Jump to content

Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)


Chad

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know Doom House if you weren't doing all this AA hopping then we wouldn't have all these problems. WAY TO GO.

 

Ruining the game.

 

 

Also, I find it funny that Q apparently does not understand how graphs work. They have 4,803 nations and we have 1,748, yet our damage output (as evidenced by YOUR graphs) shows us doing just as much damage, but somehow this means they are winning.

 

Man, I would love to switch places with one of you guys for like, a day, just to try and figure out how you convince yourselves of this crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruining the game.
 
 
Also, I find it funny that Q apparently does not understand how graphs work. They have 4,803 nations and we have 1,748, yet our damage output (as evidenced by YOUR graphs) shows us doing just as much damage, but somehow this means they are winning.
 
Man, I would love to switch places with one of you guys for like, a day, just to try and figure out how you convince yourselves of this crap.

1. This isn't "our" graphs. So you can stop it. The graphs are based on numbers provided by both sides.
2. This has been explained many-a-time but because you are either lazy or blind, I will take the time to explain it again:

We outnumber you 3 to 1. 3 of our nations are able to launch 1 nuke per day (on a single dQ target). You, however, can launch 3 per day (once on each eQ target). Follow me? This means dQ should, in theory, be dealing 3 times as much damage as we are dealing to you if you want to claim we are "even." Look at the Kaskus-GOONS War, Kaskus dealt a lot more NS damage to GOONS than GOONS did to Kaskus...and Kaskus was utterly destroyed. As it stands, without factoring in the different tiers and fronts, your coalition is putting out less than a third of what it should be if you guys hope to win (again, without factoring in the different tiers and fronts). Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruining the game.

 

Also, I find it funny that Q apparently does not understand how graphs work. They have 4,803 nations and we have 1,748, yet our damage output (as evidenced by YOUR graphs) shows us doing just as much damage, but somehow this means they are winning.

 

Man, I would love to switch places with one of you guys for like, a day, just to try and figure out how you convince yourselves of this crap.

 

Very easy.

I remember back not too long ago somewhere I heard this true statement, that if you're facing more opponents you're more likely to kill more of them and have better stats afterwards.

Each round they would only be killing you once but you could kill multiple opponents and still lose the round.

Given you're outnumbered 3:1 and DH is close to been outnumbered 3:1.

 

DH doing the same amount of damage to EQ as they're doing to them, this does not show sign's of competence on DH's part.

It's just a mediocre performance, DH should be knocking off at least twice as much damage to be considered competent.

Edited by Commander shepard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruining the game.
 
 
Also, I find it funny that Q apparently does not understand how graphs work. They have 4,803 nations and we have 1,748, yet our damage output (as evidenced by YOUR graphs) shows us doing just as much damage, but somehow this means they are winning.
 
Man, I would love to switch places with one of you guys for like, a day, just to try and figure out how you convince yourselves of this crap.

This is using the exact same data as the pie chart you are referencing and this should make it clear why you are wrong:

NSLostPerNation_zpsddde41a2.png

Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok you guys have convinced me to sperg out for a minute.

 

eQ Total Pre-War Strength:

 

165,132,945

145,297,820

 

Nations:

4,824

4,804

 

A loss of 13% across the board, as this is not focused on per alliance, merely what damage has been done to the entire Q coalition. A loss of 20 nations, compounded with a near 2/3x advantage (Q's 4,804 vs Competence's 1,748).

 

Total Average NS:

34231.53

30245.17

 

Likewise, the average eQ nation has lost 13% of it's total nation strength over the course of the war so far.

 

DoomHouse+Allies Total Pre-War Strength:

 

78,212,672

54,651,997

 

Nations:

1,792

1,748

 

A loss of almost 30% of their total nation strength. Plus a loss of 44 nations. Compounding that on average a DH alliance will see more wars because of the nation disadvantage.

 

Total Average NS:

43645.46

31265.44

 

Likewise, the average DH nation has lost 29% of it's pre-war nation strength.

 

 

With eQ currently holding a 4,804 to 1,748 nation advantage (2.75x) it means their damage is spread across a small number of nations, meaning once you start comparing the nations on eQ's side to the ones on Doomhouse's side, the numbers become drastically skewed towards DH although the % of ANS lost by DH is larger, eQ's stats are skewed because of their bloated total NS split between a larger number of nations. As such, doomhouse & co can more easily focus on certain tiers (upper), and more easily focus on per nation damage.

