Xineoph Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 [quote name='Krunk the Great' timestamp='1319899882' post='2834437'] The odds were never even. BTA and IAA never fought [b]meaning their strength was a mere inflation[/b]. I can say they didn't fight because they [b]didn't[/b]. I know for sure 2.2 > 1.7. The fact still remains. You need to burn 2.2 mil to knockoff a comparable, or even slightly larger number from a coalition that is effectively half your size. This "Zomg IAA and BTA still declared war so they count" only serves to pad your ego against the inevitable: Your margin of "victory" is nothing more than pathetic considering a coalition half your size shouldn't be doing this much damage to you. I will say this again, since you seem intellectually incapable of comprehending this: Only alliances who actually contributed anything more than a token resistance count. Their addition to the war effort was like the effort of so many legionnaires:worthless statistic bloating. [/quote] Boy, what are you talking about? I went to war with the top 4 BTA nations and my strike partner the top 5. BTA may not have come to us, but we sure as heck came to them, took 2 PoWs and knocked out 50% of each of those nations NS, while sustaining minimal damage. BTAs elite fought. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted October 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 [quote name='Xineoph' timestamp='1319903808' post='2834472'] Boy, what are you talking about? I went to war with the top 4 BTA nations and my strike partner the top 5. BTA may not have come to us, but we sure as heck came to them, took 2 PoWs and knocked out 50% of each of those nations NS, while sustaining minimal damage. BTAs elite fought. End of story. [/quote] [s]/thread[/s] /convo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 [quote name='Xineoph' timestamp='1319903808' post='2834472'] Boy, what are you talking about? I went to war with the top 4 BTA nations and my strike partner the top 5. BTA may not have come to us, but we sure as heck came to them, took 2 PoWs and knocked out 50% of each of those nations NS, while sustaining minimal damage. BTAs elite fought. End of story. [/quote] You took 2 PoWs and knocked out their upper tier while sustaining what you consider to be minimal damage, in what you describe to be all offensive wars that Legion declared... and you're arguing that those people fought hard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1319985958' post='2835026'] You took 2 PoWs and knocked out their upper tier while sustaining what you consider to be minimal damage, in what you describe to be all offensive wars that Legion declared... and you're arguing that those people fought hard? [/quote] From what I can tell, few people are stating that IAA or BTA actually fought hard. But IAA/BTA did take up offensive slots that could have gone towards Tetris or NSO. From the looks of it, Tetris/NSO have 44 nations in PM, which could have been prevented had IAA/BTA not come in and distracted even a handful of Legion nations. This would mean that Tetris/NSO would be taking more damage (and yes, dealing more damage) to Legion than what is currently being done. Giving a quick look at the nations in PM for Tetris, your top 5 are in PM including your only 60k and 50k NS nations (1 each). From what I know, your 60k nation has been in PM since the beginning of the war (I know, I wanted to fight him but he never came out of PM) and Kenfolk is being able to rebuild from being knocked down to just under 22k NS (built up 28k NS). So, IAA/BTA may not have done much but they sure absorbed a lot that could have been handed out to Tetris/NSO instead. Anyways, IAA/BTA are now out of this war, so we shall see how it changes the battlefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 [quote name='Krunk the Great' timestamp='1319869789' post='2834316'] Interesting considering I am quoting those very statistics that you claim are saying we're being soundly defeated...by losing 500k less total NS over the course of the war. Legion: 2m over the course of the war NSO: 1.5m over the course of the war. Impressive, considering the odds. If you were really beating us as soundly as you claim I would, at the very least, expect those numbers to be switched. Possibly even a 3:1 in your favor. But alas, you can only muster a 2:3/2 *not* in your favor. [size="1"]But let's not cloud the issue with facts of course. Legion is quite obviously beating us up, and is obviously losing a full third as much NS as we are. They obviously use the full advantage of their size and coordinate excellently. [size="2"]Im not numerically illiterate like you and some of your colleagues appear to be, 2m > 1.5m. Period.[/size] [/size] [/quote] You're taking into account damage done to Legion by others than NSO, and thus while your comparison is accurate, your interpretation is a fallacy. In fact, the more accurate interpretation for the comparison you are trying to make would be to take into account your entire coalitions losses compared to Legion. But we wouldn't want to do that, would we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 [quote name='Krunk the Great' timestamp='1319869789' post='2834316'] Interesting considering I am quoting those very statistics that you claim are saying we're being soundly defeated...by losing 500k less total NS over the course of the war. Legion: 2m over the course of the war NSO: 1.5m over the course of the war. Impressive, considering the odds. If you were really beating us as soundly as you claim I would, at the very least, expect those numbers to be switched. Possibly even a 3:1 in your favor. But alas, you can only muster a 2:3/2 *not* in your favor. [size="1"]But let's not cloud the issue with facts of course. Legion is quite obviously beating us up, and is obviously losing a full third as much NS as we are. They obviously use the full advantage of their size and coordinate excellently. [size="2"]Im not numerically illiterate like you and some of your colleagues appear to be, 2m > 1.5m. Period.