bakamitai Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Never mind. Edited January 10, 2014 by bakamitai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) *sigh* Ok, I know you're having trouble with this actual numbers thing, but let me quote from another one of my posts just 3 pages ago. On October 21, 2013, NPO had 106 nations above 50k NS, which is now down to 39 nations. That means we currently have 37% of our 50k+ NS pre-war nations. edit: I looked at some other stats, and on Nov 1, we had 107 nations above 50k, so it's actually 36%. See, again you are not accounting for percentile. According to your information you "lost" 67 nations above 50k. By my estimate, that means if the ave NS of those 67 nations were 55k, and the average new NS of those same 67 nations were now 45k, that would be only a little over 670k NS lost that could be considered "high tier." That would be only 10% or so of total NS lost. Don't know how accurate these numbers are, but for a proper damage assessment to be performed, percentile and actual upper tier NS loss has to be accounted for. Edited January 10, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 See, again you are not accounting for percentile. According to your information you "lost" 67 nations above 50k. By my estimate, that means if the ave NS of those 67 nations were 55k, and the average new NS of those same 67 nations were now 45k, that would be only a little over 670k NS lost that could be considered "high tier." That would be only 10% or so of total NS lost. Don't know how accurate these numbers are, but for a proper damage assessment to be performed, percentile and actual upper tier NS loss has to be accounted for. 38 of the nations lost were above 80k. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) 38 of the nations lost were above 80k. Try again. That's interesting and all, and that might inflate the 50k + NS lost somewhat, but as I explained earlier NS alone is not an accurate reflection of real strength lost. As of Nov 1 NPO's score was 51.33, and now it is 30.50. That's only about a 20 point loss, or 40% reduction. This is compared to a 50% drop in total NS. That's a huge reduction discrepancy. NPO still enjoys almost 2100 tech per nation. In comparison, NSO suffered a near 60% drop in alliance score and a staggering 66% plus drop in NS, and now enjoys less than 1500 tech per member. Keep on talking about how NPO has suffered the same level of reduction that NSO has, the numbers don't add up. Edited January 10, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) See, again you are not accounting for percentile. According to your information you "lost" 67 nations above 50k. By my estimate, that means if the ave NS of those 67 nations were 55k, and the average new NS of those same 67 nations were now 45k, that would be only a little over 670k NS lost that could be considered "high tier." That would be only 10% or so of total NS lost. Don't know how accurate these numbers are, but for a proper damage assessment to be performed, percentile and actual upper tier NS loss has to be accounted for. There you go with estimates and guessing again. You're not learning, are you? Let's see if you can get it this time: try using actual factual numbers Our starting 50k+ nations have lost 48% of the total alliance losses, while being 30% of the alliance by number.That's interesting and all, and that might inflate the 50k + NS lost somewhat, but as I explained earlier NS alone is not an accurate reflection of real strength lost. As of Nov 1 NPO's score was 51.33, and now it is 30.50. That's only about a 20 point loss, or 40% reduction. This is compared to a 50% drop in total NS. That's a huge reduction discrepancy. NPO still enjoys almost 2100 tech per nation.In comparison, NSO suffered a near 60% drop in alliance score and a staggering 66% plus drop in NS, and now enjoys less than 1500 tech per member.Keep on talking about how NPO has suffered the same level of reduction that NSO has, the numbers don't add up. Oh we know, you won't be satisfied until we're completely destroyed.So yet again, not really looking like a good idea for us to accept any kind of terms. Edited January 10, 2014 by Jesse End Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Oh we know, you won't be satisfied until we're completely destroyed. So yet again, not really looking like a good idea for us to accept any kind of terms. I'm just wondering why NPO has not suffered the same reduction percentages in score, average tech per nation, and overall NS like their allies in NSO did. I provided cold numbers and they certainly seem to support the assertion that NPO has hid a considerable amount of their capabilities in PM. To recap the numbers, NPO has only suffered a 40% score reduction, 50% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 2100 tech NSO has suffered a full 60% score reduction, 66% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 1500 tech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I'm just wondering why NPO has not suffered the same reduction percentages in score, average tech per nation, and overall NS like their allies in NSO did. I provided cold numbers and they certainly seem to support the assertion that NPO has hid a considerable amount of their capabilities in PM. To recap the numbers, NPO has only suffered a 40% score reduction, 50% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 2100 techNSO has suffered a full 60% score reduction, 66% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 1500 tech Maybe the alliances hitting us suck more. I mean, we've declared twice as many wars on NpO as they've declared on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Maybe the alliances hitting us suck more. I mean, we've declared twice as many wars on NpO as they've declared on us. I think we can objectively agree however that whatever the case, NPO has not lost nearly as much as at least one of their allies. Perhaps I can crunch all those figures across your entire coalition once I have the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think we can objectively agree however that whatever the case, NPO has not lost nearly as much as at least one of their allies. Perhaps I can crunch all those figures across your entire coalition once I have the time. Sure, go for it.If they're anything like the last bunch of your numbers, they won't be anywhere close to accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wait, I'm not sure if I've understood properly. Has NPO taken as much damage as NSO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Sure, go for it. If they're anything like the last bunch of your numbers, they won't be anywhere close to accurate. I derived it from NPO's and NSO's wiki, which currently features stats from the beginning of the war. Did some simple math comparing Nov 1 numbers and current numbers, and got the information. It's quite simple for anybody to do. Edited January 10, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 but as I explained earlier NS alone is not an accurate reflection of real strength lost.Imagine actually thinking this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Wait, I'm