crypticedge
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by crypticedge
-
-
You know what they say about death multiplying by threes.
Is this the truth behind the second shooter conspiracy theory?
Bullets (and nukes) apparently multiply and when fired by less populous AA's they count as 3 instead of one? Does the damage by someone 3x the size have to be tripled in order to "normalize" for lack of skill? Because that's what I keep getting from eQ propaganda specialists, no matter how unintelligible of an argument it is. Surely there's people on that side that passed statistics 101? Right? They can't all be that bad at math, can they?
-
Well, sort of. In gameplay like CN, the team with fewer players is going to get to take more shots (nukes) than the team with more players. Whereas A dude with 5 wars can only get nuked once. Therefore he can inherently do more damage....assuming he doesn't run out of nukes, and isnt a complete moron, etc, etc.
Once again, you fail to understand 1 bullet can only hit a single target. The 800 lb gorilla should have far more nukes (yet reality has shown this to be false, because the 800 lb gorilla is horrible at this game)
The 800 lb gorilla should be able to team up and lock down people, yet we have shown that they are incapable of doing so. We have ZI'ed people in a day, people who outgunned us, people who should have destroyed us. This wasn't because we could hit 3 people, but because we know how to hit our targets more optimally.
The fact is, we play smarter, are better with our strikes, and we know how to hit things for the biggest impact. The nukes being able to be tossed at 3 things is a side note when you consider the war once nukes are gone. We show that strength at the low end, where we don't have nukes, and will continue to show them long past when the last nuke is fired off.
-
I'd say it's actually harder to win when you have less targets, assuming all players have relatively similar abilities, which in CN, I'd say that's a fair assumption. "skill" and "patience/time" only give you a small advantage over the enemy, and nukes do a specific amount of damage, regardless of skill.
Consider, you have 1 bullet:
You're on a shooting range with 3 targets
You're on a shooting range with 1 target
If you have 3 targets to shoot at, you're going to get more hits as opposed to shooting at 1 target.
I didn't say anything about ignoring tiers. What are you talking about? My point is comparing damage outputs is a facetious argument, because you can make the numbers look good or bad anyway you play them. It's not my fault your coalition has gotten so big dodging wars they can't hit anyone, and CnG is paying the price for it. Cry me a river.
If you have 1 bullet you can only hit one target, regardless if there is 1 or 1000.
The 5v1 situation the 5 should be able to lock out the 1 making him effectively useless if the 5 was even remotely skilled, the fact that the 800 lb gorilla in this case is getting beaten and battered shows a marked lack of skill and ability on the side of the 800 lb gorilla, but instead they are maintaining position strictly due to sheer size. Should you have been of equal size, you'd have already folded.
-
No no no. The graph clearly shows that as time increases, the level of "who cares" rises. Awful posts rise, yes, until a certain point in time it ends. The number of posts by math nerds also rises until a certain amount of time. When math nerds and voices of reason stop posting, the level of dumbness and stupidity sky rockets (no doubt because the only ones left are you and the others attempting to derail the thread).
You once again show you don't understand graphs.
-
If I am reading this correctly; as time increases, more people care? Right on, man. Thank you very much :)
He's saying as more posts get made only math nerds and intentionally awful posters care. I know I'm intentionally awful, as are you (since your so bad at this)
-
I like that the axes aren't at zero, implying it is possible to have negative one sixth of a leader deleted.
That's for new leaders being born, rising and joining the war. I project that function will be used in around 13 years or so though at the soonest, should eQ survive that long. Recreating claiming it was a mistake doesn't count.
-
I have here some completely unbiased graphs that need to be shared with the rest of the game population. Please review them and understand why goons will win.
-
What have the graph's shown... exactly what was known, it would be a dead even fight and it would be a fight.
Without offense I am ignoring your future grid work simply because taking trends before war to apply them during war is at best a crap shoot. Is your data reflective of the information you put in, I have zero doubt. But notice what you said, you used 3 month prior to war to show a basic unexplained growth during war.
