I have a question about EQ

[hobbies0310]

It wasn't offensive that you attacked a releatively unattached bloc for absolutely no reason? isnt that what happened to Pacifica after Karma? they could probably relate, and Valhalla was a member of MJ, another relatively not well connected bloc, perhaps both Pacifica and AI felt the unwarranted aggression for no reason against SF twice in a row meant that eventually DH would look for someone new to roll, want to take a guess what the potential options would be if not SF?

Oh right. If you attack any alliance in the game that isn't well connected its offensive to NPO. Thought this was common knowledge. 

Edited March 18, 2013 by hobbies0310

[Enamel32]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/115540-omg-gato-please-come-out-of-peace-mode/?p=3101804

 

 

 

there you go. 

 

Never in any global war prior to this one, has the smaller side done more damage to the larger side.

Rush, :facepalm:

 

Who represents damage done by score? That's a really poor way to display information, given that score is also a function of nations in the game and alliance nations. And from what I understand, was purely a metric meant to compare 1337 alliances to recruiting alliances. Anyway, I made that statement, with the caviat that you have unlimited ability to do damage. Which in the case of CN, is not true. Eventually you run out of nukes. That's the way it is. That is; however, not true in a team deathmatch style gameplay, where ammo is nearly unlimited. My point was, you can make the stats look however you want, because initially in war, everyone does have 'unlimited' nukes, so you should be able to do more damage. Over the long term though, You're going to get screwed in the ass. You seem to be forgetting one very important issue: NS damage isn't the primary determination factor of who wins a war. You guys have lost 50+% of your strength, whereas our side has only lost roughly 30%. I know many people on your side are starting to feel the burn from the last three wars in their wc. Do you think that's true for the side with only 30% damage? Nope. You're fighting the entire world. 30% of the world is fighting 70% of the world and ammunition is limited. You're in trouble no matter how you want to look at it. Doesn't help that a big part of your coalition is just sitting there, too big to do anything.

 

You and your buddies can go ahead and keep tuckering yourself out trying to defeat the world, but the only thing going to be left is going to be EQ and a few high NS nations from Competence. TLR is going to be down there with VE and their 70+% strength loss.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Enamel32

[Rush Sykes]

Rush, :facepalm:

 

Who represents damage done by score? That's a really poor way to display information, given that score is also a function of nations in the game and alliance nations. And from what I understand, was purely a metric meant to compare 1337 alliances to recruiting alliances. Anyway, I made that statement, with the caviat that you have unlimited ability to do damage. Which in the case of CN, is not true. Eventually you run out of nukes. That's the way it is. That is; however, not true in a team deathmatch style gameplay, where ammo is nearly unlimited. My point was, you can make the stats look however you want, because initially in war, everyone does have 'unlimited' nukes, so you should be able to do more damage. Over the long term though, You're going to get screwed in the ass. You seem to be forgetting one very important issue: NS damage isn't the primary determination factor of who wins a war. You guys have lost 50+% of your strength, whereas our side has only lost roughly 30%. I know many people on your side are starting to feel the burn from the last three wars in their wc. Do you think that's true for the side with only 30% damage? Nope. You're fighting the entire world. 30% of the world is fighting 70% of the world and ammunition is limited. You're in trouble no matter how you want to look at it. Doesn't help that a big part of your coalition is just sitting there, too big to do anything.

 

You and your buddies can go ahead and keep tuckering yourself out trying to defeat the world, but the only thing going to be left is going to be EQ and a few high NS nations from Competence. TLR is going to be down their with VE and their 70+% strength loss.

 

its funny that you facepalm over score. The score is calculated the same for every alliance. Using the same formula. It is singularly the most fair way to deduce damage. Its even more laughable that you choose to use % of NS lost as the measuring stick. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of math. If I have 100 oranges and I eat 30, I have lost 30% of my oranges. If I have 200 oranges and I lost 50, I have lost 25% of my oranges. A lower % but more overall loss. It is , in fact, statistically, the worst way to measure damage. It would only be an accurate way if every alliance and every coalition was the same size. You should be facepalming, but it should be at yourself for what you insinuate. You can present it any way you want. Raw NS lost. Score lost... in all measurables we are reaming your coalition. We are doing something that no other losing side has EVER done. As for score being a function of the number of nations in the game, it is completely irrelevant, because EVERY alliance scores is measured against that same variable, hence it is not variable from alliance to alliance. Since the # of nations in the game is the same for EVERYONE. The only variable is alliance strength. Therefore the fact that one side has taken more score damage than another side ....100% means that that side has taken more raw damage than the other side. Same as in past wars. You should re-take Algebra 1, maybe  you would gain an understanding of what variables are.