 

Damage Done:

 

To eQ: 19,835,125

To Doomhouse & Co: 23,560,675

 

 

The only way to truly tell what's going on in the war is to account for the fact that, Doomhouse has managed to put in almost equal damage with 2.75x less nations. If for instance, the number of nations was equal, that number baloons incredibly to:

 

Damage Done (Based on Equal Nation Numbers):

 

To eQ (based on an average nation NS loss of 13%): 23,603,798.75

To Doomhouse & Co: 23,560,675

 

All of a sudden, Doomhouse is winning. So keep in mind that although eQ has a 2.75x Nation advantage, doomhouse & co are still putting out nearly as much damage as eQ themselves (both adjusted and unadjusted).

 

 

Please feel free to tell me about how I am spinning the number when they are clear as day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't spinning numbers. You just don't seem to have a very good grasp on the warfare slot/nuclear mechanic of the game. If nations at war can absorb a maximum 1000 NS damage per day, a 3v1 war would see Equilibrium absorbing 3000 and the single Competence nation absorbing only 1000 (because nations can only be nuked once). Competence should be dishing out more damage to Equilibrium because there are more nations and more NS to be damaged.


If the field were even (taking out tier and front factors), Competence would be getting demolished with numbers like that.

Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't spinning numbers. You just don't seem to have a very good grasp on the warfare slot/nuclear mechanic of the game. If nations at war absorb 1000 NS damage per day, a 3v1 war would see Equilibrium absorbing 3000 and the one Competence nation absorbing only 1000 (because nations are only nuked once). Competence should be dishing out more damage to Equilibrium because there are more nations and more NS to be damaged.

 

Only problem with this logic is that you're assuming on average that Competence is involved in more wars, however for all their advantage in nations, it doesn't appear to be the case from the things I've seen, though I've burnt myself out too much to go find out who actually has more active wars on average as that would require looking at past wars as well as current to get a solid number of Average # of Wars Per Nation Throughout the Duration of the Conflict.

 

With eQ's large advantage in nations, they should be able to 3v1 every single Competence nation in War mode, and if this was the case, Competence would be out of nukes and losing NS a lot quicker.

Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You aren't spinning numbers. You just don't seem to have a very good grasp on the warfare slot/nuclear mechanic of the game. If nations at war absorb 1000 NS damage per day, a 3v1 war would see Equilibrium absorbing 3000 and the one Competence nation absorbing only 1000 (because nations are only nuked once). Competence should be dishing out more damage to Equilibrium because there are more nations and more NS to be damaged.

This is also misleading since your are assuming that damage is equal on each of Equilibrium's nations. It is the reason I have been requesting for a tier by tier and front by front statistics as this will really define what is happening.

When damage is equally divided among nations any coalition with superior numbers will have an advantage. but the current war is far from that. Not every Equilibrium nation is receiving equal damage to mitigate any damage the other coalition has dealt.

A perfect example would be Matt Miller from IRON's damage taken from Timmmeh and loco during their respective battle on different dates cannot be distributed around the coalition to lessen the damage to Matt Miller.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also misleading since your are assuming that damage is equal on each of Equilibrium's nations. It is the reason I have been requesting for a tier by tier and front by front statistics as this will really define what is happening.

When damage is equally divided among nations any coalition with superior numbers will have an advantage. but the current war is far from that. Not every Equilibrium nation is receiving equal damage to mitigate any damage the other coalition has dealt.

A perfect example would be Matt Miller from IRON's damage taken from Timmmeh and loco during their respective battle on different dates cannot be distributed around the coalition to lessen the damage to Matt Miller.

 

Exactly my point, cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruining the game.

 

 

Also, I find it funny that Q apparently does not understand how graphs work. They have 4,803 nations and we have 1,748, yet our damage output (as evidenced by YOUR graphs) shows us doing just as much damage, but somehow this means they are winning.

 

Man, I would love to switch places with one of you guys for like, a day, just to try and figure out how you convince yourselves of this crap.

 

 

It's just a matter of applying common sense. If Equilibrium outnumbers you by 3 to 1, you need to inflict them at least 3 times more damage than taken to claim a tie. Since you are barely being able to hang on parity damage, it means that, if the trend stays this way as the war progresses, your side will be depleted of all his pixels and Equilibrium's nations will still hold 2/3 of them.

 

You may arge that the damage output shows that you are better players and Equilibrium are crap. But even if (note: if) you are right about this, that doesn't change the fact that your side is losing the war. You may (note: may) have superior quality, but the numbers show that it's not being enough to counter your disadvantage in quantity.

 

Unless your side is able to dramatically increase damage output on Equilibrium after you deploy your nuke turrets, supertanks, hypersonic fighters, flying bombs, super-stormtroopers, and any other dreamy wunderwaffen hardware you may fantasize about, your side is toast (except for the luckly 1% that will be left in the skyes).

Edited by Krashnaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point, cheers.

 

I don't even.

Yeah what this UCON guy said is true.

A lot of EQ top tier nations skew up the results so it makes the average look even across board when it is not.

Truth be told, EQ middle and lower tiers have been decimating DH and allies.

