Jump to content

Graphing the War (Because numbers suck)


Chad
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well if this war hadn't happened until, say, next christmas, our side would have been in a position to crush you like tiny bugs while taking relatively little damage compared to now.  The number of 100K + NS nations on our side would be triple what it was at the start of the war, while DH's number would most likely be higher, but not anywhere near the same level of growth.

 

Ergo, if we keep pounding each other at a roughly 1:1 ratio, a year after this war ends, if our side remains a side, we will be so much beyond what you can hope to compete against, that the next war will be a cakewalk compared to this one.

 

But I mean don't listen to me, you guys should continue to piss us off with crude insults and such and drag this out as long as possible.

I wasn't really aiming at crude insults.  My point was that in a world that existed for many years already, claiming that things would be different in another year operating on the same status quo that created the mess originally, just makes absolutely no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

How are they less accurate, please inform me, especially if I pulled the same data you did.

I guess you must just not like to analyze numbers correctly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went ahead and ran a some numbers based on current trends against the foreseeable future, based on average NS lost per 3 days and on the ratio of infrastructure to technology on each respective side of the war. The math was long and tedious as I had to look back 3 months prior to the war and slowly get an idea of average growth per month of each alliance on both sides then compare that to the average losses of each alliance on both sides.

Needless to say, the future looks bleak:

2JOYDym.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went ahead and ran a some numbers based on current trends against the foreseeable future, based on average NS lost per 3 days and on the ratio of infrastructure to technology on each respective side of the war. The math was long and tedious as I had to look back 3 months prior to the war and slowly get an idea of average growth per month of each alliance on both sides then compare that to the average losses of each alliance on both sides.

Needless to say, the future looks bleak:

2JOYDym.png

 

Jazz, thank you for showing us the truth in this time of propaganda by baghdad bob. You sure are showing that you really are a shark. Everyone should wish to be a shark because sharks aren't sheep. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that graph is bulletproof, time to pack it in before we hit 20M NS

To be fair you guys end up closer to 25mil total NS by June 20th, if I expand the graph outwards to November 30th 2013 it ends up settling and making a bit more sense. You have to remember that this accounts for likely surrenders on both sides of the war by that period, hence the larger drop on eQ's side, as they have more alliances.

uK3WzcX.png Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What have the graph's shown... exactly what was known, it would be a dead even fight and it would be a fight.  

 

Without offense I am ignoring your future grid work simply because taking trends before war to apply them during war is at best a crap shoot.  Is your data reflective of the information you put in, I have zero doubt.  But notice what you said, you used 3 month prior to war to show a basic unexplained growth during war.

 

It is great propaganda to talk about how many nations it is taking to fight you.  I don't deny it, wont try.  However you are (as you guys have continued to do) refused to acknowledge it takes that many alliances to form a top tier with the ability to meet you on the battlefield.  You can't even talk about the rest because of your peace mode strategy/tactic.  In this way this war is indeed similar to Karma where it took a very large amount of nations and alliances to fight the power of the time.

 

The graphs and numbers are again, great common fodder.  Absolutely no one in charge is surprised by what we are seeing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What have the graph's shown... exactly what was known, it would be a dead even fight and it would be a fight.  

 

Without offense I am ignoring your future grid work simply because taking trends before war to apply them during war is at best a crap shoot.  Is your data reflective of the information you put in, I have zero doubt.  But notice what you said, you used 3 month prior to war to show a basic unexplained growth during war.

 

It is great propaganda to talk about how many nations it is taking to fight you.  I don't deny it, wont try.  However you are (as you guys have continued to do) refused to acknowledge it takes that many alliances to form a top tier with the ability to meet you on the battlefield.  You can't even talk about the rest because of your peace mode strategy/tactic.  In this way this war is indeed similar to Karma where it took a very large amount of nations and alliances to fight the power of the time.

 

The graphs and numbers are again, great common fodder.  Absolutely no one in charge is surprised by what we are seeing here.

 

I can see the future, and these graphs are 100% accurate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What have the graph's shown... exactly what was known, it would be a dead even fight and it would be a fight.  

