Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)

[Aeros]

What is the point of having these threads in an OOC forum if both sides are just going to put their IC spin on the stats anyway?

 

its hard to tell where OOC ends and IC begins. I seriously doubt must of us our Role Platying, either in the IC forums are the OOC forums. Honestly the difference is essentially meaningless. For example, I seriously doubt various people have to "roleplay" their dislike for certain alliances. 

Edited February 21, 2013 by Aeros

[Chad]

Update for February 20, 2013 :: Day 32 of the Equilibrium War

 

(Tech records began on February 19)

[Zacharias]

I began reading this topic laughing, then giggling, then smirking, no expression, frowning, now I'm honestly annoyed. Arguing over stats that are obviously skewed/not containing enough information is ridiculous, and it has been made clear on the first page. Now the arguing has gone towards "DH & Co have the next war in the bag!", "No, eQ does!"?

 

It's only been a month. Can we honestly predict a certain victory for either side? Sure we can say "well tech levels...." and "ns losses...". It's like the weather. We can say "well high pressure system..." and "high wind may cause...", but we can't tell a storm is coming three weeks in advance. Only time will tell

[Smittay]

 

 

As you can see from this graph, the amount of graphs posted in this graphing thread has increased as the amount of accusations of skewed numbers has increased. I hypothesize that they have a direct correlation and that as more non-eQ members question the validity of Isotope's clearly skewed numbers, the more graphs he will post. I hope that the great masses of Planet Bob will see through this thinly veiled ruse.

 

 

Let us see if the trend continues.

[Hegav]

Hello Isotope and thank you very much for creating this thread. You've been an inspiration to all of us. 

It is this inspiration that has given me the strength to post what I'm about to.

 

As a member of GOONS it has become clear to me that we have a sinister and frankly disgusting alliance going on with pirates currently operating out of Nigeria. No doubt they've been trained in the finest guerilla camps around.

 

 

This graph clearly demonstrates that some of the top alliances in eQ is losing nation strength in correlation with pirate attacks occurring in Nigeria. This cannot be a coincidence and I assure you it's not. 

 

However my next graph makes it clear why GOONS had to undertake such desperate measures.

After running the numbers and cross checking them several times with some highly esteemed math wizards they've all confirmed my findings. This is a very accurate hypothetical graph showing how much said alliances would have grown without those pestering pirates. 

Edited February 21, 2013 by Hegav

[Buds The Man]

oh the goons there so funny.  Dont you need to be on your knees begging for Dong from umbrella

[Chad]

As you can see from this graph, the amount of graphs posted in this graphing thread has increased as the amount of accusations of skewed numbers has increased. I hypothesize that they have a direct correlation and that as more non-eQ members question the validity of Isotope's clearly skewed numbers, the more graphs he will post. I hope that the great masses of Planet Bob will see through this thinly veiled ruse.

 

 

Let us see if the trend continues.

While I appreciate your attempt at witty sarcasm, I'm afraid to inform you that your effort has been wasted. Rest assured I am not mad because, like a child (or a dog), you didn't know any better and I am in a good mood (so am more than happy to hold your hand and walk you through this):

 

It seems the smarter members on your side of the war had been quick to noticed the numbers were indeed skewed. And, as with everything, it was the dumber ones to jump on the bandwagon and trumpet that fact at every opportunity. And being the good data collector that I am, I stopped using the skewed numbers. Here is a break down of my sources and rationale of the graphs I have been using as of late:

 

1) NS Over Time: These results are taken directly out of the Sanction Race. These results show the total NS of each coalition at the time of the Sanction Race update. It does not show NS lost. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge how much damage is being dealt to each coalition.

 

2) Peace Mode Over Time: These results are taken directly out of the Sanction Race. These results show the total number of nations in peace mode at the time of the Sanction Race update. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge the use of peace mode across both coalitions.

 

3) Anarchy Over Time: These results are taken directly out of the Sanction Race. These results show the total number of nations in anarchy at the time of the Sanction Race update. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge the number of nations in anarchy in both coalitions.

 

4) Tech Levels Over Time: I compile these daily (I found that to be too tedious so perhaps every other day) from the alliance data screens. These results show the total number of tech in each alliance/coalition at the time the results are compiled. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge the amount of tech lost or gained throughout the war for both coalitions.

 

5) Top Tier Tracking Graphs: These results are taken directly out of the "Upper Tier Tracking Thread" by OverlordShinnra of the Orange Defense Network. These results show the total number of nations (both in peace and out) in each alliance/coalition, and divided by front, in each upper tier. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge how the upper tier war is going for both coalitions.

