Namayan

I can confirm this. UCoN or MW never initiated nor approached DB4D for peace. DB4D was the one who approached us for peace. I wonder how many times Equilibrium has been lied to by their fellow coalition members.

Losses are very much different by tiers for this week. If you based it at around 100k-80k ranges, Equilibrium had around 247% increased losses at that NS range( this already includes GDA and Apparatus at the count) while Competence decreased its losses by 60%(EvU,Hooligans,HB not yet included at the count). With regards, to 80k-60k NS range there is a tie. This I will agree with you. If the trend of Eq keeps increasing percentage in losses at the 100k-80k continues, the kill zone for Equilibrium seems to be going down tier by tier which was around 100k-80k last week, 80k-60k this week.

Those are very revealing stats. Isnt Equilibrium suppose to dominate 100k-80k NS? What is with the 0% defensive slots? From those stats, the focus of Equilibrium on this front is concentrated mostly at the 40-60k NS By correlating this stat from shinra:(http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/115443-upper-tier-tracking-thread/page-4), one can assume that the numerical superiority is suppose to dominate C&G and co. But the stats given by USmurf seems to otherwise contradict it, SF/XX/Aftermath and co. 120k+ - 12 (0) --> 12 (0) 100k - 20 (1) --> 20 (3) 80k - 97 (51) --> 84 (42) CnG and Co. 120k+ - 37 (23) --> 44 (30) 100k+ - 19 (11) --> 19 (10) 80k - 56 (14) --> 61 (17)

Not really, you did not understand those statistics very well. On the 100k-80km there was a 247% percentage increase in losses for Equilibrium for that and a 60% percentage decrease for Competence. Like I said on that blog, If that patterned continued Equilibrium will be in trouble especially if the pattern would to continue increase in percentage loss for Equilibrium and decrease for Competence, no amount of superiority numbers would hold. The losses were very different a week ago as stated by the blog poster wherein Equilibrium lost less both in numbers and percentage wise compared to Competence. So, you might have not yet updated your numbers yet as you seem very biased even though the statistics says otherwise.

Yes equilibrium has the quantity. However, quantity is only relevant if all of those numbers are as efficient and as good as the rest. DR,DT and Pacifica are in a totally different way of thinking and game play versus the rest co-members in Equilibrium. Also, the stats made by an NSO member, http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3687-stats-itb-5/, shows a completely different picture at the mid tiers wherein the 80k-60k as a statistical tie in losses within the week of Feb 12-20. There is also a difference of what is happening per front as the C&G front hasn't fought the mid-tiers which probably define as between 40k-80k. If someone would bring out the statistics on losses on 60-40k, I am sure I will agree with you if what you say is supported by it. However, since the statistics are not yet supporting what you claim, I must disagree on what you say.

good luck to my friends at EvU

Welcome to the war!

Welcome to the war!

Technically you are correct. However, you should consider the other Umbrella Nations AA hopping which are still part of Umbrella.

We shall see one week to one month from now if whose strategy is working: accdg to Eq; superiority numbers at 100k-80k tier while Acddg to Co: DoW down by higher Tiers. Based on the one week happened this week at the 100-80k (-47) Eq vs (-17) Co. There was a total change from the week of feb 4-11 where (-17) Eq lost less Co(-42). As there was a 60% percentage decrease with Co and a 247% increase in Eq at the 100k-80k losses. This is vital since Eq is expected to dominate this Tier area completely. If the pattern continues for this week and the next week, Eq will lose a lot of ground at that NS range. So, for this week Eq needs to control that area and stop losing an increase of losses.

Eq does have numbers at the 80-60k tier. However, if you read the stat thoroughly, you will see that those numerical superiority is not affecting competence much. Accdg to this stat, The losses at 80-60k ranges are equal. Not everyone in eq is as good or as efficient in war as Pacifica, DUckroll or DT. numerical superiority becomes only an advantage if everyone is as good as everyone.

I think jerdge what others failed to see is that no at all members of Equilibrium are maximized or fighting hard or as efficiently as some members. You have been generalizing numbers as totality of Equilibrium rather than seeing front by front as Vasily Blyukher analyzed. As analyzed by him, Equilibrium had an advantage at the TOP front which was neutralized by the visits of Umbrella/DBDC. If you looked at the numbers, The front is being pushed down to 60K NS wherein War zone area being 100k-80k. When you look at this other statistics made by an NSO member(allies of Pacifica) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3687-stats-itb-5/. Equilibrium is losing 47 nations feb 12-20 dates from around at 100k-80k. This loss was already mitigated by the entrance of Apparatus and GDA which lessen the losses at that range during that date.

For equilibrium the changes from feb 12 to feb 20: NS range = Total at the tier(change since feb 12) 150k+ = 7(0) 150-100k = 69(-21) 100-80k = 202(-47) 80-60k = 435(-20) For Competence the changes from feb 12 to feb 20: NS range = Total at the tier(change since feb 12) 150k+ = 24(-5) 150-100k = 67(-20) 100-80k = 71(-17) 80-60k = 123(-19) The feb 20 suggests that Competence still dominate 150k+. 150-100k seems to be a statistical tie. While 100k-80k, Equilibrium lost more 47 vs 17 yet still retains numerical superiority. At the bottom rank there seems to be a tie in losses but Equilibrium seems to be numerical superior The one thing I noticed is Equilibrium seems to have lost its ground at the 100k-80k which is suppose to be the meat grinder or the DMZ as others suggested. If this patterns continue (Equilibrium loses 2.76 nations from 100k-80k NS vs Competence 1), things will not look good within month for them as the losses at this tier was done within a week.

Flubb is the man!

Hi jerd. Thank you for resuming. With regards to DMZ, I do not think it exists yet. According to this statistics which is dated Feb 11(http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3683-stats-itb-4/), 100K+ is Co territory while between 100k-80kNS is Eq territory. There seems to be a statistical tie between 60k-80k based on percentage loss. So unless someone gathers actual data on lower than 80K tiers and divided them by War Front, we cannot assume who is winning the wars below 80K NS. With regards to the C&G front, the 80K and below wars has not even yet started. So the data, will probably be more available at the 80K NS and below where there alliances on both sides fighting both in the Original front and the TOP-DT front.

This is also misleading since your are assuming that damage is equal on each of Equilibrium's nations. It is the reason I have been requesting for a tier by tier and front by front statistics as this will really define what is happening. When damage is equally divided among nations any coalition with superior numbers will have an advantage. but the current war is far from that. Not every Equilibrium nation is receiving equal damage to mitigate any damage the other coalition has dealt. A perfect example would be Matt Miller from IRON's damage taken from Timmmeh and loco during their respective battle on different dates cannot be distributed around the coalition to lessen the damage to Matt Miller.

I am sure you have a fantastic imagination between the difference whining and pointing out the statistics here is very misleading. War losses is very different from NS loss. If you look at the Umbrella statistics, those who left Umbrella for Doombird Doomcave were counted as a War Loss. Those on Doombird Doomcave who came from Umbrella had losses were also counted which means The nations who both left Umbrella and those lost a certain NS at DBDC were double counted. The true statistics on war losses are at the the battle charts of each nation. Once you have it, then we can talk about War Losses.

Exactly, someone from equilibrium actually understanding the stats. NS loss is totally different from War Losses. The fantastic spinning of information that NS loss equals War loss is more of Equilibrium's propaganda. NS loss does not mean damage received or dealt, it literally means NS loss. Now, until someone collects actual War losses or damage received or dealt in battle, then we can only say the statistics are War losses.

Any new stat updates on this?

The cushion is based if the damage to Equilibrium is spread equally. However, damage is not spread equally in Equilibrium. Not only that, with the recent entrance of GDA and Apparatus, the graph will definite show a different skew from its original damage path. As admitted by CnG already in many posts in OWF, they are grinding each NS tier before they move unto the next lower tier. It is the difference between the statistics posted by Equilbrium since Equilibrium posters have been focusing on total statistics rather than the breakdown by tiers and by front. The breakdown will truly tell who is winning and who is losing or if even it is a draw.

I would love to see this as well, along with statistical breakdown per NS tier between 100k-80k, 80k-60k, 60k-40k, 40k-20k. Plus a statistical breakdown per front much like Vasily Blyukher did on his analysis on the upper tier at his thread : http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/114908-upper-end-of-the-war/ This is the closest thing I could find on what NS tier breakdown: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/blog/811/entry-3683-stats-itb-4/

If Equilibriums propoganda machine can count an accurate stat of sheer damage, since the basis of the Statistics is total NS rather than actual damage. All this stat is based on NS strength before the war and NS damage now. It is totally different from sheer damage done as things like rebuying infra, AA hops, deletions, etc are not counted. Not only that, the statistics based of this based on the totality rather than divided into tiers and front. This division is needed since each tier and each front has different situations and/or results.

I would like to point out the flaw on the statistics on this chart. AA hoppers losses were also counted in their original Alliance lose, e.g. Doombird Doomcave loses were also part of Umbrella losses since they were once part of Umbrella and counted as the loss of Umbrella.

I think you are correct. Since Doombird Doomcave loses were also included in the Umbrella loses

I do not see any statistics saying this as such. The statistics above only states NS loss between certain dates not damage dealt nor receive. The more accurate statistics would be the per battle war chart and add it up. After that, divide by tier, divide it by front since each tier and each front varies differently. Equilibrium cannot claim victory if an NS tier was already lost by them.