[Gloin]

In Dave our side did more damage than the 'bigger' side as well, though not by much.  On some fronts (Fark/Deinos) it was hilariously lopsided, Deinos should have surrendered to Fark.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[Enamel32]

its funny that you facepalm over score. The score is calculated the same for every alliance. Using the same formula. It is singularly the most fair way to deduce damage. Its even more laughable that you choose to use % of NS lost as the measuring stick. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of math. If I have 100 oranges and I eat 30, I have lost 30% of my oranges. If I have 200 oranges and I lost 50, I have lost 25% of my oranges. A lower % but more overall loss. It is , in fact, statistically, the worst way to measure damage. It would only be an accurate way if every alliance and every coalition was the same size. You should be facepalming, but it should be at yourself for what you insinuate. You can present it any way you want. Raw NS lost. Score lost... in all measurables we are reaming your coalition. We are doing something that no other losing side has EVER done. As for score being a function of the number of nations in the game, it is completely irrelevant, because EVERY alliance scores is measured against that same variable, hence it is not variable from alliance to alliance. Since the # of nations in the game is the same for EVERYONE. The only variable is alliance strength. Therefore the fact that one side has taken more score damage than another side ....100% means that that side has taken more raw damage than the other side. Same as in past wars. You should re-take Algebra 1, maybe  you would gain an understanding of what variables are.

Yes, thank you for informing me how score works. You should retake statistics again, because although the numbers may be calculated the same, if you have a couple nations with high ns, versus a wealth of nations with low ns, I challenge the validity of that metric.

 

Keep "reaming us" the way you are "reaming us". I look forward to seeing CnG lose another 25+% of their strength.

 

What i'm trying to say is, if you have an alliance of 10 nations with 100 score, and alliance of 1000 nations, with 100 score. They each lose 5 score. What does that mean? It's not at all obvious what it means.

 

EDIT:

 

If I run the numbers, in fact it means that the 10 nation alliance lost 100X more ns than the 1000 nation alliance.

Anyway, it's not a good mode of comparing coalitions, given that the two coalitions have such vastly different compositions. Take your algebra and stuff it!

Edited March 18, 2013 by Enamel32

[Neo Uruk]

I look forward to Sparta showing incompetence.

[Enamel32]

I look forward to Sparta showing incompetence.

Thank you for the informative post.

[Caliph]

Well let's be clear Ai is not Olympus and even with Olympus a 2nd chance was never a guarantee but instead a traditional view by which the Oly membership and Government looked at situations and possibilities when concerning various rulers.  So to expect Ai or even Oly when we still existed to give Puppets a second chance is just a silly assumption.  Puppets made his intent abundantly clear to everyone both by action and statement.  Puppets was a rogue pure and simple and UMB utilized BIBO as a way to 'thumb its nose' at Ai [deny it all you want most are not biting].  The expectation seem to have been by UMB that Ai was going continue dealing with this in a one sided diplomatic fashion and well the expectation was wrong and we decided to do something different.  You can not like our reason for war [Casus belli] that is fine there has never been any requirement for a Casus belli to be uniformly accepted by anyone other then those who issue it. It is our reason or to directly translate our "occasion of war".

 

As to Ai being slower then UMB on covering his defensive slots.......well it is a lot easier to fill those slots quickly if you happen to know when an individual comes out of hippy.  We've all seen the timeline on this while the evidence is circumstantial it does not prevent it from still being compelling.

 

I'm not whining that you didn't give Puppets a second chance, I was refuting a post about someone saying even puppets got a second chance when that clearly never happened.  He was talking out of his ass and I called him on it.

 

Puppets posted on IRC that he was coming out of IRC in public channels because he was not a member of Umbrella and had no access to private.  It was public channels he posted in and we were able to get the drop on him.  Nukes flew, and we handled him until AI brought some friends and attacked us.  Obviously DR and NPO were a much bigger threat than Puppets so we shifted focus to the threat.  You created the situation in which we were most likely not to continue attacking Puppets.  It is a shame the same consistancy regarding that "war slot filling" was not used in this war, since many people did not do full attacks on every other nation at war with them yet those wars are not deleted for war slot filling, but meh, shit happens.

 

Your reasons for war are fine, I don't fault you for that or your "CB".  Nobody in DH has done so.  What we have faulted you on is claiming stuff that just isn't true, such as the fact that an EQ guy claimed all get second chances, yet I pointed out Puppets didn't get a second chance.  I'm not faulting you for not giving puppets a second chance, only calling the guy who said Puppets got a second chance a liar.