 

EQ has been losing a ridiculous amount of NS at top while DH has not been losing as much due to their better tech standing nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a matter of applying common sense. If Equilibrium outnumbers you by 3 to 1, you need to inflict them at least 3 times more damage than taken to claim a tie. Since you are barely being able to hang on parity damage, it means that, if the trend stays this way as the war progresses, your side will be depleted of all his pixels and Equilibrium's nations will still hold 2/3 of them.

 

You may arge that the damage output shows that you are better players and Equilibrium are crap, but even if you are right about this, that doesn't change the fact that your side is losing the war.

 

Not at all. You are assuming we need to inflict 3x more damage to claim a tie (even though when adjusted to make up for the difference in numbers, Competence is putting out more damage than eQ) when based off numbers that are coalition wide, not tier to tier. All Competence has to do is inflict the same or slightly more damage to the upper tier, and block movement into said upper tier. Once that happens (which has already started, and been admitted by your side) those nations have free reign over the upper end of the game and can also send out aid to help the lower nations.

 

This thread is now about to become an argument about strategy instead of the fact that eQ, with it's huge numbers advantage, should be putting out way more damage in comparison to Competence. And the numbers prove that is not the case.

Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point, cheers.

*facepalm*

That wasn't you're point. You're point was that since Competence is losing the same amount of NS as Equilibrium and because Equilibrium is bigger, Competence must me winning. You're wrong and you've been proven wrong. If you remove all factors in terms of tiers and the various fronts (thank you, by the way, for quoting me and then repeating pretty much what I said about the different tiers. I appreciate it), Competence is getting throttled. End of story. And until someone takes the time to actually break down each front, tier by tier with raw data, no one can accurately predict who is winning.

And your math does not work with the mechanics of the game. On paper it works, but in reality that's not how nukes fall.

And...ummm...actually this thread is becoming an argument about strategy instead of nothing more than visual representation of the numerical data presented by others in various related threads. Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*facepalm*

That wasn't you're point. You're point was that since Competence is losing the same amount of NS as Equilibrium and because Equilibrium is bigger, Competence must me winning. You're wrong and you've been proven wrong. If you remove all factors in terms of tiers and the various fronts (thank you, by the way, for quoting me and then repeating pretty much what I said about the different tiers. I appreciate it), Competence is getting throttled. End of story. And until someone takes the time to actually break down each front, tier by tier with raw data, no one can accurately predict who is winning.

And your math does not work with the mechanics of the game. On paper it works, but in reality that's not how nukes fall.

 

Nice. "That wasn't your point because I have no argument against that point so instead of assuming that's what you meant I am going to tell you what you meant".

 

How do you read minds over a computer, I really want you to teach me. Regardless of the fact that my post above your last one makes it painfully clear that the damage should not be that close to equal if eQ is to claim a win here.

Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I love the fact that you are bringing up nuclear weapons and ingame mechanics (SDI) when not once anywhere in my original post nor in my explanation of the numbers in that post did I bring up nukes or how nukes would change the tide of the war. Grasping for straws is quite funny. Bottom line: eQ should be crushing Competence, and they are not. I'll concede that you guys may be winning at the moment, but only by a 3million NS damage gap, which in the long run, isn't crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is now about to become an argument about strategy instead of the fact that eQ, with it's huge numbers advantage, should be putting out way more damage in comparison to Competence. And the numbers prove that is not the case.

 

Actually, the numbers are not saying that. As an average of all the nations involved DH and friends is sustaining well over twice as much damage as Equilibrium. The fact that you have sustained slightly more damage as a total number with so many nations in peace mode out of your already fewer numbers is pretty bad from where I sit. You've done 30 million damage to around. 5,000 nations is not the same as sustaining 30 million damage to 1700 nations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. You are assuming we need to inflict 3x more damage to claim a tie (even though when adjusted to make up for the difference in numbers, Competence is putting out more damage than eQ) when based off numbers that are coalition wide, not tier to tier. All Competence has to do is inflict the same or slightly more damage to the upper tier, and block movement into said upper tier. Once that happens (which has already started, and been admitted by your side) those nations have free reign over the upper end of the game and can also send out aid to help the lower nations.

 

This thread is now about to become an argument about strategy instead of the fact that eQ, with it's huge numbers advantage, should be putting out way more damage in comparison to Competence. And the numbers prove that is not the case.

 

The fact that you own 1% of the game while the other side claims 99% of the field, doesn't mean your side is winning. It just means that you have set up a self-sustained prisoner camp.

 

And the fact that EQ should or shouldn't be putting way more damage than dQ is pointless, because you are still losing the war. You may please yourselves thinking how great and superior you are to the rest of the mortals, but that doesn't change the fact that the zergling rush is pwning you.

