Because once a month isn't that often I figured I'd make this a new thread. Last months numbers are in () and this months are in bold. The green bloc(s) in each group is/are the one(s) with the biggest percentage increase in members who fall under the listed category, red has the smallest increase/biggest decrease.

Nations over 100k NS
Citadel: (57) 65
SF: (7) 11
Poseidon: (8) 9
FB: (8) 9
CnG: (6) 9

Nations over 80k NS
Citadel: (126) 138
SF: (36) 42
CnG: (29) 35
FB: (24) 33
Poseidon: (20) 21

Nations over 60k NS
Citadel: (273) 300
SF: (116) 141
CnG: (90) 102
FB: (88) 101
Poseidon: (62) 82

Nations over 7k tech
Citadel: (84) 92
CnG: (13) 17
SF: (8) 12
FB: (9) 11
Poseidon: (8) 10

Nations over 5k tech
Citadel: (163) 177
CnG: (43) 55
SF: (49) 54
Poseidon: (38) 43
FB: (25) 36

Nations over 3k tech
Citadel: (273) 293
SF: (198) 205
FB: (110) 122
Poseidon: (94) 116
CnG:(122) 115

I like the addition of colors to indicate changes for those with short memories such as myself.

I'm pretty sure 8 -> 12 is a larger gain than 9 -> 11. (7k tech)

Citadel isn't growing as fast as everyone else... Not really surprising though. Let's see if people's war-boners can outlast their impatience.

Very nice

Fixed. As to how it happened, well

Wow we're rocking the tech stuff, except the 3k region...

Fantastic work guys and impressive growth by Citadel

Thanks Essenia for producing the 3.0 version, its nice to see the stats but I find the replies, and the progression of the conversations to be far more enlightening and entertaining.

Again, thanks !

nice work; not to be too demanding but growth charts for 4.0 would be excellent

As usual I call upon the power of :smugdog:

To be fair, you guys are so ridiculously far ahead in this department that it's going to take the rest of us to the tune of sixteen forevers just to catch up, let alone pass y'all.

Why isn;t CDT included?

Poseidon alone was already more purple than I could take in one sitting.

Nice to see our growth.

Ok, time to bring a little levity to your attempt to show how other blocs are growing faster then Citadel in some of these categories.

In "Nations over 100k NS" You have Citadel gaining 8 nations and SF gaining 4 nations yet the way you portray it you are attempting to say that SF is growing faster in this regard when really Citadel grew twice as much in this category.

In "Nations over 80K NS" we have a similiar scenario yet not quite as drastic. You have FB as the biggest percentage increase due to gaining 9 members yet once again Citadel beats that by gaining 12 members.

In "Nations over 60K NS" we have yet another similiar scenario. You have it appearing that Poseidon is the big gainer with their +20 nation gain due to the percentage gain of that but Citadel is yet again the big gainer in reality with their 27 nation gain.

In "Nations over 7k tech" we see the same scenario but in even great effect. Lets see...you have SF as the big percentage gainer with their 4 nation growth while Citadel is listed in the Red as the smallest percentage gain with their 8 nation gain. That gain is twice as large as any other nation gain for that category for all other listed Blocs.

In "Nations over 5k tech" we see this played out Yet Again. We have FB with a healthy 11 nation gain listed as the biggest percentage gainers. Oh but wait, Citadel wins again in realty with their 14 nation gain. Makes that red coloring for the word Citadel seem kind of out of place doesn't it?

Finally in "Nations over 3k tech" we see your method actually has merit. We have Poseidon in the green with their 22 nation gain. Very respectable for this category that seems pretty dwarfed by the other categories. We see CnG in the red due to their nation loss so that too seems reasonable. I guess that means other blocs are indeed gaining on Citadel in this very important category. Citadel's 20 nation Gain in this department was indeed dwarfed. Congrats Poseidon you are catching Citadel!





Seriously guys, what the hell? Is this an attempt at damage control?

I actually just took it as what it was: indication of the percentage growth that the colorization was in fact attempting to and succeeding to indicate. Thanks for the explanation on what he was doing, though.

What is the point of showing that? I mean honestly? Does it matter if your percentage gain is higher when your actual gain is twice as small? I realize Essenia did not say anything of the sort that Wildthing stated but if someone was to read WildThings statement and attribute it to what Essenia was showing without taking a closer look at the numbers then someone might get the wrong impression entirely.

So mind answering that question too?

You're joking, right? Your use of 'levity' was very odd, too.

