jerdge
-
Posts
5,860 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jerdge
-
-
Whether you meant it to be a certain way or not is not what matters. The point is you built the thread on an interpretation of MyWorld's post that probably is not accurate, I pointed such out. This is not derailing, hijacking, or anything else. I understand you are defensive and protective of your thread, but my posts have been on topic.
I'm trying to contact you via IRC. Please don't post in the meanwhile.
Being you unavailable on IRC I sent you a PM. This conversation started to be 1 to 1 and had no place on a forum.
I kindly ask to the other posters to restrain from bringing these arguments back into this thread.
-
If you could be bothered to read your own thread, from the OP:
I addressed this. If you do not want to talk about this, do not put it in the OP of the thread.
Thank you.
The point of the part of the first post that you quoted was that several spy ops (that initially were understood to be 30+ and then came out to have been hundreds), were successful and were not exposed in-game.
The fact that NADC, NpO or every other Alliance was involved is completely irrelevant to the point, and to the thread, as it was meant to be and as it has been until you started derailing it.
Again, please, stop it now. Thank you.
-
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone that how they found out for certain it was NADC may have had nothing to do with the AA of the nations carrying out the spy attacks.It would be a lot easier to believe NADC is guilty if your side would just show us your evidence.
Stop derailing this thread, you two. This discussion is about how the spy ops math works. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it's about the Alliance Affiliation of the Nations that spied, but it isn't.
If you want to go trolling/anti-troll-patrolling/whatever about BLEU/NADC/NpPO/whatever, it's plenty of other threads out there, and you can always create one of your own.
Thank you.
-
Actually, I have a different conclusion, and it might be difficult to determine which is right. I believe that the +10% for Communism is applied after odds are calculated. Thus a 91.1% attack becomes 101.1% if you have Communism – and thus, any attack which would normally come in at 90% or more is a certainty.
Yes, that actually also can be (it would imply a mistake made by Admin!
)However, the Government table in the CNII reads "Attack Spy Strength +10%", thus explicitly mentioning the attacker side. The 91.1% you talk of is calculated putting together the attacker and defender odds.
I put my bet on "Attack Spy Strength" being the same of "Attacking spies chances of success", and not "Attacking spies chances of success / (Attacking spies chances of success + defending nation's counter intelligence systems)".
It has also to be said that Admin uses weird wording, sometimes
. -
BLEU is not looking to randomly kill innocent nations who make mistakes
I'm not among those that think that "The Orders/BLEU/... Are Always Correct", and as such I qualify as "not-brainwashed". I am therefore confident that you can be happy of me saying that I was already sure of that.
Also, thank you for your reply.
7. Please rephrase this question.AlmightyGrub already answered to it, however I will try:
7. If a POW breaches the terms, will BLEU have a set period of time to charge him/her and/or take action?
This is assuming: after which time the accusation will be considered "void" - something like "thau shalt not exploit the situation months later you knew of it."
(In this re-wording I have also discarded the part about how to determine whether you could know of it.)
However, as I said, AlmightyGrub already answered to everything, so there's no need that you (or others) do the same.
Also, thank to you also for your reply.
-
2) I'm gonna go ahead [...]
NO! NO! Don't do that!... j/k
Seriously, campbell, I don't know you but you oughtn't leave for what you did. If you think you can manage to behave, just delete and restart. (If you don't think you can manage to behave, think harder and find a way: it's most important for your Real Life).
Good luck!
-
I wish the best to NADC and I hope they will get peace.
I wish the best to BLEU and I hope they will also get peace.
I hope that this spying story can be fully investigated, that the real responsibilities are brought to light, and that the parties that are guilty are convinced to pay proportional reparations, either for unjustified spy operations, or for unjustified military aggression.
In my humble opinion, this is the way it should have gone since the beginning: understand the situation first, find an agreement then, use threats/force as last resort.
Good luck to everyone involved, as you really seem to need it.
