The Zigur Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 As a measure of how much damage an alliance will give out and receive I think it works. The part that is missing however is the size of the alliance and the capacity to absorb damage. Large alliances vs a small alliance even if fighting ineffeiciently could lose 200K for every 100K inflicted on a sub 1 million alliance and still walk away the definite victors in a political sense. The other element that might be missing is the measure of the number of slots an alliance have-DBDC may have awesome fighting potential but only posses 60 attacking slots. IRON on the other hand has over 10000 attacking slots. DBDC can weild hellish damage, but on a limited part of the battlefield, whereas IRON can deliever merely fairly hefty damage to a wide part of the field. DBDC, like any alliance, is containable with the proper military protocols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 I'm failing to see the inaccuracy here. lol, I did laugh pretty pretty hard. Also I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Lets just war and find out bitches :ehm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Lets just war and find out !@#$%*es :ehm: Sounds good to me. First matchup will be the Ponies vs. NSO. Just to test your theory, Ice. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorn Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 That can't really be calculated since those two things are warchest and resolve, one of which cannot be known without significant espionage, and the other isn't really quantifiable. Alliances continue fighting until they either run out of money or resolve. Casualties seems the best public metric that reveals both warchest and resolve. A nation with 150k NS and only 50k casualties is going to be a cupcake compared to a nation with 150k NS and 10 million casualties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Casualties seems the best public metric that reveals both warchest and resolve. A nation with 150k NS and only 50k casualties is going to be a cupcake compared to a nation with 150k NS and 10 million casualties. Not really. Depends on the nation, quite a few of those nations have played TE/had other nations with more casualties. Now, someone with 10k attacking and 2mil defending casualties.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Casualties is a faulty metric because it doesn't take into account folks that fought while turtling or folks that have done a lot of fighting at low infra levels. A nation with 40k NS and 8 million casualties has probably done a lot more fighting than a nation with 10 million casualties and 120k NS."Commitment" is also kind of a goofy metric because an alliance that gets in, does its best three weeks of damage and gets out is going to end up in a better position to do horrendous damage the next war than an alliance that drags a war out as long as possible in lower and lower tiers. It's going to end up being pretty darned intangible, because the value of keeping a war going forever is bound up in the value of the war in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Yeah, I have only reached 100k NS just prior to last war and am pissed I am not at 10m total casualties. :( I spend a lot of time between 20k and 50k NS during wars usually as well as at or under 3k infra... So a ton of fighting but far few casualties than those who start with 10k plus infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icewolf Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Sounds good to me. First matchup will be the Ponies vs. NSO. Just to test your theory, Ice. ;)That Ponies will inflict more damage than NSO? Are you really certain that wouldn't happen? Casualties is a faulty metric because it doesn't take into account folks that fought while turtling or folks that have done a lot of fighting at low infra levels. A nation with 40k NS and 8 million casualties has probably done a lot more fighting than a nation with 10 million casualties and 120k NS."Commitment" is also kind of a goofy metric because an alliance that gets in, does its best three weeks of damage and gets out is going to end up in a better position to do horrendous damage the next war than an alliance that drags a war out as long as possible in lower and lower tiers. It's going to end up being pretty darned intangible, because the value of keeping a war going forever is bound up in the value of the war in the first place.Commitment is also variable-an alliance is more likely to go to the death when fighting an attempt to disband them than fighting against an end of chain alliance in a conflict originating six treaties away from them over what a noob said about another noobs mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King William Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Maybe you could quantify the resolve/coordination aspect with a tier system based on past performance, positive damage output and wars per nation. Then again that's likely to be more subjective than anything and a lot of alliances have greatly diminished capabilities compared to their past. Warchests are more important than anything and like you said there's not a realistic way to gauge that from the outside. Stop it. You're going to kill me.And if you could track each players stats over the life of their nation, and project their future actions, and build the alliances stats from that. Not to mention if you regularly kept track of the updated "activity" feature.Not to say it's a lot of endless spreadsheets, but... just think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icewolf Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Stop it. You're going to kill me.And if you could track each players stats over the life of their nation, and project their future actions, and build the alliances stats from that. Not to mention if you regularly kept track of the updated "activity" feature.Not to say it's a lot of endless spreadsheets, but... just think.Can't we just rely on the propoganda put out by the prevailing powers that be regarding the fighting capacity of various alliances, and wait several wars for those to die off when they realise the masters of war just happened to be on the lighter fronts and actually have the fighting capacity of an injured field mouse going up against the worlds biggest cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Can't we just rely on the propoganda put out by the prevailing powers that be regarding the fighting capacity of various alliances, and wait several wars for those to die off when they realise the masters of war just happened to be on the lighter fronts and actually have the fighting capacity of an injured field mouse going up against the worlds biggest cat.really, this is what you're afraid of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willaim Kreiger Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 I'm failing to see the inaccuracy here. I cringed a little, then laughed too. It's totally accurate. Alliances such as DBDC with such a lockdown on the situation are outliers in the analysis that's being attempted here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 All NS contributes to damage dealing, so the premise of your formula more or less falls out from under it. It can't be measuring what you want it to measure, and when you look at the results this is obvious. It's a nice attempt but you have a lot of work to do before we're replacing score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 25, 2014 Report Share Posted July 25, 2014 Reminiscent of Unspeakable Evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Stop it. You're going to kill me.That's the plan. :P Let's just round warchest estimates to the nearest billion and base coordination on alliance age.. I mean, the older you are the longer you've had to coordinate right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.