It is great propaganda to talk about how many nations it is taking to fight you. I don't deny it, wont try. However you are (as you guys have continued to do) refused to acknowledge it takes that many alliances to form a top tier with the ability to meet you on the battlefield. You can't even talk about the rest because of your peace mode strategy/tactic. In this way this war is indeed similar to Karma where it took a very large amount of nations and alliances to fight the power of the time.
The graphs and numbers are again, great common fodder. Absolutely no one in charge is surprised by what we are seeing here.
I can see the future, and these graphs are 100% accurate.
-
I went ahead and ran a some numbers based on current trends against the foreseeable future, based on average NS lost per 3 days and on the ratio of infrastructure to technology on each respective side of the war. The math was long and tedious as I had to look back 3 months prior to the war and slowly get an idea of average growth per month of each alliance on both sides then compare that to the average losses of each alliance on both sides.
Needless to say, the future looks bleak:
Jazz, thank you for showing us the truth in this time of propaganda by baghdad bob. You sure are showing that you really are a shark. Everyone should wish to be a shark because sharks aren't sheep.
-
Yes. I am ignoring your questions because you feel it is important to debate me on the origins of the coalition names which everyone (with you being the single exception) couldn't really care less about.
And as for NPOs leader leaving? Meh. TOP is being throttled by AZTEC, Duckroll and Doomhouse are punching the crap out of each other, and the rest of Equilibrium is blowing chunks out of CnG. The war is a little close for my tastes but, as it stands, Equilibrium is winning (and no one can deny that). At the moment, Equilibrium is winning and will continue to win until the other side can get down into the lower tiers.
All you did was further proved Baghdad Bob was the correct name for you, because you still fail to answer the questions asked but spin a lie that is shown wrong within your own graphs. Surely you made it past statistics 101? Right?
Also, NPO's leader is a telling thing, someone dragging a large group of people into a war and then cutting shows one of two things
1) he hates you all and was trying to destroy your coalition
2) you guys are losing so bad he was trying to distance himself from it without anyone realizing.
As for the name thing, the players in your coalition show your incompetence, I just want you to accept and admit what you know in your heart to be true.
-
I'm not getting into it because that argument has been made and killed many, many times. And if you factor out the different tiers and fronts and you look at the data as if the war were a level plane, you are wrong. Equilibrium is winning.
And when you say, "Well once you factor in the tiers and fronts, Competence is winning." Then I'll say, "Until someone actually does that, please shut your mouth."
Are you ignoring my questions?
Baghdad Bob I'd appreciate an answer to them.
-
How mature.
If someone will crunch the numbers I'll be happy to graph it. And I refer to it as Competence because that is how your coalition is referred to in the Sanction Race and on the Wiki. Now please grow up.
And yet that doesn't really cover any of the comments I have. Who picked that name for us? Did they realize you were incompetent before they picked it? If not how do you reconcile against such a perfect coincidence? Also, why are your people so bad at this? I'm serious here. Like everyone from eQ that attacks me donates 1 million per attack (they finally realized attacking a second time gives me more money, but that only took them two weeks) to my war chest that I turn around and use to ruin them.
Also, what do you have to say about the NPO leader brehon starting an inter-alliance war then going afk when he is so thoroughly beaten for such a period that his nation is deleted? Doesn't that say something about how this "war" of us thoroughly wrecking eQ is going?
-
Baghdad Bob, do you have any graphs to show how many eQ vs competence nations were deleted (not dropped from their AA, deleted) - I have 2 eQ guys deletions to my name in 20 days play time total
Also, I love how you refer to us as competence, because it implies that you are incompetent, something that my wars with your people have shown to be demonstrably true
-
So is Isotope the new Baghdad Bob?
Surely people can see through this horribly done propaganda only used to claim a loss as a win?
Damage Taken vs Damage Given
in Open World RP
Posted
I always deleted mine when they were over to just clean up my list. It looks so cluttered having the screen covered with old wars to me. Only person who did any damage to me was someone who nuked me multiple times. The rest of eQ's side has been horrible and fell apart when a swift wind came their way.