The 18th War of Argent Relevancy stats (not done particularly well)

[Piejonk]

Changed one thing: Tracking tech at the end of each month to better calculate damage done per tech (rather than the average between initial and current values).

 

Few interesting averages (for all nations who have fought):

 

Total wars per nation per week: 0.7

Damage done per tech: 4.7

Damage ratio: 1.0 (expected!)

 

Individual stats:

 

 

Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/n1Jndl9.png

 

Alliance stats:

 

 

Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/N86GpNp.png

 

Dumpster stats:

 

Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/SiLGadh.png

 

As always, if you are having a hard time opening the images, feel free to reach out to me and I can provide full quality ones and/or the source tables.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Piejonk

[kerschbs]

Amazing The difference three wars make. Down 25 spots last week, up 33 spots this week. 
 

edit: Nice to see NG still running positive against IRON and NPO 
 

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by kerschbs

[Piejonk]

22 minutes ago, kerschbs said:

Amazing The difference three wars make. Down 25 spots last week, up 33 spots this week. 

 

 

One thing to keep in mind here - sitting in PM and not warring decreases your score. This is largely reversed upon declaring new wars again.

 

Just a mechanism I added so people don't sit on some stats they achieve.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Piejonk

[kerschbs]

1 minute ago, Piejonk said:

One thing to keep in mind here - sitting in PM and not warring decreases your score. This is largely reversed upon declaring new wars again.

 

Just a mechanism I added so people don't sit on some stats they achieve.

haha I know no worries. 

[kerschbs]

7 minutes ago, kerschbs said:

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by kerschbs
Edit: double post from my phone mods please delete

[kerschbs]

On 10/19/2022 at 11:16 AM, Tevron said:

.

This is a lot of words for an alliance with 6 active offensive wars.

 

You’re the one assigning targets? Do better.

[Tiberius]

Any way of weighting the opponent score more heavily @Piejonk? Taking the stats at face value it would appear Pulisher is hitting mainly inactives/noobs with that opponent score but is getting a large war score for it. Whereas someone like nishyoshi who is fighting much harder opponents and has fought more wars overall has a massively lower score.

[Piejonk]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Any way of weighting the opponent score more heavily @Piejonk? Taking the stats at face value it would appear Pulisher is hitting mainly inactives/noobs with that opponent score but is getting a large war score for it. Whereas someone like nishyoshi who is fighting much harder opponents and has fought more wars overall has a massively lower score.

Having played around with these stats a lot, I think a potentially sensible change would be to use a median of opponent score rather than average. In the case of an average you can bulldoze a bunch of people who don't fight back and then fight one person with a really high war score and your average is sufficiently high to have a good total.

 

I'll look into this.

 

Other things I've implemented that have been around for a while (not sure if I mentioned them), to try and balance things:

 

1) If you fight a nation that ends up deleting (95% of the time this is a small nation that gets bulldozed - I realize this affects some others though), that now deleted opponent score is worth 10% of the average war score from the entire pool (which is a small value).

2) On the flip side, theres a slight soft cap on the benefit of opponent war score. Higher opponent score will always improve your total score in the end, but the higher it is the less of an effect.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Piejonk

[SeaBeeGipson]

Appreciate the work put into these stats.

 

[Master Hakai]

Gud states

[lunar]

So close to 1m damage done 🤣

Edited October 21, 2022 by lunar

[Thrash]

On 10/20/2022 at 1:09 PM, kerschbs said:

Amazing The difference three wars make. Down 25 spots last week, up 33 spots this week. 

 

Really starting to piss me off.

[CrinkledStraw]

I, for one, have no notes about the scoring system and love Pie more than anyone. 

 

Smug.

 

Hahaha. Though I'm sure I'll fall hard on next week's list. Haven't been able to rage much this week. 

[Tevron]

On 10/19/2022 at 10:26 PM, dev0win said:

NATO/FTW updeclared for the first month of our war. My first war I was down declared with a 220% tech disparity. And meanwhile you are complaining about not having time to prepare "incompetent members" and then suggesting you need to cull your own alliance?

 

This folks is leadership at it's finest. 

Certainly, I am in shambles from you not understanding my post.

Imagine having a 4% aid slot usage while you leave your own alliance and allies to dry as they are slowly bill-locked and thinking your opinion on leadership holds any weight.