 

Without offense I am ignoring your future grid work simply because taking trends before war to apply them during war is at best a crap shoot.  Is your data reflective of the information you put in, I have zero doubt.  But notice what you said, you used 3 month prior to war to show a basic unexplained growth during war.

 

It is great propaganda to talk about how many nations it is taking to fight you.  I don't deny it, wont try.  However you are (as you guys have continued to do) refused to acknowledge it takes that many alliances to form a top tier with the ability to meet you on the battlefield.  You can't even talk about the rest because of your peace mode strategy/tactic.  In this way this war is indeed similar to Karma where it took a very large amount of nations and alliances to fight the power of the time.

 

The graphs and numbers are again, great common fodder.  Absolutely no one in charge is surprised by what we are seeing here.

*rolls eyes*

 

Yes and I left CN, my alliance and the coalition.  Yes your perceptions and that working 3rd eye are dead on the money.

This pretty much sums what I have to say. Thank you. And I will have the graph updates later on tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are they less accurate, please inform me, especially if I pulled the same data you did.

I guess you must just not like to analyze numbers correctly.

At the best, I updated the Wiki every other day. At worst, it was almost a week. Did you notice the data for January 26 in the Competence stats are missing? Probably not. The last update on the wiki is February 17. About 5 days ago. So not only do my graphs more correctly show the trend (mine are in increments of 1 day, not varying increments of between a day and 2 weeks), but they are more up to date (I update them daily). Which brings me to your most recent graphs.

 

I honestly appreciate the work you put into it, and I would like to extend you a courtesy that was never offered to me: Please explain your graphs. Before I attack them or condemn them, please explain your rationale behind the sudden changes in the rate of NS lost at the end of this month and mid-march (these are not sudden drops in NS, these are very significant changes with the rate at which the NS is dropping). Please also explain how you see Competence not having any net change in NS for the rest of the month and a sudden growth in NS for the coalition at the end of March. I can only assume that the war will not have ended by then, so how will Competence gain NS at nearly the same rate Equilibrium is losing it? And what about mid-May onward? Equilibrium will just keep losing NS into infinity?

Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you guys are taking a massive beating already breaks the status quo for the last few years...

Are we?  From the stats that everybody has been posting, it doesn't seem that way.  Perhaps Competence is taking an equal beating, but from the discussion and stats provided by people on both sides, I really wouldn't call it an unequal one. 

 

Also, I fail to see how this will change the post-war economic status quo.  Are you suggesting that the outcome of previous wars created the gap?  That could make some sense.  All I'm saying is that their tech didn't come out of nowhere, whether they recruited it in, bought it from other alliances, bought what they could internally, or simply have managed to maintain more of it by being on the winning side in wars, it really makes the reason for this entire war invalid if  the goal was to equalize the playing field in terms of technology, if eQ is now claiming they could do that with economic programs fairly swiftly anyway. 

 

The other question comes to, are you taking more tech from Competence than they're taking from you?  So far, I'm seeing nothing in the damage numbers that indicates that is the case.  It's likely, given that the damage numbers by NS appear to be fairly even so far, and given that the general consensus seems to be that there is generally higher tech ratios in the national treasuries on the side of Competence.  Hence, it would seem that it would follow, that losses would also be more infrastructure heavy for eQuilibrium, and more tech heavy for Competence.  I have no clue if that's actually what is playing out on the battlefield, and I'm not that savvy with gathering data from the servers.  I would love to see if that's actually the case. 

 

However, as the line of scrimmage drops to 80k and possibly even lower as the trends seem to suggest it quite likely will, I begin to wonder if that goal of knocking Umbrella down to size now and for the long road ahead is not getting more and more out of reach.  How much rebuilding everybody is able to do post-war really might be the story to be told here, and what those warchest will look like when this is all over is yet to be seen.  I'm starting to get the feeling that the only thing lost by Umbrella when this is over will be some technology, that they'll rebuy, and that the super-nations of Umbrella, and really throughout DH, may leave this thing more secure than ever before.  If that's the case, the entire operation seems to be a failure on eQ's part to complete their strategy, and make that goal harder to reach via economic programs than it would have been to begin with.

