shahenshah Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Alliance - Damage Taken - Damage Inflicted - Wars Fought New Pacific Order - 10,814,675.37 - 11,597,270.70 - 3,690 From last time around.Most damage ever taken in war, absolute terms: #1: NPO: 14.3m in Karma #2: IRON: 14m in Karma #3: NPO most likely #4: TOP in bipolar, 38 score #5: IRON..36 score bipolar #6: Polar..this war..10.2m, 25-28 score? #7: Polar? #8: Probably Polar :-/ #9: arrow in the dark..FAN? Anyone got ns numbers for bipolar? TOP lost around 38 and us around 36 score so that's probably a big NS number. Edited January 7, 2015 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Most damage ever taken in war, absolute terms:#1: NPO: 14.3m in Karma#2: IRON: 14m in Karma#3: NPO most likely#4: Polar?#5: TOP?#6: IRON?Anyone got ns numbers for bipolar? TOP lost around 38 and us around 36 score so that's probably a big NS number too.Well, for comparison.. NpO is down, I think, almost 3m NS in absolute terms and sitting at 10m NS in war stat damage. So even if we use a safe 2.5:1 ratio of war stats to absolute, that would mean NPO lost around 35.75m NS in war stats damage during Karma. Which is almost as much as their entire coalition has lost so far this war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Well, for comparison.. NpO is down, I think, almost 3m NS in absolute terms and sitting at 10m NS in war stat damage. So even if we use a safe 2.5:1 ratio of war stats to absolute, that would mean NPO lost around 35.75m NS in war stats damage during Karma. Which is almost as much as their entire coalition has lost so far this war. I lost you there, my numbers are score at start minus score at end of war, or ns at start.minus ns at end, whatever reference is available. Regarding absolute terms, I meant them within specific timeline of a war, not a summation of all wars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Well, for comparison.. NpO is down, I think, almost 3m NS in absolute terms and sitting at 10m NS in war stat damage. So even if we use a safe 2.5:1 ratio of war stats to absolute, that would mean NPO lost around 35.75m NS in war stats damage during Karma. Which is almost as much as their entire coalition has lost so far this war. Careful with those numbers, though. It's a bit 'apples' and oranges' once you start comparing, given that there's been something of a 'population drop' since then. A figure expressed as a percentage of pre-war stats would be a marginally better comparison, but that has problems as well. When it comes to stats, it's probably better to just look at things one war at a time and forget the others happened. (I'm currently re-reading 1984, so the thought that just popped into my head was, "Nordreich is at war with Fark. We have always been at war with Fark. Since the beginning of time, since the beginning of the party, only one war...." etc. Serves me right for getting such a crappy night's sleep.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I lost you there, my numbers are score at start minus score at end of war, or ns at start.minus ns at end, whatever reference is available. Regarding absolute terms, I meant them within specific timeline of a war, not a summation of all wars...What I'm saying is, the stats in this thread provided by RI5 are the sum of individual war damage. The stats you provided are the difference in beginning in ending NS for the alliance.So I was taking Polar as the example, who has so far lost about 3m in NS as an alliance stat and about 10m NS in individual war stats to come up with a SWAG ratio of real damage to war stat damage. Theirs is around 3:1 war:real. I then applied a slightly lower ratio to the stat you provided to give an idea of how they would've ranked in the stats RI5 is providing.Careful with those numbers, though. It's a bit 'apples' and oranges' once you start comparing, given that there's been something of a 'population drop' since then. A figure expressed as a percentage of pre-war stats would be a marginally better comparison, but that has problems as well. When it comes to stats, it's probably better to just look at things one war at a time and forget the others happened. (I'm currently re-reading 1984, so the thought that just popped into my head was, "Nordreich is at war with Fark. We have always been at war with Fark. Since the beginning of time, since the beginning of the party, only one war...." etc. Serves me right for getting such a crappy night's sleep.)The math for war hasn't changed in the time since Karma. There is likely a change in how the NS is being lost now that people have 4bajillion miles of land, more people have 20k+ tech, etc, etc.. but the general concept of stealing land and tech is the same as it always had been, so the ratio of actual alliance NS lost (Starting NS - Current NS) to the sum of individual war damage (which includes land/tech that is swapped back and forth between nations at war multiple times, repurchased infra, etc, etc). Since it's all based on a single sample (Polar) for my estimated ratio, it's not scientifically accurate for anything, but it's good enough to give the people who asked if 11m in war stat damage was some kind of record an idea that it's not even close to the massive amounts of damage that were done when the game was 4+ times as populated. Edited January 7, 2015 by EViL0nE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarkin Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 So I was taking Polar as the example, who has so far lost about 3m in NS as an alliance stat and about 10m NS in individual war stats to come up with a SWAG ratio of real damage to war stat damage. Theirs is around 3:1 war:real. I then applied a slightly lower ratio to the stat you provided to give an idea of how they would've ranked in the stats RI5 is providing. Where are you getting this statistic of Polar losing 3m in NS as an alliance? On 11/10, a couple of weeks before Polar entered the war, they were at 12,735,776 NS. Now they're at 5,065,754 NS, that's a drop of about 7.67 million NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Where are you getting this statistic of Polar losing 3m in NS as an alliance? On 11/10, a couple of weeks before Polar entered the war, they were at 12,735,776 NS. Now they're at 5,065,754 NS, that's a drop of about 7.67 million NS. If you want a formal start point: 11/23: 12,675,330 NS 991,398 tech (Actually declared wars and entered against DS and NG) Alternatively: 11/15: 12,479,626 NS 1,006,946 tech (Recognized hostilities with DBDC but hitting 2 dt probes didn't happen till later). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Damage ratio jokes are the new peace mode jokes. I thought TOP was the new peace mode jokes :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Both IRON and INT now have negative ratios... The Orange Fort is crumbling! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third King Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Both IRON and INT now have negative ratios... The Orange Fort is crumbling! Ah that's my fault. Give me a couple of days to get out of peacemode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 yes, you are to blame. Also, Craig is to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Where are you getting this statistic of Polar losing 3m in NS as an alliance? On 11/10, a couple of weeks before Polar entered the war, they were at 12,735,776 NS. Now they're at 5,065,754 NS, that's a drop of about 7.67 million NS.I just looked at their NS chart without thinking about the fact that the war has been going on for more than 30 days.Ignore this whole line of conversation. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDragon Posted January 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Over 10,000 wars!Day 61 (Nov 7 11pm - Jan 07 6pm) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 hurray to all of us! 10,000 wars is a cool feat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Both IRON and INT now have negative ratios... The Orange Fort is crumbling! Makes sense, I been out of war for a few days...if only I had a target Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Both IRON and INT now have negative ratios... The Orange Fort is crumbling! Int I can understand. IRON being negative surprises me a little. Good job to my allies fighting them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 tbh, I didn't expect even INT to have a negative ratio... but then many of their active guys left for UMB... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Int I can understand. IRON being negative surprises me a little. Good job to my allies fighting them! Eh it is what it is. It was pretty much known we were outnumbered in the mid-tiers going in, like many on our side were. The alliances we fought were mostly mid tier alliances besides TOP(who have their upper in PM), and everyone knows IRON's meat is our upper tier. Due to no targets, 100 or so nations above 100k NS in IRON have seen little to no action and thus none were beaten down to smaller size to assist. I'm actually quite happy with the fight our mid guys have done with the gaps we have in the mids compared to our enemies. Enemies have done a good job as well with their advantage in this area as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Adding on to what Rhiz said, Sparta in particular is pressing their advantage in mid tiers, so we are ATM outnumbered there, so a lot of soft NS is being funded and lost there, by this time your also out of nukes mostly, so can't target everyone you are hitting. Mi6 was already lean and mean due to earlier conflict, so we didn't get as much soft NS as we could have. They of course also fight well. TOP are tenacious and good fighters when and where they are fighting, alot of nuke turreting going on there. These three alliances IMO are also some of of highest quality opposition, outside of Polar and FARK, so we do respect that fact and understand we'll have to fight for each and every pixel and aren't going to get a free pass and have an opportunity to build massive gap in damage taken and inflicted. We have quality opponents, they're fighting back, believe it or not, its bit awkward we can't cover all ranges, first time it has happened. We got a good chunk in top and bottom. Another partial factor is the soft and hard ns subject, a lot of our losses are soft NS, we've lost about 100k tech only so far. The NS losses of our opponents would have higher % of hard ns compared to us. IMO we have the best quality opposition the other side can offer. So no freebie pixel destruction to create a gap in ratio before the delta starts flattening. Would have offcourse preffered it to be better. Reforms and changes already underway to manage tier distributions :-) why wait for the war to end?. Edited January 8, 2015 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 I probably should have expanded a little. I'm only surprised because I consider IRON to be an exceptionally well built and above average fighting alliance. My comment wasn't supposed to be an insult to you, but a comment on the quality of the alliances fighting you (my allies) and a congratulations for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 tbh, I didn't expect even INT to have a negative ratio... but then many of their active guys left for UMB... I wouldn't have expected Int to have a negative ratio either. I'm torn by it, it's good that attacking SNX has cost them, it's a shame as you say that they've lost so many of their active members. They're the leading left light in CN or were :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Polar now has positive ratios against Reavers, FTW, and TLR. RnR is rapidly approaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Polar now has positive ratios against Reavers, FTW, and TLR. RnR is rapidly approaching. I mean... Things will tend to even out when the vast majority of your alliance sits below 25k NS. Not much our newer nations can do against those wonder-heavy, nuke-toting, ex-upper tier nations. :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 I mean... Things will tend to even out when the vast majority of your alliance sits below 25k NS. Not much our newer nations can do against those wonder-heavy, nuke-toting, ex-upper tier nations. :| You can always negotiate an individual RnR peace with the Emperor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 well, that's the fin W-S.... the losing side takes the beating in he first half... and then have fun in the second hehe 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.