not sure if I've understood properly. Has NPO taken as much damage as NSO? Depends on how you measure damage. A good damage assessment goes beyond simple "total NS lost numbers," and investigates statistics which indicate actionable strength lost, as well as per capita strength loss. To recap, NPO has only suffered a 40% score reduction, 50% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 2100 tech NSO has suffered a full 60% score reduction, 66% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 1500 tech Edited January 10, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Conceptually, let's say that the coalition replaced their current terms with simply asking that the banks fulfill their purpose: that those 35 nations spend the next, I dunno, three months sending out $6-9m/100 aid packages to smaller NPO nations. Assuming that they have six slots apiece, it'd be a transfer of $324-$486m and 5400 tech per nation to help the fighters in the alliance. Except why would large nations send tech to smaller nations? Smaller nations don't need tech to rebuild, they need cash, and it's the lack of an ability to send that cash that leads to these terms being harsh. With 35 nations sending out cash to smaller nations, that's $11.34 billion over three months in lost rebuilding aid, which is enough to rebuild 132 ZI'ed nations (with a decent TC, full factories, and Monarchy or equivalent) up to 3999.99 infra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Depends on how you measure damage. A good damage assessment goes beyond simple "total NS lost numbers," and investigates statistics which indicate actionable strength lost, as well as per capita strength loss. To recap, NPO has only suffered a 40% score reduction, 50% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 2100 tech NSO has suffered a full 60% score reduction, 66% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 1500 tech It was sarcasm, in reference to the multiple times you've reiterated those stats. :P Edited January 10, 2014 by WarriorSoul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I derived it from NPO's and NSO's wiki, which currently features stats from the beginning of the war. Did some simple math comparing Nov 1 numbers and current numbers, and got the information. It's quite simple for anybody to do. Oh those numbers?Those ones show that our 50k+ NS nations alone have lost more NS than NSO has lost as a whole, and our alliance has lost more than NSO's total size on Nov 1.Those numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Oh those numbers? Those ones show that our 50k+ NS nations alone have lost more NS than NSO has lost as a whole, and our alliance has lost more than NSO's total size on Nov 1. Those numbers? Your alliance also has/had about 200 more members than NSO and proportionately more overall NS, score and tech. Yet both NPO and NSO started the war with around 40k average NS. That's what we call cherrypicking your numbers. You are deliberately using numbers that give no insight to damage done on a per capita level. Edited January 10, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Your alliance also has/had more than 200 more members than NSO and proportionately more NS, score and tech. That's what we call cherrypicking your numbers. You are deliberately using numbers that give no insight to damage done on a per capita level. Pot, meet kettle.You realize that damages plateau at different points for different alliances, right?That also doesn't include damages that have been rebuilt during war, like rebuying infra to stay at nuking level. Ever thought maybe we've had more ability to do that?I've lost about 12k infra, but yet I only started with 8k. Wait, what? How on Bob?! Must be sorcery. Edited January 10, 2014 by Jesse End Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Pot, meet kettle. You realize that damages plateau at different points for different alliances, right? That also doesn't include damages that have been rebuilt during war, like rebuying infra to stay at nuking level. Ever thought maybe we've had more ability to do that? NSO and every other alliance has also had to "rebuild during the war" to be able to continue nuking. Again just point to the fact that alot of the NS lost is cheaply rebuilt infra. The facts remain: NPO has only suffered a 40% score reduction, 50% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 2100 tech NSO has suffered a full 60% score reduction, 66% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 1500 tech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frawley Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Jesse, your name is not Balaam, so stop arguing with the Donkey. Edited January 10, 2014 by Stanger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) NSO and every other alliance has also had to "rebuild during the war" to be able to continue nuking. Again just point to the fact that alot of the NS lost is cheaply rebuilt infra. The facts remain: NPO has only suffered a 40% score reduction, 50% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 2100 techNSO has suffered a full 60% score reduction, 66% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 1500 tech I can repeat myself too if you'd like: Our pre-war strength was 12,575,310 NSOur current strength is 6,216,508 NS We had 107 nations above 50k, now we have 39, so 36% remaining of our 50k+ NS nations.Our starting 50k+ nations have lost 48% of the total alliance losses, while being 30% of the alliance by number.Our 50k+ NS nations alone have lost more NS than NSO has lost as a whole, and our alliance has lost more than NSO's total size on Nov 1. Lol thank you for participating in todays episode of "NPO's enemies use any conceivable reason to hate on NPO" Jesse, your name is not Balaam, so stop arguing with the Donkey. lol you're right. I feel like I'm trying to teach my dog to stop chewing on power wires. Luckily, my dogs aren't that dumb. Edited January 10, 2014 by Jesse End Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frawley Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 lol you're right. I feel like I'm trying to teach my dog to stop chewing on power wires. Luckily, my dogs aren't that dumb. Mind you, I feel kinda bad now about that comparison, the donkey in that story at least had a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Incapable of taking them? Lol what? Look at the post immediately above yours. We've taken terms worse than anybody else, ever. edit: Banks are obsolete. Our banks are a threat. Gotcha. When you have been forced into ~2 years~ of war then you can talk of "worse terms" till then get off that cross of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Our 50k+ NS nations alone have lost more NS than NSO has lost as a whole, and our alliance has lost more than NSO's total size on Nov 1. Comparing apples and oranges are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 When you have been forced into ~2 years~ of war then you can talk of "worse terms" till then get off that cross of yours.That's....not a term. And I'm not sure what mental gymnastics you did to think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts