Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)

[OverlordShinnra]

Obviously something like this is going to be flawed if you can't find Umb/MK/NG off shoot AA's. They aren't taking as much damage as your charts claim they are. :) Other then that I totally am loving the charts.

[lamuella]

let me demonstrate how offshoot AAs can cause problems with this sort of graphing:

 

Let's say we're tracking the progress of a hypothetical alliance called the Awesome Guys (A). They have 100 members who have 100k NS each. Let's say for the sake of argument they're fighting an enemy that causes each of them a linear 1k NS damage per day. This means that in a 10 day war their stats go like this:

 

Awesome guys, day 0: 10m NS

Awesome guys, day 10: 9m NS

 

So, over the course of the war they have lost 1 million NS, 10% of their total NS.

 

Now, let's run the exact same war with the exact same losses, except that on day 5 of the war, 50 members of Awesome Guys decide it will be fun to fly the flag of their old alliance the Big Guys for the rest of the war. They lose NS at the exact same rate. Here's what the stats now look like:

 

Awesome Guys, Day 0: 10m NS

Awesome Guys, Day 10: 4.5m NS

Big Guys, Day 0: 4.75m NS (we're taking their "day 0" stat as thir size on the date when they entered the war)

Big Guys, Day 10: 4.5m NS

Awesome Guys/Big Guys Coalition, day 0: 14.75m NS

Awesome Guys/Big Guys Coalition, day 10: 9m NS

 

so if these stats are to be believed, rather than losing 1m NS, the Awesome Guys/Big Guys coalition looks like it's lost 5.75 million NS.

 

This is an extreme and simplistic example, but it should go to show that counting differences in NS can fail to take account of AA switching.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Lamuella

[Nobody Expects]

let me demonstrate how offshoot AAs can cause problems with this sort of graphing:
 
Let's say we're tracking the progress of a hypothetical alliance called the Awesome Guys (A). They have 100 members who have 100k NS each. Let's say for the sake of argument they're fighting an enemy that causes each of them a linear 1k NS damage per day. This means that in a 10 day war their stats go like this:
 
Awesome guys, day 0: 10m NS
Awesome guys, day 10: 9m NS
 
So, over the course of the war they have lost 1 million NS, 10% of their total NS.
 
Now, let's run the exact same war with the exact same losses, except that on day 5 of the war, 50 members of Awesome Guys decide it will be fun to fly the flag of their old alliance the Big Guys for the rest of the war. They lose NS at the exact same rate. Here's what the stats now look like:
 
Awesome Guys, Day 0: 10m NS
Awesome Guys, Day 10: 4.5m NS
Big Guys, Day 0: 4.75m NS (we're taking their "day 0" stat as thir size on the date when they entered the war)
Big Guys, Day 10: 4.5m NS
Awesome Guys/Big Guys Coalition, day 0: 14.75m NS
Awesome Guys/Big Guys Coalition, day 10: 9m NS
 
so if these stats are to be believed, rather than losing 1m NS, the Awesome Guys/Big Guys coalition looks like it's lost 5.75 million NS.
 
This is an extreme and simplistic example, but it should go to show that counting differences in NS can fail to take account of AA switching.

Even if the stats were off by 10m NS in your favour it still wouldn't effect the end result, given the NS and nation count disparity. Kudos for the spin though. Edited February 18, 2013 by Nobody Expects

[Icewolf]

Do you have the stats to show remaining nuclear stockpiles? I suspect that will be another telling feature of this war. In particular if that can be broken down into NS ranges.

[lamuella]

Even if the stats were off by 10m NS in your favour it still wouldn't effect the end result, given the NS and nation count disparity. Kudos for the spin though.

What spin? I was pointing out a flaw in the methodology.

[Secret]

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. 

 

What? When you're fighting against odds like these (1v3, 1v2, etc.), the losing side should be dealing out more damage, for the first couple of weeks at-least. 

[Smittay]

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.

 

Maths are hard.

 

If both sides have an equal negative slope, that means they are both performing at the same rate. This in turn means that it takes one DH/CnG nation to do the damage that eQ does with three nations.

 

And by having larger numbers, it should mean that eQ is able to throw more punches and thus dealing more damage, which they are not.

[salsabeast1]

Competent should be giving out a lot more damage to EQ, they aren't NS wise nor % wise. Look at NSO Kaskus, Kaskus got raped, but still dealt a lot more NS damage to NSO. Doesn't mean they won or are even close to it, but that's what happens when your outnumbered and can multi-nuke 1 on 3. The fact you aren't winning in NS lost or total % is pathetic.

[Prodigal Moon]

Awesome work, Isotope. Finally some hard numbers to illustrate what some of us in the upper tier of the war thread have been trying to point out.

 

Edit: Had a question about raw numbers but looked at Rotavele's thread. Looks like both coalitions have lost approx. 40 mil NS from their constituents' starting NS levels.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Prodigal Moon

[iKronos]

People can't just appreciate and go on, If you want it a different way, go make it yourself.  You aren't the one putting in free work for everyone.

 

Thanks for your work.

 

and ps. I personally couldn't care about the AA switching on the other side, not my fault you can't control your people.

Edited February 18, 2013 by iKronos

[Anarquista]

good work isotope

[HHAYD]

Maths are hard.

 

If both sides have an equal negative slope, that means they are both performing at the same rate. This in turn means that it takes one DH/CnG nation to do the damage that eQ does with three nations.

 

And by having larger numbers, it should mean that eQ is able to throw more punches and thus dealing more damage, which they are not.

 

In a group of 2, 3, 4, or more EQ members, only one can nuke. The opponent however, can nuke all of them, and most likely put out additional damage due to the stereotypical higher tech level. However, had the game mechanics allowed each attacker to nuke once, that one guy would probably get ZI'ed within a round or two of fighting due to focused damage.

 

My current opponent ran out of nukes. He will have three attackers in his NS range. He will only be able to nuke at most two and at worst none, while his attackers can replenish their nukes faster than they're firing.

 

Three months from now, one side is going to scrape the bottom of the nuke barrel a lot sooner than the other. And with no nukes, means no major nuke damage, and no insta GA/air victories.

Edited February 18, 2013 by HHAYD

[Smittay]

In a group of 2, 3, 4, or more EQ members, only one can nuke. The opponent however, can nuke all of them, and most likely put out additional damage due to the stereotypical higher tech level. However, had the game mechanics allowed each attacker to nuke once, that one guy would probably get ZI'ed within a round or two of fighting due to focused damage.

 

My current opponent ran out of nukes. He will have three attackers in his NS range. He will only be able to nuke at most two and at worst none, while his attackers can replenish their nukes faster than they're firing.

 

Three months from now, one side is going to scrape the bottom of the nuke barrel a lot sooner than the other. And with no nukes, means no major nuke damage, and no insta GA/air victories.

One word: SDI.

 

I've seen people throw five or six nukes and still have the SDI hold up. The fact is that three nations coordinating against one opponent will do more damage than one nation trying to dish it all out. And as my old friend Shinnra pointed out, having people jump to micro alliances has skewed the numbers in favor for eQ. I'm merely pointing out that the methodology of these graphs is flawed and has given eQ a false sense of success.

[Aeternos Astramora]

One word: SDI.

 

I've seen people throw five or six nukes and still have the SDI hold up. The fact is that three nations coordinating against one opponent will do more damage than one nation trying to dish it all out. And as my old friend Shinnra pointed out, having people jump to micro alliances has skewed the numbers in favor for eQ. I'm merely pointing out that the methodology of these graphs is flawed and has given eQ a false sense of success.

(3 way coordination with a nuke) < (3 nukes from outnumbered opponent).

[HHAYD]

One word: SDI.

 

I've seen people throw five or six nukes and still have the SDI hold up. The fact is that three nations coordinating against one opponent will do more damage than one nation trying to dish it all out.

 

 

Here's a simple solution:

 

THROW MORE NUKES AT THE PROBLEM.

 

Sadly, it can't done if you don't have anymore reserve nukes.

 

 

Also, let me restate, that one person can nuke three people, which will be recorded as 3x damage to the triple team's alliance. The three people can only nuke the person once, recording only 1x damage to the outnumbered alliance.