Edit: wow, apparently not.

First, if no one bothers looking at the numbers and doing the rather simple math then I really think they deserve to 'get the wrong impression entirely'.

Second, since there have been two other threads I believe on this same series of stats and those haven't really went well if I remember right, I really don't see how the intent of this could have been anything remotely related to damage control. Really the only way to do that would be to sell infra to make the numbers fit what everyone else would be happy with.

edit: I really can type English good.

Yes, because a higher percentage of gain in a stat stands up to the reality of not even gaining half as many nations in a category that the bloc listed in red actually gained right?

Seriously? I am the one joking here? Why don't you tell me why my word levity was so out of place ok? Especially considering the second quote I made from a member of Citadel.

Please...instead of your one liner attack why don't YOU bring some levity to the situation.

Ok so you have some threads that have not gone well at all yet he feels the need to do yet another in the same month. His way of doing it is to show that percentage wise Citadel is not growing as fast as other blocs right? That should make this one go better then those in the past?

I don't even know how you could get that conclusion from what I said. Have fun playing with the rest of the people who stumble in here, though.

Err... levity? Lightheartedness? You're saying that you're exposing some sort of alternative motive by analyzing the numbers... I don't see how that is adding "lightheartedness" to the situation?

If Citadel wanted to fudge the numbers to make it look like we didn't have strong upper ranks... "we" probably wouldn't have posted the stats thread in the first place, drawing attention to the facts. Just sounds like really stretching an innocuous measure of growth. I mean, really, you can't say measuring growth by percentage change is uncommon--and it's not like growth in absolute numbers isn't right there for everyone to see. Oh my god, color-coding propoganda! Please.

Drat. You caught us.

Sorry. We really are better than you.

So basically your indirect statement is that the quote above yours in this post is absolutely false correct?




Yes, we realize you guys seem to need to be able to say that and show that. We get it, it means alot to you. Covering it up with an attempt to show the rest of the world that percentage wise they are doing better then Citadel just seems a bit condescending. I realize you aren't going to think that......you are Citadel.

Without actual references I have no idea what part of this discussion you are attempting to talk about.

Ok....see the quote of Wildthing above the quote of yours in the post that you quoted? That is your reference. You have an idea of what I am talking about, I guess you just do not wish to address it.

You know, it really isn't That big of a deal that you would have to conveniently overlook that quote.

Why don't you go write up a CB. If anyone else in your alliance has as much unadulterated paranoia as you, I'm sure you guys are getting ready for the Cit onslaught. No need to keep the world waiting.

Percentage gain seems like a vaguely silly metric to me, since the blocs with the highest initial percentages are going to show the "worst" growth, as the metric favors smaller initial numbers. To show an "unbiased" look, and perhaps an interesting comparison, I'd recommend a different presentation, which incorporates both percentage and total numbers, and draws attention to the numbers instead of the names, so you can highlight highs and lows in both, like so:

Nations over 100k NS
Citadel: (57) 65 = +8 = +14%
SF: (7) 11 = +4 = +57%
Poseidon: (8) 9 = +1 = +12.5%
FB: (8) 9 = +1 = +12.5%
CnG: (6) 9 =+3 = +50%

Edit: Included underlining because it looks nicer that way.

Uh oh, so anyone commenting on a post or thread started by a Citadel member now needs to just go make a CB against you guys? This has nothing to do with paranoia. It was a response post to the OP and you didnt like it.

Why would we think Citadel is gonna onslaught us? You care about your stats far too much.




See, this is what I am talking about. Someone that realizes what I was pointing out and is continuing on with the conversation of such instead of just attacking me. Thank you Vhalen for showing an example of decency.

Wow, dude, there has been a ton of activity on this in a relatively short period of time. No need to be a jerk, I was trying to follow what you were talking about so we didn't have a miss-communication. I guess rudeness was a bigger risk.

Anyways, I read WildThing's statement as referring to percentage growth not absolute growth the first time; in that case it's true, we're growing slower than the other blocs. If you're going to read his statement as referring to absolute growth rather than percentage growth, then yes he was incorrect.

Nothing is stopping you from commenting on the form of these stats and suggesting a different method of measure; nothing is stopping you from then using that method of measure to present these stats. But please don't treat me like a jerk when I'm just trying to disagree with your assumption that this is damage control stats thread of some sort.

edit: I like Vhalen's presentation of the data, and it seems like a fair compromise between the different measures of growth.