[Caustic]

12 hours ago, Tevron said:

Certainly, I am in shambles from you not understanding my post.

Imagine having a 4% aid slot usage while you leave your own alliance and allies to dry as they are slowly bill-locked and thinking your opinion on leadership holds any weight.

 

Imagine your alliance being -1.4 mil in the damage hole while barely fighting and thinking your opinion on anything holds any weight.

[DavidMustaine]

1 hour ago, Caustic said:

 

Imagine your alliance being -1.4 mil in the damage hole while barely fighting and thinking your opinion on anything holds any weight.

Imagine being blamed by your aa for that, even though it wasn't your fault. 

 

If you could reverse it, would you?  

[Bionic redhead]

58 minutes ago, DavidMustaine said:

Imagine being blamed by your aa for that, even though it wasn't your fault. 

 

If you could reverse it, would you?  

 

Looking at the net damage caused by him, it partly is his fault.

[DavidMustaine]

12 minutes ago, Bionic redhead said:

 

Looking at the net damage caused by him, it partly is his fault.

I guess some people take comfort in being degenerates.  

 

[jerdge]

On 10/17/2022 at 10:57 PM, Lyanna Mormont said:

CN as a game rewards you for not playing. 

Wrong. Simplifying a lot, CN as a game rewards seniors that spent years and years being active with tech deals.

Admittedly, CN's design didn't age well. No group of recently created nations can make a decisive statistical difference, no matter how outstandingly they're run, and this is obviously awful from a gameplay standpoint.

It's become a "bad" game, but not for the reason you mentioned.

[Bionic redhead]

2 hours ago, DavidMustaine said:

I guess some people take comfort in being degenerates.  

 

 

I'll have you know that I take comfort in what is best in life: crushing my enemies, driving them before me and hearing the lamentations of their women.

[DavidMustaine]

Just now, Bionic redhead said:

 

I'll have you know that I take comfort in what is best in life: crushing my enemies, driving them before me and hearing the lamentations of their women.

You should try beer.  

[Lyanna Mormont]

3 hours ago, jerdge said:

Wrong. Simplifying a lot, CN as a game rewards seniors that spent years and years being active with tech deals.

Admittedly, CN's design didn't age well. No group of recently created nations can make a decisive statistical difference, no matter how outstandingly they're run, and this is obviously awful from a gameplay standpoint.

It's become a "bad" game, but not for the reason you mentioned.

 

By play, I mean, war. The game rewards you for not ever going to war and just playing CN econ. It's my inherent bias that war in CN is playing lmao

[jerdge]

2 hours ago, Lyanna Mormont said:

By play, I mean, war. The game rewards you for not ever going to war and just playing CN econ. It's my inherent bias that war in CN is playing lmao

Raids/wars done with overwhelming firepower are actually more rewarding, and necessary to achieve dominance at the top of the ladder.

You are anyway probably talking of less uneven wars, and there you're correct, I believe.

Again it's that CN rewards seniority at a scale that, with the ageing of the game (roughly a decade ago) became destabilizing. Catching up is now basically impossible, thus destructive wars put one's nation forever behind in terms of tech and money, and the very top simply becomes impossible to challenge anymore.

The political dynamics has been heavily influenced by all of this ever since.

[dev0win]

20 hours ago, Tevron said:

Certainly, I am in shambles from you not understanding my post.

Imagine having a 4% aid slot usage while you leave your own alliance and allies to dry as they are slowly bill-locked and thinking your opinion on leadership holds any weight.

Runs GATO into the ground.

Runs Claws into the ground.

Talks smack.

[Piejonk]

As per previous discussion in this thread - I changed opponent score from an average to a median. This definitely better reflects the wide distribution of nations you fight, and just looking at the list, it appears to be a bit more balanced (people with really low opponent scores can still do well - if the other criteria are great). I believe I'll be keeping it this way, but for this update, there's a big change where everyone's scores shifted down a lot (in general the median opponent score is much lower than average - and this is also a showcase of how much opponent score can change your overall score).

 

Individual stats:

 

 

Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/Ux1eF4j.png

 

Alliance stats:

 

 

Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/z648yu0.png

 

Dumpster stats:

 

Direct link: https://i.imgur.com/j3ro4tx.png

 

As always, if you are having a hard time opening the images, feel free to reach out to me and I can provide full quality ones and/or the source tables.