-
After reading the Terms of Surrender, I wish to publicily state/ask a few things:
- Congratulations to BLEU for showing a true commitment towards Peace, and a sincere dislike towards war and destruction. It's highly appreciated.
- I believe that the 30% threshold means "Soldier efficiency level must be at or below 30% of citizens count". Am I correct?
- Will the surrendering Nations benefit of a cease-fire, in the 48 hours period granted for the decommissioning to take place? (To decommission your soldiers/tanks while you're still open to attacks doesn't look healthy.)
- What is the reasoning behind asking to destroy purely defensive improvements/wonders, like Missile Defence and SDI?
- When the war will be considered "ended", should NADC don't disband/nor obtain peace in any way?
- How will subsequent breaches be handled? (E.g.: a POW is caught with 32% of soldier efficiency and the remaining conditions are met; will you consider the possibility of a mistake and give him/her a chance to amend it, before an attack?)
- Is there a set period of time for you to charge the POW for breaching the terms, after you became aware of it and/or it can't be denied that you had means to know it?
- Is there anybody else, but BLEU, charged with the interpretation of these terms? (E.g.: a third party.)
Thank you for reading this, and thank you in advance if you wish to reply to me.
- Congratulations to BLEU for showing a true commitment towards Peace, and a sincere dislike towards war and destruction. It's highly appreciated.
-
Nice read, really.
You forgot of "The false troll" (like, "the false samurai"), that is the one that is called "troll" by those that don't like what s/he's posting.
Whoops! HordeOfDoom already said it.
-
NpO
[...]
Posts telling people to shut up or learn how to read do in my humble opinion not improve the general civility of discourse nor enhance the image of your Alliance that is held in high regard by many. Legitimate question need not be answered if you choose not to but dismissing the questioners in a rude and dismissive fashion is not becoming of the hard earned values and reputation of your alliance. Assington came off very well despite not answering some of the questions because he carried himself with pride and dignity and did not engage in petty name calling or dismissive rudeness. He posed his own genuine questions. For this I compliment him it is the kind of post worthy of aspiring to.
[...]
Respectfully
Page Hime Themis
I must make sure that we send an Ambassador to The Order of the Black Rose, as they count this man that is one of value.
Clap!
Can you be any more unintelligent?Honestly... Assington doesn't owe anyone anything. No one can respect him "a lot more". They already respect him about as much as people can. You, on the other hand....
I respect farung and Assington and I try to respect all the people I can, as this is OWF (i.e. mostly OOC, or at least IC/OOC blurred) and I take as a duty to respect human beings.
I also respect you, Empress van Wain, and I suggest to you to do the same, with farung also. Your humanity is at stake and only you can preserve it.
Edit: grammar.
-
And seriously people, when the spy bar is maxed it's instant win pretty much. CB, Zinger both were never found out despite doing over 75 attacks each. Dale was found out because it was up super high. Check my NADC spy ops thread for the pics of what always won and Dale's exposed op.
I shall give you credit for these information, farung. Thank you for them, because they're very precious.
A seemingly informed NpO member stated this:
All of the attacked NpO nations were below rebuying capability with a small number of nukes 750 tech and land is a large OVER-estimation which makes the odds more realistic. Most of us have spies now, but that incident is what taught us the lesson.I've then tried to play a little with numbers, imagining "typical" attacking and defending Nations, and adjusting figures to match with a likely scenario.
- A "completely unprepared defender" with no spies, 500 Tech and 100 miles of purchased land, with threat level at low (that I imagine is "normal") would have these figures:
odds= (0 + 500/20 + 100/70) x 75% = 20 - A "more realistic defender" with 10 spies, 750 Tech and 300 miles of purchased land, with threat level at lowwould have:
odds= (10 + 750/20 + 300/70) x 75% = 39 - A "decently prepared attacker" with 600 spies, 3k Technology and no CIA, with government set to Communism, would have:
odds= (600 + 3000/20) x 110% = 825 - A "maxed up attacker" with 800 spies, 5k Technology and CIA, with Communism, would have:
odds= (800 + 5000/20) x 110% x 110% = 1270
- On a single operation, the "decently prepared attacker" would win over the "completely unprepared defender" with 97.65%.