[/size] [/size] [/quote] I think you should start sharing some of the stuff you're using. It seems pretty good. And I mean your optimism about your alliance of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted October 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1319985958' post='2835026'] You took 2 PoWs and knocked out their upper tier while sustaining what you consider to be minimal damage, in what you describe to be all offensive wars that Legion declared... and you're arguing that those people fought hard? [/quote] While I understand your argument given the current facts, I think your facts are flawed. BTA gained 200k worth of mercs that were for the most part ex-members of BTA. I don't necessarily think that they would have joined the war just for the war if it wasn't for that reason. In addition to that 7-8 BTAers did go to war, and dealt quite a bit of damage. Now it wasn't what they potentially could do, given their pre-war stats, but they did deal damage and it shouldn't be discounted, especially not in the way Krunk is trying to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 No stats update recently? I wonder why Tetris isn't updating 'em? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted October 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 [quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1319997544' post='2835114'] No stats update recently? I wonder why Tetris isn't updating 'em? [/quote] I imagine halloween moreso than anything else. They haven't skewed the stats in any way, so I don't see why they would start now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1319989802' post='2835046'] From what I can tell, few people are stating that IAA or BTA actually fought hard. But IAA/BTA did take up offensive slots that could have gone towards Tetris or NSO. From the looks of it, Tetris/NSO have 44 nations in PM, which could have been prevented had IAA/BTA not come in and distracted even a handful of Legion nations. This would mean that Tetris/NSO would be taking more damage (and yes, dealing more damage) to Legion than what is currently being done. Giving a quick look at the nations in PM for Tetris, your top 5 are in PM including your only 60k and 50k NS nations (1 each). From what I know, your 60k nation has been in PM since the beginning of the war (I know, I wanted to fight him but he never came out of PM) and Kenfolk is being able to rebuild from being knocked down to just under 22k NS (built up 28k NS). So, IAA/BTA may not have done much but they sure absorbed a lot that could have been handed out to Tetris/NSO instead. Anyways, IAA/BTA are now out of this war, so we shall see how it changes the battlefield. [/quote] [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1319997524' post='2835113'] While I understand your argument given the current facts, I think your facts are flawed. BTA gained 200k worth of mercs that were for the most part ex-members of BTA. I don't necessarily think that they would have joined the war just for the war if it wasn't for that reason. In addition to that 7-8 BTAers did go to war, and dealt quite a bit of damage. Now it wasn't what they potentially could do, given their pre-war stats, but they did deal damage and it shouldn't be discounted, especially not in the way Krunk is trying to. [/quote] I mean I totally get not wanting to discount them, because they did fight and did absorb damage and did matter. But our argument is that for adding something like... I guess 2.5-3m NS and 100+ nations, they were extremely inefficient compared to Tetris/NSsO, and so stats including them are a bit misleading. But I guess it wouldn't be anymore so than not including them whatsoever. It's really quite a conundrum, but I just thought that guy's argument was contradictory and silly so I decided to chime in. [quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1319997544' post='2835114'] No stats update recently? I wonder why Tetris isn't updating 'em? [/quote] We're lazy as !@#$. Also busy. Once the novelty of "oh yay we're at war" wears off, I guess we stopped really caring a whole lot about it. Not that I was updating it anyway, but that's my two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted October 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) (50.5 + 24.4 + 24 + 23 + 15.9 + 14.9 + 11.2 + 8.2 + 7.3 + 4.6 + .8) / 300 = 0.616 => [b]61.6% of tetris strength in peace mode[/b] (123.8 + 74.94 + 43.18 + 38.46 + 31.44 + 29.29 + 26.51 + 24.75 + 9.35 + 9.11 + 16.80 + 14.73 + 13.95 + 8.11 + 8.04 + 9.95 + 9.81 + 9.65 + 7.41 + 6.76 + 6.20 + 5.69 + 4.99 + 4.02 + 3.69 + 3.03 + 1.71 + 1.82 + 1.78 + 1.60 + 1.3 + .46) / 1 114 = 0.495807899 => [b]49.6% of NSO strength in peace mode[/b] Edited October 31, 2011 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 (edited) 6% of NSO is above 4k infra. 16% under 100 infra. 15% has been ZT'd. 2% has been ZI'd. Edited November 1, 2011 by Unknown Smurf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 That doesn't really tell us anything unless you have the pre-war stats for over 4k infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 I believe it was 28 nations, but I don't remember how many you started with so I can't get the %. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dane0 Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 [quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1319997544' post='2835114'] No stats update recently? I wonder why Tetris isn't updating 'em? [/quote] Updating stats at this point is useless. They outnumber us, have more nation strength, nukes, etc etc etc. If you'd like to be able to edit the sheet, feel free to pm me with your email, and I'll give you access to it. If not, you could always, you know, make your own stats sheet. Also, Hereno is partly right. Updating them takes a good 30 minutes, and I really don't have the time to devote to it anymore, especially since I know they'll stay basically the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 [quote name='dane0' timestamp='1320183550' post='2836712'] Updating stats at this point is useless. They outnumber us, have more nation strength, nukes, etc etc etc. If you'd like to be able to edit the sheet, feel free to pm me with your email, and I'll give you access to it. If not, you could always, you know, make your own stats sheet. Also, Hereno is partly right. Updating them takes a good 30 minutes, and I really don't have the time to devote to it anymore, especially since I know they'll stay basically the same. [/quote] I'll take it over. PM'ing email. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Updated: https://docs.google.com/a/terpmail.umd.edu/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvhBDJVbPEMSdDJIY1E0U1lwZ2s5NVlXU1pjQ0JBc0E&hl=en_US#gid=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC123 Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 NsO/IAA/BTA technically didn't surrender. Just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 [quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1320205447' post='2836927'] NsO/IAA/BTA technically didn't surrender. Just sayin' [/quote] Fixed. (Re-worded) 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.