Jump to content

dealmaster13

Members
  • Content Count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dealmaster13

  • Rank
    The Fishman!
  • Birthday 05/13/1993

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Fish Master
  • Alliance Name
    The Order Of The Paradox
  • Resource 1
    Coal
  • Resource 2
    Sugar
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    Top Secret HQ
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    The Phoenix Cobras

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    ol.allbless@hotmail.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Travelling
  • Interests
    Yeah... uhhh Cybernations........... just Cybernations...

Recent Profile Visitors

3,475 profile views
  1. Hi, I'm looking to buy a donation for today (13th September) or possibly tomorrow (14th September) for 45 mil (or 42 mil if you have no FAC) or 1400 tech through tech sellers. Send me a message in-game asap if you're interested. http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=88693 Thanks, DM
  2. Yeah, Stevie, defending your success this round :p... typical... jk Personally I don't really follow what the others are specifically saying about casualties, but one reason why I think that they aren't great is that they are dependent on ground attacks alone (and nukes, if defending soldiers are included). Furthermore, if you are ever in a situation with a turtler at zero soldiers, then you're never going to get any attacking casualties against them.
  3. That's a fine suggestion, Puppeteer, but you'll have to tailor the constants according to typical alliance numbers (which are admittedly predictable). Avg + Total/50 is fine. As mentioned in other topics, it can be argued that casualties are not actually a great statistic to use for comparing warring prowess.
  4. You can always try to create a prize which mixes building and warring, e.g. give a nation's score to be (NS_Destroyed + End_of_round_NS)/50000. I'm indifferent to Schad's suggestion.
  5. I support the motives outlined here. I think that the prizes should either use a scoring mechanism which uses both average and total figures for casualties/destruction, or separate prizes are created for average and total. I also feel that giving away more than one flag each round devalues the prior novelty of the prize, but that's a lesser point.
  6. That's an interesting point of view Daenerys, but it could be considered the other way by noting that small alliances will be significantly hampered by an unrestricted scheme. On reflection, I think that the top three nations in the alliance with the most casualties should also be ranked by casualties rather than NS, or take the three nations with the highest NS which are ranked in the top 10 for alliance casualties. The prizes should be weighted accordingly, taking into account the fact that there is a reasonable chance that a nation gets two or more prizes. Appropriate statistics
  7. I recommend that you consider how to make the alliance casualty criterion for the NS prizes fairer, as currently it has a higher tendency to reward alliances with high member counts and also allow exploitation concerning alliance hopping. Personally I don't have an easy fix if you want to involve alliance casualties. One suggestion is to take the total/average casualty count of the top 10 long-term nations in each alliance rather than the total casualty count over all members. You can classify a long-term nation as one whose alliance seniority is at least half the length of the round (~30
  8. Highly recommend that you don't bring in foreign aid unless if strict restrictions are imposed
  9. Were those the prizes from last round? If so, then someone could have easily won all three.
  10. I put together a few numbers a while ago, so some tinkering may need to be done. The whole point of the scoring system proposal was to rid of the current formula which places excessive emphasis on nation count, which isn't a fair estimate of an alliance's strength. Some notable changes I notice are giving a score for average nation strength and for nuke count.
  11. As someone who I feel can have a meaningful opinion on this - I don't agree.
  12. I don't think it should be based on the sum of rankings, but it's a good general idea
  13. Also gotta give a shout out to De Caelo Missus, NeoGandalf and Jim Kong Il - legends of the past SammyKhalifa is and was a class act as well
  14. Inst Inst Rogue #1 Inst Rogue #2 Inst Rogue #3 Inst Rogue #4 Inst Rogue #5 Confusion Confusion Rogue #1 Confusion Rogue #2 Confusion Rogue #3 I reckon that I'd find Inst's party to be a bit more reliable than Confusion's. With a line up like that, there's no chance I'd get past 1k infra. Could be a recipe for disaster though, as an intra-alliance war doesn't seem too far-fetched... I'll have to think this through a bit more.
×
×
  • Create New...