On 200 attacks this would mean 0.87% chances of complete success (i.e.: no way).
- On a single operation, the "decently prepared attacker" would win over the "more realistic defender" with 95.5%.
On 200 attacks this would mean 0.01% chances of complete success (i.e.: no way).
- On a single operation, the "maxed up attacker" would win over the "completely unprepared defender" with 98.46%.
On 200 attacks this would mean 4.52% chances of complete success (i.e.: almost no way).
- On a single operation, the "maxed up attacker" would win over the "more realistic defender" with 97.03%.
On 200 attacks this would mean 0.24% chances of complete success (i.e.: no way).
I don't believe that an event with less than 5% of chances to happen, actually happened in this case, especially because others in this thread said they had been able to draw many and many uncaught attacks with "max spy odds (bar)".
The only conclusion I can come to, is that the math up here is flawed. In some situations spy operations must actually have 100% chances of success.
Not wanting to deny what Stravolice said, nor what farung and many others on the other hand said, I am led to the conclusion that the odds are "rounded up".
If the rounding was at the nearest one per cent, 98.46% would have been rounded at 98% - or, if it was 98.51%+, to 99% - none of which allows to hope for a decent credibility for hundreds of uncaught spy ops.
If the rounding was at the nearest ten per cent, instead, even the "decently prepared attacker" against the "more realistic defender" scenario works: 95.5% "becomes" 100% and (what had been reported to be) the reality matches with my set of assumptions.
There's one other possibility, that Seerow mentioned before: that the complete lack of ANY (defending) spies makes the defending odds drop to 0, no matter how much Tech/land one has. This would explain the situation and would answer the questions, but is not compatible with the official documentation about the spy operations (that is in the Cyber Nations Information Index, that I also quoted in the first post of this discussion). As such, I won't take this explanation as good, unless some evidence that supports it becomes available. Having to choose between two "inductions", I take the ones that doesn't explicitly deny the official documentation (sorry, Seerow).
So, this is my conclusion:
The spy operation odds are rounded at the nearest ten per cent.
tl;dr: see the line above this one
. - A "completely unprepared defender" with no spies, 500 Tech and 100 miles of purchased land, with threat level at low (that I imagine is "normal") would have these figures:
-
The 90% to 100% spy odds idea is so far away from reality that it should not even be discussed.
Lets try some real world math.
Actual tech 3900.99
Assume 800 spies, CIA wonder.
3900.99 / 20 = 195.0495
800 + 195.0495 = 995.0495
995.0495 * 1.1 for Commie Government = 1,094.55
1,094.55 * 1.1 for CIA wonder = 1,204.01
My Spy Odds magic number would be 1,204.01
Now lets pick a random NPO target (for math example purposes only)
How about the #3 NPO nation ForgottenHonor (DaNCeT)
Assume 0 spies & Threat Level Low.
Spies = 0
Tech = 2,229.89 / 20 = 111.4945
Land Purchased = 2,862.78 / 70 = 40.90
No Commie government or CIA.
Defending Spy Odds magic number is (0 + 111.4945 + 40.90) * 1 * 1 = 152.39
Threat Level Low = 152.39 * .76 = 114.29
Threat Level Elevated = 152.39 * 1.0 = 152.39
Threat Level High = 152.39 * 1.25 = 190.49
So even a good sized nation with 0 spies and
threat level low the odds are 91/9
threat level elevated the odds are 89/11
threat level high the odds are 86/14
Nice math.
However, 200 spy operations without a single one getting exposed ceases to be credible with the single operation chances going below 99.7%.
Single operation chance 99.9% -> 200 operation chance ~82%
Single operation chance 99.8% -> 200 operation chance ~67%
Single operation chance 99.7% -> 200 operation chance ~55%
Single operation chance 99.6% -> 200 operation chance ~45%
Either the game accounts for the 3rd odds' digit, or it rounds them up at 100% "after some point", be it 95%, 99% or whatever.