Edited by Banned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update for February 21 :: Day 34

Feb21NS_zps47f32fb2.png

Feb21PeaceMode_zpsa4943901.png

Feb21Anarchy_zps1b776b1b.png

Feb21Nukes_zps5f7ce8e7.png

Feb20UpperTierComposition_zps664bb286.pn

Feb20TechDistribution-AZTEC-TOP_zps53271

Feb20UpperTierComposition-CnG_zps0aee54d

 

Points of Interest:

  • Both the data and the trend line show an increased rate of NS loss for Equilibrium in the past couple of days. This can be attributed to a few alliances being removed from the Equilibrium Coalition in the Sanction Race as a result of using less than 1% of their war slots. But regardless, it is an interesting development in the data because, at the same time, Competence's losses in NS seem to be reaching a plateau. The trend line for Competence also suggests an NS increase sometime in the next few days (probably not, but that's how the math happened).
Edited by Isotope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the best, I updated the Wiki every other day. At worst, it was almost a week. Did you notice the data for January 26 in the Competence stats are missing? Probably not. The last update on the wiki is February 17. About 5 days ago. So not only do my graphs more correctly show the trend (mine are in increments of 1 day, not varying increments of between a day and 2 weeks), but they are more up to date (I update them daily). Which brings me to your most recent graphs.
 
I honestly appreciate the work you put into it, and I would like to extend you a courtesy that was never offered to me: Please explain your graphs. Before I attack them or condemn them, please explain your rationale behind the sudden changes in the rate of NS lost at the end of this month and mid-march (these are not sudden drops in NS, these are very significant changes with the rate at which the NS is dropping). Please also explain how you see Competence not having any net change in NS for the rest of the month and a sudden growth in NS for the coalition at the end of March. I can only assume that the war will not have ended by then, so how will Competence gain NS at nearly the same rate Equilibrium is losing it? And what about mid-May onward? Equilibrium will just keep losing NS into infinity?

You are missing the point of those second graphs completely, as they were a rebuttle for you telling me my first graphs were inaccurate yet somehow using the same data you pulled. Also, you are assuming my graphs only get dated every three days, never did I state that. I said at the current rate, Co and eQ lose about 2.5 million every three days.

Also, I am going to assume you have trouble reading, because I completely state in that post why it is graphed that way:

To be fair you guys end up closer to 25mil total NS by June 20th, if I expand the graph outwards to November 30th 2013 it ends up settling and making a bit more sense. You have to remember that this accounts for likely surrenders on both sides of the war by that period, hence the larger drop on eQ's side, as they have more alliances.

Also, I am currently at work, but please make a technology graph and use this: http://cybernations.lyricalz.com/ To go to pre-war and other dates so that way we can get an actual idea of technology and infrastructure loss. I was going to last night but became to tired to do so.

Points of Interest:

  • Both the data and the trend line show an increased rate of NS loss for Equilibrium in the past couple of days. This can be attributed to a few alliances being removed from the Equilibrium Coalition in the Sanction Race as a result of using less than 1% of their war slots. But regardless, it is an interesting development in the data because, at the same time, Competence's losses in NS seem to be reaching a plateau. The trend line for Competence also suggests an NS increase sometime in the next few days (probably not, but that's how the math happened).


I'ts funny because this is exactly how I graphed the future of the war and you are still arguing about it with me. Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I tried being nice and that didn't work. So here goes nothing:

  1. You said you got the data from the wiki and your graph has longer segments than mine does. It honestly looks like the most you have on that graph are 6-7 entries for nation strength and the data ends on the 12th. My graph has about 32 entries and ends today. I think we know which is more accurate.
  2. I wanted to know how you came up with the NS going up when it hasn't even happened yet in the data. The equation I used to find the trend line which suggests the rise in NS is the following:

    y= -114.25x4 + 2E+07x3 - 1E+12x2 + 3E+16x - 3E+20

    This equation created the order 4 polynomial trendline present on the graph for the Competence Coalition. I can guarantee you did not come up with this equation nor even created such a trend line to come to your conclusion. Which leads me to believe you pulled it out your ass.
  3. Notice I didn't say by how much it (Competence's NS) would rise. This is because the trendline created cannot accurately predict what will happen beyond a half day or so. And even then, it is 50/50 at best (the forecast of the trendline beyond the current date is skewed by the massive gain at the beginning of timeline as the war was getting started).
  4. A 6 order polynomial trendline actually shows Competence's NS dropping faster than Equilibrium's in the near future but, despite 6 orders being significantly more accurate than 4 orders, I know you would all throw a hissy fit if I used it.
  5. I know you said that alliances would be leaving and such. But that does not answer my question. How did you determine which alliances left? And why are there no sudden drops in NS when these alliances suddenly surrender? Your graph simply looks like Competence will be doing a whole not more damage. If alliances are surrendering, we should be seeing chunks of NS dropping off like we saw chunks of NS going upwards as alliances joined the war.
  6. I would be more than happy to graph that information. It will take me a long while but I'll try to get it done sometime this weekend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I tried being nice and that didn't work. So here goes nothing:

  • You said you got the data from the wiki and your graph has longer segments than mine does. It honestly looks like the most you have on that graph are 6-7 entries for nation strength and the data ends on the 12th. My graph has about 32 entries and ends today. I think we know which is more accurate.
  • I wanted to know how you came up with the NS going up when it hasn't even happened yet in the data. The equation I used to find the trend line which suggests the rise in NS is the following:

    y= -114.25x[/size]4[/size] + 2E+07x[/size]3[/size] - 1E+12x[/size]2[/size] + 3E+16x - 3E+20

    This equation created the order 4 polynomial trendline present on the graph for the Competence Coalition. I can guarantee you did not come up with this equation nor even created such a trend line to come to your conclusion. Which leads me to believe you pulled it out your ass.[/size]
  • Notice I didn't say by how much it (Competence's NS) would rise. This is because the trendline created cannot accurately predict what will happen beyond a half day or so. And even then, it is 50/50 at best (the forecast of the trendline beyond the current date is skewed by the massive gain at the beginning of timeline as the war was getting started).[/size]
  • A 6 order polynomial trendline actually shows Competence's NS dropping faster than Equilibrium's in the near future but, despite 6 orders being significantly more accurate than 4 orders, I know you would all throw a hissy fit if I used it.
  • I know you said that alliances would be leaving and such. But that does not answer my question. How did you determine which alliances left? And why are there no sudden drops in NS when these alliances suddenly surrender? Your graph simply looks like Competence will be doing a whole not more damage. If alliances are surrendering, we should be seeing chunks of NS dropping off like we saw chunks of NS going upwards as alliances joined the war.
  • I would be more than happy to graph that information. It will take me a long while but I'll try to get it done sometime this weekend.

 

 

1. Yes I did say that, I also literally just linked you to a day-by-day of each alliance in basically the entire game. You literally have no way of knowing how many entries I have in my spreadsheet, though mine for reference is 27 to your 32, as I haven't updated my actual graphs in a few days now. However, there were no significant drops or gains within those periods as you even noted that both sides are losing roughly the same amount of NS.

 

2. Why would I tell you my trade secrets?

 

3. I never said how much it would rise either, just that it would, even in my graph it is an eventual rise, not an immediate upshoot of NS. Yes, I am aware of why the beings of a graph are skewed, you do not need to explain to me as I literally never mentioned it.

 

4. Only problem is, you're throwing around math that has no actual evidence supporting it, and trying to hide this by using phrases like "6 Order Polynomial Trend-Line". Nor do you actually tell us what you use to equate your future trends, as from what I can tell it is not based on past losses, current losses, or anything based in-game, but merely your own "math" that you came up with. Hell, even earlier in the thread at one point you expressed that you aren't a math guy.

 

5. You are of course forgetting about the fact that it is a multifront war, and peace with one enemy does not guarantee peace with all of your enemies. However you are right if peace were completely peaced out from all fronts at once, then it would be a significant NS drop all at once.

 

6. Thanks sir.

Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...