Artigo Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Sweet #6, but really #5 because lettuce be cereal neutrals do not count. Of course WTF could come out swinging at anytime, which I think would be a fantastic idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfire99 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 After all the flack they take in these threads, I kind of want MHA and Sparta to just tear everybody apart next war. Great stats by the way. The world always needs more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President S O Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Interesting to look at, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='foxfire99' timestamp='1314419835' post='2789146'] After all the flack they take in these threads, I kind of want MHA and Sparta to just tear everybody apart next war. Great stats by the way. The world always needs more. [/quote] It's like saying you want a Browns vs Lions Superbowl just to show all the analysts. Well, maybe not that remote. Sparta has some good fighters and I'm sure MHA isn't all bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxfire99 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1314423272' post='2789172'] It's like saying you want a Browns vs Lions Superbowl just to show all the analysts. Well, maybe not that remote. Sparta has some good fighters and I'm sure MHA isn't all bad. [/quote] More like to keep everyone on their toes, but more or less yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 This is a pretty nice list. Gonna have to move up, though. 29th [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1314413520' post='2789082'] Oh kill me now. That'd be awful. [/quote] Ugh, that's the worst part of the stats I keep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Small member base, elite upper tier bunch of literally useless and inactive, but better than you, 10K tech hurr durr durr alliances re% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1314389893' post='2788876'] Still dragging MJ up with us [/quote] I bow to our godly overlords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Joy Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 an interesting approach, thanks for the effort GK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artigo Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Could you possibly add rankings for number of nations over 10k tech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1314413520' post='2789082'] Oh kill me now. That'd be awful. [/quote] It's the only way. The only way! But, like was said earlier, there's way too much emphasis on average wonder/member nukes/member ns/member etc. It basically eliminates the advantage of numbers. For !@#$% and giggles, if you add up what the numbers would look like if Umbrella and Goons were combined into one entity, I think my point would become clearer. The formerly ranked #1 alliance would probably drop somewhere between 15-30 despite gaining huge assets. Edited August 27, 2011 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1314423272' post='2789172'] It's like saying you want a Browns vs Lions Superbowl just to show all the analysts. Well, maybe not that remote. Sparta has some good fighters and I'm sure MHA isn't all bad. [/quote] Hey now, the Lions aren't actually going to be entirely terrible this year. The Browns, well they're the Browns. I learned a long time ago to like the Cowboys, and strangely, after their 90's superbowls they've been pretty pathetic, but, still way better than the Browns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='foxfire99' timestamp='1314419835' post='2789146'] After all the flack they take in these threads, I kind of want MHA and Sparta to just tear everybody apart next war. Great stats by the way. The world always needs more. [/quote] I kinda feel the same about WTF. Great job, this is cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1314391980' post='2788888'] Pretty cool, and does look more accurate. [/quote] Our ranking is definitely a bit less ridiculous, though I'm still slow to believe we're anywhere near the top twenty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamkeatley Posted August 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1314384992' post='2788843'] Very nice analysis, but maybe do another one without the averages? I think some sanctioned alliances (especially MHA) are crippled here by all the ghosts they get. NG and TLR are doing well, but once random new nations start ghosting them, I think their rating might drop too. Warchest speculation aside, I believe MHA is quite capable of going one on one with some of the 'higher' rated alliances like GOD and BN. [/quote] [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1314402956' post='2788993'] Well, the obvious issue with this is that you have given equal importance to a range of factors that aren't important (i.e. infra and others) at upper levels and you're effectively counting some twice (i.e. tech and infra WRT to ratios). It doesn't give an accurate idea of the true worth of some larger alliances - because it naturally favours small top-tier heavy alliances when all the recent wars have shown that they are actually of limited use after the initial rounds of war (TOP, Umbrella etc). So this has given quite a nice ranking system, but it doesn't really offer any genuine analysis. Thanks for putting it together though, I always like these things. [/quote] I 100% agree on both counts. I knew when posting this that the weightings were off. The main thing for me at the time was to baseline it for adjustments. So many of the averages were triple weighted, and it has scewed things upwards. But I needed to do that for myself to gauge the level. Probably shouldnt have posted it, but I knew I would be away for the weekend so my collected stats would of been out of date by the time I came to adjust the weighting. It was best to post my baseline and when I re-collect stats I can adjust. Some are being counted twice, but I think that is inevitable - so long as I can balance the weightings I dont see an issue with factoring Total Infra and also Infra:Tech Ratio. Because the