For the record, for a Nation with CIA+Communism+800 spies, with 7,000 Tech to have 99.65%+ of chances against another Nation, it requires that this last has no spies, no purchased land, and a Tech of less than 130.
I find more likely that the odds are rounded up. Or, having no spies gives you 0% chances (something I find hard to believe, since it denies what is written in the CII).
-
Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events.
[...]
One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources.
[...]
Probably the truth is discoverable, but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth [...] that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or failing to form an opinion. The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied.
Moreover, [...] the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him.
[...]
Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connection with the physical world.
-
Or that he clicked this link...
No need to ask any help from anyone... the stuff is just one click away... :=)
Are you seriously saying that the exposed spy operations have anything to do with this issue?
-
Logic tips:
- Proving that something can be done doesn't prove that it has been done in a particular situation.
- Creating screenshot with correct information (time "stamps") goes beyond the bare use of an image editor.
- If farung displays screenshots with the correct time "stamps" of the attacks (without having been given them by BLEU) it is proved that he got the correct information from the attackers (or, he's admin, etc.)
Flamebait thread is flamebait?
- Proving that something can be done doesn't prove that it has been done in a particular situation.
-
Congratulations to both alliances!
-
Referring you to the last part of my post, these are different people in different alliances with differing opinions on most likely all subjects. Again proving that different people say different different things is fairly easy as you've shown, but hardly relevant to this thread. If you instead are asking which statement BLEU as whole is going to follow, then you're going to need a combined statement from all the BLEU alliances, which you're going to have to work harder to get.
You're saying that the NpO's Emperor and Imperial Regent are just "different people" that "say different things"?
*thinks hard*
Well you're excused, Ross, since the NpO's Imperial Regent himself also completely missed my point:
If you had actually read my damn post you would see that I have very clearly stated that the NADC did spy against us. They have not been cleared of that charge. All the charges in the original DoW are still valid as none have been disproved. Learn to !@#$@#$ read.(bold is mine)
(Nice joke btw, Random.)
I'm tired and sick of explaining again the whole thing. Good luck with your discussion, I won't take further part in (unless called again to answer questions about something I already posted).
-
You choose to bold the end of DF's statement, read it. Nothing has changed because even if Farung "admitted" AND has real spy logs; which are suspect, this would not interfere at all with NADC conducting its own operation, which they have since admitted to. If you're point was simply that different people say different things, then I can make no point against you, Random and DF are different people in different alliances, which while probably closer to each other than any alliances in the game, are still different alliances, implying differing perspectives.
Again, I have never talked of the screenshots.
- Let's make it clear:
Assington said that, without the spy operations, there wouldn't have been any war against the NADC.
Other two promonent (involved) rulers later said that, even if it was proved that the NADC had nothing to do with the spy operations, there would have anyway been war against the NADC (because the remaining reasons were enough, etc.) - Let's make it more clear:
A: "if NADC didn't do <operation>, we wouldn't have attacked them"
B: "we made war against NADC for multiple reasons, and we would have done even if <operation> didn't took place."
C: "we didn't made war against NADC only for <operation> (our other reasons were enough anyway)." - Let's simplify it even more:
A: "<sentence>"
B: "~<sentence>"
C: "~<sentence>"
I hope you got it by now, because I can't help you more than this...
- Let's make it clear:
-
Even if Farung's image are real, which they probably aren't, that doesn't change the fact that NADC officials admitted running operations against the NpO.
Considering that I didn't even mention the screenshots, your reply is amazingly out of target.
I suggest you go back and read my post a second time (tip: it's about the decisive part of the "officially recognized" CB; Assington says one thing, while others say the opposite).
-
Also, you're forgetting, there were multiple reasons a war against NADC was waged upon--somethings that have been listed for months and have just added up. Of course, you wouldn't understand that since you're just a filthy troll who wants to do anything he can to decimate the Orders and their allies.