[Caliph]

You forget the part in which Admin deleted your wars for Slot Filling.

 

You forgot the part where Duckroll attacked us with something like 50 + million NS halfway through our war with Puppets, which obviously caused us to shift focus from Puppets to the much bigger threat of Duckroll. 

[Omniscient1]

Thank you for the informative post.

10 Ogadens right there.

[jraenar]

What we have faulted you on is claiming stuff that just isn't true, such as the fact that an EQ guy claimed all get second chances, yet I pointed out Puppets didn't get a second chance.  I'm not faulting you for not giving puppets a second chance, only calling the guy who said Puppets got a second chance a liar.

 

I'm assuming you are referring to me as "EQ guy." Please point out where I said [i]all[/i] get second chances. To get a second chance, it must first be sought for.

 

Also, had Puppets instead tried to talk to Ai gov and atone for the rogue attacks, he would have a hearing (i.e. a shot at "second chance"). Instead he sought Umbrella nations to fill defensive slots before launching another attack. That was the meaning of my response.

[Auctor]

I cannot believe people are seriously mixing a second chance thing with the puppets situation and then are responding to other people doing the same thing. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

[Lord Hershey]

I'm assuming you are referring to me as "EQ guy." Please point out where I said all get second chances. To get a second chance, it must first be sought for.

 

Also, had Puppets instead tried to talk to Ai gov and atone for the rogue attacks, he would have a hearing (i.e. a shot at "second chance"). Instead he sought Umbrella nations to fill defensive slots before launching another attack. That was the meaning of my response.

 

 

I'm not whining that you didn't give Puppets a second chance, I was refuting a post about someone saying even puppets got a second chance when that clearly never happened.  He was talking out of his ass and I called him on it.

 

Puppets posted on IRC that he was coming out of IRC in public channels because he was not a member of Umbrella and had no access to private.  It was public channels he posted in and we were able to get the drop on him.  Nukes flew, and we handled him until AI brought some friends and attacked us.  Obviously DR and NPO were a much bigger threat than Puppets so we shifted focus to the threat.  You created the situation in which we were most likely not to continue attacking Puppets.  It is a shame the same consistancy regarding that "war slot filling" was not used in this war, since many people did not do full attacks on every other nation at war with them yet those wars are not deleted for war slot filling, but meh, shit happens.

 

Your reasons for war are fine, I don't fault you for that or your "CB".  Nobody in DH has done so.  What we have faulted you on is claiming stuff that just isn't true, such as the fact that an EQ guy claimed all get second chances, yet I pointed out Puppets didn't get a second chance.  I'm not faulting you for not giving puppets a second chance, only calling the guy who said Puppets got a second chance a liar.

jraenar, Caliph said that Puppets posted on IRC, which led to Umbrella hitting Puppets (Ai was too slow, apparently). There's no proof that Puppets actually sought for Umbrella to fill his slots. So, jraenar, please prove it to me that Puppets requested or informed Umbrella that he's coming out of PM before anybody else. So... my opinion of this war may be swayed in your favor if you're able to prove it.  :smug:

Edited March 19, 2013 by Lord Hershey

[jraenar]

jraenar, Caliph said that Puppets posted on IRC, which led to Umbrella hitting Puppets (Ai was too slow, apparently). There's no proof that Puppets actually sought for Umbrella to fill his slots. So, jraenar, please prove it to me that Puppets requested or informed Umbrella that he's coming out of PM before anybody else. So... my opinion of this war may be swayed in your favor if you're able to prove it.  :smug:

 

I highly doubt your opinion of the war will be swayed, with any amount of evidence.

 

I do not have logs of the alleged public IRC announcement. I would guess a place like #umbrella or #mushroom was the forum. If that's the case, it is no wonder that Umbrella nations filled slots before Ai nations did. Especially as we don't make a habit of continually refreshing to check for a change in warmode status of a rogue, and most of our members only visit #anarchyinc.

 

The fact remains: Puppets left peace mode; his war slots were filled by Umbrella nations; [i]then[/i] he launched new attacks on Ai.

[supercoolyellow]

what alliances do we have no cause to go to war against?

 

The ones that aren't umbrella.

 

Mind you all those alliances declared on Equilibrium willingly. I don't think we've done a single pre-empt this war.

[Gibsonator21]

Unwarranted aggression against SF? Are you crazy? Even the majority of SF leadership have now capitulated to the fact that the 1st encounter was simply a game of DH-C&G beating SF to the punch. The  TOP-NpO war was not aggression against SF either. They were merely a tasty side dish. The last war was 100% totally unequivocally aggression against SF. So I am failing to see where you found unwarranted aggression against SF twice in a row. In fact, it is among the silliest things I have ever read.

You're loony.

[Lord Hershey]

I highly doubt your opinion of the war will be swayed, with any amount of evidence.

 

I do not have logs of the alleged public IRC announcement. I would guess a place like #umbrella or #mushroom was the forum. If that's the case, it is no wonder that Umbrella nations filled slots before Ai nations did. Especially as we don't make a habit of continually refreshing to check for a change in warmode status of a rogue, and most of our members only visit #anarchyinc.

 

The fact remains: Puppets left peace mode; his war slots were filled by Umbrella nations; then he launched new attacks on Ai.

jraenar, that's why I said may, not will. :) Not only that his war slots were just filled but also attacked by Umbrella nations, at least that's my understanding.

[Lusitan]

You forget the part in which Admin deleted your wars for Slot Filling.

 

It's a shame I am not allowed to discuss the ways of Admin and his moderators.

[jraenar]

There is also this little nugget in the Umbrella embassy on Ai forums, one month before Puppets went rogue:

[quote]Booooring, maybe a real CB this time? :P[/quote]

I could go rogue on someone and have my slots filled but that seems to just invoke blue balls all around

Gee, I wonder why we thought Puppets was coordinating with Umbrella, when they told us they could do something like that to start a war. Add in the fact that Puppets was running gather intel operations on Ai nations throughout his rogue campaign, and fed all the info back to Umbrella and DH. Nope, not coordinating at all there.

[King Louis the II]

 
its funny that you facepalm over score. The score is calculated the same for every alliance. Using the same formula. It is singularly the most fair way to deduce damage. Its even more laughable that you choose to use % of NS lost as the measuring stick. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of math. If I have 100 oranges and I eat 30, I have lost 30% of my oranges. If I have 200 oranges and I lost 50, I have lost 25% of my oranges. A lower % but more overall loss. It is , in fact, statistically, the worst way to measure damage. It would only be an accurate way if every alliance and every coalition was the same size. You should be facepalming, but it should be at yourself for what you insinuate. You can present it any way you want. Raw NS lost. Score lost... in all measurables we are reaming your coalition. We are doing something that no other losing side has EVER done. As for score being a function of the number of nations in the game, it is completely irrelevant, because EVERY alliance scores is measured against that same variable, hence it is not variable from alliance to alliance. Since the # of nations in the game is the same for EVERYONE. The only variable is alliance strength. Therefore the fact that one side has taken more score damage than another side ....100% means that that side has taken more raw damage than the other side. Same as in past wars. You should re-take Algebra 1, maybe  you would gain an understanding of what variables are.

I will sure quote and post this when you surrender.

[Caliph]

There is also this little nugget in the Umbrella embassy on Ai forums, one month before Puppets went rogue:

Gee, I wonder why we thought Puppets was coordinating with Umbrella, when they told us they could do something like that to start a war. Add in the fact that Puppets was running gather intel operations on Ai nations throughout his rogue campaign, and fed all the info back to Umbrella and DH. Nope, not coordinating at all there.

Puppets carried out actions according to his plan, not Umbrella's.  

[Grendel]

Puppets carried out actions according to his plan, not Umbrella's.  

 

Be that as it may, there also was absolutely no need for UMB to involve yourselves in the fracas between a supposedly 'disavowed rogue [Puppets]' and Ai.  If I were to accept that you were not actively coordinating with puppets, it did not stop you from taking advantage of the situation to 'thumb your nose' at Ai.

 

UMB could have sat on the sideline and allow Ai to deal with Puppets.  Even when you take into account the BIBO thing, IIRC there was no requirement within the agreement to how soon after leaving UMB that BIBO attacks would happen.  You quite easily could have coordinated your BIBO attacks with Ai allowing both to have their "pound of flesh" but instead UMB took unilateral action and we returned the favor.  [/me Shrugs]

 

I have no hurt feelings over this, I wanted war [actual target was not that important to me], my casualty counts were lagging from herding turtles the last two wars, I had money in the old bank account, so I was ready to have some fun, so I thank you all for pushing this.  Not sure why I even chimed in to be honest other then wanting to be clear on the 2nd chance thing and why this happened.  Whether people want to buy into either camps propaganda I could care less, you, me, we all fight for our own reasons and none of us has to justify them to anyone else.  So everyone feel free to go back to your attempts to "sway" opinion to your respective camps.

 

...and RUSH stop typing angry >.< when I read your posts I can hear those poor keys on your keyboard clicking way over here :P

or at least that is what the 'voice' of your posts sound like.  Us old guys have to watch it or we'll have a stroke.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Grendel

[Caliph]

Be that as it may, there also was absolutely no need for UMB to involve yourselves in the fracas between a supposedly 'disavowed rogue [Puppets]' and Ai.  If I were to accept that you were not actively coordinating with puppets, it did not stop you from taking advantage of the situation to 'thumb your nose' at Ai.

 

UMB could have sat on the sideline and allow Ai to deal with Puppets.  Even when you take into account the BIBO thing, IIRC there was no requirement within the agreement to how soon after leaving UMB that BIBO attacks would happen.  You quite easily could have coordinated your BIBO attacks with Ai allowing both to have their "pound of flesh" but instead UMB took unilateral action and we returned the favor.  [/me Shrugs]

 

I have no hurt feelings over this, I wanted war [actual target was not that important to me], my casualty counts were lagging from herding turtles the last two wars, I had money in the old bank account, so I was ready to have some fun, so I thank you all for pushing this.  Not sure why I even chimed in to be honest other then wanting to be clear on the 2nd chance thing and why this happened.  Whether people want to buy into either camps propaganda I could care less, you, me, we all fight for our own reasons and none of us has to justify them to anyone else.  So everyone feel free to go back to your attempts to "sway" opinion to your respective camps.

 

...and RUSH stop typing angry >.< when I read your posts I can hear those poor keys on your keyboard clicking way over here :P

or at least that is what the 'voice' of your posts sound like.  Us old guys have to watch it or we'll have a stroke.

If we had held off of BIBO and let AI attack Puppets all they wanted without us getting our BIBO in, we wouldn't have gotten our BIBO in since he would have been knocked out of range of all the signatories of BIBO.  We had to go then to get our BIBO on.

[Grendel]

If we had held off of BIBO and let AI attack Puppets all they wanted without us getting our BIBO in, we wouldn't have gotten our BIBO in since he would have been knocked out of range of all the signatories of BIBO.  We had to go then to get our BIBO on.

A possibility but would not necessarily prevent BIBO signatories getting their pound of flesh from Puppets by working with Ai to secure some slots.  If he dropped out on any of your range at the time, we all know of ways to drop our NS back into his range, I've done it a few times this war.  If BIBO was important enough to risk/spark a war with another alliance then I would expect it was important enough to sacrifice a few pixels to maneuver someone in range.  BIBO may have been important to you and the other signatories but that agreement between your members has no direct bearing on Ai other then by courtesy. 

 

Knowing the .gov and members of Ai, if the Signatories of BIBO/UMB .gov had honestly come to them with a mutual beneficial proposal for dealing with Puppets I am confident that something could have been worked out, but then that would not have gotten us to war so I'm glad things went the way they did.  IMO Ai had a sovereign right to the defensive slots of puppets because he attacked [Rogued] Ai and it supposedly appears UMB felt the BIBO agreement gave BIBO signatories sovereign rights to those slots and in there lies the impasse and now here we are sorting out that impasse.  The rest of this is down to the treaty web of Bob and associated maneuvering.

[Caliph]

A possibility but would not necessarily prevent BIBO signatories getting their pound of flesh from Puppets by working with Ai to secure some slots.  If he dropped out on any of your range at the time, we all know of ways to drop our NS back into his range, I've done it a few times this war.  If BIBO was important enough to risk/spark a war with another alliance then I would expect it was important enough to sacrifice a few pixels to maneuver someone in range.  BIBO may have been important to you and the other signatories but that agreement between your members has no direct bearing on Ai other then by courtesy. 

 

Knowing the .gov and members of Ai, if the Signatories of BIBO/UMB .gov had honestly come to them with a mutual beneficial proposal for dealing with Puppets I am confident that something could have been worked out, but then that would not have gotten us to war so I'm glad things went the way they did.  IMO Ai had a sovereign right to the defensive slots of puppets because he attacked [Rogued] Ai and it supposedly appears UMB felt the BIBO agreement gave BIBO signatories sovereign rights to those slots and in there lies the impasse and now here we are sorting out that impasse.  The rest of this is down to the treaty web of Bob and associated maneuvering.

 

We weren't able to get our BIBO on when Puppets first went rogue since people not Umbrella took his defensive war slots. 

 

We both know AI has been wanting a reason to attack Umbrella for a while now, so I really doubt any sort of mutual beneficial agreement could have been reached since Duckroll and Umbrella/DH were in a cold war for the past few months prior to this war starting off.