andyt2k Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 That would be very convenient for war dodging infra-huggers. Dude you shouldn't talk about TOP like that now you're allied to them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali bin Turban Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Having a certain amount of infra and/or tech to maintain wonders would probably be most fair. Have them deactivate or be destroyed after the minimum amount is gone. Just increasing requirements for buing and firing nukes from 1000 infra and 75 tech to 2000 infra and 1000 tech would solve most of the issues for the fresh nations getting massacred by the veterans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Moetato Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Just increasing requirements for buing and firing nukes from 1000 infra and 75 tech to 2000 infra and 1000 tech would solve most of the issues for the fresh nations getting massacred by the veterans. Eh, I'm a new nation, and basically got ZI'd this war by a nuclear nation. Now I am just having fun taking pot shots at their low tier. It's all part of the game I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Any chance on expanding the scaling on the y axis? Also, thanks again, these are great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Just increasing requirements for buing and firing nukes from 1000 infra and 75 tech to 2000 infra and 1000 tech would solve most of the issues for the fresh nations getting massacred by the veterans. Just increasing requirements for buing and firing nukes from 1000 infra and 75 tech to 2000 infra and 1000 tech would solve most of the issues for the fresh nations getting massacred by the veterans. I fought three nuclear nations right at the start of the war without nukes and you don't see me whining. I simply transitioned to a smaller NS level. I find it so ironic that the same people cheering on DBDC'S down declaring are whining about Polar's low tier excellence. If your new people are wussies who can't take a few nukes without quitting, thats a failure of leadership. For the slaves of chaos there can be no mercy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 What I find most disappointing about the stats is the number of wars where the defender has not made any attempt to fight back. Out of the 5785 wars that started after war was declared listed in the war stats download I grabbed last night, in 2014 (34.8%) of them the attacker had done at least 95% of the total damage (A total of 6,634,103.95 damage)[/size][size=4] and in 1756 (30.4%) of them they had done 100%. ([/size]4,716,936.87 damage)[/size] That's... pathetic. 4.7m NS lost without the defender even firing a CM back. Every single one of those defending nations should put themselves in the corner with a dunce cap on. *Disclaimer - I did not filter out wars that may be unrelated to this conflict. You have no idea how many nations with huge warchests don't even bother to buy 1000 infra daily to nuke back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 the usual You know how ridiculous you look when you post that stuff in OOC areas right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali bin Turban Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 I fought three nuclear nations right at the start of the war without nukes and you don't see me whining. I simply transitioned to a smaller NS level. I find it so ironic that the same people cheering on DBDC'S down declaring are whining about Polar's low tier excellence. If your new people are wussies who can't take a few nukes without quitting, thats a failure of leadership. For the slaves of chaos there can be no mercy. Mr Tywin, it's just a warstat topic, not some propaganda shit slinging competition. It would be much better if you gave yourself just a few minutes for thinking your posts over before you send any of them. Just for the record, there are many low tier veteran nations on both sides. Secondly such change should not be introduced at this point(no war affecting changes should be introduced during global war), but rather to be taken into consideration when peace is reached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longshadow Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Just increasing requirements for buing and firing nukes from 1000 infra and 75 tech to 2000 infra and 1000 tech would solve most of the issues for the fresh nations getting massacred by the veterans. It isn't the nukes htat is the problem, most low level nations can make up for getting hit hard by nukes with 1 6mil aid package. The real problem is the wonders, the consistent edge those provide, especially the military wonders like WRC etc. I prefer the suggestion of having them deactivated if you fall below the Infra/Tech threshold for each (established individually for each wonder). The MP threshold for nukes is already fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 I think NSO POW's wars against SNX and SUN should be added here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Any chance on expanding the scaling on the y axis? Also, thanks again, these are great! No. Without knowing whether you're talking about y1 or y2, all of the data fits within the current scale. There's really no benefit to changing it. You have no idea how many nations with huge warchests don't even bother to buy 1000 infra daily to nuke back. It's annoying, to be sure. I like to win, but I want to win against someone who is at least trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 No. Without knowing whether you're talking about y1 or y2, all of the data fits within the current scale. There's really no benefit to changing it. It's annoying, to be sure. I like to win, but I want to win against someone who is at least trying. The scale on the left, from 0 to 1.0, done on .2 intervals for the red and blue lines. A smaller increment than .2 would allow for much quicker eyeballing of what is going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 16, 2014 Report Share Posted December 16, 2014 Oh no, they finally figured out why trying to annihilate Polar was a bad idea! Lets hope we don't accept the peace offers from all of them. Cooking lulzists in imu pits is what's feeding my nation! Once it gets real serious, we are cooking Tywin in the same thing. In case you are wondering why we keep him around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 More graphs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Just a question but why is MI6 vs Kaskus now showing up in the RI5 stats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDragon Posted December 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Just a question but why is MI6 vs Kaskus now showing up in the RI5 stats? A small dating error. Was hoping nobody would notice that. <_<Its already been fixed. >_> Edited December 17, 2014 by ShadowDragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDragon Posted December 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) I think NSO POW's wars against SNX and SUN should be added here. Since you asked nicely. :)also added KaskusDay 39 (Nov 7 11pm - Dec 16 6pm) Edited December 17, 2014 by ShadowDragon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 We're coming for you, Pacifica! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 A small dating error. Was hoping nobody would notice that. <_< Its already been fixed. >_> Sorry brah. Still loving the stats. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 So close to going positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 One thing this war does seem to be showing is the extreme lack of activity in some alliances. What's happening with Int and Atlas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longshadow Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 One thing this war does seem to be showing is the extreme lack of activity in some alliances. What's happening with Int and Atlas? I think it has more to do with several alliances either finding this war to be boring and not wanting to participate or just resigning themselves to the beat down and saving their WCs for rebuilding when the war is over. At least this is my opinion on it, I'm sure there are a host of reasons why but those probably are a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFuzzy Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 I think it has more to do with several alliances either finding this war to be boring and not wanting to participate or just resigning themselves to the beat down and saving their WCs for rebuilding when the war is over. At least this is my opinion on it, I'm sure there are a host of reasons why but those probably are a factor. No trust me some of them aren't saving...I have seen their WCs. I could agree on your assessment of the lack of people wanting to participate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted December 17, 2014 Report Share Posted December 17, 2014 Atlas and Int both entered aggressively. Int's damage ratio is just positive and currently they only have 4 nations at war. Atlas's ratio is approaching 2:1 damage received to damage caused and they have nations at war with no GCs and that aren't so much as firing a cm back. They're the entire reason Invicta has a positive damage ratio. None of this looks good for the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.