get their belts. Since they help create the higher awards there is more official visibility of their crafts thus producing more qualified members for knighthood, not to mention the knighting gifts people make. More knightings means more opportunity to create, leading to more creations and higher visibility, perpetuating a need for more awards, and ultimately more knightings.. this is what i would assume explains the larger serpent numbers in WE.
How do these numbers relate to Kingdom populations?
I have done the per capita numbers and will be making another video shortly. But the long and short of it is:
Highest Belts Per Capita
13 Roads
Nine Blades
Rivermoor
Polaris
Burning Lands
Lowest Belts Per Capita
Dragonspine
Neverwinter
Emerald Hills
Desert Winds
Goldenvale
13 Roads lacks the masterhoods. We have plenty of people on the road to masterhood and eventual knighthood, and a handful of new masters who are now eligible for knighthood. We're getting there.
The data doesn’t hit the same if you include population of the kingdom and where the person was knighted.
I have done the per capita numbers and will be making another video shortly. But the long and short of it is:
Highest Belts Per Capita
13 Roads
Nine Blades
Rivermoor
Polaris
Burning Lands
Lowest Belts Per Capita
Dragonspine
Neverwinter
Emerald Hills
Desert Winds
Goldenvale
Northreach does not have any sword knights. And yes, our Ork is updated.
Hey! When I pulled this info I thought it was strange. I questioned it but didn’t look much into it. I think people at park level had listed ootw was sword knights.
It appears to have cleaned up sometime between when I ran the report a few weeks ago and now.
Or I could have just simply fat fingered it and made a mistake haha. I don’t think I did tho because I made an audible “huh really?” When I was entering this data into the spread sheet
@aroundthefiremedia Probably fat fingered... our kingdom prine minister almost has o.c.d. when it comes to Ork records.
The sheet only shows current knights in their current Kingdom not where they were knighted so the numbers are not accurate.
Damn maybe we shouldn't be trusting that our PMs are doing a good job after all....
I can appreciate the attempt to make a data-driven analysis, but as someone who has been doing similar data work for the last eight years I would never present your data in that way. Because you're not looking at the correct data - which kingdom was the belt issued under, and how does that relate to its concurrent active population count - you can't know the proper answer, and after a very brief explanation about your dataset you then misrepresent it several times as being a correct dataset for what you're analyzing.
Viridian Outlands is full of some very pretentious Knights whom love to cause issues and have a boys club, I am belted under someone in the knighting area and VO has some Knight issues.
I really think knights should be pillars/billboards of the community, not treated like a ladder award like some people wish to think. Theres only 2 Knights whom I think are pillars of the community that should stay knights.
IMO thou.
What makes those knights “bad knights”?
@@aroundthefiremedia when the go to response about asking why that knight is being mean, rude or in general unpleasant “Oh he’s just like that”
Sounds exactly like the excuse I hear some dnd players make “it’s what my character would do” if they are a terrible person to new people so they don’t want to join the game, I think they are bad knights and should represent Amtgard in that way. I almost quit one my first day to two separate parks in the first days and had to be coaxed back into coming back by a very close friend to think about playing at some parks in VO. And I still see those knights not change their ways, like when a new player doesn’t understand shots the go to is not to scream at them or hit them harder. And those are actual examples.
Average founded is a little silly. Average years existed/Age likely what should be there. Would think population should be taken into account. The larger the population the more people to get awards/knighthoods. Likely would need the average pop. Thanks for the analysis, data is fun!
I don't think the date of belts per year right now is useful for asking if too many belts are given right now and skews to make newer kingdoms look more generous than they are relative to the older kingdoms.
Rising Winds in your spreadsheet is averaging 4.3 belts per year, exceeding the average of 3.6. But when you look at RW's weekly average players being the highest? I am fine with us exceeding that number. But as you pointed out, we have had way more than 4.3 belts per reign let alone per year in RW in recent history. As it turns out, the ORK is just a bad tool for querying this data, and here are a few reasons why:
- RW looks normal in the data because we have 24 years of history with about 20 of those being a low number of knightings. The longer a kingdom exists, the less impact each reign has on impacting its average (as your mentioned).
- Newer Kingdom's typically start with some number of knights in them, artificially raising their average (and lowering parent kingdoms).
- Migrations complicate things, you wouldn't be included in a RW query of knights, despite you getting your first belt from Rising Winds.
Its harder data, but it would probably be more interesting to try and map those awards by date (year over year) to see the escalation. And reflect that data both overall and per average weekly player.