 

Now I fully understand your side's need to keep morale up and the current strategy seems to be to undermine raw data and facts, that don't necessarily show you are winning, by bringing up fallacies and fictional errors. I am very sorry the data is not showing a decisive win for Competence and I also apologize for not fighting on your side, I am aware that if either was the case I would not have to deal with an idiotic post like this nor the spin off directly below it.

 

Now if you wish to argue that the data may not be the best representation of each Coalition as a whole, you would be correct. But to argue that the data is false is a very misguided, shallow analysis. An analysis which, quite frankly, has no business here. If you wish to make either argument, however, you are more than welcome. But please, next time you do, present me with a better, more accurate set of numbers (i.e. going through the tedious task of dividing every single war by tier and front) that we all can use and benefit from.

 

You are more than welcome back if you can present more constructive analysis than the travesty you've posted above. Alright, sport? No foolin'. Now get out of here, yah little scamp! :)

 

tl;dr

Either get your facts straight or shut your mouth

Edited February 21, 2013 by Isotope

[JoshuaR]

I would say all the really small ones were likely ghosts. But sure there have also been some significant deletions.

CSM :'(

[Smittay]

While I appreciate your attempt at witty sarcasm, I'm afraid to inform you that your effort has been wasted. Rest assured I am not mad because, like a child (or a dog), you didn't know any better and I am in a good mood (so am more than happy to hold your hand and walk you through this):

 

It seems the smarter members on your side of the war had been quick to noticed the numbers were indeed skewed. And, as with everything, it was the dumber ones to jump on the bandwagon and trumpet that fact at every opportunity. And being the good data collector that I am, I stopped using the skewed numbers. Here is a break down of my sources and rationale of the graphs I have been using as of late:

 

1) NS Over Time: These results are taken directly out of the Sanction Race. These results show the total NS of each coalition at the time of the Sanction Race update. It does not show NS lost. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge how much damage is being dealt to each coalition.

 

2) Peace Mode Over Time: These results are taken directly out of the Sanction Race. These results show the total number of nations in peace mode at the time of the Sanction Race update. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge the use of peace mode across both coalitions.

 

3) Anarchy Over Time: These results are taken directly out of the Sanction Race. These results show the total number of nations in anarchy at the time of the Sanction Race update. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge the number of nations in anarchy in both coalitions.

 

4) Tech Levels Over Time: I compile these daily (I found that to be too tedious so perhaps every other day) from the alliance data screens. These results show the total number of tech in each alliance/coalition at the time the results are compiled. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge the amount of tech lost or gained throughout the war for both coalitions.

 

5) Top Tier Tracking Graphs: These results are taken directly out of the "Upper Tier Tracking Thread" by OverlordShinnra of the Orange Defense Network. These results show the total number of nations (both in peace and out) in each alliance/coalition, and divided by front, in each upper tier. This is currently the best set of data which I can find to gauge how the upper tier war is going for both coalitions.

 

Now I fully understand your side's need to keep morale up and the current strategy seems to be to undermine raw data and facts, that don't necessarily show you are winning, by bringing up fallacies and fictional errors. I am very sorry the data is not showing a decisive win for Competence and I also apologize for not fighting on your side, I am aware that if either was the case I would not have to deal with an idiotic post like this nor the spin off directly below it.

 

Now if you wish to argue that the data may not be the best representation of each Coalition as a whole, you would be correct. But to argue that the data is false is a very misguided, shallow analysis. An analysis which, quite frankly, has no business here. If you wish to make either argument, however, you are more than welcome. But please, next time you do, present me with a better, more accurate set of numbers (i.e. going through the tedious task of dividing every single war by tier and front) that we all can use and benefit from.

 

You are more than welcome back if you can present more constructive analysis than the travesty you've posted above. Alright, sport? No foolin'. Now get out of here, yah little scamp! :)

 

tl;dr

Either get your facts straight or shut your mouth

"Mr. Gambini?

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. 

[firm tone] Overruled."

 

I appreciate your attempt at sarcasm. It was cute and reminded me of fond memories of childhood. For that, I thank you.

I also wish to express my gratitude for you breaking down the methodology of which you came by the numbers for your more recent graphs. I found it insightful and it taught me techniques which I was unaware of in the field of gathering data from Planet Bob. However, that is not the whole story.

 

On to the more pressing matter. As I have previous alleged and proven, you have used data which was taken from an unverifiable location, by an unreliable source, who could have been doing Brazilian economics for all we know. I wish to restate that I am appalled that you took the time to create graphs which were unsatisfactory, at best, from these statistics which were clearly shoddy. 

