Micheal Malone

No... he came out of the gate insulting me for discussing statistics in a thread devoted to statistics. I'm in no way saying that the hopping of AA's isn't at fault. In fact, pretty sure I pointed it out that it's being pointed out as part of the problem. I then also pointed out that the arbitrary choice of Peak NS was also skewing the numbers. I believe I've been as objective as possible about the data here. And I've given Rota props for doing them. Merely pointing out inacuracies in the data, in a thread about the said data. I suppose it's also my sides fault that the Peak NS was chosen as the starting point of data representation?

Schatt, I wasn't whining. I was pointing out that the statistical data being presented was inaccurate. For two reasons, the AA shuffling causing "loss" data, and the fact that the starting NS used was peak NS. As I pointed out in one of my posts Ogygia has a "loss" ns counted against it. Which has never happened considering every member of Ogygia was PM. If you'd like to weave your web of words for propoganda purposes, do it in a different thread. If you'd like to talk statistical data, then please present me where I'm incorrect. And as I also have said in one of my earlier posts, good on Rota for doing the stats. I'm not knocking Rota at all, merely commenting objectively on the data and methods used. Especially since the data is then being used in the graph thread which is then inaccurate.

True, but they are skewed enough as it stands right now that I wouldn't call it accurate. I agree that it is a decent guide. However take Ogygia for instance. It's taken peak NS, though if you look at the chart you can clearly see that peak NS was when one nation was on there and left, the Ogygia aa hasn't taken any losses because all the nations are in PM. So clearly the AA hopping IS effecting it. Especially since the #'s being used were chosen arbitrarily as peak NS #'s. I can agree though that it's a great general stats guide and basically shows nearly equal loss on both sides no matter how it's spun.

This part right here is quite cute.

shahenshah take the time to look over the stats. Do you really think NG has lost 5+ million NS? Edit: Tired eyes, I mis-took the 6mil NS. Ok you're correct it's not skewed too horribly, though it is still skewed.

See... that graph right there shows what I was stating. Pretty much even damage output regardless of the 3:1 advantage. Many DH/CnG countered the 3:1 advantage by the best way they could, limiting the damage output EQ was able to do with peace mode. In doing so, they have forced a quality over quantity game. And whether you like to admit it or not, the quality of the DH/CnG upper tier was built better than the EQ upper tier.

Yes, but the fact that at 3:1 odds during the first month of nukes DH/CnG have stood their ground, and now we're working on entering into normal ground where damage tends to favor the outnumbered opponent, that only fuels the stubborn pride.

So as I surmised the AA hoppers are being counted twice, so the peak NS gets losses when they leave to the new AA, and then losses when they lose NS on the hopped to AA. So objectively the numbers are skewed. Don't get me wrong, if they're more accurate than I'm reading that's great. But I think this patch of #'s is skewed by counting those members twice, thereby counting their loss twice. Its a good general guide with that aside though I suppose. Good on you Rota for trying to add more to the statistics side of things. Edit: @Aeros please see above. Then look at the statistics again. EQ has lost 39mil by this chart, and DH/CnG has lost about 41mil. Now factor in the fact that AA hopping is skewing #'s, and then factor in the fact that EQ is at 3:1 odds nation count, and it would be easy to see why DH/CnG would consider this in their favor. As a general aside, I've stated this before on IRC, the only resolution to this war will end up being stalemate/cease-fire. DH/CnG have stubborn pride on their side, and EQ has the Nation count on their side. Nobody is going to want to surrender and lose their pride. DH/CnG holding their own with 3:1 odds will call it a strategic victory, and EQ will likely edge out DH/CnG in damage and consider it victory. Neither side will admit to surrender in terms. The only thing I'm really interested in is how long this war can drag out. We could make the last days of this world a fiery hell if we keep at it. And it may just be the best way to handle things.

Ok, so I'm not going crazy then?

The biggest problem with these stats is that certain losses are being counted twice (the AA hopping) It's being counted as a loss against the alliance that they left, and then being counted as a loss when damage is done to it. Or am I reading this completely incorrect (entirely plausible).

Peace mode jokes. That's swell, my argument failed so I'm going to tell a failing joke that pretty much all of Planet Bob facepalms every time they are used. And don't get mad at a grunt following orders ;)

Whether he did or not doesn't negate the fact that you're an idiot and it HAS been the staple that wars are won/lost in the top tier. The only thing that's going to negate the fact here is that DH/CnG are basically against the rest of the cyberverse. And even that has remained to be seen as confirmed..

You should really re-read what was stated. It wasn't a compliment.

took a week to talk leadership into it, eh Rotavele?

DoW Edit in 3... 2.... 1....

It's a war on the sanctions race thread. (Sorry Gopher)

Oooo the carnage is delicious.

I know I don't post much, but could anyone point me to the treaty the world signed allowing every alliance in the game to dictate what the other alliance is doing? It's cool for Q to say "an attack on one is an attack on all" and force that view, but it's not cool for VE to say "hey, you're hitting us, and we'll recognize it for what it is". As to the others earlier in the thread jockeying for technicalities of whether or not they're ignoring/avoiding treaties. Here's a hint, don't sign one. If you're worried about the fact that it might limit what you want to do, don't sign it. Props to the Brohon for coming out and calming down the Horde. I noticed quite a few tones changed after he posted that you guys were being tardnuggets.

I am extremely happy I decided to take a peak at this thread! A+ work here! Look forward to more stats as things progress.

So, I'm really trying to see the thought process here.... I understand the forums were running slow, so certain features were turned off. Things like multi-quote and the quote linking back to the original post... But why in God's name would you remove those while leaving the tagging system enabled? The tag system is horrible, serves no real function, and the majority of the tags are herpderp spam. Why remove USEFUL functions before that? There are much better ways to streamline a forum than crippling it.

So, you're saying that the "pretty much direct "we're being kicked out" never really happened?

After the debacle of the other DoW, you take even longer to change your DoW??? The original wording: [quote] The undersigned alliances hereby declare war in defense of Equilibirum. [/quote] Yall are just horrible at this.

Nobody wants to let us into the prom... I say we storm the halls of Neutralville then.

lol... already edited the document... it DID Say [quote] The undersigned declare themselves to be members of Equilibrium and recognize a state of hostilities with all alliances currently at war with that coalition.[/quote] I'm ashamed of you all...

Grudge match ftw!