more minute I get with dropping in factors, I find the more accurate it should become. The averages overall are too-highly rated. They probably shouldn't all be weighted triple across the board, or if they are a couple of the Total columns should also be increased to double weighting to insert a proper balance for mass of numbers. [quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1314394162' post='2788916']EDIT: I know asking this takes a lot of nerve, but I'm sure a lot of us are thinking it. How often are you going to update this? [/quote] I plan on updating this a few times in the coming weeks - to try and hone the Rankings scores. And then after that maybe once a month to see how people are progressing. GK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 Graham, if you took out the average rankings, how would that change the overall rankings? Also I wonder if a point system could be made? Where a certain amount of tech is worth a point, a wrc is worth X points, the same could be done with nations of different sizes, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted August 27, 2011 Report Share Posted August 27, 2011 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1314483743' post='2789533'] Graham, if you took out the average rankings, how would that change the overall rankings? Also I wonder if a point system could be made? Where a certain amount of tech is worth a point, a wrc is worth X points, the same could be done with nations of different sizes, etc. [/quote] Once again favors smaller alliances with upper tiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkfox Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 [quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1314484137' post='2789537'] Once again favors smaller alliances with upper tiers. [/quote] Smaller alliances? You have to get pretty far down the list to find one that isn't a good size NS. Since you know the "total XX" on the rating sheet tends to give smaller alliances bad rankings in those fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Maximus Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 [quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1314489723' post='2789599'] Smaller alliances? You have to get pretty far down the list to find one that isn't a good size NS. Since you know the "total XX" on the rating sheet tends to give smaller alliances bad rankings in those fields. [/quote] I believe he means alliances with lower member counts rather than alliances with low NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkfox Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 [quote name='James Maximus' timestamp='1314498376' post='2789673'] I believe he means alliances with lower member counts rather than alliances with low NS. [/quote] Ah, I stand correct then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Very interesting. Thank you! I was going to tell you that you forgot to include MHA, but I scrolled down and down again and once more and then I saw them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1314484137' post='2789537'] Once again favors smaller alliances with upper tiers. [/quote] Quit crying, if people want their ego stroked and are in a big alliance of usless nations look [url="http://www.cybernations.net/allAlliances_display.asp"]HERE[/url] To be a"war ready" alliance you cant have a lot of useless nations. If people start saying only count our best nations to make us look good they need to find an alliance that doesn’t embarrass them as much or do something about the amount of dead wood and wasted space on their AA tldr, stop crying Edited August 28, 2011 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamkeatley Posted August 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1314483743' post='2789533'] Graham, if you took out the average rankings, how would that change the overall rankings? Also I wonder if a point system could be made? Where a certain amount of tech is worth a point, a wrc is worth X points, the same could be done with nations of different sizes, etc. [/quote] If the averages are taken out from how I currently have them the alliances line up very similar to how they do in the Amazing Sanction Race. Outside of a few exceptions (Good and bad) Military Wonders are very close in their totals, but totals of other things would again bell curve that. So if there were no average rankings then it would not offer very different than you see in ASR. That would be due to those alliances whom lack mass numbers in areas, have higher total in military wonders. And balances their position. GK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1314375551' post='2788776']edit: I would have left out the neutrals because they dont go to war so you cant really call them war ready (technically you can but you know what I mean) [/quote] I fail to see the logic behind this view. Personally, if I were in a neutral alliance, the last thing I'd want is to be seen as is NOT war ready Far too many "joke" posts all over about "roll the neutrals" and such. Thus, if my alliance had the statistical strength and it was not noted, you can be sure I'd point that out. I might even think there's some agenda behind NOT being listed. Being neutral doesn't make one safe from attack. Edited August 28, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) Anybody ever try to make an x-y graph of x=Rank of nation within alliance and y=NS of nation (or some strength factor that might include tech, nukes, etc. too), and then you can graph a bunch of alliances onto the same graph. That way, you can compare the top 5, top 10, top 20, top 50, top 100, whatever from alliance to alliance to see clearly where the advantages lie and in what range. It will help with the whole "MHA gets dragged down by its bottom 400 in strength rankings" thing because we can clearly see their top tier and compare it to the top tier of everyone else. It would be impractical to include military wonders or nukes with that though, unless you modify the y-scale by a factor dependent on alliance nukes or military wonders. Edited August 28, 2011 by Aeternos Astramora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.