 

I also do not appreciate your tone, nor your choice of words when referring to the non-aggressive forces in this conflict, their leaders, or their passionate followers. There was no need to bring in such harsh attacks against these people who have done nothing more than defend their treaties and friends against such a horrible force such as the eQ, who so far have shown nothing but desperation and are grabbing at anything (mainly the numbers gathered by an inept fool) to make their claim that they have the edge in this conflict. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your attempt to be cheeky with me by calling me a scamp, when you have proven that you are nothing but a knave.

[Chad]

"Mr. Gambini?

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. 

[firm tone] Overruled."

 

I appreciate your attempt at sarcasm. It was cute and reminded me of fond memories of childhood. For that, I thank you.

I also wish to express my gratitude for you breaking down the methodology of which you came by the numbers for your more recent graphs. I found it insightful and it taught me techniques which I was unaware of in the field of gathering data from Planet Bob. However, that is not the whole story.

 

On to the more pressing matter. As I have previous alleged and proven, you have used data which was taken from an unverifiable location, by an unreliable source, who could have been doing Brazilian economics for all we know. I wish to restate that I am appalled that you took the time to create graphs which were unsatisfactory, at best, from these statistics which were clearly shoddy. 

 

I also do not appreciate your tone, nor your choice of words when referring to the non-aggressive forces in this conflict, their leaders, or their passionate followers. There was no need to bring in such harsh attacks against these people who have done nothing more than defend their treaties and friends against such a horrible force such as the eQ, who so far have shown nothing but desperation and are grabbing at anything (mainly the numbers gathered by an inept fool) to make their claim that they have the edge in this conflict. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your attempt to be cheeky with me by calling me a scamp, when you have proven that you are nothing but a knave.

1) It was not an attempt at sarcasm. I was not being sarcastic, don't flatter yourself.

 

2) As for the previous data, it was neither unreliable nor unverifiable. Using the methods used by Rotavele (if we took the time to do it, of course), every one of us would have come to the same result. These numbers, by the way, have been commended by members of both coalitions. See: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/115461-war-losses-charts

 

3) The statistics were not shoddy nor misleading. At worst, they were skewed due to alliance affiliation hopping by the dQ coalition. The margin of error, however, was not near enough to make the statistics irrelevant. Like everything posted on war related threads for the past month or so, it should be used for analysis and not a solid source for determining the tide of the war.

 

4) Do you even know what was wrong with the statistics or are you just repeating what others have said because you want to feel included? The main problem with the statistics is that is only considered NS lost (as opposed to NS damage) which are two entirely different scenarios and also didn't take into account AA hopping.

 

5) The earlier graphs were made as per the request of JoshuaR, an Umbrella member.

 

6) The only significant skewing of the data is between Umbrella and DBDC. Not so much other alliances.

 

7) The main issue that the smarter members of your coalition have been having with the data is not the skewing of numbers or incorrect data...it was how everyone was using it (which is no fault of mine). These graphs are merely representative of the raw data collected by others. I did not intend the graphs (nor did I state it in any of my graph posts) that these were intended to show who was winning the war or not.

 

8) Despite all this, I have decided to not graph those numbers anymore. It isn't because the numbers were incorrect, but I did not want to have to take the time and do what I am doing now (even though I know I might as well be typing to a brick wall).

 

9) All of this is for not because, regardless, I am no longer using that data.

 

10) If you don't want to be spoken to like a child, then perhaps you need to stop acting like a child. Saying something is untrue, fake, biased, or otherwise attacking its validity just because it doesn't agree with you is the mark of a spoiled child. As is mocking someone's work for the same reasons. And this isn't the place to debate the justification for the war nor do I really care. You can call the Equilibrium the Evil Empire of Gargamel who attacked the poor Doomhouse o' Smurfs for all I care. I am sorry for hurting your feelings, I will be sure to buy you a box of tissues and a lollipop at the soonest possible convenience.

 

11) If it helps you sleep at night, I think highly of you enough to take time out of the day to address your comments and concerns in the detailed manner with which I have. This is much more than I would be willing to do for more than half the people here (others have brought up the same arguments but I never bothered to respond. You have grabbed my attention. So I commend you for that).

 

And anyone else who believes the new graphs to be biased and skewed (or whatever you want to call it) will be directed to these two posts of mine.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Isotope

[Krashnaia]

Isotope, keep up with the good work and just ignore the trolls, like everybody else does. It's not like they are people, they are just GOONS. :popcorn:

[Chad]

Isotope, keep up with the good work and just ignore the trolls, like everybody else does. It's not like they are people, they are just GOONS. :popcorn:

Thank you. I just wanted to take the time and set him straight. And if he doesn't get it, I'm hoping others who thought the same as him about the data would like to see that explanation.

[Krashnaia]

Thank you. I just wanted to take the time and set him straight. And if he doesn't get it, I'm hoping others who thought the same as him about the data would like to see that explanation.