 

GA damage < Nuke damage

Edited February 18, 2013 by HHAYD

[Azaghul]

Even if the stats were off by 10m NS in your favour it still wouldn't effect the end result, given the NS and nation count disparity. Kudos for the spin though.

10M NS would be about half the damage we've taken, which would actually mean that each side has proportionally taken a similar amount of damage.

 

People can't just appreciate and go on, If you want it a different way, go make it yourself.  You aren't the one putting in free work for everyone.

 

Thanks for your work.

 

and ps. I personally couldn't care about the AA switching on the other side, not my fault you can't control your people.

LOL if you really think it's an inability to control our people.

 

The AA switching skews the stats, whether you like it or not.

 

Competent should be giving out a lot more damage to EQ, they aren't NS wise nor % wise. Look at NSO Kaskus, Kaskus got raped, but still dealt a lot more NS damage to NSO. Doesn't mean they won or are even close to it, but that's what happens when your outnumbered and can multi-nuke 1 on 3. The fact you aren't winning in NS lost or total % is pathetic.

Kaskus was mostly middle tier nations dragged down into the lower tier, where they face often nukeless and SDIless nations.  Our nation tier spread is much broader than that.

 

 

Another factor to consider is that once a nation is effectively ZI'd (to the point where they are buying back infra on a regular basis to buy nukes and fight), their NS stops falling so quickly.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Azaghul

[Longshadow]

Kaskus was mostly middle tier nations dragged down into the lower tier, where they face often nukeless and SDIless nations.  Our nation tier spread is much broader than that.

 

 

Another factor to consider is that once a nation is effectively ZI'd (to the point where they are buying back infra on a regular basis to buy nukes and fight), their NS stops falling so quickly.

 

Actually if you look at percentages which is where you really have to look we out damaged Kaskus, however in raw numerical numbers we "lost" more NS. However of our total strength it was only about 45% to their 80-85% loss of total strength.

 

I will say that I enjoy the charts but Competence has a point, if you don't collect all of the off shoot AAs you will miss a large number of nations as well as NS and other stats which will skew the graphs. However I will say I don't think the number of nations that are off AA is high enough to really skew the graphs more than 5% up or down give or take. So really these are pretty accurate I would say. The fact competence is putting out an equal level of damage to eQ shows they are doing good work but the real question is can last through it longer.

[JoshuaR]

Graphs! Thank you.

[Neo Uruk]

Turns out we aren't better at just war and politics. There's math and taking data objectively, too!

Edited February 19, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[crypticedge]

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?

[Chad]

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?

IDK what you're talking about. These are raw stats collected by other people that I've produced graphs from because many of us, like me, don't have the time or patients or interest or intelligence to go through rows of numbers.

 

As for the NS lost to moving AAs, the stats ARE skewed but not by near the margin I think people are believing. 

Edited February 19, 2013 by Isotope

[Smittay]

IDK what you're talking about. These are raw stats collected by other people that I've produced graphs from because many of us, like me, don't have the time or patients or interest or intelligence to go through rows of numbers.

 

As for the NS lost to moving AAs, the stats ARE skewed but not by near the margin I think people are believing. 

 

There is at least 2 million total NS missing from the non-eQ forces data.

[Icewolf]

There is at least 2 million total NS missing from the non-eQ forces data.

Care to list? I mean, if you are winning (and given those nations are tracked) there really is no reason to be hiding those nations. Beyond a desire to be able to pop up in threads and claim that the stats that show you are losing are wrong of course.

[Chad]

There is at least 2 million total NS missing from the non-eQ forces data.

Like I said, they are skewed, but not by much. When you consider the massive amounts of damage being dealt (look at the TOP/CnG front alone) 2 million is not enough to dismiss the data being presented (if it really is even 2 million). Regardless of the minor inaccuracies (which can only be fixed through the tedious, near impossible task of looking at every individual war declared and dividing the data by tier and by front, etc.) all these graphs and numbers are up to their own interpretation and are here for individual analysis. And even if the data isn't perfect, it is still very usable.

[Chad]

As per request, peace mode over time: