Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) I have taken the liberty of crunching the numbers given by some of our smarter peers and dumbing down the data for us not-so-smart analysts. First up, we have net gains and losses for Equilibrium: Next up we have net gains and losses for Competence: Next we have a banana cream pie chart of net damage done to the entire coalition (Sorry I forgot to put the numbers...would've been easier to see Equilibrium is winning): I'll have more done (hopefully) before or at the next update with other fun stats like average gain/loss per nation, average gain/loss per alliance, line graphs, etc. Let the debate begin! P.S. If anyone has any ideas for other graphs you wanna see please feel free to let me know). Edited February 18, 2013 by Isotope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iosif Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 it'd look better other way around imo, going down it's easy enough to read but a bit awkward i mean, it's not like alliances are actually going to be gaining anything during the war so you might as well count in positive losses instead of negative gains Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horo the Wise Wolf Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Thanks for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) it'd look better other way around imo, going down it's easy enough to read but a bit awkward i mean, it's not like alliances are actually going to be gaining anything during the war so you might as well count in positive losses instead of negative gainsI thought about that but meh. I went copy and pasted down the line and some alliances DID grow some. I can fix it later today sometime around the update if it's bothering peeps.Thanks for this.No problemo. Edited February 18, 2013 by Isotope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanth Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Considering how many alliances are on the eq side and the near even losses on both if say the Dh/ CNG side is winning. Sure they have a small amount of extra losses but they have dealt back nearly the same amount to an enemy near 3 times larger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namayan Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 each front is different both in damage in situation. net gain loss is based on NS loss between dates rather than damage dealt as there are many circumstance that nations rebuy infra, delete, transfer to another AA. Even if you put in the more accurate statistics of damage using the tedious battle chart of each nation of each of their wars, it does not factor in what is happening each tier nor at each front which varies on each tier and varies on each front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) Considering how many alliances are on the eq side and the near even losses on both if say the Dh/ CNG side is winning. Sure they have a small amount of extra losses but they have dealt back nearly the same amount to an enemy near 3 times larger. I'll be breaking down the data to average damage per alliance and average damage per nation. And I think the data will show a very different story. each front is different both in damage in situation. net gain loss is based on NS loss between dates rather than damage dealt as there are many circumstance that nations rebuy infra, delete, transfer to another AA. Even if you put in the more accurate statistics of damage using the tedious battle chart of each nation of each of their wars, it does not factor in what is happening each tier nor at each front which varies on each tier and varies on each front. If the war lasts long enough I'll probably, eventually, maybe, hopefully get around to breaking down the 3 main fronts. Edited February 18, 2013 by Isotope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) I've already taken the liberty of attending graphing school and improving my graphing magic. Here is NS lost per nation (totalled NS lost for each coalition and divided by the number of nations at each respective coalitions peak net nation count so there's no screaming about people leaving the coalition, etc. This also means if you distribute the lost nation strength across all participants today, both numbers would be higher): Note: The graph doesn't take into account the number of upper tier nations in each alliance, it is merely the relationship between net NS lost and total number of nations at each coalition's respective peak. Edited February 18, 2013 by Isotope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namayan Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Considering how many alliances are on the eq side and the near even losses on both if say the Dh/ CNG side is winning. Sure they have a small amount of extra losses but they have dealt back nearly the same amount to an enemy near 3 times larger. Nukes are the great equalizer, that and limitations on wars that can be declared. Usually wars are neck and neck in the first month. Its in the following months after nukes start running out and cash reserves get depleted that the outcome becomes clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Excellent charts, especially for a guy like me who's not nearly interested enough to wade through the pages and pages of arguing and stats. looks to me like both coalitions are adequately named; Competence handling a coalition twice its size with such grace, and Equilibrium keeping things fairly equal as far as damage goes. Super. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Tomorrow the war will complete 1 month, so can someone create another thread and put some peace mode statistics on it about alliances on both sides, like: % or/and number of nations in peace mode % or/and number of nations in peace mode since said alliance joined the war % or/and number of nations in peace mode for more than 2 weeks % or/and nation strength in peace mode of each alliance Can someone do that please? It will be a fun thread and the person who do it will have my eternal love for 1/2 hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) And when someone makes that thread...I'll graph it :D But until then, we can argue about this baby: NS Over the Course of the War I figure I'll put my two cents in before you people start to bicker: If the trend continues, Competence can't keep the war going forever like so many people wish it. EQ was able to stabilize its NS loss in the passed few days (as per the graph) but DH/CnG has continued to drop. Even if EQ begins to drop at similar (or faster) rates, the massive cushion would ensure DH/CnG hit the ground first. Edited February 18, 2013 by Isotope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 See... that graph right there shows what I was stating. Pretty much even damage output regardless of the 3:1 advantage. Many DH/CnG countered the 3:1 advantage by the best way they could, limiting the damage output EQ was able to do with peace mode. In doing so, they have forced a quality over quantity game. And whether you like to admit it or not, the quality of the DH/CnG upper tier was built better than the EQ upper tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namayan Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Tomorrow the war will complete 1 month, so can someone create another thread and put some peace mode statistics on it about alliances on both sides, like: % or/and number of nations in peace mode % or/and number of nations in peace mode since said alliance joined the war % or/and number of nations in peace mode for more than 2 weeks % or/and nation strength in peace mode of each alliance Can someone do that please? It will be a fun thread and the person who do it will have my eternal love for 1/2 hour. 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 See... that graph right there shows what I was stating. Pretty much even damage output regardless of the 3:1 advantage. Many DH/CnG countered the 3:1 advantage by the best way they could, limiting the damage output EQ was able to do with peace mode. In doing so, they have forced a quality over quantity game. And whether you like to admit it or not, the quality of the DH/CnG upper tier was built better than the EQ upper tier. By that logic, DH/CnG should be outputting 3 times the damage EQ is (for every one nation we damage, you should be able to damage 3). But instead our damage outputs are equal. Which mean EQ is outperforming DH/CnG. And no one is arguing whose upper tier is better. DH/CnGs top tier is obviously superior in 2 of 3 fronts (TOP is getting man handled). But the question is can the top tier alone win the war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammykhalifa Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Considering how many alliances are on the eq side and the near even losses on both if say the Dh/ CNG side is winning. Sure they have a small amount of extra losses but they have dealt back nearly the same amount to an enemy near 3 times larger. But if the losses are near equal in raw numbers, that's a larger percentage DH's overall strength as they are the smaller side. Of course, I'd also say that DH nations for the most part have a higher "floor" per tech numbers. I don't know if total losses are very useful one way or the other, but it's interesting to look at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 By that logic, DH/CnG should be outputting 3 times the damage EQ is (for every one nation we damage, you should be able to damage 3). But instead our damage outputs are equal. Which mean EQ is outperforming DH/CnG. And no one is arguing whose upper tier is better. DH/CnGs top tier is obviously superior in 2 of 3 fronts (TOP is getting man handled). But the question is can the top tier alone win the war? Ultimately the choice for dQ will be between 95% of its nations or 5% of its nations. I do not doubt the capabilities of Umb, TOP and a few in MK to sustain the war for a long period of term, but that is simply not possible for many of their allies. And frankly, I do not think we're seeking to impose draconian reps despite us having paid them in the past. So, it will be hard to see the reason for the allies to fight. Yeh its all chest thumping and tough words now, it always is in the first 2-3 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namayan Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 By that logic, DH/CnG should be outputting 3 times the damage EQ is (for every one nation we damage, you should be able to damage 3). But instead our damage outputs are equal. Which mean EQ is outperforming DH/CnG. And no one is arguing whose upper tier is better. DH/CnGs top tier is obviously superior in 2 of 3 fronts (TOP is getting man handled). But the question is can the top tier alone win the war? 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrests Critters Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 This is good stuff. Thanks for putting in the work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 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 looks to me like they are winning in the 100k+ tier, and losing below that. And "below that" is where 90% of the nations on Planet Bob live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) Doomhouse-Duckroll Front: Top Tier Over Time NOTE: The February 18 statistic is for nations in war mode only. Previous statistics (I believe) were net figures. I have to give credit where credit is due, and Competence has this area covered. Edited February 18, 2013 by Isotope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Doomhouse-Duckroll Front: Upper Tier Over Time NOTE: The February 18 statistic is for nations in war mode only. Previous statistics (I believe) were net figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) It looks to me like they are winning in the 100k+ tier, and losing below that. And "below that" is where 90% of the nations on Planet Bob live. You mean ~98.65% buddy ;) :) Edited February 18, 2013 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) Top, Upper, & Middle Tier Nations as per 1 Week Ago (2/11/13) Edited February 18, 2013 by Isotope 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.