 

Bear in mind that all a Troll really seeks, is attention. Good or bad, it doesn't matter. The only think they can't bear, is no one talking about them. Then they become highly irritabe. Their level of rudeness increases exponentially in the hopes of forcing a reaction. And if they fail to succeed despite all their efforts, they finally flee towards more promising waters.

 

Note also that if you get into an argument with them, you will be contributing to sabotage your own thread. Which is exactly what they seek (besides attention).

Edited February 21, 2013 by Krashnaia

[Hegav]

Does these graphs take into account that NS lost does not correlate with how much it takes to rebuild said NS? I take it that infrastructure lost has a set NS value instead of exponential growing with the nations strength but it does not take into account that a 100k nation will spend more of it's warchest getting back said NS.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Hegav

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

Isotope, keep up with the good work and just ignore the trolls, like everybody else does. It's not like they are people, they are just GOONS. :popcorn:

 
According to you I am lying when I was posting objective, wiki-backed numbers and giving an analysis on said numbers.
 
You're smrt. Edited February 21, 2013 by Do Not Fear Jazz

[Krashnaia]

See, Isotope? :popcorn:

 

Well, I look forward to more of your graphs. Keep up the good work!  :awesome:

Edited February 21, 2013 by Krashnaia

[Do Not Fear Jazz]

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.

These numbers were pulled from the wiki by manually adding up the pre-war strength of all involved alliances.

The charts below use numbers pulled by editors of the wikis and posted on their updates and have been marked with each date:







Most notable is the difference between ANS, in my comparison vs. the wiki numbers. Although off by around 60k NS at the start of the war (I used every alliances pre-war strength/NS.) You'll note that in the end, the average NS I calculated is actually dead on to the average NS now.

Also:



You'll note from the numbers alone that both sides are losing roughly 2.5 million NS every 3 days while infra is still burnt off. If you truly believe you're pounding down Co tech totals like some of you are convinced of, let me point you to this:

(Tech records began on February 19)

So yeah, while the majority of his math is ok. He is overlooking a few things (that I outlined in my original sperg post in this thread) so that it appears the eQ has a bigger advantage then they actually do.

Nice try, I'm done sperging about these numbers though.

[Farnsworth]

Wow. So many graphs. You all have fun with this, but I'll just stick to looking at numbers -- though only when they're provided by someone else who bothers to fetch and organize them. It seems some of these graphs (like the ones in the Do Not Fear Jazz post above) need more explanation, and in some instances the scale could be tweaked a bit to be more informative.

 

Like I said though, you all have fun with your graphing war. :)

Edited February 21, 2013 by Farnsworth

[Chad]

@Do Not Fear Jazz: Not only have you repeated what I've said in my explanation posts but you have also managed to make very crude, less accurate copies of my graphs (I have been the one updating the wiki with the Sanction Race numbers). And even with your examples, not everything is being said (especially with the tech). That lost tech is over only 2 days (since I started collecting the data on the 19th). So over two days, yes, Equilibrium has not taken all that much tech from dQ.

[CubaQuerida]

None of you find it funny that it took 2.75x the nations to pull this off?  I'm all for a fair and fun war, but the sheer size of the coalition EQ had to put together to even attempt this war is really the saddest part about the entire war.  Obviously the stats aren't gonna change dramatically from what you'd expect from a 3:1 advantage, but good god man, talk about some dominance and inspired fear!

[Smittay]

(Tech records began on February 19)

On these graphs, could you include the numbers you have? I'm quite curious because you didn't limit your bounds or include minor ticks so it appears as if nothing has changed between the two data points you have (which makes a graph unnecessary, but you know that).

[Zacharias]

None of you find it funny that it took 2.75x the nations to pull this off?  I'm all for a fair and fun war, but the sheer size of the coalition EQ had to put together to even attempt this war is really the saddest part about the entire war.  Obviously the stats aren't gonna change dramatically from what you'd expect from a 3:1 advantage, but good god man, talk about some dominance and inspired fear!

 

I was thinking the same thing

[Gibsonator21]

None of you find it funny that it took 2.75x the nations to pull this off?  I'm all for a fair and fun war, but the sheer size of the coalition EQ had to put together to even attempt this war is really the saddest part about the entire war.  Obviously the stats aren't gonna change dramatically from what you'd expect from a 3:1 advantage, but good god man, talk about some dominance and inspired fear!

After years of you guys rolling everyone with clear advantages, it only made sense.

[Commander shepard]

I remember DH members(probably from Umbrella) complaining about how they could not get a good fight when they overwhelmed people.

 

Now they're crying about how they didn't want it like this.

[CubaQuerida]

except instead of crying I'm laughing, but way to read.  No one in Umbrella is crying about this, it's comedy man!