Alright, my apologies. Not trying to be rude either. Was kind of jumped though so my defenses were up.

Here you are saying that Citadel is growing slower then other blocs? Serious? Why? Because of the percentages? No...that doesnt show you are growing slower. Actual nation growth numbers would show that and that is what my initial post was about. The actual growth numbers show your growth is much larger then the other listed blocs and that the percentage and coloring could cloud that truth.

To be honest I actually did want to incite discussion with my post and I was kinda disheartened no one took the bait originally. My intent was to convince you guys to postpone any form of war with us for as long as possible by convincing you we were growing slower than you (which is actually true) and in the mean time I planned on dividing and conquering you all.

No but seriously I was actually poking and I'm surprised it took so long for someone to bite. Glad you finally did Heinous, I enjoy arguments and conflict and it seems stats are the only subject we've got to argue about these days cause we're pretty much all saints apart from Xiphosis apparently.

in b4 HeinousOne uses this to bash Cit-,

Oh, damn it, too late.


So, let me guess. If the OP had made this post and said, "Look, Citadel made more gains than everyone else," you would have blasted Citadel for our statistical self-congratulations. If the OP had made this post and said, "Look, Citadel isn't gaining as much as everyone else," you would have blasted Citadel in the manner you're doing now.

No matter what, you are able to get your Citadel rant out.

Well, you can always count on me to save the day.

Despite your attempt, you still state that you are growing slower which was just proven to be completely false. Percentage gain does not show actual gain. In actual gain you are growing faster then anyone else in these categories. I have to admit I am a bit baffled by the multiple attempts to argue otherwise.

No...in the original I blasted Citadel for stating how it was making more gains then everyone else.

I am blasting him for using the same stats to now try and show how you guys are not growing as fast as others when it was already proven that you are growing faster then everyone else by these very same stats.

I like how you portray that as a Citadel rant. I would call it the truth, but hey different languages do exist thus different words can indeed have the same meaning.

So no matter what, you get to blast Citadel. If the door is open, you want it closed. If the door is closed, you want it open.

I can't say much for you.

You got me again..

No...it just so happens that he gave two opportunities. If this had been the exact same posting as the last one there wouldn't have been much to say but it was presented in a much different fashion thus it gave another opportunity for discussion.

Why are you not blasting Wildthing for purposefully making a false statement in order to incite a debate or argument? Is it not possible that I am very similiar to him and seek the same thing? Oh....he is on your side and is free from your insults right?

You can't say much for me....except that I am not the one resorting to insults here. You wouldn't say that though would you?




No I didn't.

By growing slower I mean(t) rate of growth. Though to be honest we will need several more months of data, I interpreted that the lower percentage of total growth would likely mean a deceleration of growth; as compared to a larger percentage of total growth likely meaning an acceleration of growth. This has to do with what Vhalen said regarding a percentage growth meter favoring smaller initial numbers, though, as well as me knowing that NS growth plateaus at a point which will allow for a continued deceleration of growth.

We can argue over what I said, but what I meant was what I meant. As for the numbers and percentages being misleading, I do not think that that was the intention; and now, with this discussion having taken place if the OP does not adjust itself accordingly it is because he's a bit stubborn. I suggest if you continue to have a problem with the presentation of the numbers that you take the initiative to create a more accurately depicted thread so that a proper discussion of the stats themselves can take place.

If you would prefer for this to be about the response to these stats and their horrendously presented nature, then do nothing but what you have been. I'm sure others will be happy to give you more examples of massive misinterpretations of the data, since no one reads anything but the most recent post usually anyways.

Do you actually have a link to that?


Or I'm already talking to him in the Argent private channel.

Anyway, I am bed.

Aww dont be mean to him! I like Wildthing.

Wait a minute....did I just doom him?





All my post was, was basically an addendum to the OP. Yes there was a question at the end directed towards a comment made by a Citadel member. That has already been discussed and is pretty much over so really its just a discussion about the numbers and the way they are presented. Its really not a Citadel bash thread. You guys don't need to be so defensive about it. To your own personal credit you really havn't been.

I'm not even on IRC right now.. Funny the things people say on the OWF though.


Give us time, I'm rallying the troops as we speak.

Well, you know what they say: You can't lump us all into the same castle.

Despite what some people say, HO does sleep on occasion.

This has got to be the dumbest debate I have ever seen.

You haven't been looking very hard, then.

Oh no, another TOP guy making such a comment.

This is seriously the dumbest debate I've ever seen.