 

Now, if in the following weeks, your side begins to inflict a lot more damage to the enemy than taken, then yes, your strategy will prove true and you'll be able to claim that quality has trumped quantity. But as the numbers shown now, that's not happening.

Edited by Krashnaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the numbers are not saying that. As an average of all the nations involved DH and friends is sustaining well over twice as much damage as Equilibrium. The fact that you have sustained slightly more damage as a total number with so many nations in peace mode out of your already fewer numbers is pretty bad from where I sit. You've done 30 million damage to around. 5,000 nations is not the same as sustaining 30 million damage to 1700 nations.

 
Again, implying that said nations have been in peace mode for the entirety of the war, or that they are not cycling in and out, and negating things like tiers and warchests.
 
Nor did you account for the fact that we had a higher average NS starting out, meaning we can take a hit on our smaller pool of nations and still be sitting even with your group (which currently we are almost dead even with war wide ANS).


The fact that you own 1% of the game while the other side claims 99% of the field, doesn't mean your side is winning. It just means that you have set up a self-sustained prisoner camp.

And the fact that EQ should or shouldn't be putting way more damage than dQ is pointless, because you are still losing the war. You may please yourselves thinking how great and superior you are to the rest of the mortals, but that doesn't change the fact that the zergling rush is pwning you.

Counterpoint: If your nations can't grow above say 80k (random figure), the point of the game becomes moot. Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruining the game.

 

 

Also, I find it funny that Q apparently does not understand how graphs work. They have 4,803 nations and we have 1,748, yet our damage output (as evidenced by YOUR graphs) shows us doing just as much damage, but somehow this means they are winning.

 

Man, I would love to switch places with one of you guys for like, a day, just to try and figure out how you convince yourselves of this crap.

Bottom line: Without the different tiers or fronts factored in, it kinda does mean we are winning. It means we are winning by quite a bit.

 

Look at the graphs below. If the trend continues (about equal damage for both coalitions), dQ will be driven into the ground before Equilibrium is. And until dQ starts to drop their upper tiers into the lowers tiers (and starts doing some real damage), Equilibrium will be winning.

Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Counterpoint: If your nations can't grow above say 80k (random figure), the point of the game becomes moot.

 

Not necessary. It only means that the point of the game for the other side becomes to grow a nation over 80k and send it to drag a Heavy down from the skyes. As your side will lack under-80k nations to replace the fallen Heavies, your high tier will be depleted sooner or later.

 

However, I doubt the war will reach such extreme, unless your side decides to turn this into eternal war. After some rounds of grinding what they have managed to bring down already, EQ will feel satisfied and white peace will be signed. I bet one to three months from now. Then the political game will resume and we shall see if the next global war will be a reedition of this one, or something new, with fresh plot and characters.

Edited by Krashnaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line: Without the different tiers or fronts factored in, it kinda does mean we are winning. It means we are winning by quite a bit.
 
Look at the graphs below. If the trend continues (about equal damage for both coalitions), dQ will be driven into the ground before Equilibrium is. And until dQ starts to drop their upper tiers into the lowers tiers (and starts doing some real damage), Equilibrium will be winning.

Good point, still early in the war to start claiming victory. Although you are right in fact that we do need tiers to be factored in to get a real picture of where the damage is going and how easily those losses will be recouped after the war. Though if what is thrown around is correct, it appears Competence is winning the upper tier, meaning the bulk of the damage may be on lower tiers on our side, if that is the case, we're winning simply because it takes a lot less to rebuild a mid tier nation.


Not necessary. It only means that the point of the game for the other side becomes to grow a nation over 80k and send it to drag a Heavy down from the skyes. As your side will lack under-80k nations to replace the fallen Heavies, your high tier will be depleted sooner or later.

Like has been said before, it is now a war of attrition, and I seriously doubt your side has the gonads to keep at it for much longer. Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, still early in the war to start claiming victory. Although you are right in fact that we do need tiers to be factored in to get a real picture of where the damage is going and how easily those losses will be recouped after the war. Though if what is thrown around is correct, it appears Competence is winning the upper tier, meaning the bulk of the damage may be on lower tiers on our side, if that is the case, we're winning simply because it takes a lot less to rebuild a mid tier nation.Like has been said before, it is now a war of attrition, and I seriously doubt your side has the gonads to keep at it for much longer.

Competence is taking the upper tiers in 2 fronts (the AZTEC-TOP front is being dominated by Equilibrium over all tiers). But clearing those tiers isn't enough to win the war. It sounds like Competence is going to be relying on nuke turrets to clean up the middle tiers and I, honestly, have no idea how that'll play out. But we'll all find out in a few weeks once the war moves into the middle tiers.

 

And the bulk of our damage is coming from the TOP and CnG fronts. The middle/low tiers haven't even gotten started yet.

Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...