War Losses Charts

[Schattenmann]

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.

 

The distinction you're trying ot make is silly and whiny.  Whether by deletions, desertions, battle damage, launching more nukes than you can rebuy, AA shuffling, &c. these losses of NS are losses due to war.  NS loss of any kind is a loss incurred by Equilibrium's war on the AAs, regardless of why.

The only debate is whether NS loss by AA shuffling represents a loss of control over that NS.  For all we know, 3,000,000 NS worth of Non Grata nations switched AA because they refuse to fight, and that is a war-induced loss.  Or, the AA switch is due to nostalgia for former alliances who were too weak to actually continue their own existences, but the NS is still under control of NG; however, the subtraction of NS from NG Proper cannot be distinguished to 100% accuracy from all the other kinds of loss, so it must simply be recorded as loss. 

Thus my admonishment that if these goofballs want their NS and losses to be recorded under one AA to the greatest accuracy, they should act like alliances and wear one AA.  As it is, the rudimentary nature of the representation of the data available in-game and the use of AAs demands the treatment that has been given.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Schattenmann

[Jgoods45]

Those are some pretty nice looking charts. Too bad that kind of quality doesn't make it into your posts. 

[WorldConqueror]

The distinction you're trying ot make is silly and whiny.  Whether by deletions, desertions, battle damage, launching more nukes than you can rebuy, AA shuffling, &c. these losses of NS are losses due to war.  NS loss of any kind is a loss incurred by Equilibrium's war on the AAs, regardless of why.
The only debate is whether NS loss by AA shuffling represents a loss of control over that NS.  For all we know, 3,000,000 NS worth of Non Grata nations switched AA because they refuse to fight, and that is a war-induced loss.  Or, the AA switch is due to nostalgia for former alliances who were too weak to actually continue their own existences, but the NS is still under control of NG; however, the subtraction of NS from NG Proper cannot be distinguished to 100% accuracy from all the other kinds of loss, so it must simply be recorded as loss. 
Thus my admonishment that if these goofballs want their NS and losses to be recorded under one AA to the greatest accuracy, they should act like alliances and wear one AA.  As it is, the rudimentary nature of the representation of the data available in-game and the use of AAs demands the treatment that has been given.

People aren't whining about it, at least as I see it. This is a thread about stats, and they are pointing out that they aren't exactly accurate. The difference between NS being destroyed and it going off AA is that that NS off AA is still in the war and fighting for our side. But by all means continue to use these stats as a measure of your success.

[Namayan]

The distinction you're trying ot make is silly and whiny.  Whether by deletions, desertions, battle damage, launching more nukes than you can rebuy, AA shuffling, &c. these losses of NS are losses due to war.  NS loss of any kind is a loss incurred by Equilibrium's war on the AAs, regardless of why.
The only debate is whether NS loss by AA shuffling represents a loss of control over that NS.  For all we know, 3,000,000 NS worth of Non Grata nations switched AA because they refuse to fight, and that is a war-induced loss.  Or, the AA switch is due to nostalgia for former alliances who were too weak to actually continue their own existences, but the NS is still under control of NG; however, the subtraction of NS from NG Proper cannot be distinguished to 100% accuracy from all the other kinds of loss, so it must simply be recorded as loss. 
Thus my admonishment that if these goofballs want their NS and losses to be recorded under one AA to the greatest accuracy, they should act like alliances and wear one AA.  As it is, the rudimentary nature of the representation of the data available in-game and the use of AAs demands the treatment that has been given.

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.

[Schattenmann]

This is a thread about stats, and they are pointing out that they aren't exactly accurate.

Their complaint is one caused by their own actions of AA shuffling.

 

The difference between NS being destroyed and it going off AA is that that NS off AA is still in the war and fighting for our side.  But by all means continue to use these stats as a measure of your success.

 

Are they?  Team Rocket: 0 wars.  SLCB: 0 wars.  Poison Clan: 3/5 peacemode.  Hydra: 100% peacemode.  The NS is gone from Non Grata, and it is not fighting.  Right now, it is "lost."

Edited February 19, 2013 by Schattenmann

[Farnsworth]

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.

 
I'm not convinced that this is intentional propaganda on the part of most people replying in these threads. Sure, perhaps it functions in a manner like propaganda in that it may unfairly boost the image of one side, but I think most people are just not choosing their words carefully. So, instead of some people saying "war-time NS loss," which may, in fact, be the most accurate terminology, they may more simply, quickly and without overanalyzing it say, "war damage" or "war losses". 
 
We could argue back and forth about the accuracies/inaccuracies of these various statements, but it would be a pointless discussion in semantics. NS is one of several legitimate ways to analyze and track the losses, gains, trends, and outcomes of wars. All of the various stats taken alone will fail provide the complete picture, and that's one reason we see so many various threads, blogs, charts, etc. 
 
Now, without splitting hairs over the definition of "damage" and what constitutes damage in war (some things like damage to reputation are not quantifiable, anyway), one thing I have seen (I think you and others) suggest, is that NS loss in wartime does not accurately reflect the AA hoppers and deletions to inactivity (etc), but I think one could argue that the raw NS numbers underrepresent, not overrepresent the damage dealt, as we have seen so many buying infra* throughout the war. And the infra once destroyed, though re-bought still represents damage -- that's damage dealt in infra transferred to damage dealt in war chest.
 
I have seen you suggest (a few times in the various stat threads) that we won't get fully accurate stats unless someone checks out all of the war charts -- recording and reporting all they see. Not only is that (hopefully) more time than anyone would care to dedicate, but the wars are delete-able. Thus, (correct me if I'm wrong) once a war is deleted in-game by either warring party then the war record along with the chart is deleted (aka inaccessible, unless people, like me, take screenshots, but of course we cannot count on everyone to do that, and so this doesn't need to be said, not even parenthetically). Again, I'm not 100% sure on this, but will assume it's true until someone states otherwise.
 
So, while I'm not arguing for the accuracy of the OP's stats, as some of DH's losses do seem doubly counted (what with all the AA hopping), I am suggesting that the stats contained therein and elsewhere combined together will form a more holistic and accurate portrait of what's going on. And none of the stats we will see, with their varying data (NS/Infa/Tech/Tier/Fronts/etc.) and their varying degrees of accuracy, will account for all of the "damage" or all of the "NS lost" or provide a complete picture.  
 
 
*And on the other hand, we'll probably start, if we haven't already, seeing some of dEq/Competence selling down their infra to get in a lower range. Without any statistical evidence, I strongly believe that the buying of infra, however, has and will continue to outpace the selling of infra. Thus, the raw NS data will likely underrepresent the total damage dealt/received (of both sides).
 
 
To sum things up: At some point in typing this I forgot it's purpose. LOL

Edited February 19, 2013 by Farnsworth

[Grand Lord of Funk]

Don't confuse us with facts! You can use those to prove anything!

[Khyber]

Rota, just to try and make sense of the numbers you put out there can you please clarify if the following is correct.

 

Diseq has lost -35,882,751 in total.  Which is their total loss in the first table of -38,079,404, plus 2,196,653 which is the current Doomhouse spinoff.  About 38% of their total NS.  I figured that is the number as that NS was never truly lost.

 

Is that correct?  

 

On a side note, I count at least 500k in NS also out there in one nation alliances that are ex TOP, MK, and Umbrella nations, and it may be as high as 1mil NS out there.  So it probably is around -35mil total damage, which is still around 37.6% of their total NS.  Could be more but I don't have the means to check it.

[Micheal Malone]

Schatt, I wasn't whining. I was pointing out that the statistical data being presented was inaccurate. For two reasons, the AA shuffling causing "loss" data, and the fact that the starting NS used was peak NS. As I pointed out in one of my posts Ogygia has a "loss" ns counted against it. Which has never happened considering every member of Ogygia was PM. If you'd like to weave your web of words for propoganda purposes, do it in a different thread. If you'd like to talk statistical data, then please present me where I'm incorrect.

 

And as I also have said in one of my earlier posts, good on Rota for doing the stats. I'm not knocking Rota at all, merely commenting objectively on the data and methods used. Especially since the data is then being used in the graph thread which is then inaccurate.

[kolsara]

Schatt, I wasn't whining. I was pointing out that the statistical data being presented was inaccurate. For two reasons, the AA shuffling causing "loss" data, and the fact that the starting NS used was peak NS. As I pointed out in one of my posts Ogygia has a "loss" ns counted against it. Which has never happened considering every member of Ogygia was PM. If you'd like to weave your web of words for propoganda purposes, do it in a different thread. If you'd like to talk statistical data, then please present me where I'm incorrect.

 

And as I also have said in one of my earlier posts, good on Rota for doing the stats. I'm not knocking Rota at all, merely commenting objectively on the data and methods used. Especially since the data is then being used in the graph thread which is then inaccurate.

 

from what i can see, schatt knows its inaccurate, hes pointing out its your side's fault for pointlessly AA hopping.

[Micheal Malone]

from what i can see, schatt knows its inaccurate, hes pointing out its your side's fault for pointlessly AA hopping.

No... he came out of the gate insulting me for discussing statistics in a thread devoted to statistics. I'm in no way saying that the hopping of AA's isn't at fault. In fact, pretty sure I pointed it out that it's being pointed out as part of the problem. I then also pointed out that the arbitrary choice of Peak NS was also skewing the numbers.

I believe I've been as objective as possible about the data here. And I've given Rota props for doing them. Merely pointing out inacuracies in the data, in a thread about the said data.

I suppose it's also my sides fault that the Peak NS was chosen as the starting point of data representation?

[Steve Buscemi]

Lots of numbers, but pretty worthless imo.  CCC, for example, had a 150K nation join it, so you need to add 150,000 NS to their peak, which basically doubles their loses.  We loped off 94,000 NS on that nation alone in the last week.

 

Also, upper tier stats > total NS.  We all know how it's going in the lowers.  But no one has yet to win a war while losing the upper tier fight.  And break up the Derp Rush and Equilbrium fronts.  They aren't the same even if there is some overlap.