This changes NOTHING.
This does not change the current war against the NADC. We did not declare based on the subject in those screenshots alone.Sorry troll-kid. You did manage quite a number on our nukes, but you have not impacted the war against the NADC, nor invalidated anything.
I realise many of you are demanding to see the evidence of such spy attacks but I purposefully withheld such when I wrote this DoW due to the nature and circumstances of the source (and no, it is not a spy within NADC ranks).Those that know me are aware that I do not support wars unless I believe there to be a legitimate reason and these spy attacks are more than enough to justify this war. Whilst there was tension between BLEU alliances and NADC recently, ultimately it is the spy operations that have caused this war. Without such, NADC could have continued to enjoy their peaceful existence.
(bold is mine).
Raunchero and RandomInterrupt may want to ask Assington about this?
-
I believe that this thread served its purpose
Actually, farung's revelations basically answer to most of my questions/doubts.
I'm still elaborating the new data (and that long thread); at this moment I came to the conclusion that spy ops odds are rounded to the nearest ten per cent. If the attacker "should have" 95%+, the operation has the certainty of success (100%). This is the most simple explanation I came up with, that is consistent with the 200+ attacks that farung tried to document in his thread.
Also, I wish to thank everybody that participated into this thread. I was worried for it to go down flaming, but you were civil and nice and you helped me to avoid it.
Cheers!
-
If you check the nuke count updates, this would have had to have been pulled off in less than a week.
NpO = 996 --> 994 --> 917 --> 916
That means within 1 update of that list, 77 nukes were 'destroyed'
My point being this was not gradually over the months. This was all in one move.
The attacks took one month, according to Electron Sponge, and more than one month, according to Farung (that seems to have been behind these attacks).
For the sake of argument, here is some data:I just went through and saw my odds for all Polar nations in their top 40 (note: this does NOT include anyone below that). I have a modest 270 spies and just over 2k tech.
Out of these 40 Polar nations, there were only 5 where I had less than a 50% chance for success. That means that there were 35 nations where I, a nation with rather weak offensive spy power compared to most large nations, would likely have had success in a spy operation.
However, the more interesting statistic is in the breakdown of that remaining 35. Of them, roughly 5 were "at the halfway" point. But fourteen of them showed me with almost 100% success. That is about half of NpOs top 40 where I basically have guaranteed success in spy operations. This does not even go down into the lower ranks where nations are smaller.
Clearly an alliance with larger nations with more tech and spies would be able to destroy nukes. Even if it is only on those where I had a near guaranteed win; that would still be 28 nukes a day, which in only 3 days would easily equal that nuke drop.
So to those saying that NADC would have been caught or could not have pulled it off: shenanigans. If 10 nations of my caliber were working together targeting nukes, we would almost be guaranteed success. Let alone if we had max spies.
If a gov member of NpO wishes for me to remove any of this information please PM me and it will be removed.
Well, it came out that you're right (see Farung's thread), but not for the reasons you explain. "Almost 100%" means that your chances to get along undiscovered with tens of attacks are slim. You need to have a "solid" 100% to base upon.
30 in a row without getting caught is very feasible. Hell, I guarantee could do it right now if I could run 30 attacks in 1 day. Spies are one of the least random aspects of the game. Quite frankly your math is meaningless to the situation.You guarantee, but you didn't provide any reasoning other than your assertions. The math wasn't "meaningless to the situation", while your post probably is? (Anyway, I admit that it came out that you're basically right, when you say that "30 in a row" is feasible...)
I'm sure if you punch a 95% chance for 50 consecutive tries, you'll find that the odds aren't at all favorable.95%^50 ~ 7.7%
All of the attacked NpO nations were below rebuying capability with a small number of nukes 750 tech and land is a large OVER-estimation which makes the odds more realistic. Most of us have spies now, but that incident is what taught us the lesson.The chance to win over Nations that you described (with no purchased land at all), with an attacking Nation with CIA and maxed up spies, and 7,000 Tech, were estimated at ~97.8% for one attack, that means ~50.6% for 31 attacks. However, I now believe that this math needs to be fixed (see at the bottom of this post).
