Bob Janova Posted February 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 not in the top 80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaxpenny Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 not in the top 80 I'm sure I've seen Bob Janova state this around 10 times. Maybe you should restate this in the OP in Size 7 to avoid future confusion Oo. Some people just don't read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I may have to find the willpower to overcome my excessive laziness and fix up our treaties. )): Bob Janova )): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I may have to find the willpower to overcome my excessive laziness and fix up our treaties.)): Bob Janova )): That would be a first Also looks awesome Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedrooling Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 not in the top 80 Oh. Didn't know if you wouldnt list them in with the NV treaties and not give them their own section. My bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupremePrince Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 This is pretty sweet. Its awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Glad to see something is being done with all that data still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmonkey24 Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 This is an excellent representation of the treaty web, and one of the cleanest and most innovative I've seen since the first one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 CSN and LEN have a MDP by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 It lives again! Though I must admit this is its finest form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 our oldest treaty has the highest tension Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telchar Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 our oldest treaty has the highest tension It's because our oldest ally has a treaty with most of the alliances out there. Leaving only ODN, GPA, TOOL and TDO out of alliances in top20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) Athens has an MDoAP with The Dark Evolution Athens has an ODP with MASH (I think I added them correctly to your link) Brilliant program you have going here. Edited February 1, 2009 by Londo Mollari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I would like to see a 3D web in which all treaties with current tension greater than 250 or 300 have been erased. In fact such a thing might even be 2D. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Thanks for putting this up, Bob Janova. I figured the data could still be useful for more than just the web. On the question of Top 80. Suppose if those interested parties added the data for those alliances, as Delta (I believe) did for top 40-80, would you include them in the Compendium, as well? For example, if alliance 72 had a treaty with alliance 88, and someone entered data for 88, along with the treaty connecting them, would you add this to the [posted] compendium? Just curious, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Yes, anything that people add will be included, but I won't maintain them if they sign new treaties or drop old ones. The idea of a wiki-based data source is that I keep a basic level of 'important' data but other people can maintain things that matter to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Perfect, that's what I wanted to know. Yep, I only expect you to copy and paste the output from the wiki, not update the wiki itself. Now to the rest of you outside the top 80, if you want your treaties added to this web, you have to add your own data and list of treaties yourselves. This is a public effort, so be sure to contribute! And besides, if you have the time to post the missing treaty in this thread, you have the time to add it to the wiki... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Updated with today's NS data and treaties added on the wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer99 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Don't post 'Where is treaty X', go to the wiki page and fix it ZZZ: Argent are not top 80. Youwish: I'd link you to the 3D web thread, but it got moved/deleted. Basically, the model works by alliances repelling each other, and being drawn towards each other by a treaty. The tension on a treaty is how strongly the treaty is 'pulling' the alliance. A high value indicates that the treaty is far from equilibrium, and usually indicates that the alliance you're looking at is not friends with the allies of its treaty partner (or vice versa). You can also get a high value if you end up too close to the other alliance due to other treaties. It's easier to explain with the graphics of course Interesting data Bob. What kind of formula did you use to prove tension? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 It's just what it says in the post you quoted. A treaty acts as a spring with an equilibrium length that is shorter for stronger treaties, and also its spring constant is stronger in that case. The treaty tension is simply the tension within that virtual spring. It's simulated, not calcuated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer99 Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 It's just what it says in the post you quoted. A treaty acts as a spring with an equilibrium length that is shorter for stronger treaties, and also its spring constant is stronger in that case. The treaty tension is simply the tension within that virtual spring.It's simulated, not calcuated. I'm trying to understand how you determined that the TPF-NPO treaty has a tension of 906. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 I'm trying to understand how you determined that the TPF-NPO treaty has a tension of 906. I would imagine it has something to do with NPO offering a treaty to anything that moves. And even some inanimate objects, just incase they become sentient at a later date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 It's just what it says in the post you quoted. A treaty acts as a spring with an equilibrium length that is shorter for stronger treaties, and also its spring constant is stronger in that case. The treaty tension is simply the tension within that virtual spring.It's simulated, not calcuated. So in other words, two alliances which have only a treaty with each other, and no other treaties, should have a tension of zero for that treaty if I understand this concept correctly. I'm trying to understand how you determined that the TPF-NPO treaty has a tension of 906. I believe what this program does is it places alliances who have treaties with one another next to each other. The fact that the TPF-NPO treaty is assigned a high tension by Bob Janova's program is simply due to the fact that TPF has treaties with alliances that are far away from NPO in the web, and/or vice versa. Basically, it means that TPF has treaty partners which aren't close to NPO, and NPO has treaty partners that aren't close to TPF. Which, if you think about it, probably makes sense, given the number of high level treaties each alliance has. The only ways to reduce "tension" on this treaty would be if TPF's treaty partners which are far away from NPO signed treaties with NPO or alliances close to NPO (and/or NPO did the same), or if TPF began to cancel treaties with alliances which were not close to NPO (and/or NPO did the same for TPF). If all alliances made a conscious effort to reduce the overall tension of their treaties by selective cancellations with those who were not close to their friends, the treaty web would become more explicitly polarized, and eventually two dimensional with clear "opposing" sides. At least, this is my understanding of the issue. Maybe I have gotten some points wrong. Hopefully Mr. Janova will be along to clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkers6676 Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 wow, nice thread, keep up the awesome work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer99 Posted February 4, 2009 Report Share Posted February 4, 2009 So in other words, two alliances which have only a treaty with each other, and no other treaties, should have a tension of zero for that treaty if I understand this concept correctly.I believe what this program does is it places alliances who have treaties with one another next to each other. The fact that the TPF-NPO treaty is assigned a high tension by Bob Janova's program is simply due to the fact that TPF has treaties with alliances that are far away from NPO in the web, and/or vice versa. Basically, it means that TPF has treaty partners which aren't close to NPO, and NPO has treaty partners that aren't close to TPF. Which, if you think about it, probably makes sense, given the number of high level treaties each alliance has. The only ways to reduce "tension" on this treaty would be if TPF's treaty partners which are far away from NPO signed treaties with NPO or alliances close to NPO (and/or NPO did the same), or if TPF began to cancel treaties with alliances which were not close to NPO (and/or NPO did the same for TPF). If all alliances made a conscious effort to reduce the overall tension of their treaties by selective cancellations with those who were not close to their friends, the treaty web would become more explicitly polarized, and eventually two dimensional with clear "opposing" sides. At least, this is my understanding of the issue. Maybe I have gotten some points wrong. Hopefully Mr. Janova will be along to clarify. I'm not criticizing Bob's work here, I'm just trying to determine the methodology in this instance...especially since we share the following treaty partners: MCXA GGA Valhalla NATO TORN The Continuum Echelon Sparta Rok SSSW18 LoSS 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.