[Stetson76]

So wait, if Umbrella started off with say 100 NS and that is their starting number then 20 of that NS went to form DBDC then a debit is applied to the column for UMB and a credit is added to DBDC. If then those nations lose NS, the debit is applied to DBDC and nothing further is done to UMB, correct? If that's the case, then the raw stats are perfectly fine, it's the percentage of loss that is skewed and does that really make a difference? The "side" is correct. Here's a break down. UMB's side starts off with 100 NS UMB = 100 NS If UMB takes 10% damage, they're new total will be 90 NS. DBDC forms with 20 NS Now UMB's side still has 90 NS UMB = 70 NS DBDC = 20 NS If they had stayed together and lost another 10% they would be at 81 NS. But apart UMB loses 7 NS and DBDC loses 2. UMB = 63 NS DBDC = 18 NS Which still totals 81 NS! So, the totals for the side will remain correct, even though it looks like UMB has lost 37% of their NS, the total is correct. So don't worry about what UMB or MK or TOP has lost, just add them all together and look at the coalition numbers. (Man I hope I haven't just made a fool of myself.) LOL

[Micheal Malone]

Stetson, you have forgotten to factor in the starting point for the #'s which was arbitrarily chosen as Peak NS. While I can understand the point of choosing the highest peak, the data doesn't give an actual representation of losses. For example, we all know about war boners and the spike that happen from that. Not to mention the AA shuffling affecting the peak ns (as I showed with Ogygia example).

As long as people realize these are general guide of stats (as I stated earlier in discussion with Shahenaseh), then the stats are fine. When people start preaching like these #'s are words from the stat gods and are divine, that's when things go askew.

[Stetson76]

As long as the debit to Ogygia is recorded as a credit somewhere else, it will all even out in the totals no matter what starting point you use. The only difference would be there would be smaller fall if you began with a "peace time baseline". I'm honestly not arguing for or against the either coalition, although I have my thoughts on that too obviously, I'm just saying that as long as the record keeping is consistent, the totals at the end will be accurate no matter where you start off and no matter what the individual alliances look like. Accounting ledgers often look crazy as assets and liabilities get move all over the place.

 

I think I missed your point.  If the loss was recorded as 20 NS against UMB but then was credited as 22 for DBDC because of militarizing it would cause some variation, but it would really be minor, wouldn't it?

Edited February 19, 2013 by Stetson

[Zoomzoomzoom]

from what i can see, schatt knows its inaccurate, hes pointing out its your side's fault for pointlessly AA hopping.

 

Well we can either credit successful escapes into peace mode towards the AA hopping or the ineptitude of your coalition. Your choice really. 

[ChairmanHal]

Well we can either credit successful escapes into peace mode towards the AA hopping or the ineptitude of your coalition. Your choice really. 

 

To hear some on your side talk, you have 1,000 nations waiting on a 1,000 AAs waiting for their moment to strike.

 

I just hope they find their way home before you surrender.  :awesome:

[Baldr]

 
Well we can either credit successful escapes into peace mode towards the AA hopping or the ineptitude of your coalition. Your choice really. 

You keep screaming 'inept'. It must suck to know you are losing to people you consider inept.

[shahenshah]

Well we can either credit successful escapes into peace mode towards the AA hopping or the ineptitude of your coalition. Your choice really. 

 

I dont mind being wrong. So I'll bite, who all escaped to peace mode?

[Leet Guy]

To hear some on your side talk, you have 1,000 nations waiting on a 1,000 AAs waiting for their moment to strike.

 

That's not at all what we're saying nor implying. It's simply not wise of you to be letting so many of our nations reload in peace mode given the advantage you have in terms of number of nations at your disposal. But please, keep sending nations lacking any sort of military wonders at our middle tier nations that are now running train in the lower tier (this is not directed at AI, who have fought swell, moreso pointed at a certain special spectrum of your coalition).

 

I dont mind being wrong. So I'll bite, who all escaped to peace mode?

Yes lets just give you a list of nations who were able to fly under your radar. This surely wont backfire at all!

[Beauty]

Update For February 20, 2013 now done.

[Timmmehhh]

You are still counting Doombird, Darkfall and Goons West losses twice.

[Khyber]

The damage is increasing between the two by the looks of it.  Not 3 to 1 but I don't think it needs to get to that point.

[Beauty]

You are still counting Doombird, Darkfall and Goons West losses twice.

 

How? I dont see how its counted twice o.o

[Caliph]

You keep screaming 'inept'. It must suck to know you are losing to people you consider inept.

 

Take Michael Jordan in his prime.  Now take an average Joe off the street.  In a one on one basketball game average Joe would get crushed.  

Take 100 average joe's, let them all play on the court at the same time.  They will win.

 

You might win, but if you end up winning this it will not be because you are utilizing strategy to defeat us or skill of your individual nations, but because eventually there comes a point where overwhelming numbers wins.  

 

We haven't reached that point yet, we are still giving you one hell of a beating and we still have much more fight left in us.  We can still win this.