What this tells me is that your counterintel systems from tech and land don't kick in unless you have at least one spy. The way we calculated it having tech and land would give the opponent 1-5% chance of failure, but the complete lack of ANY spies seems to make it a success. (Otherwise you have .95^200 odds of farung telling the truth)So every member of an alliance should by at least ONE spy just for defense. It might not do much, but it lets you gain your land and tech defense, which is better than nothing.
My guess is different: I now believe that the system works with a "rounded" chance level. If you "should" have 95%+ of chances of success, you are instead granted a 100% - that means certainty. However, further tests/data must be collected before we can confirm/correct this.
-
Also, I have doubts whether the in-game "red bar" actually allows assessing the odds with this precision (distinguishing between a 97% and a 99%). While this is almost irrelevant on a single attack, it is dramatically important on tens of attacks.
99%^31 = 73%
97%^31 = 39%
First, I'm quoting myself: the world is going to end soon!
Second, I've checked it: the game allows to see the odds with a 10% "error", aka 90% or 100%. Assuming the admin didn't do anything dumb, I'd say that one has no chances to distinguish between a 95.1% and a 100% situation.
This means that the strategy "I check what the odds are first" is inherently flawed: one may "see" 100% and then yet have only 21% of chances of success, in the 31 attacks.
Or, I didn't understand it, of course...
-
I've poured over the spy operations calculations a number of times over the past few days (addressing a javascript bug with the addition of spying while in Anarchy) and I can assure all of you that the spy calculations are working properly. I think Delletonia got it right, if you only attack when the operation odds indicator shows high and abort when the indicator shows low then your odds of high rates of successful missions are going to be high.
Answering to this and many similar replies, I say that no matter how this is true, it doesn't solve the issue.
We're talking of odds that need to be constantly 99%+ to have a reasonable expectation that 31 attacks could go on without being exposed.
Also, I have doubts whether the in-game "red bar" actually allows assessing the odds with this precision (distinguishing between a 97% and a 99%). While this is almost irrelevant on a single attack, it is dramatically important on tens of attacks.
99%^31 = 73%
97%^31 = 39%
I think part of the problem was assuming that the nations had 50 spies.My suspicion is that up until now most alliances have taken spies for granted. My guess is maybe a dozen people in the Orders had any spies at all. I know when I went unaligned, I was hit by two high-ranking NPO members (Koona and Mary) and neither of them had any spy force to speak of, and instead relied on other members (like Bakunin) to spy on me in their stead. But before I was anarchied, I had a damn near 100% success rate on both of them for destroying nukes (and had the ability to destroy nukes in anarchy not been put in AFTER I was too low in NS to be relevant, would have destroyed many more
[...]
You can check the odds of your attack before conducting it. With this is mind people with 0 spies were likely targeted over and over again. This doesn't paticularly strech the imagination.Interesting points. Anyway, still a CIA+800 spies 400 Tech Nation (that is more than what NADC can afford), has "only" 51% chances of success to do (uncaught) 31 spy ops against 0 spies, 500 Tech and 500 purchased land Nations (that is less than what "any" nuclear Nation can have, unless insanley inflated in Infrastructure, to an extent I don't believe we can see/find).
I was just going to say, your odds calculator is based off of assuming someone would be spying "everyone" when in fact, they are most likely spying when the odds are heavily in their favor.If you have say 95 or 99% odds, the chance of 30 successful missions is 21% for 95%, and 66% for 99%.
First thing: no (sorry if I wasn't clear enough).
Second thing: you're correct!
Also, I have to correct myself, when I said that the NADC-ers hadn't CIAs: I now realized that only the owner can see this type of wonder. (And, thank you Uhtred for too having pointed that out).
Edit: 4000, not 400.
)
.
.
Admin Teh Puppetmaster
in Open World Forum
Posted
Admin admin... War slot filling is bad!